thinkes he answereth it in the third part by his own practise when he sayth he shall make all cleare in his book c. the which how well he hath performed wil appeare in the examination of the particulars in the meane time it seemeth his sermon made not all cleare So much for the first argument A second the Doct frameth of the Ref words thus The doctrine is vtterly false because it is contrary to the judgement practise of the primitive Churches next after Christ and his Apostles To let passe the wrong he offreth herein to his Refut The D. againe wrogeth his Ref. in making more arg of his Ref. words then he ment in making it by it self an argument contrary to his meaning let us heare his answere to it I cannot tel saith he whether to wonder at more the blindnes or the impudencie of the man And why so because saith he I have made it manifest that the government of the Church by Bishops hath the ful consent of antiquity and not one testimonie of the auncient writers for their iudgement or one example of the primitive Churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie c. I am sory I shall trouble the D. with so many questions where I pray hath he made this so manifest in his sermon or in the defence of it hath not the refuters as much if not more reason to wonder at the D. blindnes and impudencie seing if he made it cleare in his sermon is he not blind in not seing that he hath made this his own defence needlesse is it not his owne argument that things manifest need not be disputed nothing needeth to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident But his excessive The D. practyce coÌ„tradicteth his speach travell in mainteyning that sermon and the strange fitts he falleth into in his defence thereof doe shew that in his sermon he made not the matter so cleare as he talketh of Where then in his defence so it seemeth he meaneth And be it so yet was it not so before no not in his owne eyes for then this defence by his owne reason had been needlesse What reason then hath he to argue his refuter eyther of wonderfull blindnes for not seing that which was not then to be seene or of impudencie for affirming the contrary which if he hath not clearely proved is yet in quaestion May we not rather wonder and wonder in deed at the Doct. that counteth it woderful ignorace or impudencie for any to deny or disprove whatsoever he sayth seemeth to himself manifestly to prove though in saying as he sayth here he doth but crave the questioÌ„ And yet out of the same passioÌ„ he proceedeth asketh his ref The D. againe beggeth the questioÌ„ forgetteth him self and the part in question how he durst mention the judgement and practise of the primitive Church for the triall of the truth in question seing there is not one testimonye nor example in all antiquity for the pretended discipline c and offreth that if his Ref. shall bring any one pregnant testimony or example he will yeeld in the whole cause Not to tell him agayn that he is still in begging the questioÌ„ I praye him to tell his Ref. what should feare him from mentioning that which he vndertook to justify and proove and whereto his large defense serveth if his Ref. hath not at least in shewe proved as much as he mencioneth or not brought so much as one testimony or example to the purpose the D. in his passion forgatt himself and the point in question surely he could not els but knowe that diverse testimonies of the Fathers are brought to prove the function of the Bishops in question to be jure humano not divino As for his offer to yeild in the whole cause yf but any one pregnant testimony or example be produced by pregnant he meaneth certeinly such as are subject to no wresting or cavillation but pregnant in his owne judgment not in the judgment of all or the most sound orthodoxall divines in the world otherwise testimonies pregnant enough have bin already produced But what so pregnant that Cavillers such especially as have the sword by their side cannot with some colours or others elude and thereby delude the eyes of the simple which is all they care for In the next place where the Ref sayth that his doctrine is contrary Sect. 3. pag. 4. of the ref 4 of the Doct. to the iudgement of all the reformed churches since the reestablishment of the gospel by the worthies in these latter times the D. chargeth with an vntruth saying It is not a strange thing that a man professing sincerity should so overreache seing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents then by the Presbyterian discipline as I have showed in the later ende of this book How the Doct. hath proved his assertion here shal be sene when we come to that later ende of his booke but if he there proveth it no better then he here proveth his Refut to have overreached I will turne the Doctors owne words one or two exchanged vpon him saye Is it not a strange thinge that a man of the Doctors title should so overreach Nay may I not apply it to him before I proceed any further For how proveth he that his refuter hath so overreached in this place Forsooth becaâ—se a farr greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents c. The which for the time present let vs suppose to be true though by reformed Churches the Ref meaninge as he elswhere sheweth soundly reformed Churches it is not true But graunt it yet that which the D. saith is false viz. that The D. untruely char refuter to overreach is himself too ready to over-reach therefore his refuter overreacheth here For may not reformed Churches be governed by Byshops or Supreintendents and yet the same Churches denie that the calling of our L. Bishops is jure divino which is at least as the Ref. vnderstandeth it the maine doctrine of the sermon and that whereto all other particulars doe homage and service When the D. hath proved that the Bishops and Superintendents of all reformed Churches are such for the substance of their calling as ours and doe hold or exercise their functions jure divino not positivo lett him charge his Refut with overreaching In the meane time he sheweth himself too ready to overreach for if he looke over his Bishops and Superintendents mentioned in the later ende of his book he maye see if he shutt not his eies that they held not their Bishoprickes or SupreinteÌ„dencie by the D. new-found claime and tenure to whom at this tyme onely I will add one or two more not mencioned by him Iodocus Naum vpon Rom. 12. distributeth the Church-officers ordeyned by GOD into Prophets and Deacons the Prophets into
assumption and conclusion on this manner If the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops then not by such presbyteries as they stand for But they were governed by diocesan Bishops Ergo not by such presbyteries as they stand for The proposition of this argument is absolutely necessary for such presbyters and such diocesan Bishops as ours are cannot stand togither And if the Assumption be denied he is already provided of a disiunctive argumentation sufficient to confirm it So that he may daunce as in deed he doth lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. the round The Doct. daunceth the round betwene these two and need not seek any newe prosylloâ—isme to conclude that which is to be proved But 2. what meaneth the D. to take that for graunted which his refuter flatly denieth Doth he not plainely tell him answer pag. 10. that though at were so as he supposeth that there were no other Elders in the primitive Church bâ—t Ministers of the word yet that it would not follâ—w that the Bishops were Diâ—osan because a Presbyterie of Ministers such as the D. himselfe coâ—fsseth The D. taketh for graunted that which is flatly denied were then in use might be ioyned with the Bishop in the government of the Church and that the whole congregation might have as great an hand in the government as he for so some of our opposites do graunt it had some times and therefore the sole government of Diocesan Bishops may well fâ—ll though there were no sole governing elders to over turne them It is therefore plaine that the Refuter disclaymeth this dâ—siunctive proposition as not necessarily true and that the Doctor wittingly how wittily soever concealeth from his reader both that division which is among the favourites of the Hyerarchie some acknowledging the state of the Church in the Apostles times for the outward forme and government thereof to be popular as Archbishop Whitgift in defence of his answer pag. 180-182 which the Doctor esteemeth pag. 41. a Brownistâ—call and Anabaptisticall dotage and The D. coÌ„tradâ—cteth his owne doctrine that contradiction which is found in his own writing since he now putteth the reynes of Church-government into the hands of the Bishop to rule as ours doe without the advise of the presbyters whereaâ— he formerly acknowledged sâ—rm pag. 1â— that in the primitive Church the Bishop vsed the advise of certeyne â—raâ—e Ministers and in Church causâ—s did nothing almost without them A thing now growne altogither out of vse and in the opinion of â—ome whose judgemeÌ„t ought to sway much with the Doctor that kâ—nâ—e of government which the aunciâ—nt Presbyteries and their Bishops exerâ—ised is now transferred to the Mâ—gistrate to whome it is due aâ—d to such as by him are appointed sâ—e D. Whitgifts defense pag. 747 Howsoever therefore it may be granted that in the question delivered by the Doctor the disiunct on which his proposit on expresseth is impliâ—d yet it followeth not â—ay it is an apparaâ—t vntruth to affirm hâ—t the disâ—unction is on both sides presupposed necessarie which the Doctor must confesâ—e vnlesse to use his owne words he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logick seing his disjunction and question doth not sufficiently enumerate their opinions which have debated this question in generall viz. what the forme of government was which was first practized in the most ancient and Apostolik Churches So that if I would treade in the D. stepps I might justly repay him with some such marginall notes as pag 47. 53. without cause he hath sett down to disgrace his Refuter to witt that the D. and his Consorts at this Day doe pleade against the discipline which Arch-Bishop Whitgift other learned Protestants yea the most ancient freinds of the Hierarchy acknowledged to be practised in the apostolike Churches and that the Doctor mistaking the question and craftily concealing the division that is among them of his owne side is bold to affirme that to be graunted which he knoweth to be denied 3. I know that for his defence he saith that his Refuter acknowledgeth the question to be such as he proposeth but he doth both the Refuter and the reader the more wronge in so saying In deed when the Refuter intended to shewe that our diocesan Bishops maye be proved absolute popelings by the same reason that the D. urgeth to cast that name on the parishe Bishops for which they whom the D. calleth a new secte doe as he saith stryve he then affirmed that the question betwixt the Doctor and them not betwene the D. and us for those words the D. hath evilly put in to make his owne cause good was this whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors The Doct. chaungeth the Refutâ— words and Elders or by diocesan Bishops But how doth it followe that he acknowledgeth the first of his two questions before mencioned to be rightly and fully delivered in respect of the parts of the disiunction He that hath but half an eye may see the inconsequence of his reasoning specially seing the question expressed by the refuter hath more reference to the second quaestion de iure then to the first de facto Moreover hath the Doctor forgotten that at his first meeting with this question he enterteyned it so well that pag. 41. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe he intreated the reader to store it up for future use Shall I therfore now inferr that he contradicteth himself in saying that his assertion is falsified in the later part of the question 4. But what need so many words to thewe the weaknes of the Doctors disiunctive argumentation or to prove that there is not any presupposed truth in his disiunctive proposition I hope he wil graunt for he is a Doctor and cannot lightly so farr forget his logick rules but he must knowe that the question which he debateth in the first part of his sermon must holde proportion with that assertion which is to be concluded from the 4. first points of his five seing the first part of his sermon is comprehended in them Now the assertion which is to be proved by these 4. pointes is eyther this which his disiunctive argument concludeth viz. that the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops or rather that which before he set downe pag. 58. for the assumption of his first syllogisme viz. that Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But which soever of these two he chooseth certeine it is his question Sect. 4. wil not yeeld him any such disiunctive proposition as he now draweth from this which he tendreth For his quaestion must be a single one and not compounded of two members viz eyther this whether the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or no or rather this whether Diocesan Bishops be vnderstood by the angels or no And this last coÌ„meth somewhat neare the mark though it misse of the right tenour of wordes which it ought to have kept viz. whether Bishops
in this case As touching the first saith he I have often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be But why doth he wonder where there is no cause of wonder Let him surcease his wondring The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter till he shewe both where his brethren have so argued and why such an argument will not hold And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause to wonder at his proceeding that wandreth from his purpose or rather justifyeth his Refut in that which he vndertook to disprove For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge that which now is closely implied sc that the ancient Churches remeyned for a time vndivided 3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words we may wonder what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided to those which at the first were not The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth pag. 69. The later appeareth by this that his best reason to prove that each Church had froÌ„ the beginning the circuite of the citie country adjoyned is the practise of succeeding ages p. 49. 55. which after division of parishes combined them in one body vnder one Bishop As for his questions following though I see not how they will serve his purpose yet will I breefly touch vpon them and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere 1. would they have saith he the Church of a City country belonging to it to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place I answere so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation I hold it best they continue vndivided as the first Apostolike Churches did but when the people of any City and Country are so increased that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place 2. Then tell me saith he whether we that doe and of necessity must consist of diverse congregations are to followe the example of any ancient Church as it was before it was divided or as it was after it was divided I affirme that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied the practise of the Apostles the ancient Apostolike Churches is to be imitated of us in giving to those new erected assemblies both the name and forme or constitution of Churches and the like power for government which those apostolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion in any one branch thereof 3. He addeth They will say perhaps that eche congregation after the division was as that one before nothing lesse let them prove that and I will yeeld in the whole cause We say it in deed and will not shrinke from affirminge that in the Apostles tymes wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country which at first made one Church were distributed into diverse there eche congregatioÌ„ was in forme or constitution like to that one before and if it be not so why doth he not disprove it Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent giving his reader just occasion to thinke that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe As for the ages following in Constantines time or there aboutes when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoyninge to it their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questioÌ„ of divine institution eyther for the constitution of Church-assemblies or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels c. before cited as he saith can convince or perswade the conscience of his opposites to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance But to what purpose doth he trifâ—le time in these By-questioÌ„s which make him forget what he promised to prove viz. that every of those 7. Churches was divided into severall ordinary assemblies Yet in one point more we must followe him sc when he indeavoreth to shew that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand if he had added this clause that they were Dioceses such as ours are but he foresawe that this addition would have quite marred his market notwithstanding attendance shal be given to that he hath delivered in defense of the point which he mainteyneth It wil be said saith he that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuite of the Church in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the division of parishes as after Here for the better apprehending of his meaning if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same I suppose he would send us to those words which he hath within a few line after viz. that the circuit of every Church even from the beginning aswelas after the multiplying of perishes included not onely the citie but thâ— countrye thereto belonging And if this be his meaning as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant then behold how he is The D. mustâ— gg still inforced principium petere when from hence he inferreth the coÌ„clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following 50. sc that though the 7. Churches had not bâ—ne divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses And because he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref I wil assay to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme and if he can beâ—ter the argument let him take his owne away Every Church whose circuite in the intention of the Apostle or first founder â—f it was the same as including not onely the citie but the country thereto belongiâ—g aswell befâ—re the division â—f Parishes as after every such Church I saw was a Diocese from the beginning though not divided then into several Câ—ngregations But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches in the intention of the Apostles or their first founders herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning though not yet divided into many severall congregations Now let
have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy such as other reformed Churches have restored then with a Monarchy which our diocesans holde The D. argumeÌ„t therefore may be thus retorted against him The Presidents of the auncient Apostolâ—k Presbyteries were no diocesan Byshops such as ours The Angels of the 7. Churches were the presidents of such Presbyteries Therefore they were no diocesan Byshops such as ours Or thus Diocesan Byshops such as ours are not presidents of such presbyteries as â—he ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaeÌ„ts of such Presbyteries Therfore they were no diocesan Byshops The assumption of both is the same that the D. maketh use of for a contrary conclusion The proposition of the former if it be denied wil be thus confirmed Diocesan Byshops such as ours doe governe monarchically by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbyterie as the ancient aposâ—olike Churches enjoyed But the presidents of those ancient Presbyteries did not governe monarchically or by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of theire Presbytery Those presidents therefore were no diocesan Bps such as ours Both parts of this argument are acknowledged by the D. for the assumption appeareth by that which he affirmeth in particular of Iames his presidencie lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all Byshops in former ages sâ—rm pag. 15. and dâ—f lib. 1. pag. 191. where he saith that in Churches causes nothing almost was done without the advice of the Presbyters and that their was great necessitie that the Byshop should use their advice and counsell because otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a lawe c. And touching the proposition as he intimateth serm pag. 97. and def lib. 4. pag. 102. the government of our Byshops to be monarchicall so he confesseth that Byshops now have not that assistance of Presbyters which the ancient Byshops had lib. 1. pag. 190. And this confirmeth also the truth of that other proposition of the later argument For if diocesan Byshops such as ours have not any such Presbyterie associated to them for advice and assistance in government then they are not presidents of such Presbyteries as the ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the former is an apparant truth and confâ—ssed by him serm pag. 16. 17. def lib. 1. pag. 190. where he saith that the assistance of those Seniours that directed the ancient Byshops is long since growne out of use Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedrall Churches be a resemblaÌ„ce of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189. since they have another president then called Archi-presbyter now Deane how can the Byshops of our daâ—es be their presidents vnlesse he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads But let us see the D. owne defence of his proposition before contradicted If sayth he the Refuter wil be pleased to take notice of that Sect. 3. which he hath elsewhere proved that there was but one Presbytery for an whole diocese the proposition wil be manifest vz. that the presidents of the Presbyters provided for whole dioceses whoÌ„ the Fathers call Byshops were diocesan Byshops The argument is thus digested by himselfe in a connexive sylogisme pag. 122. If the Presbyteries were aloâ—ted to whole diocesâ—s and not to severall parishes theÌ„ the Bps. who were presideÌ„ts of those Presbyteries were not parâ—â—â—onal but D. But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption whose proofe is laide downe viz. chap. 4. I reserve to be handled hereafter now I refuse his conclusions for the weaknes that I find in the proposition if he speak as he ought of diocesan Byshops such as ours for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesaÌ„ as he supposeth the Apostolick Presbyteries were viz. to worke out their conversion cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church therefore cannot argue their president to be properly a diocesan Byshop Nay rather if it may appeare that the flock already converted was but one onely congregation of christians howsoever the Presbytery might be set to indeavour the conversioÌ„ of the rest of the diocese yet to speak properly there was a parishonall Byshop and not a diocesaÌ„ because the flock or congregatioÌ„ already converted was more like to a parish then to a diocese Yea say he coulde prove that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses that is for many particular congregations in each diocesâ— why might not their president be a parishionall Byshop in regard of his particular Church which he fedde with the word and Sacraments although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes For it is cleare that Mr. Beza of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Byshops he boasteth lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127. doth hold it as necessary that the president of the pastors of a diocese should have as the rest his particular parish to attende vpon as it is esteemed fit that a provinciall Byshop should be more specially interessed in the oversight of one diocese De Minist grad cap. 20. pag. 123. and cap. 4. pag 168. And such were in deed the first diocesan Byshops after parishes were multiplyed and Presbyters assigned to them the pastorall charge of the mother-Church the cheife Presbyter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to theÌ„ Neyther might he remove his seate from it to any other Church though within his own Diocese Concil Carthag 5. can 5. 3. If the D. shall here tell us as he doth lib. 2. p. 117. that the cathedrall Churches which were the Bishops seas Mother churches to the whole Diocese were never Parishes nor the meetings there parishionall but panigyricall it wil be but a frivolous exception in this place for there will still remayne a difference of that moment betwixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries our diocesans that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops of that kind that ours are For besides the forenoted disagrement that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling as they were by the D. owne confession the truth therevnto inforcing him lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158. to preach the word to administer the â—acraments in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick By this time therefore I hope the reader may see that although we should graunt the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses yet that will not warrant him to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops such as ours and consequently though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries he cannot necessarily inferre that they were diocesan Byshops like
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
all the grace he can to them closing all up saying that he leaueth that most pregnunt authentique euidence of Ignatius to his aduersary to muse upon See you not how bragge he would seeme to be as if he had gotten a great conquest yet what is this to the present question will he thus argue The Christians throughout Syria in the time of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Sy-ria made many Churches or congregations Ergo the Church of Antioch where of he had more properly the charge was more then one congregation Can there come a worse inconsequence from one that is but a smatterer in schoole disputations Thus are wee come to the testimonyes of the new writers viz. Tindall Bale Fulk Perkins Our great Church-Bible and D. Bilson Sect. 9. ad pag. 106. 107. All which the Doctor saith excepting two testimonies of Tindall the Refuter most childishly alleadgeth But what if his exceptions be more childish then his Refuters allegations let us compare them and leave the censure of both to the indifferent reader It is objected that the ancient translators of the new testament into the english tongue doe turoe the word ecclesia congregation when they speak of the Church of Ephesus and the rest in the Revelation and to the same purpose are the rest but Doct. Bilson alleadged And that translation is justified not onely by Mr Tindall Thomas More but by Iohn Bale sometimes a Bishop in his exposition of the word Churches and Candlesticks by D. Fulk against the Rhemists aunot in Ephel 5. and by Mr Perkins in his exposition of Apoc. 2. 3. affirming that the 7. Churches were particular congregations And D. Bilson against the Seminaries affirmeth that the word is never taken in the new testament for the Preists alone but for the congregation of the faithfull and namely that it is so taken Act. 20 28. FroÌ„ which allegations it is inferred that therefore in their judgement the Church of Ephesus other like chutches in cities were each of them but one particular coÌ„gregation and did not consist of many Now is not this inference grounded on good probabilitie for can it be imagined that these learned worthy men would have so interpreted the word ecclesie by congregation if they had not been perswaded that most naturally it expressed the meaning thereof And if so must not each particular Church be in their judgement one particular congregation If the Papists could prove any one of the 7. Churches of Asia to haue consisted of many distinct congregations were it not a more just exception then any they haue alleadged to weaken their interpretation seing a multitude distinguished into many congregations cannot properly be called one congregation But let us heare the Doctors exceptions First he telleth us that the ancient english Bibles doe use the word congregation not onely where mention is made of particular Churches but of the universall Church also as Mat. 16 18. Ephes 1. 22. 5. 25. even so and we know it well and esteeme the reason to be alike for as particular Churches are each of them one visible congregation and not many so is the Church universall one invisible congregation the former gathered togither into one assembly open to the eyes of men at one time and in one place the other gathered togither into one mysticall body which though hidden from men in this world yet is â—no nituitu manifest unto God and at the last day shal be actually congregated into one assembly in the viewe of men and angels Secondly the Doctor layeth downe the reasons mouing the first translators of the Bible into English to avoyd the name Church and in stead thereof to use the word congregation 1. Because CHURCH more properly signifieth the place of meeting then the congregation it self which is meant by ecclesia 2. Because the Papists had abused it to signify eyther generally the romish Church or particularly to import the romish Clergie And I wish the reader to consider whether this first reason doth not justify the refuters affirmation viz. that in the judgement of those Translators ECCLESIA doth properly note such a congregation as is gathered togither in one place whither the second doth any way infringe it Thirdly concerning the testimony of D. Fulk the Doctor saith Sect. 10. ad pag. 107. the allegation thereof sheweth extreame want eyther of indgement or beneftie but I perswade my selfe the want eyther of the one or other will more justly fall upon the Accuser then the Refut when things are indifferently weighed on both sides For wherein hath he fayled Is it not true which he saith that D. Fulkinstifieth the translation of ecelesia by congregation as better expressing the Greek then the word Church doth not this argue plainely that he heild the Church of Ephesus and all other Churches in cities to consist but of one particular congregation In deed if his defense of our Bibles translating ecclesia by congregation had been limited onely to that text Ephes 5. 23. as Mr Doctor indeavoureth to perswade the Refuter had shewed litle discretion in the choise of that restimony to argue that which he inferreth but as the Rhemists in their annot on that text taxe our first english Bibles with corruption not for mistranslating the word in that place onely but generally for not using so much at once in all the Bible the name of Church but in stead thereof congregation so D. Fulks answer is sitted in generall to justify the Translators in so doing They rather used saith he the word Congregation then Church to avoyd ambiguity because this word Church is coÌ„monly taken for the howse of the assembly of Christians and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering togither of all the members into one body which in the name of church doth not appeare Is it not plaine that in his understanding the word eccksia signifieth properly such an assembly of Christians as is gathered togither into one body in one house or place such as comonly we call a Church See I pray how he interpreteth himselfe in his answere to Gregory Martin Pref. sect 51. pag. 92. and cap. 5. sect 5. pag 148. Wherefore though he speak never a word of the Church of Ephesus in speciall yet his defense of the translations in generall doth not onely justify them in calling the Church in Ephesus the Congregation in Ephesus but also argue by consequence that the Church there consisted at that time not of many severall congregations but of one particular Church-assembly onely Wherefore the Doctor mought with more judgement honesty have set a lesse face upon it then to charge his Refut with want of eyther for alleadging his testimony Fourthly as touching the testimony of Mr. Perkins the same inference also clearely ariseth from his assertion viz. that the 7. churches were particular congregations For he would never have so said vnlesse he thought each of them
first to speak to his disciples vers 2 yet afterwards he spake to all the people assembled vers 13. 15. 54. Besides it is to be observed that a great number of these beleevers were strangers which were not inhabitants of Ierusalem but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost and some of them it may be not actuall members of any Church but such as are spoken of Ioh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore seing it is evident by the wordes of S. Lokes storie that all the beleevers which belonged to the Church at Ierusalem in that time were assembled togither in one place from time to time as occasion served it is sufficiently proved all the Doctors cavils not with standing that they did not for their number exceed the proportion of one ordinary congregation and consequently as the rest of the Churches before spoken of so this was rather a parish assembly then a diocesan church like to one of ours As for the Doctors exceptions sect 6. pag. 87. viz. that the Sect. 14. ad sect 6. pag. 87. Church of Ierusalem was never intended to be one parish among many but a mother Church to beget others which were to be severed from it and yet to remaine subject to it and that it was intended that all the Christians both in citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem like as the people of citie and country were all under one high-preist me thinkes that reader is strāgely and strongly conceited of the Doctor that will enterteyne these points upon his owne meere conjecture and bare word For however it is cleare that many Churches drew their originall from Ierusalem and received the faith by their Ministerie which had bene for a time members of that Church Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. 9. 19. 22. yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection that any of those daughter churches yeelded to Ierusalem or the presbyterie there established And therefore the intention which he dreameth of concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of Ierusalem like as all the Iewes were anciently under the high preist hath neyther foundation in the holy scriptures nor can he gather it from the practise of succeding ages seing their advancing of the Church of Cesarea to the honour of a Metropolitance Church superiour in jurisdiction to Ierusalem argueth that they were altogither ignorant of it For among the many and great thoughts of the Doctors heart can this enter into it that they would wittingly depart from that order which was instituted or intended by the Apostles to follow the which was instituted or intended the Apostles to follow the course of that preheminence which the Romane Emperors that were enemies to Christ and his truth should establish in their politicall government But what need many wordes in a plaine matter This is enough for resuting so frivolous a fancie as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it Thus have we seene how well the Doctor hath proved that the Churches founded by the Apostles were Dioceses properly like to ours and not parishes It now followeth in the second book that we examine his proofes for his Diocesan Bishops THE SECOND PART THE SECOND BOOK Chapter 1. Shewing that in the 4. point of the Doctors sermon and third book of the defense thereof there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopall function IN the fourth point of the Doct. sermon he handleth Section 1. ex professo the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and in the 3. book of his defense he indeavoureth the justifying of the same And first he intreateth in generall of their superiority in degree but though he boast serm pag. 29. that all antiquity favoureth his opiniō yet he passeth by the Apostolicall writings as too ancient for his purpose Notwithstanding when he commeth to declare the particulars wherein the superiority of Bishops consisteth he referreth us serm pag. 32. to the epistle of Paul to Titus cap. 1. 5. there to behold that threefold superiority given by him to Bishops to wit their singularity of preheminence during life and their power of ordination and of jurisdiction not confined to a parish but extended to the whole Iland of Creete and to all the cities thereof A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop or of a nationall Primate rather then the calling of a Diocesan Prelare if he could make good the parts of his reasoning viz. that Titus not onely had such a threefold superiority but also was by his calling a Bishop as he supposeth But this later wherein the controversy cheefly standeth hath no foundation in his text onely he telleth us pag. 50. of this third book that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon by the cōmon consent of the ancient most approved writers of the Church The which what is it but a secret confession that the text of holy scripture will not serve his turne to prove that Titus was a Bishop In like manner when to justify the singularity of preheminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese he saith serm pag. 33. that there was one Timothy at Ephesus one Titus in Creete one Epaphroditus in Philippi and one Archippus at Coloss◠what else doth he but presuppose not prove that every of them was a Diocesan Bishop As if the whole Iland of Creet with all the cities thereof made but one Diocese and as if we were more bound to beleeve Mr. Doctors word then the Apostles testimoney who saith that there were other Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus Phil. 1. 1. giveth vs to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa and nothing inferiour to Archippus Colos 1. 7. 4. 12. Afterwards when the Cōmission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus and to Titus in Creete is urged to prove the power of Bishops first in ordination and then in jurisdiction to make us a mends for his often begging he promiseth serm pag. 49. to prove afterwards that they were 〈◊〉 the which how he performeth we have heard before frō his own mouth for his proofes touching Timothy Titus are of the same nature as shall more fully appear hereafter Now more thē this here noted he hath not in his whole discourse I meane either his sermon or the defense thereof touchinge the superioritie of Bishops to prove by the scriptures that they have any such preheminence allowed then by God Wherefore if the Doctor hath found any cleare text to prove the episcopall function and superiority in question to be a divine ordinance it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermō and in the fourth book of his defense where this questiō is at large debated and his Assertion proved as he saith serm pag. 55. and def lib. 4. pag. 4. first by consequence and then directly whither
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the mother-Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith īmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childrē to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
60. reduce this his doctrine to a question de jure If then in teaching that their function is of divine institution his purpose be to shew that they hold their preâ—minence iure by good and lawful right can he mean any other then divine right 5. And doth he not ayme at the same right when he sayth it is the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles lib. 3. pag. 24 35. 44. 48 59. and that many of his allegations doe justify the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de jure and give testimonie to their right espetially when he sayth pag 26. that his allegation of those fathers which adjudged Aerius an heretick doth therfore prove the superioritie of Bishops de jure because there is no heresy which is not repugnant to Gods word 6. Neyther can he otherwise warrant their calling and function to be an holy calling an high and sacred function as he affirmeth it to be in his epistle dedicatory to the King pag 3 4. unles the right and title they have unto it be divine and from God who sanctifieth whatsoever is holy 7. Lastly seing he denieth in his second page of his answere to the preface their auncient tenure to be jure humano and for proof thereof affirmeth that their function was in the ptimitive CHVRCH acknowledged to be an ordinance Apostolicall yf there be any strength in his reasoning it will followe that he esteemeth their tenure to be jure divino seing he mainteyneth their function to be a divine ordinance For if an ordinance Apostolicall will conclude their tenure to be jure apostolico and not jure humano onely then a divine ordinance wil prove their tenure to be jure divino and not Apostolico onely Wherefore as it is an evident truth in the Refut to say that the D. sermoÌ„ tendeth directly to prove that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden jure divino by divine right and not as an humane ordinance so it is a mallicious slander in the D. to taxe him for an The D. slaunder untruth in so affirming But let us look on and see with what untruthes he covereth this slander First he faiâ—h he did directly and expresly disclayâ—â— it pag. 92 of his sermon The which if true will he thence inferre that his Ref assertion is an untruth nay rather let him coÌ„fess that he hath contradicted himself and in one page of his sermon expressly disclaymed what he directly proclaymed laboured to prove in the principall scope of the whole But is it not a The Dâ—â— first untruth to colour his slander gross untruth in him to say that in that 92 page he directly and expressly disclaymeth the point in question for doth he not plenis buccis as if he were sounding of a trumpet proclayme it Let us view his words and referre them to his purpose vidz to shew what was Ieroms meaning when he sayth that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of divine disposition If sayth he Ierom meant that Bishops were not set over Presbyters by Apostolicall ordinance he should be contrary to all antiquity and to himself But if his meaning shal be that their superiority though it be an Apostolicall tradition yet is not direrectly of divine institution there is smal difference betwixt these two because what was ordeyned of the Apostles proceeded from God what they did in the execution of their Apostolicall function they did by direction of the holy Ghost But yet for more evidence he sayth he wil directly and breiffly prove that the episcopall function is of divine institution or that Bishops were ordeyned of God And as he sayth so so he assayeth to doe so from the instances of Timothy and Archippus especially from his text from whence he sayth it may evidently be proved 1. for that they are called angels which not onely sheweth their excellencie but also proveth that they were authorized sent of God 2. for that they are commended vnder the name of starres to signify both their preeminence of dignity in this life that they are the crowne of the Church Revel 12. 1. and their prerogative of glorie which they shall have in the world to come Dan. 12. 3. 3ly for that they be the 7. starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand both for approbation of function protection of person And so concludeth that he hath thus proved the doctrine arising out of his text that the episcopal function is of Apostolicall and divine institution If these be his words how dooth he directly expressely disclayme that the calling of Bishops is to be holden by divine right is he not a man of strange conceit that thinketh with outfacing to add credit to so evideÌ„t an untruth Yet he blusheth not to mainteyne it by another The D. 2. untruth to colour his slander wch if it were true concludeth not the point untruth which though it were as true as it is false concludeth not what he indeavoureth to make good I did profess sayth he pag. 92. that although I hold the calling of Bishops in respect of their first institution to be an apostolicall so a diviue ordinance yet that I do not mainteyn it to be divini iuris as intending therby that it is generally perpetually immutably necessarie From hence if he wil conclude that therfore he did directly and expressly disclaime in the same page what his Refut sayth he laboured in his sermon to prove scz that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden by divine right and not as an humane ordinance shall he not shew himself a weak disputer and not wel advised what he speaketh For which of the D. friends that advisedly compareth the partes of his reasoning togither seeth not that a man in his right witts will never take the professing of the former to be a direct and express disclayming of the later yea he that is not over partiall may see by that which is already shewed that the same pen which now professeth that he doth not mainteyne the episcopall function to be divini juris as intending therby a perpetuall immutable necessity therof doth notwithstanding underhand by necessary consequence proclaime that it is to be holden jure divino by divine right and not as an humane ordinance I add for the present that this wil be concluded from that which here he professeth For he that holdeth the calling of Bishops to be an Apostolical and so a divine ordinance doth in effect affirme it to be divini juris as meaning thereby that it is a divine not an humane ordinance But there is less truth then he presumeth in that branch of his profession which sayth that he did profess pag 92 that he doth not mainteyn the calling of Bishops to be divini iuris as intending therby that it is generally immutably necessary For he hath no one word in all that page that
such as are nominated elected and presented to any Church 3. to make and ordeyn rules and canons for order and quietnes for diversities of degrees among Ministers c. And that those orders are to be made by the ministers of the Church with the consent of the people before Christian Prince and after Christian Princes with the authority and consent both of Prince and people Againe we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people comitted to their spirituall charge that wheras certeyn men doe imagine and affirme that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome power and authority over all Bishops and Preists in Christs Church c. that it is utterly false and untrue Againe it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neyther in the scripture nor in the wrytings of any authentical Doctor or author in the Church being within the times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or betwene the Bishops themselves but they were equall in power order authority and iurisdiction And that there is now since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops it was divised among the auncient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and vnity of the Catholike church and that eyther by the consent and authority or els 〈◊〉 least by the permissiâ—â— sufferance of the Princes and civill powers for the time rulinge For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees amonge Bishops and spirituall governors This it seemed the D. marked not of the Church so ordeyned some to be Patriarches some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archbishops some Bishops And to them limited not onely several Dioceses or Provinces where they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certayne bounds and limitts of their iurisdiction and power In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles it was lawfull for all Bishops certeyne of them assembling togither to constitute and consecrate other Bishops the sayd Fathers restreyned the sayd power reserved the same in such wise that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitane or Archbishop no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province likewise in other cases their powers were also restreyned for such causes as were then thought vnto them conventent Which differences the sayd holy Fathers thought necessary to enact establish by their decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed or established in the Gospel or mencioned in any canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiastical wryter within the dayes of the Apostles but to the intent that thereby coÌ„tention variance schismes divisions should be avoyded and the Church preserved in good order and concord Loe here their words now obâ—erve we among other things 1. that they joyne togither Bishops and 1. That they make Preists or Bishops all one Preists not onely in the duty of instructing but also in the power of the keyes of bearing the spirituall charge of the people coÌ„mitted to them 2. And in setting downe that headship of the Pope which they disclaime they joyne the Priests with the Bps. of Christs Church affirme his power of claime authoritie froÌ„ Christ over both to be alike false and vntrue 3. they saye that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops spiritual governours of the Church which last words spiritual governors must needs include all Preachers that have spiritual charge as is before noted 4. And as among those degrees ordeyned by them they reckoÌ„ Bishops aswel as Archbishops c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers the limitatioÌ„ of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces yea the limitatioÌ„ of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops which cannot be thought they would ever have done if they had held theÌ„ jure divino 5. And ail this was after that Christians were increased to an infinite multitude throughout the world and in an imitation of the example of like degrees in the old testament not for that any such were established in the newe c. wherfore if the D. had well perused their words with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading he mought have found that whatsoever they speak of the equalitie or superiority of Bps. amonge themselves affirming the one and denying the other to be instituted by Christ the same is to be understood not of such Bishops as had that name proper to them after the Fathers had established sundry differences of degrees but of all apostolike Bishops or spiritual governours preists or preachers which had the spiritual charge of any people coÌ„mitted to them by the Apostles Which appeareth yet more clearely as by that other booke called Reformatio leguÌ„ ecclesiasticaruÌ„ compiled by them wherein it shall appeare anone they make the Bishops in quaestion to be of no other institution then the rest of that ranck of Archbishops ArchdeacoÌ„s Deanes c. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall Stokesley two others of them and therefore fittest to interprete their own meaning writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole S. Ierom say they aswell in his CoÌ„mentary on the Epistle to Titus as in his Epistle to Euagrius sheweth that those primacyes long after Christs ascension were made by the device of men where as before by the coÌ„mon agreement consent of the Clergie every of the Churches were governed yea the Patriarchall Churches The words of S. Ierom are these sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Praesbyteris esse majores And in the margin this note is sett Difference betwixt Bishops Preists how it came in What caÌ„ be more plaine then this to shewe that those Bishops did acknowledge as the ref saith the disparity of Ministers the primacie of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops c. was but a politik divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ Iesus This shall suffice for that testimony before we come to the next it shall not be amisse to speak a word or two coÌ„cerning the D. confession touching the parity of Bishops among themselves but yet restreyning it to the power of order for feare of offending cutting off his Archbishops head But so it falleth out that when men are affraid to what is truth for offending one side they often speak to the offeÌ„ce of the other that so farre as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papall authoritie whiles he denieth what they affirme
viz. that Bishops jure divino are equall among theÌ„selves in respect of power and jurisdiction aswell as order But though he deale honestly that himselfe and not the Bishops of King Henries dayes restreyneth the equalitie of Bishops among themselves to the power of order yet he casteth a great blemishe disgrace upon those our forefathers in signifying that the auncient Fathers consented not with them but with him and against them in this point As for that clause he addeth as were also the Apostles whose successors the Bishops are I know not to what purpose it serveth save to discover his contradictinge eyther himselfe or the The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself or the truth truth himself if he mean that the equality of Bishops amonge theÌ„selves is as large as that equality which was among the Apostles for theÌ„ he erreth in restreyning the equality of Bishops unto power of order onely the truth if he meane that the Apostles had no other equality among themselves then he giveth to Bishops for they were equall also in authority and jurisdiction aswell as in power of order as is rightly acknowledged by our Bishops in their bookes and by the auncienter Bishops in their writings Neyther is it true as the Doct. would insinuate thaâ— Bishops onely are the Apostles successors The D. untruly insinuateth that Bishops onely are the Apostles successors For to speak properly they have no successors and in a generall sense all Pastors and Teachers that hold and teach their doctrine are their successors And herein we have against him amongst many others the consent of those reverend Bishops who having sayd that Christ gave none of his Apostles nor any of their successors any such authority as the Pope claymeth over Princes or in civill matters doe make application thereof aswell to Preists as to Bishops But the D. notwithstanding upon this that the Bishops are the Apostles successors goeth on and telleth us That we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselves that therfore they were not superior to the 72 disciples or because Bishops are equall among themselves therefore they are not superior to other Ministers Whereunto I could say it is true if it were apparant first that Bishops other Ministers doe differ by any special difference as the 72. disciples did from the Apostles but no such thing appeareth eyther in the scriptures or in the Bishops booke from whence the Doct. reasoneth but rather as hath bene shewed by the refuter and is before mainteyned the cleane contrary Secondly that the Apostles had any superiority over these disciples the which the Doctor wil not so easily prove as take for granted seing 1. Christ living the Apostles had no authority over any 2. their Apostolical authority was not as then wheÌ„ the 72. were sent forth coÌ„mitted vnto them and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministery of the 72. was to be coÌ„tinued in the Church after Christ but onely to remaine for that present journey and afterwards to be disposed of as Christ pleased Thirdly it is also true that as the equality of the Apostles amonge themselves and the supposed superioritie they had over the 72 tooke not away their subjection and inferiority to Christ so neyther doth the equallity of Bishops among themselves nor their superioty over other Ministers take away their inferiority to the Pope by any necessity of consequence Wherefore I must for this The Refus rightly alleadged the testimony testimony conclude 1. that the refuter hath rightly alleadged it and 2. that the D. hath wronged not onely his refuter but us them in labouring and that with slaunder to wrest their testimony out of our hands The next testimony is taken from the booke called Reform leg eccles Sect 2. Ref. pag. 4. D. pag. 5. cap. 10. 11. de divinis offic ijs to prove that those which made the booke deemed that as the episcopall function is not jure divino so the government of the Church by the Minister and certeyn Seniors or Elders in every parish was the auncient discipline so consequently his doctrine in his sermon contrary to their judgement In answer whereunto 1. he chargeth his Refuter to playe the part of an egregious falsifyer and The D. columniateth the allegation to be forged but by that time the matter be examined I perswade my self the reader will thinke it meet the Doctor take home those speaches to himselfe as his owne proper the rather seing the Ref setteth not downe the words of the book but onely his own collection out of them 2. he fathereth that upon him which he neyther sayd nor meant With what eye trow we looked he vpoÌ„ the Refuters words that he would make his reader believe that the Refuter affirmeth as he afterwards intimateth that the The Doct. slauÌ„dereth compilers of the booke meant to bring in lay-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledg that it was the ancient discipline of the Church Let us now debate the matter as it deserveth at large And first it being remembred that the booke is cited to prove that the doctrine in his sermon is against the judgement of our immediate forefathers we are to see what his doctrine is viz that as the episcopal function in quçstion is jure divino so all ecclesiasticall power of jurisdiction is in the Bishops hands onely that the Pastors of particular flocks as they have their authority from the Bishop so all the authority they have is in fore conscientia not in foro externo eyther for direction or correction that belongeth wholly to the Bishop he is to reforme abusâ— exercise Church Censures against offenders It is not in the power of any Pastor of a particular congregation with any assistantes of lay-Elders or other associates to execute any censure c whereof we maye see more at large in the 4. point of his sermon pag. 45-52 And however in his defence he doth in part deny this to be his doctrine yet is it sufficiently averred lib. 2. Cap. 4. hereafter following to be his doctrine Now to prove that this his doctrine is against the judgement of those fathers is that booke alleadged the Doct. is now to make good his charge if he can he sayth he will doe it by transcribing the 10. 11. chap. cited the bare recitall whereof being as he saith a sufficient consutation of his forged allegations The words transcribed by him are Evening prayers being ended in citie parish Churches wherevnto after the sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne churches the principall Minister whom they call parochum the Parson or Pastâ—r and the Deacon if they be present c. and Seniors are to consult with the people how the mony provided for godly vses may be best bestowed to the same time let the discipline be reserved For they who have coÌ„mitted any publike wickednes to the coÌ„mon offence of the Church are to
reviving of their cerâ—monies amoÌ„gst us is so freely preached published tending to vphold their hierarchy aswell as ours the Doctors reasons being in deed the very same with theirs The Doctor answereth with many vile and opprobrious speaches and 1. telleth vs that the advantage which ariseth to the Papists both by his doctrine preached and the ceremoniees mainteyned still amongst us may through Gods blessing be this That when they see us not so new fangled as our opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they have departed from the primitive Church but are content to observe the auncient government lawful ceremonies used in the primitive Church they may be induced to joyne The D. abuseth the name of God with us c. Then which what can be sayd more against reasoÌ„ their owne profession to the abusing of the name of God and his blessing Knoweth he not that to this day they have bene incouraged in their madnes by our coÌ„ming so neere them and departing no further from them Doe they not both say and write that our book of leiturgie is an Apish imitation of their Masse-book that our religion cannot stand without their ceremonies that the contention that is amongst vs for them and eating their broath putteth them in good hope of our eating their rostemeat Doe not the Rhemists in their annotation upon Ioh. 21. 17. affirme that the Protestants otherwise denying the preheminence of Peter yet to uphold their Archbishops doe avouch it against the Puritans Yea even of late take they not occasion to fill theire bookes with our canons and constititutions arguments and resolutions to let passe others what will the Doct. say to that worthy Proctor of theirs Iacobus Gretzerus hath he not panegyr missae cap. 11. 12. demonst dogm cap. 7 alleadged against the reformed Churches our service booke for their popish holy dayes D. Tooker and our late booke of Canons both for the signe of the Crosse for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament for the whole hierarchy from the Archbishop downewards and for divers other their superstitions Hath not Cornelius Scultingius in his hierarchica Anacrisis alleadged D. Whitgift and transcribed whole leaves out of him for defence of their hierarchy Doth not Stapleton relect against Whitak Cont. 2. q. 3. art 3. take the Bishops arguments for the upholding of their hierarchy to uphold the Popes affirming they are built both on one foundation c I suppose the Doct. will not deny this yea they that are acquainted with their writings knowe more then this of the advantage they take by such sermons as that the Doctor printed What likelihood is there then of winning the Pipists by comming neerer them no no experieÌ„ce hath taught us that this policie in seeking to win the adversaries by dallying and playing with them and comming so neere them hath bredd more papists in England in few yeres then were wont to be bredd in many in so much as we have cause to feare that under colour of licking he Papists whole by this meanes the wound is become so great that all the balme in Gilead will sâ—atce salve it the case is so desperate Sect. 3. But 2. what shall we say to those opprobrious speaches which the D. casteth forth against all that mislike the ceremonies and episcopall government in saying they are new fangled and so farr caried with hatred to their persons papists he meaneth as to depart further from them then they have departed from the primitive Church And what to his vnjust The Doct. calumniateth both his Ref the reformed Churches censure of his Refut and of all that accorde in judgment with him when because he called his doctrine Antichristian he faith it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our opposites His tongue is his owne and he thinketh that none of his Lords will controwle him wherefore he spareth not to stuff a great parte of his great volume with such vnsavoury reproaches Perhaps he ment to justify at least it well appeareth he hath justifyed his ref in charging him to have given the papists much advantage for is it not a great advantage vnto them when they may if they liste assume the Doctors testimonie to disgrace those worthy divines which in other reformed Churches have abandoned the ceremonies and government controverted in our Churches with departing and that in a newe fangled and factious humor and of meere hatred to their persons from that ancient government and those lawfull ceremonies which they received from the doctrine and example of the primitive Church But it seemeth he forgatt that of Tully verecundius loquor propter Pompeium For however he vilifieth his refuter without blushing taking him to be no better then a dishclout yet considering he had so many Pompeies to deale with as his refuter mentioneth he could not but harden his face as an Adamant that he blusheth not notwithstanding their names with their testimonies and arguments and their just praises given them by other learned more then by the refuter to count all newe fanglisme and faction But 3. his freindes wil say he had good cause to be offended with Sect. 4. him that charged his doctrine to be Antichristian for who can with patience beare so heavie an imputation But the Doctor must beare it and it will stick close to his ribbs till he can remove the reason that inforceth it vpon him To witt that his doctrine tendeth to the upholding of the popish hierarchy aswell as ours and therefore is Antichristian The consequence he impugneth not all his labour is to weaken the Antecedent And first in the detestation thereof he cryeth out God forbid which brought to my minde the saying of Hazael 2. Reg. 8. 13. who when Elisha tolde him of the evill he should doe protesting against it with indignation sayd what is thy servant a dogge that I should doe this great thing and yet for all that he did it And I have heard some in my time crye fie on the Divil when they have done him great service Let vs therefore see whether the D. prayer and doings agree In the popish clergie saith he above Bishops and Archbishops the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as governours of the vniversal Church in in whom the popish â—yerarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth And againe Their government is justly called Antichristian who are his assistantes in this vniversal government The Doctors drift is as it seemeth to free him selfe from defending the popish hierarchy because he mainteyneth not eyther that headship and goverment of the vniversall Church which maketh the Pope to be properly Antichrist or that subordination and assistance vnto him in his headship which maketh the Romish Hierarchy to be properly Antichristian A poore shifte The Doct. hath a poore shift and a silly defence and a silly defence
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
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ„ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâ—lea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bâ—â—e had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâ—ster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a â—everall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possâ—â—e that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌ„ding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ„ is not the denial of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ an evidence that the answerer is coÌ„founded is not coÌ„fusioÌ„ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâ—ctâ—d Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ— sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ„ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
writinge but by tradition It is strange a matter of such consequence for the well-orderinge of all Churches to the worlds ende should be committed to such an happ-hazzard 2. And how hath the Church informed the Doctor of their vnderstandinge hath he received it also by tradition or from the writinges of the The D. first reasoÌ„ confuted by himself Lords worthies in all ages Why doth he not either quote us their bookes wherein they affirme it or give us the catalogue of such as have from hand to hand conveied it to him Till he hath given satisfaction in these particulars let him not thinke but his reader will deeme his first reason to be a speach voyde of reason yea a moÌ„strous vntruth confuted by himself as shall well appeare in the examination of his reasons followinge His second reason he laieth downe thus saying Secondly because that division of Churches which was 300. or 400. yeares after Christe with their limits and circuites was ordinarily the same which had bene from the beginning as before hath bene testified by divers auncient Councels Ordinarily and from the beginning So he saith in deed But 1. doth any Councell that he hath alleadged pag. 22. 37. or elswhere testify the circuites of the Churches to have bene from the beginning of their planting by the Apostles the same that they were in their owne times Is not all the question in those Councells of Country parishes or such partes of any Country as neither desyred to have a Bishop or were challenged of diverse Bishops The beginning therefore whereof they speake must be taken for the time of erecting Churches in Country villages and subordinating them to the Bishop of the City adjoyninge Neyther yet doe they ascribe this to any ordinance or intention of the Apostles or first founders of the Church in the Citie but to ancient custome as the words of the Ephesin Councell shew which he hath set downe Can. 2. pag. 37. ratified by ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons falsly called Canons of the Apostles 2. But why saith he the circuites were ordinarily the same Meaneth he it was no coÌ„mon use to alter them Or that it was against order and vnlawfull It cannot be the later since he confesseth pag. 23. that if there were cause sc for the greatnes of the Charge and nomber of people c. the circuites of Dioceses were lessened newe Bishoprickes erected Beholde then howe worthily the D. reasoneth The division of Churches with their circuites remayned till 400. yeares after Christe the same which it had bene from the beginning of erecting Churches in the remote parts of any Diocese and subordinatinge them to the Bishops of the Cities adjoyninge vnlesse the greatnes of the charge required the circuite to be lessened a new Bishoprick to be established Ergo it was the intention of the Apostles that the Churches which they planted should have the same Circuite before the division of parishes that they had after May not the contrary with much more probability be thus argued When the charge of an whole diocese after the distribution of parishes grewe over greate for one Bishop the nomber of people in some partes desyred to have a newe Bishop the Circuites of Churches or Dioceses were altered Ergo it was never intended by the Apostles or at least the Fathers of those times were ignorant of any such intention that the Circuite of every Church should alwayes continue the same aswell when all in City and Country were converted as when there were but a fewe But let us heare his third reason Thirdly saith he because it is confessed by Beza and testified by D. Reynoldes and others that the distribution of the Church did usuâ—llâ— fellowe the division of the CoÌ„mon wealth in so much that those Countries that were subjected to the Civill jurisdiction â—xercised in any City were also subject ordinarily to the ecâ—lesiasticall c. Is not the Doctors plenty think ye turned into mere penury when the testimony of ancient Fathers and Councells faylinge him he is gladd to seeke releife at their handes whose judgement otherwyse ordinarily and usually he rejecteth And yet alas for pity they whome he meaneth cannot yeeld him any comfort For what say they Forsooth that in the distribution of dioceses provinces and patriarchall preheminences the state ecclesiasticall followed the civill And when did the Church take up this Course Doe they say that the Apostles began it or intended any such matter No it was thought a convenient course by the Byshops after the Apostles daies for the better managing of Church-causes in their Synods and Meetings that as for civill justice so also for ecclesiasticall affaires recourse should be had to the Cityes and Shire-townes Neyther was this order vniversall or perpetuall as the Doctor himself acknowledgeth in Pergamus and Thyatira pag. 63. yea he affirmeth that by ancient custome the whole nation of Scythians having many Cities townes and Castles made but one Diocese and that the Churches throughout a large Province were but part of one Paraecia or diocese as may be sene pag. 10. 40. of this his defense Wherefore this reason of his doth also coÌ„fure and not confirme his fantasticall conceite of the Apostles intention And it argueth he spake directly against the light of his conscience when he sayd that the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood as he doth the intention of the Apostles and the first founders of the apostolike Churches Wherefore since he hath no better ground for his bolde affirmation that the circuite of each Church in the intention of the Apostles or first founders was the same before the division of parishes that it was after we may well take his conclusion which he inferreth thereupon to be layd in the sand of his owne vaine immagination viz. that though those Churches had not bin divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene dioceses But now to returne to the point froÌ„ which he hath longe wandred Sect. 11. ad sect 6. page 50. at his pleasure to little purpose he addeth that at the time of writing the Revelation it is more then probable that they conteyned diverse congregations If it be more then probable then I hope his argumentes whereon he buildeth are more then probabilities even firme and invincible demonstrations But if there be not so much as a shadowe of probabilitie in any thinge he hath alleadged no man can justly blame his Refuter if he say It is more then probable the Doctor is deceived and seeketh to deceive with his vaine braggs of proving what he avoucheth Let vs therefore examine his best probabilities The first is That when Paul had continued but two yeares at Ephesus the holy Ghost testifieth Act. 19. 10. that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare the word of the Lord. And having both placed many Presbyters amongst them and continued with theÌ„ for the space
Asia by his estimatioÌ„ therfore not in Ionia wheriâ— Ephesus stood although many doe there place it but in Carâ—a as â—omy affirmeth to whose opinion also Ioach Vadianus ut supra in this point cleaveth Now if Saint Luke doth exclude both Caria Phrygia from his Asia it will follow that Saint Iohns Asia is of a larger circuite in asmuch as it includeth Laodicea which with Ptolomy is a citie of Caria but more generally is reckoned within Phrygia To come now at length to his refutatioÌ„ of that which is objected Sect. 22. ad pag. 61. of the D. by his Refuter why our Saviour writing to the 7. Churches should not vnder them comprize all the Churches in Asia the objection standeth thus even there or neere we finde divers other Churches as thosâ— of Colossa Hierapolis and Troas mentioned in the scripture to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belong to any of these 7. The D. answereth first touching the 3. former that none of them was in Asia properly so called whereof Iohn speaketh because Troas forsooth was the same with Phrygia minor and Hierapolis and Colossa were cities of Phrygia Major Why is it possible that the D. who hath perused so many Authors both Geographers others should be ignorant that Troas is not alwayes the name of a countrie or taken for Phrygia minor but sometimes the name of a citie in Asia called Antigonie or Alexandria or is he so vnacquaynted with his Refuters opinion concerning the forme nature of visible Chur. that he should conceive he would entitle an whole countrie such as Phyrgia minor is with the name of the Church of Troas and Doth not the D. cavill against his owne conscience joyne it with the Church of Colossae and Hierapolis which he holdeth to be but particular congregations shal I say that here also he cavilleth against the light of his conscience for can he thinke that Troas which is mentioned Act. 16. 8. 11. and 20. 5. 6. and 2. Tim. 4. 13. was the countrie of Phrygia and not rather some citiâ— Troas urbs marit in littore Asiae Aret. in Act. 16. 8. in the sea costes either of the same country or some otherwhere adjoyning The truth is as the learned in Geography who have examined the townes and countries in S. Lukes history doâ— conceive that the Troas which is pointed at in the forenamed places was a citie in that countrie called Troas as appeareth by Pliny lib. 5. cap. 30. 16. who placeth Alexandria in Troas that is the citie Vide dictinar Histor Car. Step. in Alexandriaâ— or towne of Troas in the countrie of Phrygia minor Ioach Vadianus in his forenamed Epitome p. 487 intreating of those parts of Asia which are called Aeolis Troas and having placed Assos whereof Luke speaketh Act. 20. 13. in Aeolis he saith Haâ—d procul Asso promontorium Lectâ—m attollitur Aeoliam et Troada disterminans Plinio Inde Troas oppidum Colonia Romana et Apostoli etiam aetate Alexandria dictum proximum Hellesponto Tenedo Insulae in ipsis Hellesponti faucibus jacenti atque hinc Lecto illinc Sigaeo promontorio septa Ejus Lucas meminit Act. 16. 8. 11. c. 20. 5. 6. meminit ejus urbis et ipse Paulus 2. Tim. 4. 13. But as the D. saith of Colosse Hierapolis which were cities of Phrygia major for so he will affirme of Troas a citie of Phrygia minor that neither the one nor the other were within Saint Iohns Asia because Saint Luke severeth Phrygia and Troas that is in his vnderstanding Phrygia major and Phrygia minor from Asia Act. 16. 6. 8. But the answere is already made that the D. is deceived in taking Iohn and Luke to imbrace one and the same partition of Asia for the limits thereof The Apostles Peter and Iohn doe follow the most usuall vnderstanding of those that gave vnto it a larger circuite as appeareth in reckoning Laodicea a citie of Phrygia or Caria within Asia and therefore the Churches mentioned by the Refuter viz. Troas Hierapolis and Colosse being all within Phrygia are inclosed in Saint Iohns Asia But the D. hath some other evasions which cannot yeeld him the releife he expecteth It is recorded saith he pag. 61. by Eusebius in Chron that in the yeare of Christ 66. and 10. of Nero these 3. cities Laodicea Hierapolis and Colosse were overthrowne with earth quakes and although Laodicea florished againe in S. Iohns time and Hierapolis not long after yet of Colosse as Calvine observeth that shortly after the epistle written to them that Church with the rest perished so that it stood in S. Iohns time he readeth The D. shifteth not c. A poore shift for to make the best of all the allegation for his purpose it is no more then this he neither readeth nor remembreâ—h any mention of any Church at Colosse iâ— S. Iohns tyme nor of any Church florishing at Hierapolis when he wrote his Revelation and therefore he thinketh that his Refuter might have spared the mention of these And what if his Refuter should gratify him herein yet hath he no reason to deny a florishing Church at Troâ—s and another at Miletum a citie in the borders of Caria which himselfe estemeth to be within S. Iohns Asia since the Apostles made choise of that place to call thither the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 27. and there left Trophimus behind him sick 2 Tim. 4. 20. not to speak of Assos where the writers of the centuries Cent. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 2. 16. doe think there was a Church because Paul was conducted thither from Troas Act. 20. 13. 14. there to meete his companions 2. Yet if that be true which the Doctor saith that Papias was made Bishop of Hierapolis by S. Iohn let the reader judge how vnlikely it is which he would perswade that at the writing of the Revelation there was no Church at all there seing S. Iohn lived not above 4. yeares after for he wrote Anno 97. died as the Doctor will have it Anno 101. but in the account of some others Anno 100. 3. Againe what necessity is there in this consequence which the Doctor taketh for vndeniable Those 3. citie were overthrowne with the earthquake Ergo the Churches whicâ— there flourished before did then perish with the cities 4. And why doth he answere nothing touching the state of those Churches whiles they stood in that prosperity which the scripture ascribeth to them Col. 4. 13. 16. Act. 20 6. 7. If none of them then did owe subjection to Ephesus or any other of these 7. churches how should they or so many as remayned in S. Iohns time become subordinate vnto them When all is done he must seek to his first answere and see if he can make it good viz. that they were with in S. Iohns Asia Wherefore he may in his next defense buâ—ie this in silence as an idle flourish
to dazell the eyes of the simple or to shew some smal skil in histories He addeth one slender propp borrowed from Theodoret to prove that Colossae was no part of Asia Theodoret saith he being of opinion that Paul had bene at Collossae proveth it because it is said that he went through Phrygia Neyther lâ—t any man object that Paul was forbidden of God Act. 18 for Luke speaketh of Asâ—â— and Bithyniâ— not of Phrygia I graunt that Phrygia was not within S. Lukes Asia and I have proved that it was within S. Iohns Crambo bis imo sepius poâ—â—ta Asia and therefore the Doctors oft bringing in of his lame consequence cannot make him any better but the more loathsome rather And to confute Theodoret if he were more direct for him then he is I could send him to Hierome who in his prologue to the epistle to the Colossians saith Collossenses et hi siâ—â— Laodicenses sunt Asiani Some other authorities also might be added to sway the ballance with the Refuter which accounteth those Churches of Collosse Hierapolis and Troas within the limitts of Asia properly and in Saint Iohns vnderstanding so As touching Magnesia and Trallis his answer is it appeareth not that they were as yet converted to the faith and when they were converted Sect. 23. ad p. 61. 62. they were inferiour to those 7. which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subiect to Ephesus If the Doctor had remembred nowe upon his second thoughts what he spake upon his first or at least wrote in his sermon pag. 62. he would never have vsed this poore shift to make it a quaestion whether A poore shift in the Doctor Magnesia and Trallis were converted to the faith when Iohn wrote his Revelation for there to proove that Onesimus was that Angel of Ephesus to whom Iohn directed his first Epistle he thus reasoneth When Ignatius wrote his Epistle he testifieth that at that time Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus Now he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome as appeareth by his first epistle ad Marium Cassob that is to say betweene the 90. yeare of our Lorde and 99. in the middest of which time the Revelation was given Therefore it may well be supposed that the Angel of the Church at Ephesus to whom the first epistle was directed was Onesimus Yea he buildeth so confidently on this supposall that without any staggering he sayth he is able to shewe that Onesimus was at that time Bishop of Ephesus as the very man whom the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church Defenc. lib. 1 pag. 34. and lib. 4. pag. 40. With a little change the Doctors premisses will serve to justify the Ref against himselfe in this manner When Ignatius wrote his Epistles the Churches of Trallis and Magnesia flourished and enjoyed their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons neyther were any thing inferiour in estimation and honour unto other Churches as appeareth by his Epistles written to them and placed before others Nowe he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome that is betwixt the yeare of our Lord 90. and 99. And S. Iohn wrote his Revelation in the yeare 97. Therefore it may well be supposed yea it is so evidently proved that the Doct cannot contradict it that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were flourishing Churches when S. Iohn wrote his Revelation 2. But we will not make an advantage to our selves by the D. errour For that which he now affirmeth sc that Ignatius wrote his Epistle a litle before his death is more agreable to the truth if we may beleeve Eusebius to whom the D. in his sermon referreth us for the better confirmatioÌ„ of his assertioÌ„ seing Eusâ—bi Lib. 3. cap. 35. affirmeth that the epistles of Ignatius to the Churches of Ephesus Magnesia Trallis c. were written in his journey towards Rome as he passed through Asia when he was sent thither to be martyred there which fell out by the D. owne account pag. 72. of his serm in the yeare of our Lord 107 but as others think was later to wit in the yeare 109. or 111. See Bucholcer Ind Chrono log Euseb in Chron. yet Nicephorus lib. 3. cap. 2. referreth it to the 3. yeare of Trajane which was at the utmost but 6. yeares after Iohns writing the Revelation Wherefore since it appeareth by Ignatius his epistles to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis that they were at that time not newly converted as the Doctor intimateth but perfectly established and furnished aswel with Bishops as with other officers as is before noted Let the reader judg whether it be not more likely that those Churches had a beginning at least of their standing at that time then that they were not converted to the faith as the D. would perswade especially seing they were within the Province of Ephesus as he affirmeth which had so many helps to spread the faith of Christ thoughout all the corners thereof that he thinketh it absurd as we sawe before in answ to his 6. section pag. 61. that any man should make any scruple to yeeld that many particular coÌ„gregations were settled before that time within the Diocesan circuite of that Ch of Ephesus For is it not much more likely that Churches should be erected rather in some cities within the Province theÌ„ in some villages within the Diocese and if in any cities what are more likely then these wherof we speak But what shall we say to the last branch of his answere viz. that if they were Churches at that time yet they were both of them subiect to Ephesus These are his words heare we now his proofes and then give him his answere it appeareth saith he by the subscriptions in the councell of Calâ—edon and by the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperor Why doth it there appeare that Magnesia and Trallis at their first conversion were subjected to the Church and Byshop of Ephesus No but it appeareth there that in time of the councill held at Chalcedon and in the dayes of the Emperour Leo both which were at least 350. yeres after Iohns death the Byshops of Magnesia and Trallis were subject to the Byshop of Ephesus as their Metropolitane And he taketh it for granted that what soever Churches were subject to any Metropolitan citie or the Bishop thereof in those times of the Chalcedon councell and of Leo the Emperour they were subject to the Church and Bishop of the same citie from the tyme of their first imbracing the fayth But what The Doct. beggeth of his Refuter in one place what he denieth to himselfe in an other he now taketh for a knowne truth in the next page 63 he sheweth to be an apparaÌ„t falshood for there he affirmeth that Thyatira was in S. Iohns time subject to Pergam ' but in the time of the couÌ„cel of ChalcedoÌ„ subject to Synada in the Emperor Lâ—os dayes subject to Ephesus And in the same Emperours
L. nor what he hath done for Israel before they would be embraced As for the scripture proofes which are gathered by him the foundation or principall corner-stone of them which he deemed to lie in his text that is utterly dashed in the former part Which being done the rest that dependeth on that were ready to fall of themselves Yet it hath pleased his adversary for their more thorough scattering in this second part to give every one his severall knock A labour not necessary were it not that the insolent confidence wherevvith they are avouched hath I knovv not how amazed and scared some vveak and fearfull mindes but for the better bringing both of him them to themselves againe that course is taken then which there is no shorter or directer For when the question is vvhat Church Bishop is Apostolicall the next vvay is to search the scriptures hear vvhat they say of themselves before vve regard what fathers or councels doe make them say D. Dovvname therefore hath no reason to take it unkindely which yet I knovv he vvill at his adversaries hand that he hath for evidence divided the house causing holy scriptures to goe by themselves in this second part of his Reply remitting the voices of men to the last place that they also may speak by themselves When divine humane suffrages are shuffled togither in one the simple hearer perceiving a sound which seemes glorious to him though they be men that speak yet he is presently ready to cry as the people did to Herod the voice of God and not of man In confidence of this stratageme the beggerly ceremonies which we borrowed of Papists have been lately mainteyned as Apostolical The methode therefore which this writer hath followed is for the readers good His answers are such as wil speak for themselves Onely this I may forespeak in their behalf that if they seem as in the former part I feare they will in the logicall termes and formes of reasoning to be over troublesom for the coÌ„moÌ„ reader the greatest part of that blame must rest vpon the defense which they were bound to follow For the defendant taking it too much in scorne that his logick wherein of all other thinges he would be thought to excel was somewhat impeached by his Refuters analysis be did so vehemently strive to maintaine that part of his credite that his Refuter was forced to give him that triall which such logicians trust to The studious reader will beare with this necessity and seek out the truth though it lie among thornes THE SECOND PART THE FIRST BOOK Chap. 1. Concerning the word Church handled by the Doct. in his Def. lib. 2. cap. â— sect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of the 2. point of his fermon viz. that the Apostolicall Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes IN the Doct. first section I find nothing but a vaine Sect. 1. ad â—ect 1. 2. D. floorish and therefore will overpasse it without answer In his second section he telleth us that at first he intended onely a light skirmish and therefore finding that his adversary brought a maine baâ—tell into the feild against him he thought good to bring in a new supplie before he put a new life into his former arguments to make them returne upon his Refuter a fresh And for asmuch as he was to intreate of Churches Parishes Dioceses he resolveth first to begin with the names that are diversly taken and first with the word Ecclesia which he telleth us is in all places of the new Testament excepâ—â—ng Act. 19. appropriated to the companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darknes conteyning many particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Satan the other the kingdome of God this later is called Ecclesia signifiing a company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the grâ— word importeth And so concludeth with his definition of a Church thus Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say more briefely thâ— Church doth signify a company of Christians To all which I for my part most willingly subscribe and from thence doe inferre that in the Doctors vnderstanding for the present the 7. Churches of Asia meant by the 7. candlesticks in his text were none other then so many companies of Christians called out of the world divided from all the companies of Infidels or Idolaters which were Satans Synagogues in any of the cities or townes of Asia And therefore he contradicteth the truth wherevnto he now beareth The D. coÌ„tradicteth the truth himself witnes when he indeavoureth to perswade pag. 36. 42. 54. that every of those 7 Churches conteyned in their circuite the whol citie couÌ„try adjoyning although the ChristiaÌ„s at that time were but a very few in coÌ„parison of heathen And that the church or flock which in those and other cities was coÌ„mitted to the care of the presbyters there ordeyned was not onely the number of Christians already converted but the whole number also of such as were in time to be converted Whereof we may see serm pag. 66. 69. and 88. As for the Doctors table following in the next page wherein he presenteth to his Reader in one viewe the diverse significations of the word Ecclesia reduced by him unto certaine heades his reader The D. table of ecclesia is erronious in some particulars hath reason to think that he is deceived in some particulars namely 1. in carrying Act. 2. 47. and Colos 1. 24. unto the catholike company of Gods elect which is the invisible Church For 1. all that were there and then Act. 2. called by the Ministery of the Apostles were called to a visible coÌ„munion and when their number was much increased so many of them as dwelt at Ierusalem remayned members of that Church as himselfe by and by acknowledgeth in referring unto it Act. 5. 11. 2. And why should we not take that Church whereof Paul was made a Minister Col. 1. 24 25. for the same unto which the rest of the Apostles were ordeyned 1. Cor. 12. 28. that is the catholike militant church as himselfe understandeth the later place 3. And to let passe his referring Act. 8. 3. to the whole militant Church dispersed whereas it appeareth to be meant of that Church of Ierusalem which was not yet scatterd abroad as vers 1. 3. 4. compared doâ— shewe it is 4. more to be wondered at that he should also carrie to the catholike militant church that of 1. Tim. 3. 15. seing he holdeth Timothie to be the Bishop of Ephesus affixed to it to live and diâ— there And 5. not to tell him how those two agree not wel togither how 2. contradictions in the Doct. will he accord his understanding Mat. 16. 18. of the militant part of the Church
with his owne interpretation p. 106. of this book where he taketh it for that vniversall congregation of Gods elect which is spoken of Ephes 1. 22. and 5. 25. 6. As for those places which he saith doe definitely signify a Church congregated into a Synode or Congregation though by the line which is drawne in his table they seeme to belong to the Church of a nation yet I guesse they should have bene referred rather to the Church of a citie or country adjoyning And if so then although he leave it doubtfull whether it were a set or vncerteyne congregation yet he plainely acknowledgeth that by these places Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 14. 23. is meant the Church of a citie and country adjoyning gathered into one congregation and then he forgetteth himselfe in construing those words otherwise pag. 104. 105. following Yea though a contradiction in the Doct. he should now carrie those places as the line draweth them to the Churches of an whole nation yet can he not escape the blame of an apparant contradiction in his understanding of Act. 14. 27 both places of his book compared besides a grosse oversight in making the Church spoken of Act. 11. 26. 1. Cor. 11. 18. c. to be farre more large then the church mentioned 1. Cor. 1. 2. Act. 13. 1. And 7. touching the places which he taketh to signifie indefinitely any company of Christians c. it is strange he should not see as definite a limitation of the place and nation or province in Act. 9. 31. 15. 41. 1. Thes 2. 14. as there is in the places forealleaged for the Churches of a nation Rom. 16. 4. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. And no lesse strange that he which could discerne a church definitely deciphered Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 14. 19. 34. 2. Cor. 8. 23. 1. Tim. 5. 16. 3. Ioh. 6. should not discerne asmuch in Act. 15. 3. 4. 18. 22. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 1. Tim. 3. 5. 3. Ioh. 9. 10. And 8. lastly since he referreth the word Churches Apoc. 2. 7. to the same signification that he given unto it ca. 1 4 11 20. viz. definitely to the church of a citie and countrie adjoyning how is it that so soon after he understandeth the same the like Apoc. 2. 7. 17. 23 29. c. indefinitely of any company a contradiction in the Doct. of Christians not defining the place or societie whether of nation or citie c And yet as if he had a dispensation to define what the Holy Ghost hath not defined hereafter he will tell us pag. 57. that by Churches in the conclusion of each epistle Apoc. 2. 7. 17. c. we may very well understand the particular Churches which were under the charge of every angell to whom the epistles are directed Thus much to his significations of the word Church froÌ„ which Sect. 2. to the Doct. 3. sect pag 6. 6. being so manifold as he saith he proceedeth to shew what is truely properly a Church upon earth And first he saith that by warrant of the word every company of men professing the faith of Christ is both truely a church also a true church But it is more then he can prove as shall appeare in the examination of some particulars following He addeth that as the whole company of the faithfull upon earth is the true Church and spouse of Christ so also the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any nation or part of the world is to be termed by the name of a Church The former I may grant him but touching the later I must ask what he meaneth by this phrase is to be termed doth it imply a necessity or onely a liberty and conveniency If the first what reason hath he to debarre us from reteyning the phrase of speach which himselfe confesseth in the former page to be usuall in the new Testament namely to call the Christians of an whole nation Churches in the plurall number If the later whence hath he his warrant since he hath not in all his table any one place which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to the faithfull of an whole nation save onely that of Act. 7. 38. which is spoken of the Iewish people whiles they were one congregation not yet divided into severall Synagogues or Church-assemblies vnder the guidance of Moses and Aaron in the wildernes But he argueth a pâ—ri in this manner The whole people of the Iewes profissing the true religioÌ„ were one Church though conteyning very many particular coÌ„gregations or Synagogues which were also so many Churches Even so the whole people of The D. reasoneth inconsequeÌ„tly from the Church of the Lewes to the Churches of the gentiles England professing through Gods mercie the true Catholike and Apostolike faith is to be called the Church of England The consequence hereof might be denied for why should the forme and constitution of the Iewish Church vnder the law be a more fit patterne for us to follow then that form of Church-constitution which was established vnder the Gospell for the Christians of all nations both Iewes Grecians Is there not more strength in this coÌ„sequence The Christians of an whole nation are every where in the new Testament called Churches no where by the name of a Church in the singular number as Churches of Asia Macedonia Galatia Iudea Galile and Samaria 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Thes 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Ergo the Christians which at this day professe the faith of Christ in England are rather to be termed the Churches then the Church of England especially seing the number of Churches or congregations is farre greater in all likelihood then the number of families was in any one nation in the Apostles times Notwithstanding if the Doctor can as he assaieth paralell the people of England with the Iewish nation in that which properly made theÌ„ as some think one church he might take more libertie to include them al vnder the name of the church of England To effect this vnto that which some alleadge viz. that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high-Preist who was a figure and therefore ceased the Doctor frameth a double answer 1. It is evident saith he that it was one Church because it was one people or coÌ„mon wealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high-Preist and after there were through corruption more then one 2. Neyther was the high-Preist a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence and government over the Preists people but in respect of his sacrifice intercession for the whole people c. To the first I reply as followeth 1. It is evident that the Christian Iewes in Iudea were one people or coÌ„moÌ„ wealth ruled by the same lawes
justifie an untruth an high preist of Aarons line Zach. 6 11 13. yet it were grosse ignorance in the groundes of divinitie from hence to inferre that therefore Christ might have bene a Preist after the order of Iehoshua or Aaron aswell as of Melchisedeck It is apparant then that the Doctor hath proposed both a weak consequence and a false antecedent to justify the untruth of his frivolous exception Thus have we seen what successe the Doctor hath had in his indeavour Sect. 4. to prove that the name of a Church in the singular number is to be given vnto the people of an whole nation professing the faith though divided into many thowsand particular Churches He proceedeth to tell us that likewise the Christian people of any Citie or country adjoyning whether that which we call a province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregatioÌ„s is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardis Philadelphis c. I confesse that this latter hath a like right and title to the name of a Church with the former to wit by the custome of speach humane ordinance subjecting the particular Churches of an whole countrie or nation to one Diocesan or Provinciall Bishop or to one nationall Synode But I deny that the scripture doth give any more allowance vnto the one then to the other I doubt not but his proofes for the later will be found as weak as the former To drawe his wordes before set downe into an orderly forme of reasoning they must run in this fashion or the like Such a company of Christians as answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the Scriptures is rightly termed a Church But the Christian people of any Citie Country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the scripture Therefore the Christian people of any Citie and country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese is rightly termed a Church Here the assumption is a meere begging of the question for he is The Doct. beggeth the questioÌ„ not ignorant as appeareth in the beginning of his 4. sect that they against whom he contendeth doe hold that the visible Churches instituted in the new testamâ— were none other then parish asseÌ„blies coÌ„teyning one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ yet he assumeth for graÌ„ted as if they were bound to take his word for sufficient warrant that the Christians of an whole diocese or province distributed into many severall congregations or parish assembles doe carrie the same Church-constitution with the first Apostolike Churches as of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. The contrary whereof may be gathered from his owne positions in his sermoÌ„ the defense thereof For he affirmeth and mainteyneth serm pag. 18. and 22. def â—ib 2. pag. 69. and 121. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times And as here in the next section pag 6 he acknowledgeth that at the first conversion of Cities the whole number of people converted were able to make but a small congregation so he granteth afterwards cap. 6. pag. 104. that the most of the Churches during the time of S. Paul did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation Yet in Pauls time they were perfectly constituted seing in his opinion they had many of them their Bishop their Presbyterie and Deacons which as now he saith pag 7. doe make an accomplished or fully constituted Church Wherefore still there remayneth this difference betweene our diocesan and provinciall Churches and those Apostolike Churches mencioned in the scriptures as the Church at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like that congregations or parish assemblies were not multiplied in them as now they are in ours so that the name of a Church given in the scripture to the one doth not prove that it may be also rightly allotted to the other But proceede we on the Doctor at length discendeth lower and Sect. 5. ad pag. 6. saith That in like manner the Christian people of any one towne or village conteyning but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a Church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And further that the company of faithfull in one familie doth deserve the name of a Church as hath bin shewed to wit in his table pag. 4. where he citeth for that purpose Rom. 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19. Colos 4. 15. Philem. 2. Adding that to make any particular Church of a whole nation citie and country towne parish or familie familie I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but an entire church or parish by it selfe to be a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Christian consisteth the Ministerie of the word and sacraments and eutaxie or some good order of government not that all governours are to be placed in every societie or church but that the effect and benefit of the government is to redound to every particular What shall the reader say to all this Doth not the considerate beholder hereof evidently see an hoâ—ch potch of some self-conceited fancies mingled with some The D. maketh an hotch potch truthes soundly grounded Of the later sort are these viz. that the name of a Church is given in the scripture both to the Christian people of one towne or village conteyning but one congregation and to the company of faithfull in one family 2. that that which we call a parish is such a company of Christian people as make but one congregation 3. and that the Church at Cenchrea was such a parish For though he speake here doubtfully with a perhaps yet afterwards he saith certeinly it was a parish pag. 104. following 4. And there is required besides the profession of the true faith the Ministery of the word and sacraments and some good order of government to make the Christians of any citie towne or family a true visible Church Of the former sort are these supposals â—cz 1. that the people of an whole nation and citie with country adjoyning may make one visible Church aswell as the company of one towne or familie 2. and that all Church government are not to be placed in every visible Church His meaning is as afterwards he sheweth that a Bishop and his presbyterie may not be had in every parish it sufficeth if they be seated in the citie and that particular parishes in citie and country doe partake the effect and benefit of their government Which he speaketh not because he findeth in the scripture any such difference between Churches seated in cities and those that were in smaller villages but because he would perswade the simple that will take his words for payment that there ought to be the like difference for
Church-governmeÌ„t which is for civill policie betweene cities and other villages Notwithstanding I deny not but it were as absurd to desire a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish that is to say such a Lord Bishop as ours are and such a Presbytery as are the Deane and Prebends of our cathedrall Churches as to require for every village a Major and Aldermen of that state that they beare at this day in the citie of London For wee may well say with Musculus in Mat. 9. 35 Deus bone quis ferret sumptus tot equitum reliquorum de comitatu episcoporum si nostri episcopi quales eos habemus episeopatus suos circuire cogerentur c. Who goeth on and sheweth how base and unfitting a thing it is for the great pomp and state of Bishops at this day to visite poore villages and how unable such places are to beare the charge of their expences in their visitations No merveile therefore if it be too great a but then for every parish to mainteyn an whole colledg of cathedrall Clercks togither with the retinew of the Lo. Bishop 3. But herein the Doct. deceiveth his reader in conveying into his The D. deceiveth his reader by a false conceit hart this false conceit that the state of the ancient Bishops their presbyterie was no lesse unfitting in regard of their pomp and charge for a countrie towne then their condition is that pretend to be their successors at this day Thus have we heard to what particulars he stretcheth the name Sect. 6. ad â—ect 4. pag. 6. 7. of a Church as it is used in the scriptures attend we now to his coÌ„clusion All this saith he I have the rather noted because some having first strongly coÌ„ceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish have haled the places of scripture where ECCLESIA is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit c whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleadged out of the scriptures I hope the indifferent reader will discerne by the answere alreadie made that the Doctor deserveth to be censured in The D. deserveth to be censured in his own terms his owne termes viz. that having first strongly conceited all the differing formes of visible Churches which are now in use scz nationall provinciall diocesan and parishionall to be lawfull hath haled the places of scripture where ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of his conceit whereas in very truth he cannot alleadge any one testimony out of the scripture which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to such a multitude of Christians distributed into many particular assemblies as we esteeme a nationall or provinciall or diocesan Church And as for parish assemblies which conteyne one congregation though he caÌ„ scarcely affoard us any one testimony yet it is already shewed that besides the Church of Cenchreae which he acknowledgeth to be a parish he graunteth that the most of the Churches in the greatest cities during Pauls time did not exceed a populous congregation And in his own table page 4. for a Church congregated into one congregation he giveth us all these scriptures Act. 11 26. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself 14 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 22. 14. 5. 12. 19. 23. 28. 34. 35. 3. Ioh. 6. which are so many testimonies to justify the congregations which we call parishes But we need not to goe further then to his words â—mediately following for in graunting that at the first conversion of cities the whole number of the people converted being sometimes not much greater then the number of presbyters placed amongst them were able to make but a small congregation he doth acknowledge every of the ancient Churches to have been at the first such as wee call parishes That which he addeth viz. that those Churches were in constituting and not fully constituted till their number being increased they had their Bishop or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons is but a renewing of his old suite or begging of The D. renueth his old suite oâ— begging the question if he understand by the Pastor or Bishop such a diocesan Prelate as he pleadeth for And yet if by constitution he meane that forme of a Church which maketh it properly a Diocese and not a Parish he overturneth the foundation whereon he first builded his diocesan Churches in his serm pag. 18. where he affirmeth the apostolike Churches to be Dioceses properly because the Presbyters first ordeyned when as yet they had no Bishop were trusted not onely with the feeding of those few already converted but also with the care of indeavoring the conversion of the rest both in citie and country therefore he applyeth to their Ministerie that comparision of a little leaven which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe now used in the wordes following to shewe what was the office of the Bishop and Presbytery Which point how true or false it is and how fit or unfit for his purpose shall have fitter occasion to shew in the answere to his 4. chapter and to the 6. section of his third where also I shall meet with that which followeth touching the intent of the Apostles in planting Churches in cities to wit that when parishes were multiplied as was fit and necessarie upon the increase of Christians in the cities and countries adjoyning they should all remaine under the governmeÌ„t of one Bishop or superintendent seated in each citie Meane while the reader may see that the Doctor hath little cause to boast of his conquest before he hath put on his harnesse for the conflict Wherefore he but bloweth the trumpet of insolent vanitie when he faith avain blast of the D. that all the disciplinarians to the world shall never be able to shew that there were or ought to have bene after the division of parishes any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for an whole Diocese He should remember that he being the opponent in this controversie the burthen of proving lieth on his shoulders and therefore it had bene his part to have demonstrated from the scripture that which he affirmeth touching the intent of the Apostles in the first constituting of churches for one testimony from holy writ to shewe that they intended and ordeyned that the citie Church should spred her wings over the whole diocese and cover vnder the shadow thereof all the people after their conversion and distribution into many parishes writings to justify this assertion will easily draw us to acknowledg that diocesan Churches were instituted by the Apostles But til this be done though he write ten volumes more and each of them ten times greater then this yet he shall never be albe to convince the coÌ„science of his indifferent reader in the point which he vndertaketh to prove to wit that the Apostolicall Churches were properly and if not actually yet at least intentionally dioceses
congregation were not the congregation divided 3. vpon this division was there a Bishop and Presbyterie assigned to every congregation or onely one Presbyter c. Because these questions are fitted as also the former were not so much to be informed what we hold as to shewe what himselfe would have to be imbraced let us first consider to what issue he driveth the matter which is discovered in the words following pag 68 where he saith That the parish disciplinarisns doe shew themselves to be of shallow judgement their parish discipline to consist of undisgested favcies in that they imagin the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the division of parishes and after that now every congregation shall have her Bishop and Presbyterie like as that one Church had before Parishes were divided in the Diocese and that as now Ministers are appointed to atted their severall Charges so also then it was the proper office of the Bishop and his Presbyterie to attend the flock already converted No merveile if the Doctors stomach which afficteth nothing but that which favoureth the Diocesa discipline cannot digest these points yet will it be hard for him froÌ„ the resolution of his questions to gather any well digested argument to prove them vndigested sancies In the two former he presumeth as it seemeth vpon an agreement with his Refuter in these two points viz. that of those many presbyters which the Apostles ordeyned in any one Citie one onely was properly the Pastor or Bishop and the rest his Assistants And 2. that when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinary congregation the congregations were divided But in the fâ—â—st of these he grossely forgetteth himselfe For how could one of those presbyters be a Bishop if that be true which he peremptorily holdeth serm pag. 69. def lib. 4. pag. 63. viz. that the presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles to labour the conversion of the people had not any Bishop among them Moreover in denying the presbyters which assisted the Bishop to be properly Pastors of that flock which they fedd in coÌ„mon doth he not at vnawares weaken one of his best arguments framed by him against Lay-Elders lib. 1. pag. III. for the governing Elders in the church of Geneva are Pastors improperly as Beza sheweth de grad Minist cap. 9. If therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus consequently the presbyters mencioned 1. Tim. 5. 17 being the same with those of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. as he professeth lib. 1. pag. 108 If I say these Presbyters were none otherwise Pastors then improperly why might they not be Lay-Elders or how could they be properly Ministers of the word as he mainteyneth if they were not properly Pastors In the answer which himselfe maketh to the last of his questions lieth the weight of all that yeildeth him any advantage And since it inquireth altogither de sacto what was done and not de jure what in right ought to be done vnlesse he had kept himselfe within the times of the Apostles and grounded his assumptioÌ„ upon such records as may assure us of their approbation he argueth overweakely to conclude as he doth 1. that our parish assemblies at this day ought to have one onely Presbyter and not a Presbyterie to assist their Pastor because such an order was taken for those Churches which were multiplied upon an increase of converts in cities and villages adjoyning 2. that the first Presbyters were not as Ministers now are set over the flock converted onely but over the whole citie and countrie to labour their coÌ„version because upon the divisioÌ„ of coÌ„gregations in the diocese when each congregation had her Presbyter to attend it the Bishop of the citie and his Presbyterie had a generall superintendencie over all not onely to govern them and their Presbyters but also to labour the conversion of the rest And doth not himselfe weaken the consequence of his owne reasoning when he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 1. sect 9. that the Churches of former times before Constantines daies were not in all things established and setled according to their desires for in time of persecution their government was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto But how proveth he that which he assumeth for a truth not to be contradicted viz. 1. that upon the first division of congregations the ancient mother-Mother-Church onely had her presbyterie to assist the Bishop the rest of the Churches having each of them one onely Presbyter and 2. that the Bishops Presbyterie in office and charge differed from the rest of the Presbyters in this that the presbyters were restreyned to the feeding of their particular Churches the Presbytery assisted the Bishop in procuring the conversioÌ„ of such as yet remained in infidelity It is a knowne truth confessed by the Doctor that when churches Sect. 11. were multiplied in Asia after S. Paul had preached placed Presbyters at Ephesus and that with an intent as he conceiveth to work out the conversion os all Asia by the labour of those Presbyters each Church was made equall with the Mother-Church of Ephesus in this that as she so they had not one onely presbyter but a presbyterie togither with a Bishop or President to governe them For he teacheth out of his text Apoc. 1. 20. that the 7 churches of Asia had each of them her Presbyterie and a Bishop entitled by the name of an Angell moreover he acknowledgeth Def. chap. 7. pag. 23. that Timothy and Titus who were as he faith Bishops the one of all Asia the other of all the Churches in Creete were to ordeyne Presbyters in the severall cities and that by Pauls direction aswell by letter as example and addeth that he no where readeth that they assigned severall Presbyters to their severall Cures eÌ„yther in citie or countrie So then it is cleare by the Doctors own confessioÌ„ that how many Churches so ever were multiplied within the episcopall charge of Timothy Titus they all had by Pauls direction ought to haue a presbyterie and not a single presbyter in any place to attend them Wherefore for the better manifestation I say not of the Doctors wiâ—dome but of the truth or falshood of his 2. assertions mentioned in the end of the former sectioÌ„ though I presume not to oppose him yet I crave his resolution in these sewe quaestions Were not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to informe all Bishops even Diocesan Bishops if there were any such ordeyned by the Apostles and their successors unto the worlds end how to exercise their function aswell in respect of ordination as of jurisdiction see this mainteyned lib. 4. Def. pag. 75. 83. 85 if then these epistles gave theÌ„ no direction for the placing of a singular Presbyter but rather for the ordeyning of a Presbyterie or company of Presbyters for those Churches that were or should be multiplied in their charge doth it not
follow that every diocesaÌ„ Bishop ought to have a Presbyterie not one Presbyter onely to every Church that should grow up in his Diocese If he shall say that the Apostles charge of ordeyning many Presbyters for one Church was limited to cities is it not in effect to deny that the Apostle gave them any direction for diocesan Bishops how to furnish the Churches of their diocese But was the Apostles care onely for cities and not for country-townes Or did he appoint the Bishop and Presbyters of cities to labour the conversion of the townes and villages and yet give them no instrustioÌ„ how to settle a Ministerie amoÌ„g them must diocesan Bishops fetch their patterne for the right way of establishing particular Churches within their Diocese from Damasus his pontificall and the practise of Euaristus and Dyonisius that were Bishops of Rome and not from the writings of the Apostles If it must needs be so yet how shall this one poore sentence Presbyteris Romae titulos divisit Euaristus give warrantiâ—e unto these assertions 1. That each title was a distinct Church 2. That each title had one onely Presbyter and no more assigned to it 3. that those Presbyters were as he saith serm pag. 46. â—0 Pastors severed from the Bishop as no part of his presbyterie that assisted him in his Diocesan government 4. That besides those presbyters so distributed to their cures there were others which remayned with the Bishop as assistants unto him in the mother-Mother-church Till these particulars be supported with better proofes then yet the Doctor hath produced I doubt not but the discreete reader will see he was ledd by prejudice rather then by any sound reason whoÌ„ he pronounced it an undisgested sancie to affirme that as every particular Church in the Apostles times had so now it ought to have a presbyterie to governe it But say he could prove by invincible arguments that the Sect. 12. parish-assemblies which are multiplied in every Diocese ought to have one onely presbyter and not a presbyterie as the first churches had which were planted in cities by the Apostles how will he ever be able to make good that difference which he putteth betweene the presbyters of parish Churches and the presbyterie of the Mother-church when he giveth to the later and denieth to the former the dutie of labouring the conversion of all that eyther in citie or country remaine estranged from the faith It is before observed that in his conceit the presbyters of Ephesus were placed by S. Paul to indeavor the conversion of all Asia as farre as they were able and yet neverthelesse he giveth to the severall presbyteries of other cities as Smyrna Pergamus Thyatira c. the charge of converting all within their Diocese Now if the generall charge of the whole nations conversion first cast upon the presbyterie of one cheife citie be no barre against the presbyters of other cities to deny them the like charge for the rest of each citie and country adjoyning why should the Diocesan charge of any presbyterie in any one citie debarre the presbyters established in couÌ„trey townes that imbrace the gospell before some others from indeavoring the conversion of the rest in the same towne and the hamlett adjoyning If he have any testimonie divine or humane ancient or moderne to justify this difference why doth he overpasse them in silence If he have none is it not as indisgested a fancie as ever was broached by a man of learning And to come to our owne times since there is in many Dioceses great scarcity of able Teachers and the Doctor is perswaded that without the word preached men ordinarily cannot atteyne to salvation no nor yet to any degree thereof in this life viz. neyther to an effectuall vocation nor to justification or sanctification as he teacheth elsewhere serm of the dignitie and ductie of the Ministers pag. 27. I would faine knowe who there are that stand charged by office and dutie to labour the vocation of such as have not any able preacher set over them Whether the Bishop and his presbyterie or the preachers that are licensed for the Diocese or the Idol-ministers onely that have charge of soules in those places coÌ„mitted to them For why should not the Bishop Presbyterie stand charged with the office and duetie of labouring their vocation at this day if it did of old belong to their office to work out the conversion of such as remayned in unbeleefe and yet why should they beare the burthen of this work since there are many other preachers authorized for the Diocese and the Idol-ministers are by their institution to their benesices as deeply charged with the care of souls in their places as any of the mostable preachers Againe if all licenced preachers ought in dutie to lend their help for this work how shall this dutie of labouring to reduce vnbeleevers to the saith distinguish the office of the ancient Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles from the function charge of Ministers which now are allotted to their severall Cures but if the cure of souls which is coÌ„mitted to such Idols doe discharge all others froÌ„ the bond of this dutie how shall the people vnder their charge be brought vnto salvation It coÌ„meth to my remembrance at length that the Doctor saith our divines in the vniversities are ordeyned as the first Presbyters were to the nationall Church in coÌ„mon before they be assigned to their peculiar titles or cures serm pag. 50. in the Margin shall the burthen of this work relie on their shoulders I hope that in his next defense he will clearely resolve us of these doubtes meane while he must give both Refuter and Reader I think leave to think that the office and charge of our Ministers now affixed to their cures is altogither the same with the charge of those preaching Elders which were planted in the first Apostolical Churches to feed the slock that dependeth on theÌ„ Acts 20. 28. 1. pet 5. 2. that the conversion of Insidels then was none otherwise a work of the office of those Presbyters then it is the dutie of our Ministers now to labour the vocatioÌ„ of those which in parishes adjoyning to theÌ„ doe want the ordinarie meanes of their salvation The proposition therefore and the assumption of his first argument before propounded sect 4. being found weak and destitute of any stay sufficient to uphold them we are now to see if his second argument be of any more worth to inferre that conclusioÌ„ which he indeavoureth to justify viz. that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 3. Removing the second argument proposed by the Doctor to prove that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed Sect. 1. â—d Sect. 3. cap. 4. pag. 68. serm pag. 18. unto Dioceses and not to Parishes His second argument Mr Doctor himself hath thus framed When the Churches were not diuided into several Parishes
nor Presbyters assigned to their severall Titles or Cures but were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole slock seeding them that were already conuerted and labouring the conuersion of the rest so farre as they are able both in citie and country theÌ„ were not the Presbyteries appointed to Parishes but to Dioceses In the Apostles times the Churches were not diuided into severall Parishes c. Ergo in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appointed to Parishes but to Dioceses We see here how he hath himself framed it now he telleth us how his Refuter after his perpetuall manner propounded the propositioÌ„ connexively thus Is the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times nor the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures but in coÌ„mon were to attend the whole flock conuerted or to labour the conuersion of the residue then the Presbyters in the Apostles times were not appointed for parishes but for dioceses Was it a fault in the Refuter trow ye to propound the proposition connexively with astrict eye to the words of his sermon and is it praiseworthy in the Doctor to exchange it for an other coÌ„nexive propositioÌ„ wherein he also made a change of one phrase for his advantage for having The Doct. changeth a phrase for advantage at the first sayd that in the Apostles times Parishes were not distinguished now he saith the Churches in their times were not diuided into seuerall parishes which later may be true and yet the former false as we shall see anon when we come to his assumption But as a man full of charges he chargeth his Refuter with a worse fault viz. the suppressing of the force of the connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to Dioceses in leauing out as he saith the wordes of the greatest force viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God c. A worse fault in deed were it true but hath he no other way to The Doct. to disgrace his Ref. caluÌ„niateth disgrace his Refut then by so false a calumniation as this is doth he not faithfully set downe his owne wordes to wit that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flock converted and to labour the conversion of the residue In deed for brevitie sake he omitted the words following so sarre as they should be able both in the citie countries adioyning but doth not himself vse the like abbreviation pag. 66. The Doct. 2. argumeÌ„t is but a beggerly repetition of the point urged in the former lin ult pag. 67. lin ante penulr and 68. lin 14 But though I coÌ„mend him not for this yet I cannot but praise him for speaking the truth in saying that â—e force of his connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to Dioceses lieth in this that they were appointed to labour the coÌ„uersion of those that belonged to God so farre as they were able both in the citie and in the countries adioyning For this maketh good what before was touched cap. 2. sect 3. scz that his 2. argument is but a beggerly repetition of the same point which he urged in the former And seing in his reply pag. 74. to his Refuters objecting it an errour before refuted he maketh no other defence then this that â—e bâ—th prouid it to be an euident truth discouered the shallownes of their indgment that deny it It were sufficient to send him back for his answere to that which hath bene already spoken to shew the weaknes of his defense Yet to take from him all evasions as I wish the reader to see what is further observed touching the state of this argument sect 14. so I refuse not to examine what he hath brought eyther in maintenance of his owne argument or in removing his Refuters answer His proposition as he hath set it seemeth to be as he saith of sect 2. ad pag. 69. necessary and euident truth and well may it seeme so to him but all thinges are not so as they seeme yet if his reasons be of any worth I will graunt him a seeming truth in it First he asketh how the Presbyters could be assigned to severall Parishes when there were no parishes distinguished And 2. if they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God in the citie and countrey how were they not appointed to dioceses Behold here how the Doctor is driven to disioynt his propositioÌ„ like as he doth also pag. 70. lin 2. 6. and to prove the part thereof a part Why then doth he count his Refuter Def. lib. 1. pag. 148. to be no better then a grosse headed Sophister for the like course and why then did he not divide it at the first into 2. members the one concluding that the presbyters were not appointed to parishes the other that they were appointed unto dioceses But once againe to return him his owne what cannot he bring within the compasse of one of his syllogismes Now to answer his questions touching the first be it freely confessed that when Parishes were not at all distinguished Presbyters could not be assigned to several Parishes But if the Doctor had not departed from the words of his proposition whether craftily or carelesly I leave it to his owne conscience I would flatly have refused to assent to his connexion for the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles might be assigned unto parishes that is to say the Churches unto which the Presbyters were assigned might be each of them one particular congregatioÌ„ although the Churches planted by the Apostles were not as yet divided into severall parishes or distinct congregations And to the second connexioÌ„ propounded after the same maÌ„ner which he taxeth in his Refuter with an if in stead of when which word his proposition imbraceth I answer as before to the proposition of his former argument sect 4. cap. 2. It doth not followe that the Presbyters were appointed to Dioceses that is to diocesaÌ„ churches such as ours although it should be graunteth that they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God both in citie and countrey Neyther doe his questions that follow give him the least releife to justify this consquencewhich I disclaim It semeth his meaning is to perswade his Reader that the denyall of his consequence will inforce his Refuter to father this fancie that all the people which belonged to God in the citie and countrie were afterwards converred belonged to one parish And the absurditie hereof he hopeth will appeare by this that after their conversion they were divided into many parishes both in citie and countrie For answer 1. I ask why it should be more absurd to say that the people of one parish may be or were divided into many parishes then to say that the people of one Church or Diocese may be were distributed into many Dioceses or Churches but he is much deceived if he think that the denyall of his consequence will drive
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
all were leavened but by consociating many particular Churches which were distinguished some at one time and some at another as the nomber dayly increased vnder the the oversight of one diocese or provinciall Bishop His second comparision of a man who consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct if it be well weighed maketh more for his Refuter then for himself For as it is willingly granted that a man in his first conception hath no distinct members so it is as freely professed that it is no man to speak properly much less is it such a man as the Doctor is Wherefore that which he presupposeth in his comparison viz. that the Churches planted by the Apostles before parishes were multiplied in the cities and countries annexed were Dioceses even so as a womans ofspring is a man before the parts of an humane body are formed and distinguished this I say argueth with the Refuter and against the Doctor that The D. argueth against himself and for the Refut it is no less absurd to say that the first Apostolike Churches which had no parishes distinguished in their circuite were notwithstanding properly Dioceses yea such as ours are at this day then to affirme that a childe in his first conception before the parts of his body are framed is yet properly a man yea such a man as all others that are borne and converse among men We have heard how well he hath bestowed his paines for recoverie Sect. 10. ad sect 6. pag. 73. of his proposition out of his Refut hands it remaineth that we attend what he saith for the rescuing of his assumption which hath these parts 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures 3. that they were not onely to attend the whole flock converted but also to labour the conversion of the residue 4. and that in both these duties they must labour in cōmon In what sense the first is contradicted by the Refuter we have seen before sect 3. where was also noted how farre it differeth frō that which he now giveth in stead thereof viz. that the Churches planted in cities as at Ephesus Antioch c. were not in the Apostles times divided into Parishes from whence he may recieve a direct answer which here he expecteth to his question whither the Churches were thō divided into parishes or not viz. that although the Apostles did distinguish parishes by constituting particular congregations in severall places that is in each towne or citie that enterteyned the faith one Church-assembly yet none of the Churches which they established in any towne or citie was in their times subdivided into severall parish assemblies But what shall we say to that two horned argument which thus disputeth for his advantage If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times as at Alexandria it seemeth to have beene then was not every Church but one parish Is they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures and so the Assumption is true The Doctor taketh on imediately after these words against his Refuter for being transported with a spirit of contradiction whereof by and by in the meane time is not the Doctor The Doct. contradicteth him himselfe a strange kind of disputer that will contradict one branch of his owne assumption to justify his maine conclusion and yet assume the same to confirme another part of his assumption and then make his boast that his whole assumption is true But to answer him in kind thus I reply If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times then his assumption in the first branch is false if they were not then each Church in their times was but one parish that is to say one congregation and so he erreth in his maine conclusion And that he may see I use not this regestion because his argument hath put his Refuter to a nonplus for a more direct answere I give him to wit that his first horn hath a weak consequence his second is sophysticall The one is weak beause that which maketh an Church bearing the name of this or that citie as the Church of London or Sarum to be more thē one parish is not the distribution of the people of each diocese into many parishes but the combining of the parishes so divided into one Diocesan body If therefore he will prove the Church of Alexandria or any other which he supposeth to have been divided into sundry parishes in the Apostles times not to be one parish he must make demonstratiō of that which he often averreth but neyver proveth by any testimony divine or humane to wit that the parishes which issued out of the citie-church by such division were subordinated to her jurisdiction as daughter churches to their Mother The other is sophysticall because in saying the Presbyters were not assigned to severall parishes untill the Churches were divided into parishes he taketh the Presbyters not joyntly for the Presbyteries whereof his conclusion speaketh but singly for each Presbyter or Minister apart For we may grant that the assignement of one Presbyter to take the charge of one parish followed in course of time the multiplying of parishes in one Diocese and yet mainteyne that Presbyteries were appointed to severall parishes that is to say to particular congregations before any Church planted in cities by the Apostles was divided into severall parishes Wherefore had the Doctor regarded in what sense the Refut taketh these words Presbyters and Parishes or severall Cures when he denieth the two first branches of his assumptiō he would never have made so srivolous a flourish as he doth both here afterwards pag. 76 of a false conceited contradiction for his perswasion that every of the Apostolike churches was but one parish made him to censure the assumption as voyd of truth in that it denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times and the presbyters or Presbyteries ordeyned by them to be assigned unto their distinct charges Neyther shall the Doctor ever be able to prove though he strive til his heart ake that in this impugning of his assumption he contradicteth his owne perswasion formerly delivered But let us see how he freeth his assumption from the errors or Sectiō 11. ad pag. 74. untruthes objected against it First touching the third point before set downe viz. that the Presbyters were not onely to attend the converted but labour the conversion of the residue he was told that it was but the repetition of an errour before noted in the former argument whereto he answereth nothing but that he hath proved it to be an evident truth Wherefore his proofes being disproved the errour remaineth unsalved And the repetition of it seing he cōfesseth it to be of greatest force to prove that the Presbyteries were appointed to Dioceses pa. 70. argueth him to have ill distinguished
for Doctor to winde out of the bryars of a coÌ„tradiction if his speaches be well compared Neyther can he so easily as he supposeth remove that disadvantage Sect. 15. which his Refuter presseth upon him in this argument following If the word ecclesia there vsed to signify that Church and all one with the word flock doe signify any other company of men then a particular congregation onely then is there no truth in the assumption that denieth parishes to be distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their severall cures But the first is true Therefore also the second Nay sayth the Doctor the contrary rather is to be inferred thus If the word Church did signify one congregation and was in every citie but one and if such was the flock which the Presbyters were appointed to attend then it followeth that the flock was not divided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to severall cures Loe here againe how the Doctor choppeth and changeth at his The Doct. â—hoppeth chageth pleasure that first branch of his assumption For whereas at the first it simply denied parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times now he maketh it to deny no other distinction of parishes then the division of one parish into many For as often before so now and againe must I ring it into his eares that when his Refuter holdeth in this question the Apostolike Churches to be parishes his meaning is as the Doctor knoweth very well that each of those Churches was but one particular congregation If then it be granted that the word ECCLESIA Church doth nor in the Apostolike writings signify any other outward coÌ„opany of men the such as were gathered into one particular assemblie it will follow that the visible Churches to which that word is referred in their writings must be acknowledged to be parishes and consequently there can be no truth in that assumptioÌ„ which denieth parishes to be distinguished and presbyters assigned to severall parishes But rather then the disgrace of any untruth shall lie upon the Doctors assumption he will reject the assumptioÌ„ of his Refuters argument which denieth the word ecclesia to signify any other outward company of men then a particular congregation onely For he telleth us he hath already sayd more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But for ought he hath alleadged from the scripture which is the onely guide of the conscience in questions of this nature more hath been sayd to confute his slender objections then upon his third thoughts he wil be able to produce for the fortifying of them And as for that he here addeth touching the word poimonion or poimne it discovereth his will to be more then his strength to confute any thing his refuter hath delivered First whereas he had sayd that the word to wit the English word flock for the gr word was not at all mencioned is ordinarily used of beasts fowles that heird and flock togither in one company the Doctor falsly chargeth him to have sayd that the word poimnion or poimne is so vsed and then in great modestie professeth it is beyond the compasse of his reading c which is but to fight with his owne shadowe for he should if with truth he could have sayd that he never read or heard the word flock applyed to fowles Secondly it is to no purpose to tell us that the flock of Christs sheep mencioned Luk. 12. 32 and Ioh. 10. 16. is not one onely particular congregation unlesse he could say and prove that the word in those places signifieth an outward company of men making one visible Church of larger extent to use his owne words pag. 75 then one onely assembly But himselfe acknowledgeth as the truth is that in Iohn 10. 16. the vniversall Church of Christ which comprehendeth the elect yet unconverted and therefore is invisible is vnderstood by that one flock whereof he is the great shepheard And that little flock to whom he speaketh Luc. 12. 32. feare not little flock c. is none other then that coÌ„pany of his disciples which then were his hearers and as a little flock or congregation cleaved to him as their Pastor and Teacher as appeareth by the text it selfe vers 1. 22. 32. 41. and besides the judgement of many worthy divines writing thereon the vse of the word to the same purpose elswhere as Math. 26. 31. Wherefore the Doctor hath nothing worth the objecting against that assertioÌ„ of his Refuter which affirmeth the flock and Church whereto the Presbyters were assigned Act. 20. 28. to be one onely particular congregation so that if he will stand as he seemeth to be willing to the judgement of the judicious Reader I make no doubt but he wil be found as his Refuter first tolde him to have dealt full weakly in a point of so great importance Chap. 4. Wherein is maintâ—yned their objection who affirme that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned to one onely congregation of Christians and therefore not to Dioceses properly but to Parishes Handled by the Doctor serm pag. 19. and Def. pag. 78. c. and Refuter pag. 60. c. IT pleased the Doctor to make answer to certeyn arguments objected Sect. 1. ad pag. 78. partly by himself and partly by his Refuter to prove that the visible Churches in the Apostles times were not Dioceses properly but Parishes they are now to be examined But first the conclusion it self is to be cleared from one quarrell made against it by the Doct. pag. 78. viz. that there must be added and in the age following because as he saith themselves include in their question 200 years The Reader therefore is to be advertized that himselfe layeth downe their assertion whom he contradicteth in these 3. members serm pag. 4 viz. 1. that properlie there is no visible church but a parish 2. nor lawfull Bishops but parishonall and 3. that for the space of 200 yeares after Christ there were no other but parish-Bishops And he which peruseth Mr. Iacobs booke intitled reasons c. proving a necessity of reforming our churches froÌ„ whence the D. draweth that extent of 200 yeares shall see that aswell concerning Churches as Bishops he distinctly handleth First what they are and ought to be by divine or Apostolicall ordinance and afterwards what their state and condition was for the first 200 yeares after Christ And although the Doctor in that conclusion which he tendreth to be proved serm pag. 17. mencioneth the age following the Apostles times yet he tieth not himselfe to that terme neyther in the arguments first proposed by him nor yet in this defense hitherto continued Nay his arguments doe bound themselves within the Apostles daies the later which generally concerne the ancient visible churches are directly bent against that first assertion of theirs which saith The visible Churches instituted by the Apostles were properly Parishes that is particular congregations not
Dioceses But however the D. may at his pleasure wholly leave out the age following or wander for his proofes beyond that coÌ„passe to Constantines daies and the ages following his time yet his Refuter must be bound to the stake precisely to conclude that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times but also in the age following Parishes properly not Diocesâ—s Yea even then when he discerneth pag. 100 that two rancks of Instances are produced to prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth the former taken out of the scriptures the later out of the fathers he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200 years A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude then by direct answer to infringe that which is objected But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall of multiplying of parishes in cities of combyning many congregations in one diocesan body I will therefore with the Doct. leave first take a view of that which is objected answered touching the state of the Churches which were of greatest note in the Apostles times To begin then with the objection which himself propoundeth Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem pag 79. his purpose was to contradict not the maine question though he so affirmed but the conclusion of his 2. last argumeÌ„ts which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64. And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question to make it more strong for his advantage I will apply it to the point whereat he aymeth with a supply onely of those words which are by him suppressed yet necessarie to be added The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles togither with the presideÌ„ts of the Presbyteries were assigned each of them but to one particular ordiâ—â—try congregation assembling togither in one place Therefore they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese To the consequent I add these words but for a parish to make the contradiction the more full because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses And for the same cause I also add to the Anâ—ecedent these words ordâ—yned by the Apostles The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place is a parish and not a diocese Therefore what is provided but for one such congregation the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese This latter connexion cannot be impugned The consequent or conclusion is the proposition which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthymem The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their assertion against whom he disputeth serm pag. 4. and in affirming here def pag. 79. that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof Onely he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition when he saith that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations For saith he iâ— proposition have no better hypotheses to support it I may deny it seing I have proved before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes But I answere that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth I need not seek any new propp to uphold it it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter sect 9. where he may if he shut not his eyes see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning that the Apostolike Churches before the division of parishes in the city Country annexed could not any otherwise be properly dioceses then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man before his body have the distinct members so that to returne him his owne phrase the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned viz. that the presbyteries and their presidents ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned each of them but to one particular ordinarie congregation assebling togither in one place the Doctor hath no cause to blame us though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument which he framed for us for I suppose none of our side were so foolish as to deliver for the proof thereof that assertion which he tendreth to us to wit that in the first 200. yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one such congregation Wherefore till he produce his Authour from whom he received this argument I will pray leave to think he forged it for his owne advantage that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much to wit that all the members of those Churches wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place Against which proposition rightly vnderstood of the time when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination I find no just exception taken eyther in his sermoÌ„ or this defense seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes to the age following whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his mayne conclusion Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was at the time of giving presbyteries to them if we say they exceeded not one congregation is it not a frivolous cavill to answere that they farre exceeded the proportion of one congregation in the next age following and the later part thereof It is apparant therefore that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares in the age following the Apostles were inserted into this question by the Doctor both here and afterwards pa. 100 onely to give him some colour of a just exception against his Refuters reasoning and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times to the ages following But let us see how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect 4. 2d 79. 80. selfe in this Enthymem In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled
take an ell was his Refuters liberalitie nothing worth wheÌ„ he was content to annexe unto the citie the towns adjoyning that had any distinct Church in them Did the Doctor at first find himselfe able to confound the former Antecedent which spake onely of the Christians that were within the citie and to prove it not onely false but also unreasonable and incredible And is he nowe too weak to consute that assertion which for his advantage is tendred to him in stead of the former viz. that all the Churches in any great citie and such townes adjoyning as had not any distinct Church in them made but one particular congregatioÌ„ must he haue all the townes annexed to the citie and this also freely graÌ„ted that in some of those townes there were distinct Churches blame him not though he affect this well for he findeth himselfe man good enough to incounter with such an assertion as this if his Refuter would mainteyne it against him viz. that all the christians in a great citie and the townes adjoyning though there were distinct Churches in some of those townes made but one particular congregation Meane while to case his hart of that foreconceited feare which the sight of the parenthesis in his Refuters AntecedeÌ„t cast him into 1. he sporteth himself with some unsavorie jests which argueth that the ridiculum caput he speaketh of cleaveth close to his owne shoulders and at length full soberly he undertaketh to shewe that the inclosure before meÌ„tioned bewrayeth both weaknes in the consequence and falshood in the Antecedent First touching the consequence he judgeth it as weak as the Sect. 6. former because he seeth not to what purpose the townes are added because the parishes be excepted The former overmuch mirth of the Doctor hath as it seemeth marred his memorie for he sawe well enough before to what purpose the townes were added namely to strengthen the consequence of the first Enthymem framed by himself against one branch of his answere which affirmed the Presbyters to be divided aswell for the country as citie For the Refuter desirous to come as neere to the Doctor as the truth will give leave acknowledgeth that the Christians which inhabited the townes or country round about the citie made their repaire vnto the citie there to joyn with the inhabitants thereof in the publick worship of God till their number so increased that they might conveniently enjoy a distinct Church in some one or moe of those townes And as it was meet the Refuter should yeeld so farre to the Doctor so is it absurd and against coÌ„mon sense he should be denied to except those townes that had a distinct Church seated in them But will you see how strongly the Doctor impugneth the consequence as it now standeth with this inartificiall argument q. d I cannot see to what purpose that addition serveth Therefore this later consequence is altogither as weak as the former Had the Refut at any time argued so loosely to infringe any of the Doctors consequences he had been worthy to beare this censure that his facultie is better in denying consequences then in proving them But the Doctor not being yet returned to his right temper at this time is to be borne with not onely for this fault but also for a worse in charging the Antecedent of falshood when he hath nothing to alleadge that directly impugneth it yet let us give him the hearing By this inclusure saith he the Antecedent it bewrayed of falshood for The D. to charge his Refuter with falshood delivereth a double untruth and yet to no purpose if there were in the citie and countrey more distinct Churches or Parishes as here is supposed and these all subor dinate to one as I have manifestly proved then all these will make a Dincese Behold here a double untruth propounded to conclude a falshood in his Refuters Antecedent yet all wil not serve the turne when he hath done the most he can For first the parenthesis in the Antecedent doth not necessarily suppose that the townes round about every citie had distinct Churches in them onely it holdeth the matter in suspense touching some one or moe townes in some countries because as the Doctor remembreth Cenchreae neere unto Corinth was a distinct church and in such a case it excepteth such townes and annexeth to the citie church the rest Neyther is it true that he hath manifestly proved the subordination of many Churches unto one within the Apostles daynes no nor yet within the first 200. yeares after Christ But say there were a truth in both his untruthes and graunt him also that which he inferreth to wit that many Churches subordinate to one will make a Diocese how doth this convince the refuters Antecedent of falshood Did not his passions blinde his judgement when he imagined there is strength enough in this cosequence for thus he reasoneth Many Churches in citie and country subordinated all to one do make a Diocise Ergo all the Christians in a citie and the townes adioyning which have no distinct Church in them must needs make more then one particular congregation But perhaps he correcteth his owne errour in the words following when he faith I say therefore againe that though their Antecedent were true yet the consequence were to be denied The which what is it but to run from one errour to another For it is before observed that the conclusion which the Refuter slandeth here to mainteyn is no other in effect then this that the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned not to the overfight of many Churches but to one onely congregation Now if there be a truth in his Antecedent which affirmeth that at that time the Christians in any citie and townes around it such namely as had no distinct Churches in them made but one congregation the consequence of the argument cannot be infringed otherwise then by shewing that the presbyters received from the Apostles not onely the charge of that one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ but also the govermeÌ„t of some other churches established in some other eyther more populous or more remote townes Which to demonstrate it sufficeth not to assume this that many churches subordinate to one doe make a Diocese but good proofe must be added also that this subordination of many Churches in countrey townes to the Church of the citie tooke place in the time of the Apostles and was ratified by their allowance Having thus freed the Refuters Enthymem from the Doctors Sect 7. frivolous exceptions I will once againe produce it to his viewe but in another forme which shall not affright him as the former parenthesis did in a plaine syllogisme therefore which kinde of argument he best affectâ—th thus I reason All the Christians which in the Apostles tymes dwelt in and about any great citie and were called the Church of that citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place But all those Christians were
Ergo also the second To make good the consequence of the Proposition he said that it standeth upon the foundation which the Doctor himselfe layd in the first argument drawne from his text neyther was he therein deceived for in this defense cap. 2. sect 2. he confesseth that he presupposed all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government to be like to those 7 because it is not to be doubted but the primitive Churches indued with that power were of like nature and constitution But the Doctor burieth all this in silence and as if the Refuter had intreated that the consequence might passe without controulment he seemeth vnwilling to yeild him so much favour vnlesse it may be lawfull for him to use another which he saith is like viz. that if the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishonall Churches in the first 200 yeares he meaneth unto the full end of that terme then neyther were the Churches of other cities And then telleth us But they were not parishonall churches as for Rome he had proved and for Alexandria would prove therefore concludeth so of the rest Well let us reason a little with him is the consequence indeed the same so he saith but doth he speak as he is perswaded if not why setteth he such a face of truth upon a lie If yea why inwrappeth he his owne feet in the snare that he layeth for another for whether he disclaime or allow the consequence and the hypothesis whereon it is grounded will he nil he he must beare the blame of a foule contradiction To disclaime it is to overthrow as before is noted the foundation of his owne argument pa. 42. To allow it is to make way for the utter ruine of A foul cotradiction in the D. that assumption which he urgeth for a double advantage p. 69 122. lin 1. for if that may be verefied of all other Churches which he avoucheth here and pag. 124 for certeinty of Alexandria and elsewhere pag 50 and 122 denieth probable in some others then by the like consequence alike grounded on the same hypothesis we may conclude that all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were also divided into diverse parishes even in the Apostles times deserveth not the D. now to be beaten with his owne cudgell pag 73. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction that he should not care so he may gainsay his adversaries present affertion how shamefally he contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with the Doctor Notwithstanding I can easily free the Refuter from that disadvantage which the D. conclusion threatneth For we can and wil hold our owne consequence for a truth on both parts already assented to till we heare him directly contradict the hypothesis whereon it is grounded as himselfe acknowledgeth viz. that all churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were at the first of the same nature and constitution but the later shall hang in suspence till he hath proved that it is grounded on the same hypothesis For in our apprehension his consequence presupposeth that all Churches were alike not in that nature and constitution wherein they stood at the first but in this alteration wherein Alexandria Rome went before others namely to be distinguished into many parishes whereas all at their first planting were vndistinguished as himselfe confesseth To passe therefore forwards to the Assumption because the Sect. 2. ad sect 2. pag. 102. Refuter saith it appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars Mr. D. asketh whether his syllâ—gismes are so soone come to an end and perceiving that his cheefe proofs are that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one congregation he further asketh whether this was his Assumption whereto I answer that for brevity sake the Refuter omitted the contriving of his proofes into forme of syllogisticall reasoning presuming as the Doct. saith elswhere in his owne defense pag 79. that any man might from that which the Doct. observeth to be his cheife drift conclude his assumption thus The Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalem were each of them in the Apostle Pauls time no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore they were each of them at that time but one parish But the Doctor having wronged his Refuter before by stretching his assumption beyond the age of the Apostles to the full term of 200 yeares holdeth on and doubleth the wrong by reteyning the same addition of 200. yeares that he might have the more colour to cavill with the consequence of the argument to charge his Refuter with playing the Sophister in taking that for graunted which he did not so much as dreame of viz. that each of those Churches continued one congregation and so one parish for 200. yeares because they were but one congregation in the Apostles times Wherefore what he objecteth to infringe this consequence I overpasse as unworthy the answer seing he forged it for the nonce to cavill with True it is that the consequence of the Entoymem before set down presupposeth a truth in this assertioÌ„ scz that those Churches are parishes whose people are no more then such as ordinarily assemble in one place And the Refuter deemed it a vame of time and labour yea meere folly to call into question that which was of the Doctor assented unto serm p. 4 viz. that when we affirme and he denieth every visible Church to be properly a parish by a parish is meant a particular ordinary coÌ„gregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God Wherefore in denying nowe the consequence of the argument before delivered what else doth he but play the wrangler For he that meaneth truely to bring the matter controverted to the right issue will never offer to gainsay what is certaine and confessed And because he saith that the reasons of his deniall are set downe at large cap. 3. sect 5. 6. I must tell him that I finde nothing there that directly controuleth the hypothesis of our coÌ„sequence here to wit that every Church which maketh but one ordinarie congregation is a parish And whatsoever is there sayd touching the point then in hand it is sufficiently to use his owne words overthrown already Wherfore let us hear those 2. ReasoÌ„s which for a surplussage as he saith he now addeth The first is this If these Churches because they were each of them one congregation were parishes Sect. 3. ad pag. 103. before the division of parishes then they were such Churches as after the division parishes were But they were not such Churches I will adde the conclusion Ergo neyther were they parishes before the division of Parishes because they were each of them one congregation First I praye the Doctor to tell us what moveth him to tumble into the conclusion and consequent of the proposition this clause before the division of parishes Where
He hath courage enough to do the one but it seemeth he wanteth that grace that should doe the other And touching the proofes when he saith he cannot yeeld to all would not a man think he did allowe of some and yet snarleth at every one But if a man should ask him for his best proofes that he can pâ—oduce to justify that which he acknowledgeth scz that the most of the Churches in Pauls time did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation could he finde think ye in the Apostolicall writings any more pregnant allegations to countenance his assertion then such as the Refuter hath produced Well let us give him the hearing in his exceptions First in the scriptures alleadged he takâ—th occasion from the date of them being before the yeare 55. or 60 to weaken his argumentation for it soundeth in his eares as is he had sayd If before the yeare 55. or 60 they were but The D. is â—pilanthanominâ—s cautouÌ„ one congregation then they were no more untâ—ll the yeare 200. See how soon the Doctor forgetteth himselfe for his owne pen testifyeth lin 1. 2. of this very page 104 that both the maine argument and the proofes thereof doe speak of the Apostles time And can any matter questioned concerning the state of any Church or Churches in the Apostles time be proved from the scripture otherwise then by those testimonies that their writings affoard He that can argue at his pleasure from the condition of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time see his defense for this lib. 2. pa. 45. and 47. and lib. 3. pag. 21. to conclude all other Churches to be such as they were for the first 200 yeares and from the stare of the Churches that flourished in the third or fourth age after Christ to prove that the Churches Bishops established by the Apostles were of the same constitution doth he not shew himselfe an egregious wrangler when he wil not admit the testimony of S. Paul and S. Luke to be sufficient for the time of the Apostles because S. Iohn lived 40. yeares or more after the date of their writings especially when no alteration can be proved by any other evidence as himselfe confesseth pag. 101. lin 21. But perhaps he hath exceptions of more weight against the particulars For touching the church of Corinth he saith the thing that is testifyed for it 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20. 33. is such as might be written to the Church of England False and absurd can it be affirmed of all the people professing the gospell in England that they come or for their number may come togither en te ecclesia epitoauto in one Church or into one place to eat the Lords supper but the words of the Apostle vers 18. 20. 33. doe by consequence imply that the faithfull which then were members of the Church in Corinth to whom he writeth came togither in one church assembly and into one place or at least for their number might in dutie ought so to assemble togither to eate the Lords supper Compare the tenour of the Apostles words sunerchomenoon humoon c. v. 18. 20. with the like phrase of speach 1. Cor. 5. 4. sunachthentoon humoon c. Math. 22. 34. 41. and 27. 17. Act. 20. 7. 8. 25. 17. 28. 17. sunegmenoon vel sunelthontoon c. and it will appeare that a concurse into one place for one worke is imported by the very word sunerchomai though it had no other wordes annexed to inforce that construction Neyther can any one instance be given where it noteth such a distribution into many severall societies as must be implied in it if it should be applyed to the Church of England which cannot possibly be gathered into one place for the celebration of the Lordes supper But why doth the Doctor bury in silence that other testimony 1. Cor. 14. 23. c. Ean oun sunâ—lthe he ecclesia holee epi to auto What did he skip because he could not spell Doubtlesse his owne conscience told him the simplest of his readers would have discerned that he had spoken against coÌ„mon sense if he should haue sayd that the like might be affirmed of the Church of England viz. that the whole church coÌ„meth togither into one place And yet he was loth to acknowledge that those words evidently approve the Ref assertion touching the Church of Corinthe viz. that their number was no more then such as ordinarily assembled for the worship of God into one place Secondly whereas he saith that what is testifyed for the church Sect. 6. ad pag. 105. of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. might be applyed by a Bishop in his visitation to all the Ministers of a Diocâ—se What else is it but a direct contradiction of that truth which himseffe hath already approved pag. 75. A flat contradiction in the D. viz. that those Presbyters attendâ—d one flock in common that is coÌ„muni coÌ„cilso et mutuâ— auxilio and were not assioned to severall parishes or parts of the flock For how can that speach which importeth a coÌ„mon charge given to many Presbyters over one flock or congregation not yet distinguished into severall parts or members fitly be applyed without any change in the meaning of the words to a multitude of Ministers which have every one their particular flock or portioÌ„ of people committed to his peculiar oversight If the Doct. shall eyther here or in the for his defense that these speaches may be fitly applyed though in a differing sense to such purpose as he affirmeth it may be replyed that if he confesse the sense to be differing he discovereth his answer to be deceitfull but it is false and absurd if the construction of the words be one the same As for that which he addeth touching the word flock that it may be extended to a nationall provinciall or diocesan Church what meaneth he still to presume that his bare word will be taken for currant payment I confesse it is sometimes put for the vniversall Church as Iohn 10. 16. but he can alleadge no place in all the Apostolical writings where it is given to any visible church that comprized in her circuite many distinct congregations Wherefore he can with no shew of reason contradict his Refuter in affirming it to be a new conceite void of reason to imagine that the church of Ephesus was a Diocesan flock consisting of many congregations Moreover how can we in the interpretation of the scripture admit any word whose signification is questioned to be extended vnto a thing which at that time had none existeÌ„ce in rerum natura or how can he affirm without contradiction to the truth elswhere acknowledged that the Church of Ephesus was a nationall or provinciall Church for provinciall Churches grew up by the combinatioÌ„ of many Dioceses vnder one Metropolitan Bishop as himselfe affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 21 but as yet Ephesus had no Bishop at all if that be true which
single out an other if the cheife care of that whole Church and the oversight of all Bishops or Ministers that there laboured in the Gospell were the standing right and singular prerogative of Epaphroditus And till the Doctor hath yeilded some stronger probabilities for his assertion then are yet seene I nothing doubt but the indifferent reader will see and acknowledge that from the text it selfe we have more reason to denie then he hath to give to Epaphroditus the singular superiority of a diocesan Bishop in the Church of Philippi Secondly concerning those brethren that were sent with Titus to the Corinthians since the principall ende of their Embassage was to stirre up those of Corinthe to make ready their benevolence for the poore Saintes at lerusalem 2. Cor. 8. 6. 24. 9. 3. 5. it is not likely that the Apostle Paul would be the author or approver of applying in this service any that were affixed as Bishops to the selted charge of particular Churches especially seing there was at that time store of others that accompanied the Apostle in his traveiles and might better be spared as having no setled imployment in any one place Moreover it may be probablie if not necessarily gathered from the Apostles description of those men that they were Evangelistes rather then Bishops Of the one he saith 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. his praise is in the gospell throughout all the Churches and not that onely but he was chosen also of the Churches to be suntcdemos bemoon our fellow-traveiler or companion in our journey c. And of the other vers 22. We have oftentimes proved him to be diligent or carefull in many thinges c. But there is not one word that intimateth any bande whereby they were tied to the selted charge of any particular Church or Churches much less can it be gathered from the Scriptures that they had the singular preheminence of diocesan Bishops Wherefore leaving the Doctor to his meditation upon these considerations let us proceed to some other particulars urged by him to justifye the title of his 3. chapter viz. that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops Chapt. 5. Shewing that the supposed Bishopprick of the Apostle Iames is not supported but contradicted by the scriptures which the Doct. alleadgeth And mainteyning the Refuters reasons produced to prove that he receyved not the episcopall power or function by any ordinatiō from his fellows Apostles bandled by the D. serm pag. 62. c. Def. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. and the Res pag. 131. 132 c. THe Doct. 3. argument is thus propounded pag. 65. of his sermon Sect. 1. ad cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 48. 49. The Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops and committed the Churoches vnto them Therefore the opiscopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution First touching the consequence because the Refuter sayd it was too nere a neighbour to the proving of idem per idim venlesse by ordination we understand the deputing of persons to that Church and by institution the appointing of the calling it self the Doct. thinketh he did him wrong to think he would commit so grosse a fault as to prove the same by the same seing he could not but discerne that he argueth from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function But had not the Refuter trow ye reason to doubt of the Doctors meaning doth he not serm pag. 92. take both these assertions for one and the same viz. that the episcopall function is of divine institution and that Bishops were ordeyned of God For if they be not one in the D. apprehension how shall the direct proofe of the latter be a direct proof of the former But since he now testifieth that he argueth from the ordination to the institution I will so vnderstand him In that which followeth I cannot but commend his honest and plaine dealing for beholding an oversight in the Ref when in this sense he acknowledgeth the consequence to be good he himself vndertaketh to lay open the weaknes of it and confesseth freely that a just exception may be taken against it viz. that though the Apostles ordeyned the persōs yet Chirst instituted the function for that is the judgment of many of the Fathers and among the rest of Cyprian who Lib. 3. ep 9. saith that our L. himself ordeyned Apostles that is to say Bishops Whereto I say that we are beholding to the Doct. that teacheth us to impugne his owne argument and now since by his owne confession the consequence is not good he must be beholding to us if we permit it to passe without check for in deed it is a cleare case that the ordination of persons cannot prove the function it self to be instituted of them that give the persons their ordination And here by the way the reader may see how lightly the D. esteemeth the judgment of the Fathers in this very question wherin he relieth most upō their testimonie For if al those Fathers which affirm the Bps to be the Apostles successors that the two degrees of Bps or Presbyters doe answer to the degrees of the Apostles 72 disciples c. doe hold the episcopall functiō to be Christs owne ordinance as here he confesseth and if they that thus teach be so many so ancient vnsuspected and approved that it cannot be denied but the calling and superiority of Bishops togither with the inferiour degree of Presbyters is of Christs owne institution as he concludeth lib. 3. p. 32. how cōmeth it to passe that the Doctor hath the forehead eo deny it and mainteyne so stifly as he doth that The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the episcopall function was instituted by the Apostles Thinketh he to salve this difference by saying as he he doth that of this matter he will not contend when as yet he contendeth very earnestly to make good his assertion yea he boasteth lib. 3. pag. 24. that he hath with such evidence demōstrated the calling of Bishops described in his sermon to be of Apostolicall institution as he is wel assured his Refuter with all his partakers will never be able soundly substācially to confute Perhaps his best evidēce is yet behind for hitherto we have seene nothing that carrieth any such weight with it that the Refuter should neede to call for any help of his partakers to remove it let us therefore attend on the proofe of his Antecedent which he vndertaketh to effect by shewing the time when the places where and the persons whome the Apostles ord yned Bishops Concerning the time the Doctor putteth a difference between Sect. 2. ad sect 2. p3 49. 50. the Church at Ierusalem and the rest For there because shortly after Christs passion a great nomber were converted to the faith and because it was the Mother-Church vnto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini ordeyned Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem
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
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
the one aswell as the other The Ref. meaning is to shew that the calling of Bishops which the D. defendeth is not their election or vocation to their function but rather the exercise of their function yet not all the exercise thereof as the D. most falsely insinuateth but such an exercise of it as is performed by vertue of their callinge as for particular and personall abuses in the execution of a calling as they cannot in proper speach be termed the exercise of that calling so the D. hath no reason to charge the Ref. with making the reader belâ—ev-that he went about to justify them But this he would have knowne that the D. having vndertaken to justify the calling of our Bishops doth therein justifie the exercisâ— thereof for the question is not of an imaginarie fantastical substaÌ„ce of I know not what calling in abstracto but of such a calling as all our Bishops doe or may exercise by means of their office according to the lawes and canons of our Church This therefore is farr froÌ„ an vntruth vnless this be true that the D. in his sermon mainteineth another manner of calling in our Bishops then what they exercise when all the question is about that which they exercise and eyther the Bishops calling is the same which they exercise or else they exercise not their calling As truely is that third vntruth cast upon the refuter by the D. in The D 3. slaunder his next words where he saith 3. neyther is it true that the auncient tenure of Bishops is onely iure humano Whereto it may be replied that neyther is it true that the Refuter sayth in generall that the auncient tenure of Bishops was onely iure humano but that this was the auncient wanted tenure of our L Bishops What tenure other Bishops eyther in the darknes of poperie or before have made clay me to is nothing to the affirmation or present purpose of the Refuter And as the D. with the same breath wherewith he chargeth his refuter dischargeth him againe in the next clause of his sentence so however the Protestant Lord Bishops are but as of yesterday in comparison yet is it playne as appeareth by the Bishops book fol. 48 49 that 〈◊〉 of late they have bene content to hold their callings jure humano and that now upon the sudden they have changed and turned from their old and auncient tenure As for the D. reason to prove the refuters speach to be an vntruth because auncienter then the Bishops he speaketh of namely they of the primitive Church did hold their callings by an other tenure viz. by apostolic all tradition or ordinance that without all contradiction c as it is insufficient for the purpose he produceth it and besides the point now in questioÌ„ so who knoweth not that it is altogither false that it was so held then without all contradiction These 3. vntruthes therefore which the D. hath found in the Ref. reason are nothing but mistes caste before his readers eyes the dispelling whereof maketh me to remember what Ierom once said to Licinius of them who while they indevour alienos errores emendare oftendunt suos which with a little change I may English thus while the D. went about to correct his Ref. for vntruthes he hath manifested his integrity and discovered his own corruption Chap. 2. Concerning the Matachine charged vpon the Ref by the D. Sect. 1. pag. 3. of the res and pag. 2. of the D. The D. proceedeth saying that as the Refut first Reason fighteth with the truth so the second both with his opinion with it self and so setteth downe his reason why he deemed the sermon needful to be answered to witt that howsoever the D. affirmeth the doctrine of his sermon to be true profitable and necessary yet it is evident that it is vtterly false hurtful and abnoxious necessary to be confuted at no hand to be beleeved then telleth vs that in these wordes of the Refuter there are 3. reasons propounded that come to be examined I looked when I read to haue had a Matachine fight shewed in the former and these 3. pretended reasons wherein all 4. of them should fight one with another but all is brought to this that the first reason fighteth with the truth the second not with any other reason but with the Ref opinion and it self How the first fighteth with the truth we have already seene The D. maketh 3. reasons of the Ref. one we shall see by and by that this second fighteth just after the same manner that is in deed nothing at all I call it the second reason because the D. three is but the refuters one And if he had not lost his honesty in his logick he could never have made 3. reasons of those wordes cited by him such boyes play ill beseemeth so reverend a man But he telleth us they come now to be examined and for the readers sake let us examine them according to his owne division The first he maketh to be this It is evident that the doctrine in the sermon is utterly false therfore most needful to be confuted what answere maketh he to it and how doth he prove it to fight against the Refuters opinion and with it self this is his charge thus saith he It it be evidently false it needeth no confutation Things manifestly false or true are so judged without disputation or discourse neyther doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident This reason therfore if it were true would with better reason conclude against his opinion It is evident saith he that it is utterly false therefore it needeth not to be confuted What an answere is this did the Refuter say that it is evidently false to all men some colour then had the D. for this answere If not but that it is common to many to be so blinded with partiallity and prejudice that they see not that to be false which is evidently false and not strange to others shamelesly to bend their witts to mainteyne manifest and grosse vntruthes against as cleare a light as the Sun casteth at noon dayes must they not therfore be refuted because they are manifest Is the D. ignorant that the godly learned Fathers of old confuted diverse vanityes some of which were so evidently false that they could say recitasse est refutasse Yea so grosly false and in the face vntrue that the refuter of them saith They will fall of them selves c. Was it not a doctrine utterly and evidently false that Christ was not God needed it not therefore to be confuted the Fathers verily were but vaine men then What shall I need saie any more to this did the D. himself never deeme it needfull to confute a point which in his judgment and the judgment of all if we maye beleeve him that are not partiall is vtterly false doth he not affirme so of the presbyterian
be called to the knowledge of their sinne publikely to be punished that the Church by their wholesome correction may be kept in order Moreover the Minister going aside with some of the Seniors shall take counsell how others whose maâ—ners are sayd to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselves thanks is duely to be given to God but if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receive such sharp punishment as we see in the Gospell provided against their contumacy In the 11. Chap. they sett downe in case that they judge any for contumacy worthy to be excoÌ„municated how to proceed in the exercise and denouncinge of that sentence 1. the Bishop is to be gone unto and his sentence to be known who if he shal consâ—â—t and putt to his authority the sentence is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so much as may be we may bringe in the auncient disciplyne Here are their words now what sayth M. D. to prove that these words notwithstanding the refuter is an egregious falsifyer and that the reader may be these words thus transcribed discerne the allegations to be forged of this last he hath never a word concerning the first he telleth us that though they mention Seniors and auncient discipliâ—e yet they meant nothinge lâ—sse then to bring in lâ—y-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church And what of all this what if they did mean none of these yet shall that which the refuter affirmeth of them remayne true still What they meant and acknowledge we shall see by and by when we have seene the D. proofs that they meant not so He telleth vs he wil out of the book it selfe make it manifest and I wil tell him he will not but I will the contrary rather To make his word good if he could he sayth The whole goverment and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c. is established in that book and to make good mine I saie it mattereth not they had no commission from the K. to remove it and bring in that ancient discipline which by their wordes they acknowledge was not then in use but diverse from that established their coÌ„mission stretched no further then to examine the lawes reforme abuses letting the offices to remaine still yea and therein to proceed no further then would stand with those offices the lawes of the land Will the D. saye that they in all the booke have any one word to shewe that they held that government and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops ArchdeacoÌ„s rurall Deanes c. to be jure divino Nay as divers of them in their submission to King H. the 8. professe the contrary so throughout this book they have no one word tending to prove the Bishops authority over other Ministers to be any more jure divino then Archbishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c but as they are birds of a feather so they stand and fall togither by one and the same ecclesiastical lawe or humane ordinance But let vs heare what the Doctor can make the book speake concerning the Bishops authoritie he sendeth us to the 12. chap. where he saith it is decreed that the Bishop is at fâ—â— seasons to give holy orders c. to remove unfit men c. to correct by ecclesiastical censures vices corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendement of life to excoÌ„municate those which wilfully obstinately refist to receive into grace those that be penitent c. and finally to take care of all things which ex Dei prescripto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our ecclesiasticall lawes have coÌ„mitted to their knowledge and judgements Very wel and what doth the D. inferre of all this just nothing I will help him by and by But first who seeth not that those fathers vnderstoode two parts of that episcopall function one divine the care of those things which are prescribed them by God and coÌ„mon to all Bishops or Ministers of the word one principall member whereof to witt the diligent and syncere preaching of the word they mention as the first duty in the first words of that Chapter which the D. left ouâ— perhaps because divers of our Bishops have left it of as no part or the least part of their duety the other humane viz the exercise of that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which was committed to them by the K. in his ecclesiasticall lawes Now 2. to help the D. a little he should have inferred vpon the wordes sett downe by him That therefore the authority of doing all those things mentioned was in the judgement of those Fathers in the hands of the Bishops alone the which if he durst not doe he should have brought forth some other chapter to shewe it else certeynely he can saye nothing to the purpose And that it may appeare he cannot doe it I will nowe make it manifest out of the booke that they were of a contrary judgement and laboured so farre as their coÌ„mission would suffer them to bring in that auncient discipline before spoken of concerning the ruling and guiding of the particular flocks by the Mâ—nister and Seniors of the same and so farre brought it in by the order prescribed in that booke that it cutteth the windpipe of the D. sermon concerning his sole ruling Bishops so in sunder as it will never breath from their decrees nor ever have affinity with the auncient discipline they speake of We have already seene concerning discipline and excoÌ„munication what they decree cap. 10. 11 that being remembred add we to it that in the 6. cap. de excommunicat thus they further order 1. that if possibly it may be it being a thinge much to be desired the consent of the whole Church or Congregation should be had before excommunication be decreed or denounced against any 2. that no one man Archbishop Bishop or other shall have the power of excommunication in his handes And therefore 3 that neyther Archbishop Bishop or any ecclesiasticall Iudge sholl so much as decree excoÌ„munication without the consent of one Iustice of peace of the Minister of the Congregation where the delinquent dwelleth or in his absence of his deputy Curate or assistant and of 2. or 3. other Ministers both learned and of good life in whose presencâ— the whole matter busynes shal be heard debated pondered decreed In like sort for the receiving agayne of the excommunicate person into the Church vpon his repentance in the 14. chap they likewise order 1. that it shall not be by any Iudge before his repentance be approved and certificate therof made to the Bishop by the Minister and Syndicks or some of the cheife
Kings of England Doth he not pa. 13. affirme from the Statute of the Parliament held at Carliel 25. Edw. 1. that the holy Church of England was founded in the stare of Prelacie by the King and his progenitors And that in the time of Edw. the third it was often resolved 17. cap. 23. that the K. might exempt any person from the jurisdiction of the Ordinarie and graunt him episcopal jurisdiction fol. 9 edit 1606 that in 1. Hen. 4. the Archbishops Bishops of this Realme are called the K. spirituall Indges And to conclude doth he not afterwards conclude that though the proceedings and progresse of the ecclesiastical Courts run in the Bishops name yet both their courts lawes whereby they proceed are the Kings Verily if by our lawes their function and jurisdiction were holden to be of divine ordinance he neyther could nor would have said so But heare we the Doctor speake againe he telleth vs that the authority which the Bishops exercise in the high Comission is not exercised by them as they are Bishops but as they are high cōmissioners and his reason for it is for that others that are no Bishops have the same Wherein he dealeth as decitfully The. D. dealeth deceiptfully as before For 1. he will not I suppose avouch that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the Bishops there exercise of suspending excōmunicating depriving c. is exercised as Commissioners and not as Bishops and Archbishops or that others their Assistants in that Cōmission that are neyther Archbishops Bishops nor Ministers of the word can without them exercise those Censures In deed in that the high Cōmissioners convent men from all parts out of all Dioceses in the Land and proceed against them by imprisonments impositions of fines c. it is done by power of the high cōmission but for all ecclesiasticall Censures what doe they which every Archbishop within his Province and Bishop within his Diocese may not doe yea sometimes and too often doth not without that Commission Thus we see how he hath infringed the Refuters first proofe taken from Sr Edw. Cooks testimony or report The refuter might have sent him for further proofe of that point to that Booke called an Assertion for Church polocie wherein are proofs plentifull and pregnant whereof the D. in likelihood cannot be ignorant And I might here commend vnto him other testimonies also but I hast on to other more needfull matters Let us therefore heare him what he can say to his refuters second proofe to witt the K. Majesties judgement whose words are before set downe 1. saith he It seemeth that whiles the Refut talketh of The D. slandereth his Ref. with one brearh yet against his will cleareth him with another liberty to alter at their pleasure he thinketh it left to his liberty to alter the K. words at his pleasure Might not a man this once tell him that he careth not what he saith so it may as others before him De Imperatorio nomine invidiam conflare the refuter is so farr off from changing the K. words that he did not so much as once offer to set thē downe but onely sheweth what he conceiveth to be the K. judgement by his words in the place in question the Doctor therefore here falleth up to the eares into the pitt he digged for his refuter and his fault is the greater for that he cleareth his refuter of the crime objected confirmeth him in his so judging by the Kings words which himselfe layeth downe with the next breath saying The King in deed doth say tha◠it is granted to every Christian King Prince and cōmon wealth to prescribe to their subiects that outward forme of ecclesiasticall regiment which may seem best to agree with the forme of their civill government so as they swarve not at all from the groundes of faith and true religion Let the reader judge whether the Refuter did not rightly collect what he collected from the Kings words yea or no and I wish him also to observe how the Doct. slippeth from these wordes of the King without so much as an offer to shewe wherein they are contrary to the Refuters collection or fall short of proving his assertion both which he should have done if he would have made good his charge upon the ref But we may see he durst not abide the light of the Sun which here shineth so bright as if he had not turned his back vpon it it would have marred his sight quite We must therefore here leave the Doct. or follow him flying from the point in question for not daring to speake one word to it he appealeth to the Kings wordes elswhere sett downe Premonition p. 44 from whence if we will beleeve him he will make it appeare that the K. differeth not in judgement frō the doctrine of his sermon The Kings words are these That Bishops ought to be in the Church I ever mainteyned as an apostolik institution and so the ordinance of God c If the D. would by these the Kings words have proved the point in question he should have shewed that the function of the Bishops of the Church of England nowe exercised by them is for the substance of it mainteyned by these words of the King to be an Apostolik institution and so the ordinance of God the which if he could have done he mought have made a contradiction betwene the Kings preface his Premonition but never a whitt the more have proved that the King agreeth in judgement with the doctrine of his sermon which tendeth to prove another manner of episcopal function to be of divine institutiō then the King in these words speaketh of as the Doct. it seemeth sawe well enough when he forbore to set downe his Majesties very next words where he sheweth in what respect he ever held that episcopal function which he speaketh of to be an Apostolike institution to witt that he ever mainteyned the state of Bishops and the ecelesiasticall hierarchie for order sake Againe that he alloweth of Bishops and Church hierarchy and reverenceth the institution of rankes and degrees among Bishops Patriarchs which he knoweth were in the tyme of the primitive Church for order sake Againe that if it were now a question as once it was which of the Patriarchs should have the first place he could with all his hare yeeld it to the Bishop of Rome that he should be primus episcopus inter omnes episcopos princeps episcoporum so it be no otherwise but as Peter was princeps Apostolorum And againe affirmeth that the allowance he giveth to the hierarchy of the church is for distinction of orders for so he vnderstandeth it c. What shall we say to the Doctor did he not read these speaches of the King or did he skip them because they spell not well for his purpose It appeareth plainely by them that the other his Majesties words cited by the Doctor are without colour
drawne by him to justify that jurisdiction of Bishops for which he pleadeth Who seeth not that these his highnes wordes do evidently shewe that he giveth no other jurisdiction to Bishops over Presbyters by apostolicall institution then vnto Archbishops over Bishops and to Patriarches over Archbishops And the same is not any sole power of rule but for order sake such a principallity as three of the Apostles had over the rest and Peter had above the eleven as is further to be observed out of page 48. where we may easily discerne that it cannot be the Kings meaning to give vnto Peter such jurisdictiō over the Apostles as our Bishops have over Presbyters nor yet to clippe the wings of his own supremacie which he must needs doe if that superiority of order which he giveth to Patriaches above Archbishops shall drawe with it that power of rule which our Archbishops and Bishops have and exercise in their Courts Thus much may suffice to free the Refuter from the third vntruth falsely fathered on him by the Doct. The rest of his speaches may well be passed over as impertinent for however he sayth he herein cōmeth to the point yet as he therin toucheth not the point in question so he discovereth his owne vnsaying what he sayd before in his sermon touching the perpetuity of the episcopal function The D. vnsaieth in his Def. what he said in his sermon And were it fitt to followe him in his wandring frō the point in hand it were no hard matter to shewe that himselfe and others of his side have their hands cheife in the trespasse which he closely chargeth his Refut and the men of his side with For none in the Land have set their tongues penns so earnestly to abridge Kings and Princes of that libertie his Majesty speaketh of then the favourers of the episcopall government now in question To let passe Archbishop Whitgifte in his Defence against T. C. page 171. and 181. and wishing the Reader onely to compare it with T. C. secōd Reply part 1. page 227. and 614. with diverse moe observe we what one M. D. Dove saith in his defence of Church-government The Church must be ordered saith he page 3. according to the precepts and examples of holy writt Bishops saith he p. 34. ought to be Lordes and ecclesiasticall persons ought to vse civil authority quoniam ab initio fuit sic from Adam to Moses it was so frō Moses to Christ and the Apostles it was so with thē it was so frō thē hath so continued vntil this time excepting onely the times of persecutiō c. which he thus salveth a litle after where he saith Our question is not what was then of fact but what ought to have bene of right But as for this Doctor it may be the Doctor will say litle more then that he mought have bene wiser What defence trowe we will he make for that his reverend father that gave him so good satisfaction concerning the episcopall function who discovereth his judgement by the title of his booke The perpetuall goverment of Christs Church And if we advisedly weigh what he affirmeth in the treatise it selfe page 3. lin 9 -12 and compare togither p. 106. lin 32. c. page 2 3. lin 12. with page 245. lin 4. 9. 247. lin 32-35 we may easily discern that he placeth a maine necessity in the reteyning of the episcopall function Yea and so doth the D. also as his words already sett downe doe shewe Neither can he with all his shifting avoid the force of the objection which from those wordes his Refuter inforceth as shal be shewed more at large in a place more fit for the purpose For the present I onely wish the reader to observe that how ever he seemeth to assent vnto the Kings speach which his refuter mentioneth himselfe setteth downe yet for feare of offending his good Lords the Bishops and Archbishops he dareth not openly professe the outward forme of ecclesiasticall regiment to be lefte to the libertie of Princes and Cōmon wealthes as the King affirmeth viz. that they may prescribe to their subjects what seemeth vnto them fittest to to agree with the civil government And yet in a matter of farre lesse moment to witt the maintenance of our Clergie by tithes and other temporalities he feareth not to taxe the King and the Lawes of our land underhand and by consequence of sacriledge in alienating deteyning from the Clergie the tithes or any thing else once dedicated to holy vses See his sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers page 82. But whither am I run in this digression I come now to the fourth notorious vntruth wherewith the Sect. 3. and Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. Refuter is charged by the Doct. because he saith that the doctrine of his sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed even by the Bishops themselves till of late dayes when as men weary to hold any longer in capite of the K. they began to change their tenure into soccage and disired to be free even from Knightes service For proofe of some part whereof he referreth the reader in his margin to Bishop Iewels defence of the Apologie and Archbishop Whitgift against Mr Cartw. See we now how the D. proveth a notorious vntruth in them First The D. to colour his 4. slander addeth to the Refu◠wordes besides his meaninge he addeth these words of his owne to them Therefore vtterly false and so maketh an Enthimeme of them as if the Ref should holde all for true that the Church of Engl holdeth concerning the government of the Church and the contrary therevnto for false Whereas the Refuter neyther so saith nor meaneth Might the D. be this once asked what he meant by adding that his last sentence and making an enthymeme of this last speach of the Refuter not of any the rest Was he at a nonplus that he must needs make himself work quite besides the point in question yea besides the refuters words and meaninge Wherefore to let passe the work he hath upon that his Enthimeme made to himself in his next page beginning at his Lastly I wil touch upon the point which the D. here calleth the Antecedent viz. that the doctrine of his sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops He telleth vs he giveth no credite to it though Bishop Iewell and Archbishop Whit. be cited at random But will his not giving creditt to it prove it to be a notorious vntruth I trowe not by that tyme we have heard thē speak Are they cited at randō their bookes are named and divers of their testimonies not unknowne to the D if he had but read his ref answere pag. 34. 124. let us heare them speak againe And first of Archb. Whitg concerning the Elders in question I knowe saith he answ to the admon p.
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌ„t of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ was coÌ„mitted but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time as himself testifyeth wryting upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doct that the Archbishop in his defence of that his answere page 161. vpon his second thoughts three times confesseth asmuch almost in the same words I confesse sayth he that there was Seniors and I alleadged Ambrose partly for that purpose and partly to shewe that both their names and offices were exstinguished before his time And knoweth not the Doctor also that he spendeth two pages at the least 656. 658 to shewe the inconveniences that would as he conceiveth folowe vpon the reteyning of that government vnder ChristiaÌ„ Princes especially in the Church of England Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church doth he not in his answere to the AdmonitioÌ„ page 162 affirme that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same that it cannot be governed in tyme of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution c. Doth he not in his defence page 658. 660. spend a whole Chapter tending as the title sheweth to prove that there is no one certeyne kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed After which discourse knitteth he not vp the matter with these 3. knotts 1. that it is well knowne how the manner and forme of government used in the Apostles times and expressed in the scriptures neyther is now nor can nor ought to be observed eyther touching the persons or the functions 2. that it is playne that any one certayne forme or kind of government perpetually to be observed is no where in scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof left to the Christian Magistrate c. 3. that wee must admitt another forme nowe of governing the Church then was in the Apostles times or els we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all authority in ecclesiasticall matters Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authoritie doth he not acknowledge page 680. all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise be it civil or ecclesiasticall to be then executed in the Queens Maiesties name and right and to come from her as supreme Governour And speaking page 747 of the Colledge of Presbyters which Ierom calleth Senatum ecclesiae togither with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies saith he not that that kinde of government which those Churches Cathedral he meaneth had it transferred to the civil Magistrate to whom it is due and to such as by him are appointedâ— If the Doct. hath read him he knoweth all this to be true Thus much breifly for the testimony and judgment of that Archbishop the which how farre it differeth from the Doctors sermon whatsoever he sayth now by exchange in his defence and whether it casteth not the governmeÌ„t by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times let the reader comparatis comparandis judge Come we now to Bishop Iewels judgement set downe at large in his defence of the Apologie out of which the Doctor saith that Confession of the English Church was collected whose testimony I might well coÌ„mend in regard the booke out of which it is taken is commanded to be in all our Churches but that the Doctor wil againe as before cry a mountaine banck but I will barely lay it downe and let it commend it self First concerning the power of the keies he hath in his apolog chap. 7. divis 5. these words Seing one manner of word is given to all and one onely keâ—e belongeth to all we say speaking in the name of the Church of England there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerninge openninge and shutting And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Preist or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth he saith parte 2. page 140. that as a Iudge togither with the Elders of the congregation he hath authority both to condemne and to absolve And page 152. that in the primitive Church eyther the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation had authoritie herein and that the direction and judgment rested evermore in the Preest And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use yet he shewing out of Beatus Rhenanus howe they were vsed in old time saith That the excoÌ„municated person when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Preists as vnto the mouthes of the Church and opened to them the whole burthen of his hart by whom he was brought into the congregation to make open confession and satisfaction which done duely and humbly he was restored againe openly into the Church by laying on of the handes of the priests and Elders Againe concerning the authoritie of Bishops over other Ministers cap. 3. divis 5. page 109. he mainteyneth the testimony which in his Apologie he had alleadged out of Ierom ad Evagriu making all Bishops to be of like preheminence and preisthood against the cavills of Harding as the refuter will I doubt not against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith What S. Ierom meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth thâ—â— Ierom seemeth to match all Bishops together as if they were all equally the Apostles successors And he thmketh not any Bishop to be lesse then other for that he is poorer or greater then other for that he is richer For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium a poore towne equall with the Bishop of Rome And further he thinketh that a Bishop is no better then any Preist save that he hath authority to order Ministers Againe pag. 111. that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops they had it by agreement and custome but neyther by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods word And to shewe that it was not his judgment alone he produceth Ierom and Austin Ierom upon Titus 1. sayinge Lett Bishops vnderstand that they are above the Preists rather of custome then of any truth or right of Christes institution And that they ought to rule the Church altogither And that a Preist and a Bishop are all one c. Austin epist 19. saying The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Preist not by the authority of the scriptures saith Bishop Iewel in a perenthesis but after the names of honour which by the custome of the Church have now obteyned Againe chap. 9. divis 1. pag. 198. What ment Mr. Harding saith he here to come in with the difference betwixt Preists and Bishops thinketh he that Preists and Bishops holde onely by tradition or is it so horrible an heresy as he
maketh it to saye that by the scriptures of God a Bishop and a Preist are all one or knoweth he how farr and vnto whom he reacheth the name of an heretike verely Chrisostom saith * in 1. Tim. Hom. 11. ad Evagrium quaest vet et novi testā q. 101 de dignitat sacerdotali Betwene a Bishop and a preist in a manner there is no difference S. Ierom saith somewhat in rougher sort I here saie there is one become so peevishe that he setteth Deacons before Preists that is to saie before Bishops whereas the Apostles plainely teacheth us that Preists and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is a Bishop but the first Preist that is to say the highest Preist So saith Saint Ambrose there is but one consecration of Preist and Bishop for both of them are Preists but the Bishop is the first All these and other mo◠holy Fathers togither with Saint Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardinges advise musts be holden for Haeretikes And in his reply to him article 4. page 309. having shewed what primacie or headship Ierom gave to Peter viz that to avoid confusion which lightly happeneth in all companies where no order is Christ appointed Peter for that he was the eldest man to speake and deale for the rest as cheefe and heade of all his brethren he addeth these wordes which order also was afterwards vniversally taken throughout the world that in every congregation of Preists one should have a special preheminence above others and be called Episcopus Bishop This was thought a good politick way to avoid conteution in the Church By all which it appeareth that this worthy IEWELL was perswaded 1. That the preheminence of Bishops above other Ministers was first brought in by humane policie and not by any divine ordinance in the holy scriptures 2. that the preheminence of Bishops in the first originall and establishment thereof was onely a preheminence such as Peter had above the rest of his fellow Apostles which was at the most of order onely and not of any superiour cōmanding power jurisdictiō And 3. that in the primitive Ch other Elders besides Ministers of the word had an hand in the governmēt of the Church Thus we see the judgement of these two Bishops cited by Sect. 4. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. the Refuter nowe let the reader judge whether he hath uttered a notorious vntruth in saying the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops or rather whether the Doctor hath not malliciously The D. slandereth malliciously slaundered him in so charging him I saye malicious and if his conscience be spurred the quaestion from the abundance whereof his pen wrote it will subscribe to it For knewe he not all this to be true in the Bishops bookes quoted by the Refuter in his Margin Yea are not divers partes of these testimonies expressed in the Refuters answere page 34. and 124 Did he not reade them there And hath he not slipped them over with such a slubber that if he be not farre spent he cannot laye them and his answere to them togither without the blushredd-colour Well but the Doctor is none of them that will be madd without reason he therefore giveth vs a reason why he doth not credite his Refuter For sayth he the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the articles and confession of our Church Which reason is without reason and argueth the man not so wel advised as he mought be when he appealeth to the cōfession of our Church collected out of the Apologie thereof written as himselfe sayth by Bishop Iewel from the Apologie it selfe and Authors owne exposition and defence of it Is it likely think ye that other men should vnderstand him better then himselfe doth eyther in the Apologie or defence of it especially being authorized to write it by our Church and it allowed yea cōmanded to be in all our Churches But let vs examine his allegations apart The first is the booke of Articles and what doth that The 36. article thereof approveth saith he the booke of consecrating Bishops Preists and Deacons And what then that booke saith he in the Preface thereof saith that from the Apostles times there have bene those orders of Ministers Bishops Preists and Deacons in Christs Church and that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church Is not this a sweet proof mark it well The articles approve the booke and the preface of that booke saith that those three orders have bene in the Church from the Apostles times c. Therefore the booke of articles and consequently the doctrine of the church of England approveth the function of Bishops and their superiority above Preists to be of divine ordinance As if 1. what soever is sayd in the preface before the booke which in all likelihood was done by one or two onely and not by so generall a consent as the booke it selfe must needs be allowed for the currant doctrine of the Church of England in that age because the 36. article in our booke of articles doth for some purpose approve the booke of consecrating Bishops c. as conteyning in it all things necessary to such consecration But 2. doth that preface say that those 3. orders were in the Apostles times no but from the Apostles times exclusively which words do◠not prove they were in the Apostles times but the contrary as the refuter hath shewed out of Chamier de Pontif Oecum in his answere page 87. in the like phrase of Ierom to Evagrius saying that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas c. one of the Presbyters were chosen from amongst the rest set over the rest c. But 3. it seemeth they meant otherwise by the last clause which the D. citeth that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church But the reader must know that that sentence is none of theirs nor to be found in that preface it hath pleased the D. ex abundanti to add that clause of his owne head and cleane contrary to their meaning that made that book at least for as we have heard cap. 3 before going they held the superiority of Bishops The D. addeth one sentence to his testimony and detracteth another from it to be a politick devise of man and not the ordinance of God Let us goe forwards with the Doct he addeth that the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by Gods word Here 1. I charge the D as before with the adding of one sentence so here with the detracting of another whiles he deceitfully cōcealeth part of the words For the booke requireth the Bishop to correct and punish c. according to such authority as he hath by Gods word and the ordinance of this realme which later clause of the lawes of this realme they would never have added had they thought that the power
Could the Doctor be so simple as to imagine that his refuter had any meaninge to charge him or his doctrine with vpholding the popish Hierarchie in any of those maine differences which here or afterwards he mentioneth to distinguish theÌ„ from our Clergie Or could he perswade himself that none of his The D. disputeth a dicto secuÌ„dum quid ad simplicitor Opposites would discerne the weaknes of his defence when he disputeth a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter in this manner My doctrine tendeth not to vpholde the popish hierarchy quatenus it is properly Antichristian Therefore it tendeth not to give them any supportance at all The Refuters meaning is playne that the tenour of the Doctors disputing for our prelacie tendeth by consequence to vpholde those functions and degrees in the popish Hyerarchy which other reformed Churches have rejected as vnlawfull at least vnecessarie and superfluous Which is a truth so apparant that the Doctor doth in part closely acknowledge it though with The Doct. closely acknowledgeth what he fairely but falsely excuseth a faire but false pretence he seeketh to excuse it when he sayth wee are content to observe the auncient government of the primitive Church though reteyned by them for what is that governement wherein we agree with them Is it not the government by ARCH BISHOPS LORD BISHOPS ARCH DEACONS CHANCELLORS COMMISSARIES c. assisted with Proctors and Apparators Wherefore since the functions of the popish hierarchy serving for CHVRCH-government are none other then such as we reteyne in our Churches the Pope and his Cardinals excepted the D. cannot disclaime the defence of the rest of their hierarchy vnlesse he will leave our owne naked and destitute of due protection And if that be true which the refuter hath in many parts of his answer obected viz that the Papists doe and may with as good colour of truth alleadge the same reasons for the Popes primacie over Archbishops that the D. urgeth for the superiorty of Bishops or Archbishops it is no wrong at all to affirme that the D. sermon tendeth to vphold the popish hierarchie aswell as ours even from the Pope to the Apparitor But let vs go on and trace the Doctor in the stepps of his answere 1. Who can excuse him in this that professing as he now doth the Pope to be properly Antichrist in regard of that vniversall government which he assumeth he should notwithstanding reare vp a pillar in his defense following to upholde what he would seeme The Doct. vpholdeth what he seemeth to pull down to pull downe For to justify the government of Metropolitans who were at the first as he saith lib. 2. p. 114 autochephaloi heads by themselves of their Provinces he thus reasoneth page following It was convenient or rather necessary that there should be consociation of Churches within the same Province and that that governours of the severall Dioceses should meet for the coÌ„mon good and that the wrongs offred to any by the Bishops within their Dioceses might be remedied By consequent therefore it was necessarie especially before there were Christian Magistrates that one in every Province should be held as cheefe or primate who should assemble the Synods moderate them being assembled see the decrees executed have a generall superintendencie over the whole province By the like conseq it is well knowne that the Popes proctors doe plead for his vniversall primacie and the D. doth very frankly offer them the antecedent lib. 3. p. 4. The whole Church saith he is governed by the mutuall consociation of their governours for the coÌ„mon good and the concurrence of them to an Occumenical Synode For the whole Church being but one body there ought to be a Christian consociation of the governours therof for the common good of the whole body If there ought to be such a consociation of all Bishops and governours of the whole Church then there is no lesse conveniencie or rather necessity of this consociation of the whole then there is of the former in one Province Wherefore the Doctor cannot forbid any freind of the papacie in an imitation of his former argument to inferre this conclusion By consequent therefore it is necessarie specially now that there is not a Christian Magistrate to whose civil regiment all or the greatest part of Christian Churches are in subjection as formerly they were to the Romane Empire that among the ecclesiastical governours of the whole Church one should be held as cheife to assemble and moderate generall councels to see the decrees executed and so to haue a general superintendencie over the whole Church Thus in traveiling The D. traveyling with an Archbish bringeth forrh a Pope And so doth Sta pleton charge ouâ— Bishops by their arg for their hierarchy to doe Relect adver whit cont 2. q. 3. art 3 with an Archbishop the Doctor bringeth forth a Pope But if he will infringe this later consequence and say as he seemeth to imply lib. 3. pag. 4. that the necessity of a Christian consociatioÌ„ among the Bishops of the whole Church cannot inferre a necessity of one Pope or cheefe Bâ—shop because Christ our King Monarch for the government of the whole Church hath no Vicar general but the holy Ghost who appointeth governours vnder him to governe the several parts in some respect Monarchically and the whole by concurrence in one Oecumenical Synode aristocratically then for the like reasoÌ„ to witt because Christ our King hath no Vicar provinciall but the holy Ghost who appointeth governours vnder him in every Church throughout the Province the necessity of a consociation of all the Churches in one Province and of provinciall Synodes for the coÌ„mon good of those Churches cannot conclude a necessity of one Metropolitane primate to assemble moderate those Synods and to have a generall superintendencie over the whole province Wherefore it is evident that by the Doct. reasoning the Popes Vniversall headship the Archbishops provincial primacie do stand or fall togither 2. Shall we say also that the same reason which proveth the one to be Antichristian will prove the other to be Antichristian Is it not proper to Christ to be the head of every particular Church aswel as of the whole 1. Cor. 12 27. 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ephes 2. 22. cuÌ„ 1. 22. 23. 5. 23. Colos 1. 18. And is not the title and office of Archipoimen proper also to him alone 1. Pet. 5. 4. 3. But I hasten to examine the grounds which he hath layd to Sect. 5. ad D. pag. 13. cleare himselfe from patronizing the popish prelacie He affirmeth as we heard before that their government is justly termed Antichristian who are assistantes to the Pope in his vniversal government Loe here the proposition I wil make so holde as to add an assumption But Archbishops L. Bishops Archdeacons Chancelors c. in their several functions are assistants to the Pope in his vniversall government Whence any man may make the conclusion
Therefore the government of Archbishops L. bishops Archdeacons Chancelors yet in their severall functions is justly termed Antichristian The D. foreseing as it seemeth that such a conclusion as this might be inferred from his owne words to prevent any further inconvenience if his Refuter or any other should froÌ„ thence collect that he mainteyneth the popish or antichristian prelacie as well as our owne in asmuch as the government and function of our Prelates is in substance and essentiall workes of office the same with theirs saith that Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope and dependance on him as members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the heade Where the reader must againe be advertised that the D. wandreth from the question at The Docwandreth from the question at his pleasure his pleasure for the point now controverted betwene him and his Ref. is not what transgression doth make the Romishe Bishops and Archbishops antichristian properly or improperly but whether their callings and functions which other reformed Churches have refused as better beseeminge the degenerate Synagogues of Antichrist then the orthodoxall Churches of Christ be not justified by the Drs. discourse aswell as the offices and functions of our owne Prelates The negative in this questioÌ„ he should have strongly fortified but he rather justifieth his Ref. assertion in profering them a full discharge from all steine of Antichristianity if they will renounce their subordination to the Pope and acknowledgement of him for their head But seing he professeth lib. 3. pag. 154. never to give over the maintenaÌ„ce of his cause at his better leysure I will expect from him a direct answere to this reply I have already proved from his owne assertion that their government is justly termed Antichristian But their jurisdiction extended over the Churches of an whole Diocese or Province is a principall and essentiall part of their government why then should not their jurisdiction so largely extended be justly termed Antichristian Againe wherein soever they give best and greatest assistance vnto the Pope in his vniversall government therein they are rightly reputed antichristian this I trust the D. will acknowledge without any further proofe neyther will he I hope putt us to the paines to prove what all the world discerneth to be true viz. that in the large extent of their jurisdictions they give best and greatest assistance vnto the Pope in his vniversall government wherefore I will once rest perswaded that he will subscribe to this conclusion that in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction they are justly reputed Antichristian And so I will enter vpon the best defence he hath to wipe away all note of Antichristianity from our owne Bishops Having restreyned as before we heard that Antichristianity Section 6. which cleaveth to Romish Prelacie vnto their subordination to the Pope c. he addeth this consequence Therefore they are no more Antichristian then their parish-Preists and aswell might the Refut call the Pastors of Parishes amongst us Antichristian because the Popish Parish Preists are Antichristian as our Bishops Antichristian because the Popish Bishops The Doct. trifleth in figâ—ting with his owne shadow are such When will the D. cease to play the trifler in fighting against his owne shadowe Where doth the Refut saie that our Bishops are Antichristian because the Popish are such Or which of his Opposites did ever argue to such a purpose Nay hath his Ref. in any part of his answere once termed our Bishops Antichristian Yet if he had sayd that the Popish be and ours are alike Antichristian in regard of their functions as being in substance one and the same however they differ in subordination to the Pope he is wiset I trowe then to be so farre misledd by the Doctor as to say that our parish pastors and their parish preists are alike antichristian For their Preisthood in regard of the very essence and forme of their office is a sacrificing preisthood as the Doct. acknowledgeth and the proctors of poperie doe more clearely teach RheÌ„ annot in Acts 14. 23. Bellarm. lib. de sac ord cap. 9. But the office of our parish pastors though corruptly termed Preists hath nothing to doe with sacrificing and therefore it is not the same office but of a diverse forme ordeyned as the Doctor rightly affirmeth to preach the word and to administer the sacrameÌ„ts Now there is no such essentiall differeÌ„ce in the very function it self which our Bishops and the popish doe holde and execute Wherefore though it be an absolute inconsequence to inferre that our parish pastors are Antichristian because the popish parish preists are such in as much as the functions are differing yet when the functions of our Bishops and theirs are called into question if the later be granted Antichristian the same must be confessed also of the former vnlesse it can be clearely shewed that the functions doe differ essentially one from another 2. And if his meaning be thus to plead in behalfe of our Bishops viz that they cannot be Antichristian because the popish Bishops are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope c. I have already shewed the error of this argument in proving that their very jurisdictioÌ„ government is Antichristian Onely here agayne let the reader remember how the D. justifieth his Ref in that speach wch he indevoureth to wipe away viz. that he vpholdeth the Popish Hierarchy aswell as our owne 3. In that which followeth he assayeth to shewe that the function of Bishops was not first instituted by the Bishops of Rome therefore cannot be Antichristian The function of Bishops saith he is not more nor yet so much to be ascribed to the institution of the Bishop of Rome as that of parish Ministers For Bishops as we shall shewe were ordeyned by the Apostles and sett over Dioceses but the parishes were first distinguished in the Westerne Churches and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome whose example other Churches did imitate as divers authors report Is not the Doctor strangely bewitched with the love of his reverend Fathers and their functions that to The D. to free the episcopall function from being reputed Antichristian exposeth his owne calling to that disgrace sett them free from all feare of beinge any longer reputed Antichristian or of the Popes institutioÌ„ he will expose his owne calling and function to the same disgrace But if that be true which diverse authors report as Platina in vita Euarist Polidor Virgil de invent rer lib. 4. cap. 9. and others that Euaristus did onely divide titles in the City of Rome vnto Presbyters and that Dyonisius gave them Churches or Churchyardes and distributed abroad aswell Dioceses to Bishops as Parishes to Presbyters
which vary from him in the explication of his text 3. Lastly where 1. he would sett the newer and elder disciplinarians as he termeth them at odds about the interpretation of the text that the one should understand it of all Ministers in generall the other of the Presidents of the Presbyteries onely And 2. that against them both he proveth by the text it selfe and by other divine evidence that the calling of diocesan Bishops is in this text commended vnto vs vnder this title of the Angels of the Churches we are to knowe that for the former they agree well enough for however some understand it of the Presidents yet they meane such persons as were also of the common sort of Ministers though for the time of the assembly chosen The D. avoucheth that of both which is true in neither Presidents As for the latter I marveile he durst so boldly avouch it of both seing it is true in neyther as I doubt not but the reader will confesse with me Thus much in defense of the refuters first reason for mistiking the Doctors choise of his text viz. because it is allegoricall It remayneth that I remember the reader of an other reason urged Sect. 6. ad page 27. Def in fine by the Refuter answ pag. 2. against the Doctors choise of his text to iustify our Bishops callings viz. That whereas others deny that the angels of the Churches were as the Doct. affirmeth Diocesan Bishops he doth not once offer to prove the meaning of his text to be so by any other scripture or sound expositor of it Now as it was needfull for the backing of the interpretation of his text to have produced some so questionlesse M. Doctor had both witt will enough to have done so if they had bene to be found Wherefore I againe conclude the text chosen by him was and is vnfit for his purpose In deed he giveth vs a direct answere herevnto in that last sentence of page 27. where he sayth Though some object that by the angels are meant eyther all Ministers in generall or the Presidents of the Presbyters yet he proveth both by the text it selfe and other evidence that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is in the text comended vnder the title of the angels of the Churches But hath he done the deed indeed Is this his answere as true as it is direct Then is it to purpose in deed and this quarrell will soone be at an end But soft a while what are his proofs The Doct. promiseth double proof but produceth none at all What is his evidence where of he thus boasteth Where shall wee find them Are they here layd down to his readers viewe that they may see and judge of them Or doth he point out any one page chapter or booke where elswhere any peece of proofe is to be founde No verely this is all he saith but of this more in my answere to the 3. page where besides that which is already examined concerning the vnfitnes of his text some paynes â—s taken to prove that in each church one onely was intitled the Angel thereof and that he had a preheminence above the rest which may lâ— graunted and yet his Diocesan Bishoprick denied But to prove that which he sayth he proveth there is not as yet found any one line eyther in his sermon or his large defence thereof In the first he did not once offer to prove it In this next be though it enough to say I doe prove it In his third which is to come perhapps he will attempt it but till we see it effected the Refuters judgmeÌ„t must stand sound that the Doct. vnfitly chose this text which maketh nothing for his purpose Chap 2. Concerning the division and frame of the Doctors sermon and other materiall points conteyned in the defence of his praeface or first part of his sermon unto page 54. The D. being sett to pick as many quarrels as he could and Sect. 1. ad cap. 2. Def. sect 1. 2. p. 28. 29. 30. more by many then he had any colour for so farr misliketh the refuters division of his sermon into 3. parts viz. the preface the body and the conclusion that he will needs change the number either by inlarging it into 4 or abridging it into two To bring his whole The D. forgetteth in one place what he doeth in an other building into a just quadrangle he divideth that which his Refuter calleth the preface into these two distinct members to wit a proeme and a proposition but he forgetteth as it seemeth that himself shutteth up both these in one calling them in the very title of his Chapter the first part of his sermon And to reduce all into a perfect dichotomy he sendeth vs to his transition serm page 94. there to observe a distribution thereof into two parts viz. the explication continuing to that place and the application from thence to the end Wherein he sheweth himself not very well advised for his transition hath these words The same dâ—ctâ—ine which by way of explication of my text I have proved I doe now by wâ—y of application commend vnto you Now who is so blind that seeth not here 3. distinct parts to wit the explication of his text a doctrine proved by the said explication and an application of the doctrine so proved Or rather who is so sharp The D. is very incoÌ„stant in the division of his sermon sighted as the Doctor to discerne the two former to be included vnder one worde explication And who so skilfull in logicall analysing and dividing as he who now reduceth vnto explication the 3. first sides of his quadrangleâ— I meane his pâ—oeme proposition and confirmation of his 5. points proposed to be proved and againe divideth his explication into these two members viz. an explication of his text and a doctrine collected out of it But though I will not forbidd him to cutt his owne coate into as many or as fewe peeces as he will nor to alâ—e the frame of his owne building into what formes and as oftâ— he listeth yet if he shall remaine stil angry with them that observe it and shall still revile them that like not his inconstancie I knowe none that will excuse him And since he is not ashamed wrongfully and without any just cause given to charge his Refuter Def. page 46 c. with double dealing sophisticall shifting disordering â—e frame of his sermon cutting shorter and stretching longer the partes thereof and that by a forced analysis against the light of his owne conscience though I have not so learned Christ as to require him with the like termes of reproach albeit he justly deserveth it yet must he be contented to heare the truth declared and his owne shifting too and fro in changing his assertions at his pleasure more plainely discovered Of those two assertions which his explication as he saith Sect. 2. coÌ„teyneth the first he layeth
down in these words That the Pastors or governours of the primitive Churches here meant by the Angels were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be the second in these wordes that the function of Diocesan Bishops is lawful good And he affirmeth that these assertions are for the handling of the text first propounded to be discussed But if the Doctor had pervsed the 2. page of his sermon for it seemeth he cast not his eye vpon it when he wrote his defence he should haue seene that these are not the same assertions but changlings whosoever rocked the cradle The Doct. changeth his assertions putt in their stead For there having the words of his text before his eyes The 7. starrs are the Angels of the 7. Churches considering to what end he had choseÌ„ his text viz. to justify the honourable functioÌ„ of our English Prelates he vndertaketh in the first place plainly to prove that the Angels of those Churches were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as our Bishops are And secondly out of the words to shewe that the office and function of Bishops here meant by angels is in this text both approved as lawfull and coÌ„mended as excellent Will the D. say that in sense and meaning for in words they are not these are all one with the two first Nay his conscience will tel him that in each proposition both termes I meane the subiectum and the predicatum have received such a change that the two former cannot be truely sayd to be the same with the two later For in that first which he saith is an explication of the text lett him shame the Divill and speake the truth and tell us what moved him to add the word primitive to the subiect and the word Diocesan to the Predicate of that assertion Shall I help to informe the reader till his owne answere may be heard He was resolved the event declareth it to make the best defense he could for the calling of this Diocesan Bishops yet not so much by the text which he chose or by any other testimony of scripture for then fewer lines might have served his turne then are nowe the leaves of his sermon as by the authoritie of fathers councels wherof he had greater store and such as in his owne apprehension made a fayrer shewe for his purpose Hence is it that in the winding up of all that he had spoken for the proofe of his first assertion to make the conclusioÌ„ more sutable to the premises he brought his whole discourse to this yssue serm pag. 52. Thus you have heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as our Bishops are Where note he saith not the angels of the 7. churches in S. Iohns time were such Bps. yet that was the point he promised to prove but the angels or Bishops of the primitive church were such Vnderstanding by the primitive Church the ages succeding for 300 yeares after the Apostles dayes as appeareth by serm pag. 56. 57. and by Def. lib. 3. page 12 and 14. which when he hath made the best of it that he can is but an idle digression from his text not a right explication thereof Yet in this veine The D. digresseth from his text doth not rightly explicate it he persisteth throughout his defence giving vs for the true and naturall explication of his text the same general assertion whereof see lib. 1. pag. 54. lib. 2. pag. 41. lib. 3. pag. 22. Onely in these places like as before he addeth the word Diocesan in the predicate or later terme of the sentence to conforme this first assertion with the second of the last edition viz. the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good that he might with the better colour commend the later vnto us as the Doctrine which floweth from the former For which cause also he seemeth here to limitt his first assertion within the compasse of his text vnto those Pastors or Bishops which are here meant by angels he seemeth I say here to doe it and he doth it in deed in the last section of this chapter and page 3. lib. 4. where he seriously mindeth the collecting of his doctrine from the text yet in inclosing those words here meant by angels within a parenthesis he seemeth withall to intimate to his reader that those words may wel be spared the sentence neverthelesse stand perfect without them as it doth in the places before noted even as oft as he aimeth at the reducing of his 4. first points serm pag. 6. 7. vnto one coÌ„mon conclusion Thus he windeth out and in at his The Doct. windeth in and out at pleasure pleasure and vnder termes that carry a double construction hath fitted his first assertion to a double purpose What shall I say to him Would he thus have done if he had hated double dealing sophisticall shifting in himselfe as much as he seemeth to loath it in his Refuter who gave him farr lesse cause what say I yea to speake truth no cause at all so to accuse him of any such offence Let the reader Iudge But let us goe on and compare togither the 2. assertion to use his owne phrase of the newe edition with the 2. point proposed Sect. 3. serm pag. 2. In the one he roaveth at randome and affirmeth of Diocesan Bishops at large at least of all such as ours be for so he expoundeth himself lib. 4. pag. 3. that their calling is lawfull good In the other reteyning a speciall reference to his text and the angels there mentioned he saith that the function of Bishops there meant by the angels is in the text it selfe approved as lawful and commended as excellent Howsoever the Doctor be strongly perswaded that the Angels of whom his text speaketh were Diocesan Bishops for the substance of their calling like to ours yet is he not surely so farr bereaved of his senses but he can discerne a difference not onely betweene those ancient Bishops in particular and those to whom he resembleth them or Diocesan Bishops in generall but also betweene the lawfulnes of their callings distinctly considered For as he is not ignorant that his Refuter acknowledgeth the function of those Bishops which are in his text called Angels to be lawfull and good because they were Pastors of those 7. severall Churches and yet holdeth the calling of all such Diocesan Bps. as ours are to be vnlawfull so be he here remembred that we finde his owne â—llogiâ—mes lib. 1. p. 58. lib. 4. 3 to put this difference betweene the calling of the one and of the other that the calling of such as is here meant by Angels is made the M dâ—â—s termiâ—us to coÌ„clude the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops Moreover there is so much differece betweene the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops considered at large
himselfe and his family to the publike Ministerie of those whom he hath chosen to dispense the word and sacraments to him and to them he is a member of a true visible Church or if you will of one certaine parish that is to say of one particular congregation of Christians assembled togither in one place for the solemne and publique service of God 2. If the Doctor be of a contrary opinion then he reasoneth absurdly from his owne false imagination that the King is further then any Bishop from being a member of one onely parish to cōclude that they which deny the Bishop to be a member of a true Church may aswel or rather must needs be so conceited of the K. With much more probabilitie we may return this conclusion into The D. cōcludeth against himself and bringeth his slander upon his own head his owne bosome that seing he is perswaded the K. cannot be a member of any one parish because he is the governour of all the Churches within his dominiōs he must for the same cause deny him to be a member of any one Diocesan or provinciall I may adde Nationall Church within his dominions And hence it will followe that in his conceite the King is not a member of any one certeine visible Church for by one visible Church the D. meaneth the christian people of one diocese or province or at the moste of one nation For the christian people lyving vnder diverse lawes as the people of England and Scotland doe are diverse nations and so diverse visible Churches if we may beleeve his owne wordes lib. 3. p. 51. 52. Wherefore the vnpartiall reader may easily see that this odious crime of denying the King to be a member of a true visible Church falsly and spitefully ascribed to them against whom he dealeth doth truely and justly light vpon himself As for the question which he moveth whither they holde the King and his houshold to be a true Church That so he may be thought to be a member of a true Church though the Q. be needlesse and sufficiently answered already yet know he againe and againe that they hold the Kinge and his familye to be a true visible Church not onely a member of a true Church and the King in regard of his regall office a most noble member excelling all other though the Doct. seemeth to be otherwise perswaded not onely of the King as is before shewed but perhaps also of his familey because it is not as other parishes are a subordinate member of any one diocese nor constantly subjected to the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop His last reason why we may not with the like reason acknowledge the Bishop and his family to be an entire Church he should say but he saith familie by themselves I will answere when I finde him better disposed to receive it then he was when to the ende of his question he added It is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and judicious In the meane time lett him bethink himself what to answere to these questions 1. Whether every Bishop or any one of them doth alike subject himself as the King doth to the pastorall authority of any one or moe that doo ordinarily distribute the word and sacramentes to his whole familye 2. Whither any Bishop residinge with his familye in another diocese as the Arch Bishops alwaise doe and some others for the most parte doe he and his familey be as other parishes are subject to his jurisdiction in whose diocese they are 3. And if the Bishop be the pastor of his familey and his chapleines assistants to him for the pastorall oversight therof whether we may not affirme their families to be so many Presidents of parishes governed by a parish pres bytery In 3. sections following the Doctor bestirreth himself to recover Sect. 7. ad sect 9. Def. pag. 40. his credit with his Diocesan Bishops who by a reasō grounded on his owne words were proved by the Refuter page 6. to be absolute Popelings The reason was layd downe to him in this forme They who have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings All Diocesan Bishops have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall Therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings The Doct. scorning that this should be called his reason sayth That there is nothing in it his but the propositiō which also is stretched beyond not onely his meaning but his wordes His wordes are these serm pag. 4. least they might seeme to sett up an absolute popeling in every parish who should have not only supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall they adioyne unto him that is to their Pastor a consistorie of lay or governing elders Out of these words saith the Def pag. 40. I deny not but this proposition may be framed They who give to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall doe seeme to sett vp an absolute popeling And why not or better that proposition which his Refuter urgeth In deed if he had sayd They seeme to sett vp an absolute popelinge in giving to their parishe Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authority c his proposition had more naturally flowed frō his words then now it doth but since he saith an absolute popeling which should have both supreme sole authoritie c. he very clearely describeth in these last words of having such an authoritie as he speaketh of what he meant by an absolute popeling namely such a Pastor or Bishop as hath not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical Wherefore he may aswell deny it to be day-light at high-noone as deny that the Refuter rightly drewe his proposition from his wordes before expressed 2. Moreover put case a man should contradict the proposition which himself acknowledgeth to agree with his words and meaning must he not be inforced for the proofe thereof to assume some such assertion as that is which the Refuter propoundeth viz. that he is an absolute popeling who hath in any parish or diocese supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall 3. Yea doth he not elswhere in his sermon pag. 17. 51. with out any seeming affirme in plaine termes that the parish Bishop or Pastor of every parish must rule as a Pope vnlesse he be assisted with a presbyterie or subjected to the diocesan Bishops authority Yea that it is to sett vp a Pope in every parish if the Pastors doe rule alone neyther subject to the Bishop nor restreyned by Assistantes In like manner in this defence lib. 1. cap. 8. pa. 194. saith he not that their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme ecclesiasticall officers would be he saith not might seeme to be but would be absolute popelinges if presbyteries were not adjoyned vnto them because they shall have not onely supreme but also sole authority It is therefore a
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
not And as for that other vntruth which M. Doctor is pleased to call an error where he saith they were called angels in respect of their generall calling of the Ministery it shall rest sub judice vndecided for a while till a fitter occasion calleth for the examination of it In the 5. next sections viz. 13-17 there are many words Sect. 12. ad sect 13. 14. 15. 16. Def. from page 47. to 52. D. spent to litle purpose the Doctors cheife drift is to cleare himself of some vntruthes which the Refuter chargeth vpon him in his affirmation that the wise and learned disciplinarians doe grant 1. that the Bishops which in his text are called Angels were Bishops of whole cities and the countreies adioyning that is to say Dioceses 2. That the Presbyters which were no Ministers were lay and annuall 3. That these angels were nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries 4. That their presidentship was onely for a week or a month and that by course as being comon to them in their turnes Now the Doctor to manifest the truth to be of his side in all these points appealeth to the writings of Calvin and Beza And touching the first the sheweth from their words that in the primitive Church Bishops had the oversight of Dioceses and therefore in some places where their circuit was very large they had vnder them such as were called Chorepiscopi countrey-Bishops he might have added Lectores Acoluthes c. that they had also above them Metropolitanes as we may see in the places whereunto he sendeth vs. Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. section 2. and 4. Beza de Minist grad cap. 24. pag. 167. c. But how doth this prove that which he was to prove that the The D. freeth not himself fro the untruthes charged upon him Bishops which in his text are called angels were Bishops of Dioceses or set over whole cities and the countryes adjoyning Doth it not prove as strongly that these angels had both country-Bishops diverse other inferior degrees of clergie-men vnder them and Metropolitans above them Which if the Doct. should affirme his best freinds would see very evidently that he abuseth these grave and The Doct. changeth the quest concealeth that which would covince him of 2. evils learned divines most grossely to make them the authors of those vntruthes which himself broached and will not recall His hope was it seemeth to blinde his readers eyes by a crafty changing of the question as almost every where he doth and concealing that which serveth to convince him both of mainteyning an vntruth and abusing their testimonies to mainteyne it For it is manifest that they both do speak neyther of these Angels nor of the Apostles times but of that forme of government which by humane ordinance tooke place after their daies wherein the ordinances of Christe and his Apostles which should have bin kept inviolable according to 1. Tim. 6. 14. began to be violated and so on to the time of the Papacie Let the D. read againe the title of that 4. cap. with the 1. 2. sections therof togither with that 24. chap. of M. Beza pag. 165. 166. c. and though he be a partie yet I will at this tyme make him judge how substancially he hath proved the first pointe Nether are the Testimonies alledged for the 2. point so direct or The D. testimonies prove not the point fit for his purpose as he would perswade for where he should prove that they teach that those ancient governinge Elders which they hold were parâ—s of the presbyterie in the Apostolike Churches are laie and annuall he sheweth out of Beza in his former book pag. 60. cap. 11. that at Geneva there are yearely either new chosen or the old confirmed And out of Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 3. sect 8. and Beza againe cap. 11. pa. 64. and de presb and excom pag. 105. that they are or must be chosen out of the laiety The reasons why they are there annuall doe clearely shew Beza dicto libro pag. 68. that it is a matter of conveniencie in regard of persons place time and sondry other circumstances so estemed and not a thing necessarie And though they account them not of the Ministery because they are not chosen and ordeyned to the Ministery of the word and sacraments yet is their office merely ecclesiasticall not civil because of the choise and ordination by the publike prayers of the Church And therefore if the word laiety or laie-persons be opposed to such as are persons ecclesiasticall they cannot properly be sayd to remaine laye during their office Neyther doth Calvin any where say that being chosen out of the laiâ—y they still remaine lay Nay his very phrase chosen from among the laitie sheweth that after the choise during the time of their office they are not of the laiety But the D. saith that being chosen they doe not become to be of the Clergie therefore Mr Calvin must needs meane they still continue to be of the laiety But when by the Clergie Mr Calvin meaneth as he saith vsitato nomine all such as exercised any publik Ministery in the Church all being so called from the Doctor to the dore-keeper what can he else meane but that they by that election being called to beare publick office of government with the pastors became thereby to be of the clergie that is as the generall definition of the word clergie sheweth ecclesiasticall persons In deed he calleth them â—ie because they be not of the Clergie in the stricter sense viz Ministers of the Sacra functio jurisdictionis word and sacraments but yet he calleth their function an ecclesiasticall order and sacred function As idly and evilly alleadged is Mr Bezaes testimoney for as litle Bezaes testimonie is both idly and evilly alleadged by the D. doth it speak to the purpose he may doâ— wel to look vpoÌ„ his book againe see whether it be Beza that calleth them annuall in the title of that chapter it may be the title itself will prove none of Bezaes but Saraviaes his adversaries who by that term in the title seeketh to disgrace that function which I the rather beleeve because where they are sayd in that title to be such as are ad docendum inâ—pti Beza disclaymeth it and saith they must in some sort and measure be ad docendum apti and that it is a fault if others be chosen and chargeth Saravia to do litle better then calumniate in so terming them And that however new may be chosen at the yeres end yet that temâ—re nec ipsi sâ—se deponunt nec deponuntur yea rather summo studio retinentur qui fidem suaÌ„ et diligentiam in suo praesbyteratu probarunt And that whereas by the order of the consistory a time is prescribed whether annum vel longius it is done in discretion for diverse causes set down by him not for that eyther they did not
or by the nature of their office might not continue longer And the Doctor might aswel say that these two worthies doâ— make the office of the Pastor which is perpetual aÌ„nual for the case may so fall out that it may doth last but a yeare with some such is their demeanour therein And to conclude the very lawes of Geneva which conteyne the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying pag. 9. That in the end of the yeare the Elders shal be presented to the Seniory to know if they be worthy to continue in their office or to be discharged because it is not expedient that they be changed without a cause shal be Iudge However it be it resteth still an untruth vpon the Doctors owne head neither shall he ever be able to remove it in that he faith They hold the Presbyters of those Churches mentioned in his text which were not Ministers to be annuall or lay-Presbyters Asmuch may be sayd concerning the third point viz. that they The Doct. standeth out in an untruth make those angels nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries then which the Doctor saith nothing is more plaine I say nothing is lesse plaine or true then that it is plaine they say so For 1. neyther Calvin nor Beza nor T. C. nor the Author of the ecclesiasticall discipline do confound those ancient Bishops the D. speaketh of with these Angels as he doth He produceth them all 4. as if he would strike it dead and they all agree in one yet never The Doct. 4. authors agree in one but never a one with him some of them against him a one with him Three of them speake neyther of these angels nor of the times wherein they lived but of other persons times very sweetly therefore doth the D. from them conclude for these Angels and their times Beza in deed Annot in Apoc. 2. 1. speaketh of these Angels but it is cleare he maketh them such Proestoâ—es praesidents of the assemblies to moderate the meetinges of the rest of the Ministers as that also they were Ministers of particular Churches or congregations with whom the rest of the Ministers were equall in authority after the end of that assemblie over which they were for order sake chosen sett yea he directly disclaymeth both in that Annotation and in his answere to Saravia those presidents or Bishops which were nothing else but presidentes of such Assemblies having no particular Churches vpon which they did reside and over which they watched not togither with the rest of the Ministers of equall authority with them 2. It is also evident by the writings both of Calvin and Beza for as for the other noted in his Margine I know not to what ende he should send the reader to them vnlesse for his discredit in quoting them idlely Instit lib. 4. ca. 4. sec 3. and De gradib Minist ca. 22. pa. 133. that even those ancient Bishops which lived after the time of these Angels for of them onely they speak which moderated the assemblies of the reste of the Pastors and presbyters in any Towne or Citie were themselves by their office Pastors et suae pareciae preerant and governed their owne parishe yea they laboured no lesse much more rather then other presbyters in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments ill favouredly therefore doth the D. conclude from them for the Apostles times But to help at a dead lifte and to colour the falsehood which he could The D. to colour his vntruth foysteth in a sentence which yet doth him no good not but see of that his assertion he now in this defence foysteth in these words in respect of their superiority and telleth us that they make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority onely presidents of the presbyteries And so reasoneth very profoundly in this manner They make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority above other presbyters onely praesidents of the presbyters Ergo they make those Angels nothing else but presidentes or moderaters of the assemblies As if a man mought by rules of logick conclude Mr. Downam to be nothing else but a Doctor in divinitie because by degres in schooles he is a D. in divinity though he be also Pastor of great Which is his best stile if he were so well advised as to take his degree of honor from the word of God c. As for the fourth since the Ref. acknowledgeth answer pag. 7. Sect. 13. ad sect 17. p. 52. 53. that those wise and learned divines doe judge that their presidencie in classicall or Synodall meetings was but of a short continuance as occasion required the D. might have spared his labour in proving this point If he would directly have contradicted him he should have proved from their writings that they are of opinion that the president might not by the nature of his office continue longer then for a weâ—ke or a moneth this was it which the Refuter denied but herein he justifieth him rather For in the very places quoted by him pag. 141. 153. though Beza saith that the presidentes of the presbyters were at first by course of short continuance yet he affirmeth that that order was not essentiall or immutable but accidentall and variable and that it was afterwards thought fit to settle it constantly vpon one But whereas the D. lib. 2. pa. 141. telleth us that as there cannot be one instance given but that alwaise the president of the presbyterie in the primitive Church was perpetuall so it was in Calvins time and Beza misliketh it not but sometimes wisheth it were restored what else doth he but justifie his Refuter in that The D. justifieth his Refuter in that where in he would coÌ„demn him must take home his 4. untruthes wherein he would condemne him Wherefore let the D. be intreated to take these 4. vntruthes to himself again their own home where for ought I know they were bredd and borne and there let them rest till he can bring which wil be ad graecas calendas a better discharge from their writings to justify those particulars Now touching those calumniations of vnmannerly ignorance cuÌ„â—ing rudenes wrangling c. which he objected against his Refuter I overpasse them as vnworthy any answere it was the best he could doe to outface and salve his credit but ill will it doe it with them that are wise judicious But whereas he twice affirmeth pag. 47 53. that the Refuter craftily concealeth or cunningly seeketh to conceale the division which is among our selves it is a slaunder not of ignorance The D. wittingly slandereth but against his owne knowledge for he could not but see that he sayd pag. 5. of his answere that all men are not resolved of the truth of every of them yet the division is not so great as he would perswade the world nether are the pointes so newe or so generally contradicted
of those reverend and learned divines Calvin Beza c. as he confidently but falsly avoucheth Wherefore take he also to him these two vntruthes and add he a third likewise to the former where he saith in his margin pa. 47. that the Refuter mistaketh his reason vnlesse he had rather acknowledge that his reason is impertinent and frivolous For the question being What manner of preheminence those Bishops had which are in his text termed the Angels of the 7. churches that which he addeth of the wiser more learned disciplinarians their granting that they were Bishops of whole cities c. that their presbyteries consisted partly of annuall or lay Elders and that the Angels were nothing else but presidents of those presbyteries cannot in reason rightly be reduced to the question vnlesse it be vnderstood of those Bishops and Churches which are mencioned in the text which is to be explicated And if he be as it must be so vnderstood he falsly chargeth his Refuter with an ignorant mistakinge of his reason and lett him learne the lesson he elswhere taught his Refuter say ou manthano I vnderstand not my owne reason or else against his vnderstandinge he did both trifle in the one and slander in the other Chap 3. Concerning the residue of the Doctors defence of his preface or first part of his sermon from pag. 54 to the end Proceed we on now to the next section pag. 54. where he telleth us that hitherto his two assertions conteyned in the explication have bin Sect. 1. ad sect 18. pag. 54. propounded to be discussed and that now there is way made for the proof of eyther by enumerating distinctly the severall points which he proposed to handle c. And I wish the reader to remeÌ„ber how he saith before sect 1. pag. 28 that the points to be handled are first deduced out of the text from pag. 2. to pag. 6. of his serm lin 16. and secondly that they are enumerated The Doct. changeth the points of his sermon and distinctly marshalled pag 6 and 7. Now can any man that heareth him thus speak judg otherwise then that himself holdeth the points distinctly enumerated to be the self same and neither more nor fewer then those which are before deduced out of the text Yet he that wel examineth the matter shall find that neither is the number of the points the same neyther are the pointes eadem numero the same in number We have already heard what are the two principall assertions which he proposeth serm pag. 2. For the deciding of the former he layeth downe two questions which are inlarged into three viz. 1. whether the Churches whereof they were angels were parishes or Dioceses 2. And consâ—quâ—ntly whether those angels were parishional or Diocesan Bishops 3. What was the preheminence in regard wherof they were called angels whether onely a priority in order above other Ministers that for a time and by course or a superiâ—itie in degree and maiority of rule for terme of life In the direct answering of these three questioÌ„s togither with the later assertion which must be take as is before expressed the summe of his preface lieth as himself confesseth Defen pag. 29. Wherefore the points deduced out of the text cannot exceed the number of foure so that in the Doctors enumerating of 5. conclusions to be more at large prosecuted the nomber of these later excedeth the nomber of the former by one as every childe knoweth that can tell his 5. fingers And the reader may easily discerne that this One which is now marshalled into the feild and was not before appointed to serve in the battell is the first of the 5. which sayth there were not lâ—y governing Elders in the primitive Church for this cannot carry the face of an answere to any of the three questions before mentioned Now to compare the rest and to trie whether they be one and the same 1. His direct answere to the first question touching the churches must be this The Churches whereof they were Angels were diâ—ceses properly and not parishes But the second of the five for the first is shewed to be an intruder affirmeth that in the first 200. yeares the visible churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall goverment were dioceses properly and not parishes and the presbyteries which were in those times were not asigned to parishes but to diâ—â—eses Wherefore 2. That which followeth as a consequent of this viz. that the Angels of the Churches and presidents of the presbyteries were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops must be referred to the Bishops that lived in the first 200 yeares after Christ whereas the answere of the second question hath peculier reference to the Angels of the 7. churches that they were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops 3. In like manner the answere to the 3. question determineth the preheminence of those Bishops which are called the Angels of the Churches to be not a prioritie in order for a time and by course but a superiority in degree above other Ministers and a majority of rule during life But the fourth point amonge the five with a larger reference to the Bishops of the primitive Church for many ages affirmeth that every Bishop being advanced to an higher degree of Ministerie was sâ—t above the other presbyters not onely in priority of order but also in majority of rule for terme of life 4. And the last of the five having an eye vnto the function of Bishops described in the forenamed positions whose Churches are Dioceses and their Presbyteries assigned for the whole Dioceses whose preheminence also is a superioritie in degree and majoritie of rule promiseth to shewe and by evidence of truth to demonstrate that the calliâ—g of such Bishops is of divine and apostolicall institution But the last assertion proposed pag. 2. promiseth this onely and no more out of the wordes of the text to shewe that the office and function of Bishops there ment by Angels is in this text approved as lâ—wfâ—ll and commended as excellent Wherefore since there is so apparant a difference betwene the one and the other me thinkes the D. should sooner be drawne to confesse that the pointes first deduced out of the text to be handled doo differ both in nomber and nature from these which are secondly enumerated then to vndertake the mainteyninge of the contrary and the reducing of the first of his 5. conclusions to one of those 3. questions which he propounded for the triall of his first assertion As for that faire florishe which he maketh for the bringing of the first foure to the proofe of the first assertion and the laste of the five to the fortifyinge of the second how vainly he striveth therin the very change of both the assertions before named and here continued doth sufficiently declare yet his defect herein shall more fully be layd open hereafter vpon just occasion offred In the meane time I will first examine the scope of
question consequence of his Enthimeme for graunted yet he may rest securely in this that the conclusion of his argument will never be impugned But if his Refuter had thus disorderly turned the frame of his sermon vpside downe or given the least intimation that he indeavoured to prove a Diocesan Bishoprick to be lawful in the angels of these 7. Churches because it is lawfull in the Lord Bishops of England there had beene some cause for him whereas nowe there is no colour of a cause to complaine as he doth pag. 56 57 that by a forced Analysis not answerable to his Genesis the frame of his sermon to let his racking and taintering speeches alone is put quite out of frame Wherefore since the Doctor chargeth his Refuter with the fault whereof The D. is guilty of the fault which he chargeth his refuter with himself is guilty it shall be no great wroÌ„g done to return him some other of his own words p. 56. nimia est miseria doctuÌ„ esse hominum nimis behold to how great trouble too much learning wil put a man For if his skil had not bene extraordinary I say not in analysing his owne treatise but in changing his two first assertions and bringing in other two in their stead all this stirr had bin needlesse But the stirre or strife is not yet at an end the Doctors greatest Sect. 3. ad sect 19 p. 56. quarrel against his refuter is yet behinde namely the censure which he passeth upon those 5. points which he prosecuted in the body of his sermon where he saith answ pag. 9. that the first the last are to litle purpose and that the other three doe not directly prove the point in question I will not here trouble the reader with the Doctors termes wherein he sheweth in what rage he was hereat let us rather examine how just or vnjust this the Refuters censure is the which that it may appeare let it be remembred that the Doctor acknowledgeth in the former section pag. 54 that the first 4. points must be referred to the proof of his first assertion the last of the fyve to the second Now this being so whosoever taketh his second assertion in the words wherein he delivered it serm pag. 2. shall easily discerne that it is labour bestowed in vaine to spend time in the proving of that which is cleare enough of it self For who ever doubted but that the office and function of those Bishops which are in his text meant by angels is there approved as lawful and commended as excellent Wherefore if his 5. point serve for none other vse then for the proofe of this The D. 5. point is idle assertion the D. hath no cause to blame his Ref for affirming he might well have spared that labour But albeit he could not indure so milde a reproofe his patience must now be tryed with a sharper Be it therefore knowne to him that he reasoneth absurdly if he The D. reasoneth absurdly referr his 5. point to the fortifying of his 2. assertion pag. 2. for thus then his enthymeme standeth The calling of Bishops such as ours are or at least such as the Bishops of the auncient Churches are affirmed to be serm pag. 7. is of apostolical and divine institution Ergo the function of Bishops meant by angels Apoc. 1 20. is in the same text approved as lawful and commended as excellent As for that difference which is betweene the later terme or praedicatum of the antecedent and of the consequent in this argument I will take no exception against it for though every apostolicall or divine institution findeth not approbation in this text Apocal. 1. 20 yet the honour of such an institution cannot be denied vnto any function which in this text receiveth approbation Wherefore he shall with good leave if he will exchange the later terme of his conclusion thus Ergo the function of Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is of apostolicall and divine institution But how will the D. cover the shame of his disorderly reasoning when in stead of justifying our Bishops by the calling of those Angels he doth contrariwise inferre their calling to be of divine institution because our bishops have deryved their function from divine or apostolicall ordination Is not this to set the Cart before the Horse to laye that for the foundation which The D. laieth that for the groundsell that should serve for the ridgepole should serve for the roofe or highest parte of his buylding It will not serve his turne to tell us that we mistake his 2. Assertion for it is already shewed that himself putteth a changling in place thereof when he delivereth vnder that name this conclusion that callinge of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good Notwithstanding since he will needes have this which the falsely calleth his 2. Assertion to be the doctrine whlch he intended to prove not onely by the explication of his text comprized in his first assertion but also by that 5. point wherein he bestowed his greatest labour if he have sufficiently fortified the former 4. pointes which serve to vpholde that explication which concludeth his doctrine what offence was it for his Refuter then or now againe for his reader to say that his labour in the last point was needlesse and might well have bin spared May he not well think that one argument soundly concluded from the canonicall text will more prevaile with the wise then many conjectural reasons drawne froÌ„ mere humane testimonies But may a man prove his patience yet a little further that with an harder sentence viz. That he contradicteth himself in urging The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself that 5. point as a distinct proofe to conclude the doctrine I speak herein nothing but the truth and that I received from his owne mouth For this 5. point to wit that the function of Bishops is of epostâ—licall and divine institution which he now pag 54. 58. maketh a proofe of the doctrine arising out of the text is expressely affirmed serm pag 93. to be the doctrine it self which ariseth out of the text and by way of explication of the text is proved And who so well observeth what lawfulnes and goodnes or excellencie he ascribeth eyther to the function of those Bishops which are meant by angels in his text assert 2. pag. 2. or to the calling of all other Bishops answerable to his description pag. 51. with 54. 54. he may plainly perceive that it is no other then such as hath institution from God and approbation from the text it self under the names of starrs angels wherefore if he himself had beene as carefull to observe the transitions which he vseth in his sermon as he is ready without cause to blame his refuter for not observing theÌ„ he might have discerned his doctrine handled in his sermon to be the very laste of his 5. pointes and not so diverse from it as
the Angels of the 7. churches to be such Bishops as ours are he vndertaketh to trie pag. 3. whether those Angels were parishional or diocesan Bishops he shall finde that his first assertion doth crave the help of his assumption to stand in the place of one of the pillers that must support it And touching his conclusion since he tolde us even in the former page that it is the very conclusion which he proposed to be proved serm pag. 55. why saith he nowe he did not expresse it And if it be the main doctrin of his sermoÌ„ as every where throughout his defense he affirmeth why saith he it is onely implied in the collection of his doctrine out of the text But no more of these whies let us come to the maine question from which the reader hath bin held too longe I meane the triall of the truth of the assumption and how true it is that it is as he saith proved by the 4. first pointes of his five Well were it with the D. and the cause he pleadeth for if he could Sect. 5. as easely prove his assumption as he can saie it is proved But as in truth he hath no ground froÌ„ his text chosen of purpose to raise it vpon so he goeth not about the proof of it by any word or circumstance The D. doth not once offer to prove the point in question by any word of his text therein For every man certeinly seeth that it is every waie as doubtfull for ought appeareth to the contrary by his text whether the Angels therein spoken of were diocesan Bishops as whether the calling of diocesan Bishops be lawfull and good And it semeth that himself discerned some defect in his proofe seing he forbeareth to deliver it in syllogisticall forme of reasoninge wherin otherwise he is not sparinge for he hath no other syllogism that bendeth this waie then such as arise from each of his 4. pointes Nether one alone nor all the D. 4. points togither doe directly coÌ„clude his assertion Yea the D. referreth them to another question considered severally and a parte and yet not any one of them nor all of them in one togither directly concludeth that assertion which he saith is proved by them viz. that diocesan Bishops are here ment by Angels They all saile another way trade for the bringinge in of another commodity or conclusion viz. That the primitive Church was governed by diocesan Bishops and that the Angels or pastors or governors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours are Which point how well he hath proved we shall see hereafter here for the present till he shew us how he can directly and soundly conclude the former from the later I still must and will affirme that the assumption of his first syllogism remaineth as yet vnproved specially since he himself referreth his 4. pointes which are all his proof of it to another question For the first assertion propounded serm pag. 2. with which he accordeth his assumption determineth no other question then this viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the Churches But the assertion which his 4. pointes doe conclude is as his owne wordes teach in the next chapter pag. 60. the answere of another questioÌ„ to witt whether the premitive Churches were governed by such diocesan Bishops as ours are or by such presbyteries as we speake of This later is a question de facto examininge what forme of government was imbraced of the ancient Churches the former is de genuino scripturae sensu touching the true sense of the text he handleth Wherefore though Though the 4. pointes were granted yet the D. is still prooflesse c. â— Bishop Barlow serm at Hamp Court vpon Acts. 20. 28. fol. 3. it should be granted that he hath sufficiently confirmed the later yet it followeth not that the former is directly proved or necessarily concluded For he is not ignorant that one of his reverend Fathers †to whose judgment in the interpretation of a text he oweth more reverence then himself can challenge from his Refuter how basely soever he esteeme of him doth behould every parte of the outward functioÌ„ of D Bishops fully described in Act. 20. 28. as 1. The preheminent superiority above other Ministers in the word Episcopos 2. Both their Cathedrall seat or positive residencie in one Citie and a regencie setled in their persons during life in the word posuit And their diocesan jurisdiction in the wordes in quo viniverso And if the D. make any question of any one of these pointes he may finde the first much more sufficiently confirmed theÌ„ is his interpretation of the word Angels in his text for besides the proofes produced in the sermon it self to shewe that the Bishops of the primitive Church were set in a preeminent superiority above other Ministers he backeth his vnderstandinge of the word Episcopos with some colour of reasoÌ„ froÌ„ other Scripture that as there are scopountes Seers Phil. 3. 17. which expresseth the dutie of each pastor over his flock so there are 1. Pet. 5. 2. episcopountes quasi hoi opitoâ—s scopountas such as must visit over look both the flock the Seers wch last place of Peter the D. himself vnderstandeth of Bishops lib. 3. pag. 43. wheras to prove that diocesan Bishops are meant by Angels he alledgeth no shewe of any authority divine or humane that may perswade the name to be given vnto Bishops to expresse their preheminence above other ministers And as for the rest of the prerogatives of Bishops which Bishop Barlow did but point at not prosecute who seeth not how easy a matter it is to justify them by a like consequence of reasoninge to that which the D. useth For if we must beleeve that a diocesan extent of jurisdiction a prehminent superiority both in degree of ministery and power of ordeyninge c. is implied in this title the Angels of the Churches because the Bishops of the primitive Churches did governe whole dioceses and had therein such superiority above all other Ministers why should not the D. also beleeve that a diocesan jurisdiction and Cathedrall seate togither with a positive residencie in one Citie and a setled regencie during life is rightly gathered from these wordes in quo vni verse posuit seing he knoweth that the Bishops of the primitive Churches had every of them the like jurisdiction seate residenoie and regencie peculiar to their functions Notwithstanding the D. will at no hand consent that the presbyters of whom Paul speaketh Actes 20. 28. should be diocesan Bishops such as ours are for he taketh them for inferiour Ministers such as he will have to be called Preistes Now if he reply that the Churches practise in succeding ages allowinge vnto Bishops those priviledges before mencioned helpeth nothing to prove that those wordes of the text doe conveye the same partes or notes of
episcopall preheminence vnto the Presbyters or Bishops there spoken of why may not the Refuter return him the same answere viz. That all his proofes produced to confirme his opinion touching the diocesan jurisdiction and preheminent superiority of the Bishops which governed the ancient Churches doe neyther directly nor necessarily conclude that such diocesan Bishops are to be vnderstood by the Angels of the Churches Apoc. 1. 20 For is not the holy Scripture sufficient to interpret it selfe Or are the rules which divines doe generally imbrace for the interpretation of any text as by waying all circumstances of the text it self comparinge other Scriptures with it where the like wordes or phrases are used are these rules I say too weake or too short to make good that large and powerfull preheminence which he assigneth to these Angels If so may we not justly suspecte his explication to be forced and vnfitting If otherwise why doth he not indeavour to shewe that his constructioÌ„ of the text he handleth is consonant to the circumstances and to other scriptures There be many words in the scripture which may be drawne as the Canon-lawe sayth dist 37. relatum to that sense which every one for the nonce will frame to himself But it should not be so for we must not from without them seek a foreigne and strange sense that so we may as we can confirme it with the authority of the text but the meaning of the truth must be received froÌ„ the scriptures themselves It was the fault of the Manichees as Augustine noteth against Faâ—stus a Manichee Tom. 6. lib. 32. cap. 19 that every ones minde was his authour what to allovv or dissalovv in every text so he vvas not for his faith subject to the scripture but made the script subject to himself that vvch he held did not therfore please him because he found it vvritteÌ„ in so high authority but therfore he thought it vvritteÌ„ because it pleased him But the reader saith Hillary de Trinit lib. 1. is he who rather expecteth the vnderstanding of things from the things themselves then froÌ„ himself imposing it upon them who taketh the exposition from thence rather then bringeth it thither and inforceth not upon the words that sense which before his reading he presumed Which course if the D. had observed he would never have given us this exposition of his text that the angels of the Churches there mentioned were Diocesan Bishops such as ours are or if he had he would have indeavoured to justify it from the text it self and some other scriptures compared and not have boasted so confidently as he doth that the explication of his text is sufficiently proved because he hath shewed undeniably as he supposeth the like Diocesan jurisdiction and superiority to have bene in the Bishops of the primitive Churches that lived in the succeeding ages But that we may yet see how impertinent and superfluous not Sect. 6. ad pag. 58. 59. onely the first and last of his 5. points but the first and last of his 4. brought for proof of his assumption are it shall not be amiss to take a generall viewe of them togither before we come to handle them in particuler even for this purpose to see their impertinencie and thus they lie If there were no other presbyters in the Church but Ministers 2 If the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels were Dioceses properly not parishes 3. If the Angels or Bishops then were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops 4. And â—f the Bishops then were superior to other Ministers in degree c. Then Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But all these 4. pointes in the Antecedent are true Ergo the consequent is true also First I pray the Doctor to tell vs whether the first and last of these 4. pointes doe adde any force or weight at all to the consequent for if there were in the primitive Church no Presbyters but Ministers and the Bishops then were superiour to other Ministers in degree yet will it never a whit the more thence followe that these angels were Diocesan Bishops might they not be parish Bps. onely and have other Ministers or Presbyters under them inferiour in degree unto them which might make a Presbyterie in a Parish Doe they which make the Pastour a degree above the Doctor thereby make the Pastour a Diocesan Bishop Secondly as for the third point is it not a consequent of the second Doth not the D. himself confesse it pag. 3. of his serm might it not therefore well have bin spared Thirdly if the secoÌ„d or third of his foure be granted him doth not the grant thereof putt the fourth out of question It appeareth therefore that the Refuter may still affirme and Two of the D. 5. points are idle and the first 4. conclude another questioÌ„ whatever they conclude two of them at least might be spared that with advantage that the first and last of the D. five pointes are superfluous and idley produced But which is more seing as hath bin shewed all the foure doe conclude another question and not that assumption of his owne syllogism which he saith is proved by them doth he not offer his Refuter the greater wronge in charging him so oft as he doth with aforced analysis yea and that divised â—gâ—inst the light of his conscience to put the partes of his sermon out of the frame For as for the reasons which he urgeth to justify his accusation they are too light and vaine to prevayle with any stayed minde 1. He asketh the Refuter how he could perswade himself that his analâ—ysis was answerable to his genesis when he sawe too partes of the 5. could not be brought to his frame the other three not sutable to it 2. he saith that his owâ—e distribution of his sermon and the transitions which he useth doe wholly disâ—gree with his analysis 3. he addeth that the analysis here propounded by himself and his defense of the severall partes doe manifestly prove that neyther the first was impertinent nor the â—â—st superflous nor the other 3. concluding besides the purpose To begin with the last first I saie that it is already shewed how his owne analysis here propounded doth in many pointes disagree from the project of his sermon in as much as he hath changed both the assertions which he first set downe to be proved and the doctrine which he laboured to confirme whence it fâ—lloweth also that his sâ—cond Syllogisme framed to shewe that his 5. point was not superfluous is it self superfluous and idle In like manner hath bene manifested and that from his owne words that his 4. points doe conclude another question and not that assertion which he saith is proved by them and that whatsoever they conclude two of them at least might have bene spared so that his last too which I The Doct. heapeth up untruth to colour his slander first answere is but
de iâ—â—re whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as they hold or must be governed by Presbyteries as we affirme The first question he saith his handled in the former part of his sermon to which he reduceth his 4. first points And the second in the later which is the last of his five And thus in deed I graunt that every of his 5. points may be pertinent to his purpose yet still I affirme that if they be referred to the proof of his two assertions which he ought by his promise serm pag. 2. to prove the first and last might well have bene spared and the other three not to repeat againe how one of them at the least is needlesse doe neyther directly nor necessarily conclude that first assertion which he saith is proved by them Wherefore had he meant to frame his analysis to such a distribution as best agreeth with his Genesis we should never have heard from him that which so often he repeateth in this defence to wit that his five points enumerated pag. 6. 7. are the direct proofes of his 2. assertions proposed pag. 2 he would rather have divided that part of his preface which himselfe sect 1. of this chapter calleth the proposition into these two members 1. a proposition of certeine questions to be debated for the explication of his text pag. 2. 3. 5. which he promiseth to cleare but doth not 2. a digression from his text wherein he proposeh 1. the opinions of the disciplinarians whom he intendeth to confute pag. 4. 5. 6. and 2. those 5. pointes which he opposeth to their opinions pag. 6. 7. and pomiseth in his sermon to prove against them This had bene both true plaine dealing but he was not willing the world should see that his text affoardeth him so litle help as it doth to conclude the doctrine which he pretendeth to arise froÌ„ the explication thereof And therefore how oft so ever his refuter calleth vpon him to make good his promise by proving that we are by the angels in his text to vnderstand such Bâ—shops for the substance of their calling as ours are yet by no meanes will he once heare on that side and be recalled to this question but shâ—fteth it off by this calumniation that his Refuter by a forced analysis for I let passe his odious termes withdraweth him from the principall queston Wherefore to cut off all such quarrels and to damme vp some other lurking holes whereinto he flyeth as occasion serveth before we proceed to the examinatioÌ„ of any of the large discourses made by him in defece of his 5. conclusions It shal be good to take a better view of the state of the question debated in his sâ—rmon that the reader may throughly see what it is both that the Refuter denieth the Doctor is to prove first by the explication of his text and after that by such arguments as he taketh most pregnant for his purpose Chap 4. Concerning the state of the question handled by the Doctor in his third chapt sect 1. which is altogither chaunged by him The question discussed in the sermon as the Doctor telleth us Sect. 1. ad Cap. 1. sect 1. pag. 60. 61. Cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 60. is twofold The first de facto whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops as we sâ—y saith he or by the Presbyteries of such elders as they speake of The second de â—ure whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Diocesan Bps as we hold or must needes be governed by their presbyteries as they affirme The first is handled in the former part of the sermon to which he referreth the first 4. pointes the second â—n the later whereto the 5. or last appert yneth Here the reader must remember as is already observed in the former chap. that the principall question in the entrance of his sermon pag. 2. propounded to be discussed is wholly overpasseâ— the question I meane de vero genuino textus sensu whether by the angels there mentioned we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of â—â—eir câ—lling as ours are And so let vs see how well he hath reduced the whole controversie his text set aside to these two questions because he dealeth against two sorts of Disciplinarians who as he pretendeth differ greatly in their opinions the one from the other His first question he thus explaineth Whâ—ther the primâ—tive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops such for the substance of their calling as ours are or by such Presbyteries as they stand for viz. eyther parishionall consisting of the Parish-Bishop and a companiâ— of lay or onely governing elders or Presbyters in cities consisting of the President and other Presbyters Whereof some are Ministers but the greater some laye or onely governing elders The question being thus layd downe because the expositioÌ„ standeth generally betwene Presbyters and Diocesan Bishops a man would think that all which stand for the one do generally and alike reject the other Whereas notwithstanding the D. other of his minde doe acknowledge that presbyteries had place and use in the goverment of the ancient Churches and he would perswade his readers that the more learned sort of disciplinarians doe acknowledge the primitive Bishops to be diocesan But if the opposition be not simply betwene presbyteries and Bishops but onely betwene such and such yet a man would judge that both sides hold both diocesan Bishops and presbyteries though they disagree in the nature of their functions whereas it is apparant that he affirmeth diocesan Bishops to be absolutely disclamed of the later sort of presbyterians Agayne in the difference which he putteth betwene the elder the yonger sort of Disciplinarians who would not conceite that the elder sort deny vnto country parishes aswel any governing Elders as a parish Bishop have no entire presbyteries but in Cities onely Wheras it is well knowne that all their presbyteries are nâ—t limited to Cities that Elders are allowed to country-parishes even by them that contrive the Churches of City Country into one Eldershipp yet so as the Elders in the Country have not ful power of jurisdiction Moreover in the 2. question as he hath proposed it who would not thinke both that all which plead for presbyteries whether severall in every parishe or one in diverse doe holde the goverment which they imbrace to be a like necessary and that such as stand with the D. for diocesan Bishops doe with one consent strive onely for the lawfullnes of their places and not for the necessity or perpetuity of their functions Yet he indeavoureth to perswade his reader lib. 4. pag. 161. that the reteyning of diocesan Bishops such as he standeth for is noâ— condemned by any moderate or judicious divine but onely by the late Presbyterians whereas it is too evident for his deniall to evince the coÌ„trary that many at this day doe stand forth eagerly for the necessitie
20. and also all Christian Princes Ergo all power is not given to Christ alone neyther is his government a Monarchy or sâ—le power of rule If this conclusion doth not necessarily followe upon the Antecedent then the Doctor if he shut not his right eye may see the loosenes of his owne argument Shall I need to ask him whether King Iames doth not therefore governe the Realmes as a Monarch by his sole authoritie because in the government thereof he hath many subordinate helps under him Or whether the Duke of Saxonie and such like free Princes doe not governe by a sole power of rule their severall Provinces because they acknowledge the Emperour their superiour Hath not every Maister in the government of his how shoud a sole superioritie though some have both under them a Schoole Mr. for their children and a Steward for the oversight of their servants and above them sundry Magistrates who in the Province or Country wherein they live carrie a farre more eminent and pecrelesse superioritie It is apparant therefore that the sole power of rule in our Bishops is not impaired by any that are superiour or inferiour to theÌ„ unlesse they were in the same CoÌ„mâ—ssioÌ„ joyned with theÌ„ as such assistants as if the case require may restreine them Neyther is their Monarchical authoritie abridged by the power of Synods assembled as he saith pag. 43. for the making of ecclesiastical coÌ„stitutions since the Kings highnes ceaseth not to be a Monarch though he cannot make newe lawes nor doe some things without the consent of his Nobles CoÌ„mons assembled in the high court of Parliament Neyther would the Doctor feare to professe that our Bishops doe governe Monarchically or by their sole authoritie save that he foreseeth as it seemeth lib. 3. pag. 22 that if he should plainly ascribe unto them a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction it might be thence inferred that he alloweth no jurisdiction to Presbyters and holdeth those Churches to have no lawfull Ministers which have not such Bishops as ours are to ordeyne them And surely though he falsly charge his Refuter for disgracing his sermoÌ„ with those inferences yet if he have none other way to avoyd them but by denying that he giveth vnto Bishops a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction he must be content hereafter to beare this imputation that he giveth way to those absurdities he would seeme to disclayme For first touching jurisdiction since he placeth it in that singular and peerelesse power of rule before spoken of sect 7. which Sect. 9. admitteth no partner and subjecteth all both presbyters and people in foro externo to his direction as their ruler and to his correction as their judge that which is already pressed to prove a sole superiority or sole power of rule in Bishops doth directly serve to conclude a sole power of jurisdiction in them For to speake as he doth of externall publike jurisdiction in foro externo which standeth as he saith serm pag. 51. in receyving accusations in conventing parties accused and censuring such as are found guilty accordinge to the quality of the offence by reproofe putting to silence suspension deprivation or excommunication in which respect seing all the presbyters within the diocese are subiect to the Bishop yea even those that should assiste him aswell as others that are severed from him and affixed to their severall cures it is apparrant that that majority of rule which the D. giveth him over all cannot be lesse then a sole power of jurisdiction For who can deny a sole power of jurisdiction to him that is in the power and exercise thereof so lifted vp aboue all others in an whole diocese that they are all in subjection vnto him and he hath no assistantes to restreyne him Must the parish Bishop needs be a sole-governor if he have not the assistance of a presbyterie joyned in coÌ„missioÌ„ with him And is it plaine that the Iudges in the Kings Bench and common-pleas who are Assistants to the L. cheif Iustices are joyned to either of them as to help theÌ„ in giving right judgmeÌ„t so to restreine theÌ„ that they judge not alone according to their owne pleasure Sâ—â— his Def. lib. 3. pag. 141. 143. And shall not also a diocesan L. Bishop hold exercise a sole power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction when he is so superior vnto all in his diocese that he hath no assistance of any to restreine or over-rule him Moreover if Bishops onely and not presbyters be authorized jure apostolico to exercise their publike and external jurisdiction in all ecclesiasticall censures over the people and clergie of their dioceses as the D. affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 116. if also the power of reconciling paenitents by imposition of handes doth belonge to Bishops onely and that by the power of their order pag. 105. then surely their function is dishonored and their authority imparred by such as deny vnto them a sole power of jurisdiction Secondly concerninge ordination the reader is to be advertised that he saith serm pag. 37. it hath bin a receyved opinion in the Church of God even from the Apostles times vntill our age that the right of ordinatioÌ„ of presbyters is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop And addeth pag. 40. that the perpetuall consent of the Church of God appropriateth the ordinary right of ordination to the Bishop alone And pag. 42. that Bishops onely in the judgment of the Fathers have right of ordeâ—ninge Ministers regularly And therefore though extraordinarily and in case of necessity he seeme to allowe of their Ministery which in the want of a Bishop are ordeyned by other Ministers yet this is no other allowance then he giveth to the baptisme of women or laie-persons in the want of a Minister For he saith in plaine terms pag. 44. The truth is where Ministers maye be had none but Ministers ought to baptize and where Byshops maye be had none but Byshops ought to ordeyne In which words who seeth not that the ref hath sufficient ground to affirme that the D. giveth to Bishops a sole power of ordination If he will say as he seemeth to perswade lib. 3. pag. 69. that this argueth onely a superiority in the power of ordeyning and not a sole power then let him also professe plainly that Ministers have not any sole power of baptising but onely a superiority in that power above women or other laie-persons But he cannot thus evade though he would seing lib. 3. pag. 105. he expresly affimeth that the power of imposing hands to conveigh grace either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to panitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the Ministery for their ordination is peculiar vnto Bishops and to the power of their order whereby they differ from Presbyters and Deacons yea this power of ordeyning is in his conceite pag. 106. so appropriated to the
eutaxie of every Church dependeth in deed vpon the power of ordination and jurisdiction but not vpon the investing of the power in Bishops because his second thoughtes have drawne him to distinguish betwene potestas and modus potestatis lib. 4. pag. 102. 1 17. we have reason to thinke as shall appeare anone that he The Doct. streyneth his witts in vaine to avoid conâ— dreamed not of this distinction till he had set his witts awork to remove the contradiction which his Refuter objected against him Notwithstanding he cannot with all his cunning avoyde that necessitie which floweth from the first braunch of episcopall superiority For if the vnity of every Church dependeth on the singularity of preheminence in one duringe life and that in such sort as afterwardes he explayneth his meaning to wit that whereas there were many presbyters in one City yet there neither were noâ— might be in succeedinge ages downeward froÌ„ the Apostles times any more then one Angell in a church or one Bishop in an whole diocese how can it be denied that there is a generall and perpetuall necessity of episcopall superiority for the preservation of the Church in vnitie 2. Neyther will the learning of that distinction which he now putteth betwene pâ—tâ—stas modus potestatis free him from placing the like necessitie in the function of Bishops for the exercise of that lawful power of ordination jurisdiction whereon the Churches perpetuitie eutaxie or good order dependeth For to let passe that which he saith serm pag. 32. how the superioritie of Bishops not onely did but also doth consist in that two fold power no lesse then in a singularitie of preheminence during life he avoucheth in plaine termes that the power which Timothie and Titus had for ordination and jurisdiction was not to die with them but to be transmitted to them that should succeed them in the government of the Church That the authoritie yea the function and authority which they had consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with their persons but to be continued in their sucessors sermon pag. 75. 79. Defence lib. 3. pag. 72. lib. 4. pag. 84. 98. and 100 That the commandements and injunctions given them to be kept inviolable vntil the appearing of Christ were directed to them alone and their successors serm pag. 49. 74. And that the duties prescribed for the execution of their office authoritie were to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ lib. 4. pag. 77. And which is yet more he addeth that their successors were Bishops onely yea Diocesan Bishops serm pag. 75. lib. 4. pag. 85. and that not de facto onely but also de iure Ibid. And that Presbyters neither were nor could be their successors lib. 3. pag. 73. and that neither are those instructions given in generall to presbyters neyther doth the charge of those affaires belong unto them lib. 4. pag. 79. Wherefore also he affirmeth or rather from the premises concludeth that the epistles written to Timothy and Titus were the very patterns and presidents of the episcopall function and purposely written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone but them and their successors viz. all Bishops to the worlds end how to exercise their function serm pag. 72. 73. Defence lib. 4. pag. 75. 83. Yea and further saith that those precepts 1. Tim. 5. 19. 22. are perpetuall directions which are not common eyther to other Christians or to other Ministers therfore peculiar to Bishops lib. 4. pag. 77. Thus It is sufficiently proved that the D. holdeth a perpetuall necessity of the episcopall function have we seene at large the Doctors judgement now to â—ay all these things togither If the power and authoritie and not so onely but also the function which Timothy and Titus had was not to die with their persons but to be transmitted vnto and continued in Bishops because Bishops and not Presbyters were their successors even de iure and not de facto onely And if for the same cause as also because the charge of those affaires viz. of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ belongeth not to the Presbyters nor is coÌ„mon to other Christians or Ministers the Commandements and injunctions given to Timothy and Titus to be inviolably kept till Christs coÌ„ming were directed vnto Bishops onely I would gladly heare with what new distinction the Doctor who directly and expresly affirmeth the premisses caÌ„ discharge himself froÌ„ implying or teaching The Doct. himself cutteth the throat of his own distinction and hath not one hole to hide himin by necessarie consequence that the episcopall function was appointed for the perpetuall use of the Church and is necessary to be reteyned in all Churches till the coÌ„ming of Christ His conjoyning togither Timothies function and authoritie to be continued in their successors cutteth the throat of his distinction betwixt potestas mâ—dus potestatis neither can he flie to that starting hole wherein he hideth his head his heeles at least hanging out lib. 3. pag. 57. lin ult when he expoundeth his words is to be reteyned by meet or fitt expedâ—ent or convenâ—ent profitable or needfull to be reteyned For he acknowledgeth the powre or authority it In seeking succour the Doct. doth nothing but contradict in one plaâ— what he â—aith in a nother self to be perpetually necessary as an essentiall or immutable ordinance of God lib. 4. pag. 102. 147. Neither will it releeve him to say as he doth pag. 146. that Pauls directions in his epistles to Tim. and Tit. were given though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were no Bishops should have the like authoritie For he flatly secludeth both the Presbyters and all other Christians or Ministers from all right and title eyther to the powre it selfe or the execution thereof lib. 3. pag. 71. 72. lib. 4. pag. 79. And sayth serm pag. 79. that it is much more necessary for the Churches of all ages succeeding the Apostles then for the first Churches in their life time to have such governors as Timothy Titus that is men furnished with episcopall authority in a preheminent degree above other Ministers 2. If he shall retire at laste to his first and safest evasion specially fitted to the question of ordination without a Bishop serm pa. 43. viz. that though such ordination be not regular or lawfull ordinarily as he sayth pag. 37. according to the rules of ordinatie church government yet in case of necessity that is in the want of a Bishop it is to be allowed as effectuall and as justifiable What is this but in effect to grant that there is the like perpetuity and necessity of the function of Bishops as there is of sundry other ordinances of God which all esteme to be divini juris For the coÌ„parison which himself maketh pag. 44. betwene baptisme administred by one that is no Minister and
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
And if one of our Bishops may in his visitation apply to alâ— the Ministers of his diocese those words of the Apostle Acts. 20. 28. that they should attende the whole flock c. as he saith lib. 2. pag. 105. then he must acknowledge all those Ministers to be properly Diocesan and not parishonall Pastors because the whole flock or Church in such a speach is properly a Diocese and not a parishe Moreover by the like consequence he must acknowledge that the Prophets Teachers mentioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. were for the extent of their authority equall with the Apostles that is all vniversall Ministers none affixed to any particular Church or Diocese because the Church wherein God is sayd to ordeyne them is the vniversal Church militant as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 227. lib 2. pag. 4. Also that Titus was properly a nationall Bishop and not Diocesan or provinciall because the Church of Crete whereof he was Bishop was properly a Nationall Church and not a province or diocese And that the Bishops of our owne Church whose function he will have to be of divine institution are properly nationall also and not diocesan or provinciall because the Church of England whereof they are Bishops is neyther diocese nor province but properly a nation or nationall Church Wherefore if the Doctor doth not willfully shut his eies against the light he may se that though he could prove those 7. Churches to be properly dioceses yet it will not followe as he supposeth that the Angels of those Churches were properly diocesan Bishops So that if he faile also of his hope to prove or â—ather boast in vaine of that proofe which he professeth lib. 2. pa 3. to have drawne from his text to shewe that the 7. Churches of Asia were properly dioceses then may he sit downe in silence with the losse of his cause till he hath found out a new text in case any other can be found to justify the functioÌ„ of our Diocesan Bishops His argument which as he saith sect 2. cap. 3. is grounded Section 3. Ref. pa. 53. D. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 43. sect 3. vpon the text was in his sermon pag. 17. 18. proposed to prove a more large Conclâ—sion viz. that in the Apostles times and in the age followinge the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels to wit all visibles Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes wherfore before we trie how wel he hath proved those 7. churches to be Dioceses let us first see how absurdly he dealeth in strayning his text to a larger extent I meane to justify that generall coÌ„clusion before mentioned The words which â—ay downe his argument are these For whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seven naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith Theâ— starres were the angels of those 7. churches it cannot be denied but that the Châ— whereof they were Bishops were great ample cities and not cities alone but also the Countries adioyning From the last wordes of which-sentence the refuter frameth this connexive Syllogisme If the Churches of Asia to which our Saviour Christ writâ— were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the Countries adioyning then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes But the Churches of Asia were such therefore they were Dioceses c. And addeth that the Assumption lieth pag. 18. and the conclusion pag. 17. whereby it appeareth that the last wordes of the proposition which is supplied viz. then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes must not be restreyned to the 7 Churches of Asia onely but rather understood of all the visible Churches which were in the world at that time and in the age following as the wordes of his conclusion before delivered doe shewe Notwithstanding because the reâ—uter rejecteth the consequence of the proposition and saith it is naught the Doctor finding himselfe vnable to make it good disgorgeth his stomach against his The D. vnable to make good his owne reasoÌ„ seeketh to make his Ref. logick naught Refuter and thinking to make his logick naught asketh pag. 43. sect 3. if he cannot frame a Syllogisme with hope to answere it vnlesse the proposition have a consequence which he may deny and as if he were a Puny that had not learned the groundes of logick intreateth him that the Proposition may be simple and afterwards charging him not to know what the hypothesis or thing supposed in a connexive syllogism is taketh vpon him Magistraliter to teach him how to know it and willeth him to dispose his connexive proposition into an Enthymem and giveth him to witt that what part is wanting to make vp a syllogism the same is presupposed as the hypothesis whereon the consequence is grounded and so goeth on along in instructing his Refuter in logicall pointes where I leave him And on the Refuters behalfe I answere 1. that though he is not perhapps so great a logician as Maister Doctor yet he is not ignorant how to reduce an Enthymem into a simple Syllogisme he hath often done it before the Doctor drewe him into his schoole as the reader may see in his answere pag. 9. 29. 70. 73. 109. 139. 145. 154. 155. 156 and so hath proved The D. a false witnes him to be a false witnes in saying as he doth pag. 44. and 45. that he knoweth not what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposed in a connexive proposition and that he must unlearn that art if he will not be counted a Trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexive syllogisme that he may have a consequence to cavill with â— but doth not the D. himself frame many coÌ„nexive Syllogismes in this Defense See lib. 1. pag. 67. 84. 92. 101. 134. 165. 180. in the rest of his bookes many others may be found besides sundry Enthymemes which he leaveth void of that supply that should reduce to a perfect syllogism Wherefore if his Refuter be worthy so oft to be reproved as he is by the Doctor lib. 1. pag. 109. 146. and here et alibi passim for his connexive Syllogismes however another might doe it yet I may here tell the D. it becoÌ„meth not him to doe it Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum But had the Doctor made none yet the use of such Syllogismes is common both with Divineâ— and Logicians of good account Doth not Aristotle often use them See Prior. lib. 1. cap. 40. lib. 2. cap. 2. Are they not by good Logicians commended as most firme apt both for confirmatioÌ„ of truth coÌ„futatioÌ„ of errour To passe by Polanus Log. l. 1. p. 92 Let the D. read that worthy Sadeel Tit. de verbo Dei scripto c. cap. 2. and 3. Vseth he not in his reasoning there both kataskevasticos anaskevasticos ten connexives for one simple
And doth he not justify that his course of reasoning to be very proper and fit for Theologicall disputations that by the practise both of auncient writers and schoolemen I take him to be a man not much inferior to the Doct in the Art of reasoning but if he disdeyne the comparison I hope the Apostle Paul was no wayes inferiour to him let him see whether he confirmeth not this course 1. Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 18. c. Yea let the Reader remember how our blessed Saviour Christ the Prince of Logicians often vieth them Ioh. 5. 46. 8. 39. 40. 55. and 15. 19. 22. 24 Let the D. therefore saye what he will it is no disgrace to the Refuter with them that are wise and unpartiall to have used them 3. Moreover since the Doctor will needes read to his Refuter a logick lecture to â—each him how to reduce every Enthymem into a simple syllogisme how happeneth it that he giveth him no direction how to knowe vnto which of the premisses every thing presupposed in the consequence must be referred espetially when more assertions then one must be supplied as it is in the argument which himself hath framed sect 2. pag. 42. 4. But to stand no longer in answering him according to his foolishnes herein know he his Refuter whom he vndertaketh to teache hath learning enough to discerne as in many other parts of his defense so even in his mainteyning this argument that he scarce knoweth how to reduce some of his owne Enthymems or hypotheticall arguments into simple syllogismes For if he will drawe the words wherein his Argument lieth to conclude the question which here he proposeth to be debated his Enthymeme must be this The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not cities onely but also the countryes adâ—â—yning Therefore in the age followinge the visible Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes Now who seeth not the consequence of this Enthymem to be naught and that for the reasons which the Refuter yeeldeth 1. Because it presupposeth that which is not true to wit that all Churches in the world at that time were such as those 7. that is great and ample cities c. 2. because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. Of the later wee shall speake anone Let vs now see how he wipeth away the former The proposition or consequence saith he pag. 45. is so farr from Sect. 4. Ref. pag. D. pag. 45. lib. 2. presupposing all the Churches in the world to be great and ample cities that it doth not so much as presuppose those 7. in Asia to be such That is presupposed in the proposition but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption Here first let it be observed that the Doctor assumeth or affirmeth A flat contradiction in the D. in the assumption of his argument that those 7. churches in Asia were great and ample cities the falshood whereof is so apparant to his owne conscience that within a fewe lines after scz 16. or 17. he denieth it againe and saith it was spoken onely concerning 5. of those Churches But 2. to dispute the point in hand what will the Doctor answere to his refuter whom he maketh so ignorant in the groundes of logick if he should argue with him in this manner In every Enthymem what soever is not affirmed in the Antecedent yet is necessarily vnderstood to make good the conclusion the same is presupposed or taken for granted in the consequence of the argument But in the Doctors Enthymem before sâ—t downe to make good the Conclusion this assertion that all churches in the world were at that time such as those 7. to wit greate and ample Cities is necessarily vnderstoode but not affirmed in the An â—â—cedent â—herefore the same Assertion is presupposed or taken for granted in the consequence of the argument And if in the consequence of the argument then in the consequence of the propositioÌ„ which comprehendeth both the Antecedent conclusion of the Enthymem Till his answere be heard here vnto it shall not be amisse to peruse what he hath already answered to the objection which himself frameth viz. That what he saith of the 7. Churches he would have vnderstood of all other Churches and therefore presupposeth what his Refuter objecteth First he granteth it is presupposed in his argumentation but not in his proposition Then he addeth that as in other places he is not to be blamed for concluding from other Churches to these 7 so neyther here for concluding A silly shâ—â—â— an idle qâ—arel of the D. from thesâ— 7. to all others c. The former is a silly shift and the later an idle quarrell 1. True it is the Doct. hath added to the assumption in his argumentation as he hath framed it pag. 42. that which his refuter referred to the consequence of the proposition of his connexive Syllogisme but how will he justify his new presupposition viz. that his Refuter erred in referring to the consequence of his proposition that which the Doct. hath now added to the assumption of his new forged Syllogisme And 2. to what purpose doth he tell us he is not to be blamed for concluding from these 7. churches to all others since that which his Refuter blameth in him is not his so concluding but his presupposing an untruth for the inferring of his conclusion viz. that all the Churches in the world were at that time when Iohn wrote his revelation great and ample cities c. Neyther 3. can he salve The D. can not salve his credit his creditt by denying that he is herein blameworthy for 1. that he presupposeth thus much he cannot deny seing in his sermon he did affirme those 7. Churches to be great and ample cities and now he blusheth not to avouch that what is verified of these 7. the same may be truely affirmed of the rest And since in the wordes immediately following lin 24. pag. 45. he saith that all Churches had not within their circuit great and ample cities he must acknowledge his former presupposall to be a grosse untruth 4. What releefe then can he gaine by appealing as he doth to the testimony of his Refuter to prove that the forme and constitution of all the primitive Churches is one and the same for I yet hope that prejudice hath not so farr blinded him but he can see the falla â—y of his former reasoning ab accidente when he presupposeth all other Churches to be great and ample cities like as he said those 7. in The Doct. reason is â— fallacie of the accident Asia were because the forme and constitution of all Churches is one and the same Wherefore he rageth without reason in rejecting pag. 47. that reason which his Refuter yeelded for the denyall
of his consequence viz. that though it were granted that those 7. were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoyninge yet their might be diverse other as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16. which were small and bounded within the walleâ— of some small Towne See you not saith the D. how he secketh about for starting holes what if there were other small Churches what is that to this consequence If thâ—se Ch conteined each of them not onely the City but the Country adjoyning then they were not parishes properly but Dioceses his answere if it be well weighed is an exception against the conclusion c. I answere â— if he grant there were other small Churches he then justifyeth his Ref ceÌ„sure both in denying that to agree to all other Churches which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities c. and in rejecting the consequence of his first Enthymem which in concluding all Churches to be Dioceses because those 7. were great and ample cities did presuppose as himself acknowledgeth that what he affirmed of those 7. is verified of all the rest 2. And therefore he slaundereth his refuter in charging him to seek about for starting holes and his answere to be an exception The Doct. slaundreth his Refuter against the conclusion For his answere is a strong engine to bâ—tter the consequence of his argumentation and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himselfe crept into for safe harbor when he saith that what is verified of those 7. Churches the same may be truly affirmed of all others 3. Moreover he much forgetteth himselfe in affirming both here and pag. 44. that his argument concludeth nothing else then this that the 7. Churches were Dioceses For as the conclusion which he proposeth in his sermon pag. 17. to be proved was more generall of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following so he doth expresly affirme pag. 45. of this defense that in this argument now controverted he concludeth A flat contradiction in the D. from those 7. churches to all others As for his conclusion or closing up of this point wherin he calleth his Refuter a froward adversary because here he findeth fault that he concludeth what these Churches were and yet in other places accused him for not concluding what they or the angels of them were it argueth the D. himselfe to be a froward adversary and a false witnes His falshood appeareth in this that as he cannot alleadge one word to prove The Doct. not the Refuter is a froward ad versary a false witnes his accusation so he himselfe acquiteth him thereof when he saith pag. 45. that he is here blamed for concluding from these 7. Churches to all others And since he knoweth the fault which his Refuter findeth to be a naughty consequence which falsly presupposeth all Churches to be such as he saith those 7. were to wit great and ample â—ities c. what is it else but frowardnes in him that will rather justify a lye then acknowledge a truth which he knoweth But since he will nowe restreyne his argument to the 7. Churches Sect. 5. to conclude them Dioceses I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem before set downe sect 3. in fine and set it thus as followeth The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes yea Dioceses such as ours are For unlesse their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authoritie like to our Diocesans Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any directioÌ„ for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism I would advise him to remember that the Medius terminus which never entreth into the conclusion must needes be here the predicatum in the antecedent to wit great and ample cities c. and to make up the proposition which is wanting there must be joyned to it the predicatum of the consequent to witt Dioceses c. because it hath no place in the antecedent Wherefore the proposition to be supplyed must be this Great and ample cities togâ—ther with their countries adioyning are Dioceses properly and not parishes yea Dioceses like to ours Then follow the partes of his Enthymem in order as they lie But the 7. Churches whoâ—e Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities togither with their countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly c. In the assumption of A double vntruth in the D. assumption this Syllogisme or antecedent of the former Enthymem there is a double untruth which the Doctor in his second thoughts discerned for himselfe pag. 45. restreyneth the name of great and ample cities to 5. onely of those 7. and that which he graunteth of Ephesus pag. 62. must be acknowledged also of all the rest viz. that the whole citie was not the Church vntil it was wholly coÌ„verted to the profeâ—sion of Christianity Wherefore to free his argument from both these vntruthes first he quite shuâ—teth out this clâ—use great and ample cities secondly whereas before he had said that the 7. Churches whose Bishops are in his text called angels were not onely the cities but also the countries adioyning now he saith his meaning was that those Churches conteined in their circuite not onely the Cities but the Cuntries adjoyninge Wherfore he contriveth his argument in this forme pag. 42. 44. Churches whose circuite conteyned both Cities and countryes adjoyning were Dioceses The circuite of the 7. Churches conteyned the Cities and Countries adjoyninge Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses The assumption he hath made good as he supposeth with necessary proofe And the proposition which he tooke for granted will stand as he saith pag. 43. vnmoveable when the foundation of our discipline will be razed But the issue will shew I doubt not that the foundatioÌ„ of our discipline will abide firme when his proposition is shaken into shivers and that his assumption hath not so much as one probable argument to support it To make his meaninge a little more plaine in both the premisses as himself doth explaine his assumption thus that the Circuite of every one of those Churches conteyned both the City the Country adjoyninge so to holde proportion therewith his proposition must cary this sense that every Church whose circuite conteineth a City and the Country adjoyninge is a Diocese And because he must conclude as we have before observed that every one of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese such as are the dioceses subjected to our Bishops his proposition must affirme every Church conteyninge one City and the Country adjoyning to be such a diocese as these are which we beholde at this day in the Church of England But admit a truth
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
change adde detract as here he doth or else c. in his next first change his maine tenâ—â—t or conclusion and plainely professe that howsoever he vndertooke to prove that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses properlâ— yet that was not his meaninge but rather this that they were Diocesâ—s intentionally that is that it was their founders intention that in time to come after all the people of city country were converted they should become Dioceses actually and properly And sâ—condly as he hath already to colour the falshood of his antecedenâ— with an Index expurgatorius wiped away this clause great and amplâ— cities and by a Metonimie or some other trope as we shall heare an one turned his laying they were the cities and countries to this meaning the circuite of the Churches conteyned both cities and countryes adioyning so now he must once againe limit the word conteyned to an intentionall conteyning as if he had sayd it was the intention of their â—â—unders that in time they should conteyne such a circuite But to passe forwardâ—s this position is in truth more absurd and incredible then the former The Doct. propositioÌ„ more absurd then before For in affirming before that the circuite of every of those Churches conteyned both the citie and country with a favourable construction being vnderstood to speake after that vsuall Meâ—onymie which he noteth pag. 52. of the Christian people in citie countrye his assertion might the more easily gaine his Refuters assent and allowance to passe vncontrolde so long at least as he should remaine constant in his judgement touching the multiplying or distinguishing of parishes in such a circuite which in his sermon pag. 18. 22. he denieth to be done in the Apostles times and when the Apostle Iohn wrote the Revelation But now in avouching the circuite of each Church to be the same from the beginning that it was after the division of parishes thoughout the whole Diocese his reasons must be very pregnant and demonstrative before he can drawe any judicious reader that opposeth to him in this controversie to subscribe to his assertion But let the Doctor speake I praye Even as saith he pag. 49. the subiect of the leaven is in the whole Bache in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpâ— though the loaves be not yet divided yea though but a litle of the Dough be yet after it is newly put in seasoned So it is with the Church and the circuit thereof If the Doctor himselfe had made the application of his comparison we should more easily have discerned how fit or unfit it is for his purpose The pointe which he would at least should illustrate by this similitude is this that the circuite of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same aswel before the division of parishes as after Me thinks therefore to make the protaâ—is of his comparison answerable to the apodosis he should have rather said Even as the subiect of the leven in the intentioÌ„ of him that put it into the lump is the same while the leaves are undivided that it is after But if he had so proposed it then it had rather darkned then lightned that which he indeavoureth to perswade Because it is better knowen what the subject of the leven is before the lumpe be divided then after whereas in his assertion before expressed the state or constitution of the Church after parishes were multiplyed in city and country and subordinated to the jurisdiction of one consistorie is brought as better knowne to shewe howe fatte the circuite of the Church and spirituall jurisdiction stretched when as yet but an handfull of people in comparison of the rest was seasoned by the Ministery of the gospell Perhaps his meaning is that as he which putteth a little leven into an whole bache of breade intendeth that the leven should in time spreade her vertue over all and so the whole masse of meale made one body of a well levened lump so also the Apostles and firste founders of Churches when they first planted a Church and placed Presbyters in any citie or Diocese did intend that the leven of their doctrine being conveyed into the hartes of the whole multitude all might be made one body of a Diocesan Church If this be so seing in this comparison the Church is as the leven or that part of meale which is first leavened we may by his owne comparison discover the absurdity of his former assertion For as the circuite of the leven or meale leavened is at the first putting in and for a while after farre lesse then when all is leavened so also the circuite of the Church at the first erecting of it in any city for some ages after was farre lesse then when the whole people of the Diocese imbraced the faith Againe as it is contrary to the intent of him that putteth in the leven that the loaves being once divided should any longer remâ—ine partes of one lumpe or that among the loaves more regard should be had to that litle portioÌ„ of meale that was fiâ—st sowred to make of it a Mother-loafe vnto wâ—â— the rest of the loaves should owe any homage so it may seeme by this coÌ„parison to be contrary to the intent of the Apostles first founders of Christian Churches that when an whole Diocese became seasoned and distributed into many congregations there should be any such combination or suborâ—ination of those Churches that all should be subject to the jurisdâ—ction of one Caâ—hedâ—all Church seated in the citie But to leave his comparison to his his second thoughtes if he can make any more advantage of it hereafter I now demaund how he knoweth that the intention of the Apostles was such as he immagineth viz. that all the people of City and Country after the conversion of the whole should continue parts of the Church which at the first consisted but of a few Master D. supposing as it seemeth it were but reason to answere Sect. 10. ad sect 6. p. 49 therevnto doth aforehand prevente it and will have us to vnderstand that he knoweth it And therefore goeth on and saith If you aske me how I knowe this I answere First because the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuite of every Church having from the beginning included not onely the City but the Country thereto belonging I must here demaund againe how came it that the Church of God did vnderstand the Apostles intention to be such And how commeth the D. to knowe that they had any such vnderstandinge 1. Did the Church of God receive their vnderstanding in this point from the mouthes or pennes of the Apostles If they discovered their intention by writinge be the Doctor intreated we pray him to shewe us where we may reade it for our learninge If not by
of three yearees afterwards sendeth Tâ—mothy to be their Bishop who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that we should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time he maketh mention of the Churches of Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. In all this if there be any probability it lieth in his last wordes wherein he seemeth thus to argue S. Paul maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Ergo you may not think there was but that Church at Ephesus in his time The consequent of this Enthymem is subtilly set down If his meaning be to perswade his reader that there was more The D. laieth downe his consequence subtilly then one Church at Ephesus in Pauls time because he mentioneth Churches in Asia his consequence is worse then nought nothing hindreth his Refuter to think that there was one onely Church at Ephesus although there were more Churches in Asia That epistle to the Corinthians wherein he mentioneh the Churches of Asia was written before his departure from Ephesus recorded Acts. 20. 1. as we maye gather 1. Cor. 16. 5. 8. 10. compared with Acts. 19. 21. 22. yet when after this he had speach with the Elders of Ephesus those many Elders which he now telleth us Paul had there placed they had no severall titles or cures but in coÌ„mon attended the whole flocke or Church as himself avoucheth serm pag. 18. from the very words of Paul Acts. 20. 28. where he doth apparantly contradict himself if he now labour to perswade that there were at that time more Churches or distinct congregations A contradiction in the D. if he c. then one that Ephesus But if in arguinge as he doth he intend no more then this to shewe that in Pauls time besides that Church at Ephesus there were in Asia some other Churches what is this to the purpose I meane to prove that in Saint Iohns time each of the 7. Asian Churches conteyned diverse congregations As for that he addeth of Timothy sent vnto Ephesus to be their Bishop his ordinary coÌ„tinuance there vntil his death it is sooner said then proved as shal be shewed hereafter were it true it giveth him no help to justify his former assertion of diverse congregations in every of these Churches But 2. he proceedeth to shew that Peter likewise by his preaching converted many in Asia And 3. after the death of Peter and Paul S. Iohn went into those parts preached the Gospel for many yeares ordeyned Byshops Presbyters where need was 4. Wisheth vs to add to the Ministery of the Apostles the preachings of the Byshops and Presbyters ordeyned by them and Disciples whom they had instructed by whose Ministery some Churches were brought to the fayth as that of Colossae in the CoÌ„fines of Phrigia in Paules time From all which particulars in stead of coÌ„cluding that which he pretended to make more then propable viz. that the 7. Churches of Asia conteyned each of them diverse congregations he appealeth to the conscience of every indifferent reader whether it be not unlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of 45. yeares Wherevnto for answer 1. I also appeale to the coÌ„science of every indifferent reader whether the D. hath not proved himselfe a notable triâ—â—er The Doct. a notable trifler when he thus disputeth It is very unlikely that there should not be in any one of those famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus that is in the whole citie country belonging to it any more then one ordinary coÌ„gregatioÌ„ Therefore it is more then propable that they all conteyned diverse congregations But 2. how often will the D. contradict himself doth he not confidently affirme serm pag. 18. that in the Apostles times parishes were 10. The D. coÌ„radicteth himself not distinguished not any Presbyters assigned to their several Cures And doth he not still maintaine the same position def pag. 69. onely he excepteth the Church of Alexandria which was farâ— from any of these 7. And. 3. had not the Churches of Ierusalem Rome as great helps to enlarge them by the Ministery of many excellent Teachers and for as many yeares yet himselfe denieth any ordinarie congregations to be multiplied in them See we what he saith plainely for the one pag. 92. and 124. and more closely touching the other pag. 88. And 4. since he acknowledgeth that thâ—se Churches were much annoyed with heretiks as Paul foretolde since that which he foretolde Act. 20. 29. 30. did principally concerne the Church of Ephesus and himselfe complayneth of their generall forsaking him in Asia 2. Tim. 1. 15. moreover since it appeareth even by the testimonie of Iohn or rather of Christ himselfe that Ephesus had left her first love and that partly by persecutions and partly by false Teachers the prosperitie and growth of those Churches was much hindred Revelat. 2. 4. 9. 13. 15. 20. and 3. 2. 16. the indifferent reader will easily seâ— how litle likelihood there is that there should be eyther in Ephesus or in any the rest of those cities of Asia any more then one populous congregation of Christians 5. Lastly if any man think that after the preaching of such and so many as he saith for the space of 45. yeares it is probable there were more then 7. ordinarie congregations let him judge indifferently betwixt the Doctor and his Refuter whether it be not more likely his Refuters assertion is true that there were no more then 7. distinct Churches such as Colossae Magnesia and Trallis whereof he speaketh then that each of the 7. as the Doctor affirmeth was divided into severall Congregations And this may suffice I doubt not to shewe that the Doctor Sect. 12. ad pag. â—1 hath sayde nothing to disprove that first braunch of his Refuters reason for the deniall of the consequence of his Proposition when he sayd that it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of these Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinarie assemblies The other two braunches the Doctor telleth us he will ioyne togither And in deed they must concurre not onely one with the other but also both of them with the former For if he could have proved by much more pregnant arguments then he can that those 7. Churches had bene eaâ— of them divided into diverse congregations yet it will not followe they were Dioceses vnlesse it appeare also that all of them did depend upon one Cathedrall Church as cheife and had not the power of ecclesiasticall government apart in themselves Wherefore all his labour is lost if he produce not better probabilities to disprove these two later points If saith he there were but one Bishop for the Church both of the citie and Countrye as there were but 7. in all
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌ„try had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌ„s and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâ—iculars which he hearâ— assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâ—mens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâ—le before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌ„meth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â—2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ— And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ— I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ„ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌ„try then such as were already brought to
the 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
not the persons as may be seene in these and the like Math. 2. 8. 20. 2. Luc. 15. 15. 16. 27. Act. 10. 5. and 17. 10. and 19. 22. and 20. 17. 2 Tim. 4. 12. But this difference is most clearly to be discerned where the persons and places are mentioned togither Luc. 1. 26. 27. the Angel Gabriel was sent from God eis polin vnto a citie of Galile called Nazareth pros parthenon to a virgin c. and 4. 26. vnto none of them sâ— the wydowes of Israel was Elias sent but onely eis Sarepta c. pros gunaika cheran to Sarapta c. to a widowe there See Act. 9. 2. and 15. 2. in which last place as some translators take eis for en as the Syrian interpreter Vatâ—blus and the vulgar so our english interpreters elder and later use a transposition of words thus to Ierusalem vnto the Apostles Elders which transposition though they use not neyther Apoc. 1. 11. nor Tit. 3. 12. where Paul saith make hast to come to me pros me eis Nicopolin to me vnto Nicopolis yet the meaning of the spirit of God in these later places is the same with the former namely after the mention of the persons to whom to add the places also vnto which repaire was to be made And as the D. discretion did see this in Pauls speach vnto Titus lib. 4. pag. 107. to wit that those words â—is nicopolin were necessarily added because else Titus should have ben vncertein both where Paule was to be found and whether he was to goe so doutlesse if prejudice had not blinded his eies his discretion would have led him to see also that those words â—is Epheson c. Apoc. 1. 11. were no lesse necessarie to give vnto Iohn sure direction unto what parts of Asia he was to sende and in what cities those Churches had their assemblies vnto which he was charged to send the things which were revealed to him Wherefore if his learning serve him to adjudge it a most absurd collection and a sensles perverting of the meaning of Gods spirit for any man to say that the scripture testifieth Paul to be Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. the Apostles and Elders to be Ierusalem Act. 15. 2. then may the indifferent reader very well wonder at the D. The reader may wonder at the D. oversighte oversight in affirming so confidently as he doth that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. that this is to be fouÌ„d Apoâ— 1. 11. But 3 to give the D. the utmost advantage he can desire from those words eis Epheson kai Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11 viz. that they are thus to be interpreted q. d. to the Church at Ephesus c. and consequently that the name of the citie is put by a metonymy for the Church in the citie how wil this warrant him to say that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. or rather as at the first he sayd that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities c. It is well known that Achaia was a large countrie and contained sundrie provinces see Aret in Act. 18. 27. and Hiper 1 Cor. 1. 1. and when the Apostle sayth 2. Cor. 9. 2. that Achaia war prepared a yeare agoe for their benevolence to the Saints it must be confessed that by Achaia he meaneth as he interpreteth himselfe cap. 1. 1. all the saints that were in all Achaia yet were it a strange speach and such as I suppose as the D. learned eares are vnacquaynted with to say that they whose harts the Apostle had prepared were a large country and contayned many provinces But to proceed the D. for a new supplie telleth us it is so vsuall with good Authors speaking of Byshops to say they were Byshops of such or such a citie that he might fill a volum with quotatioÌ„s to this purpose In deed The D. hath filled his great volume with quotations to prove what no man doubted of and leaveth the maine question without releefe he hath filled a great part of a great volume with quotations and testimonies that are to as little purpose as these which prove that no maÌ„ doubteth of left the mayn matter in questioÌ„ destitute of all releife for whereas he should have shewed that it is usuall with good authors speaking of the Ch in the Apostles tymes to say as he doth that they were great and ample cities not cities alone but also the countries adjoyning he wholly silenceth this point and telleth us that many good authors doe intitle the Byshops of succeeding ages Byshops of this or that citie but he had reason to doe so for the former is indeed so vncooth that he hath not any one good author to cleare him froÌ„ singularity in an absurd phrase of speaking but the later he found himselfe well able to confirme and therefore to send him home his owne words pag. 54. ful soberly he goeth about it telling us that he could fill a volume with quotations but a few testimonie shall suffice and very learnedly out of his reading he sheweth that Eusebius saith Evodius was the first and Ignatius the second Byshop of Antioch and th 〈◊〉 Ignatius writing to Policarpus stileth himselfe Byshop of Antioch As if the Church of Antioch must needs be a great citie because Antioch was so whereas the D. himselfe acknowledgeth that for 200. yeares and more it could scarcely be verefied of any citie or couÌ„try that they were all Christians All the rest of his testimonies are not onely after division of parishes as himselfe sayth but also after Constantines time when whole cities with their countries adjoyning were subjected to the fayth and therefore if they proved as they doe not that they had sayd the Churches were then great cities yet would it not have justifyed him in so affirming of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time To come at length from the words to the mater of his assumption whereas the Refuter told him that the 7. Churches Sect. 15. ad sect 8. pag. 54. and 55. and sect 12. pag. 62. could not conteine the people of those cities because some fewe onely were true christians the generality of them remeyning pagans the D. not daring to contradict him herein yet quarrelleth with his proofes and faine would maintaine if he could that the Church conteyned both citie countrey though the christians were never so few First therefore because he shewed out of Eusebius lib. 4. cap. 15 that Policarpus Bishop or pastor of the Church at Smyrna was martyred by the rage of the The D. scoffeth at at his Ref. and yet justifieth his assertion and condemneth his owne multitude and that in the sight of his owne people the D. having scoffed at his learning reading addeth that which doth not onely justifie his Refuter assertion but also confute his own Every body knoweth saith he that in all cities and countries for the space of almost 300. yeares the Christians
were persecuted by the Gentâ—les Every body therefore knoweth say I that the Churches in S. Iohns tyme must needs consiste of a very fewe in comparison of the rest and therefore neyther were the cities the Churches neyther did the Churches contein the people thereof 2. Againe whereas the Refuter added that the Church of Smyrna writing of the sayd martyrdâ—m of Policarpus intitleth herselfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna therfore asked whether a whol diocese or country of Christians diâ—â—â—habite Smyrna the D. sayth it is an obiâ—ctim scarce worth the answering but yet vouchsafeth it a frivolous answer vz. that the whole diâ—cese was seâ—ted cheefly in the citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is sayd to be in the head and that though by the Church at Smyrna we should vnderstand onely that part which did inhabite the citie yet the â—aming it the Church which is 〈◊〉 Smâ—rna excludeth not the Churches in the countrye from being of the same body or diocese with it Whereunto for reply first to the last what meaneth he to begg that which he should prove rather if he could to witt that there were The D. beggeth CHVRCHES in the Country which were parts of the same body with the Church in the citie for if this cannot be proved the former part of his answere is absurd where he compareth the Church in the city to the head of the body For it is a monstruous body that hath eyther no body at all or an head bigger then all the rest of the body Moreover to burie in silence his unseemly may I not say blasphemous comparison in comparing a Diocesan Ch seated in the citie to Gods sitting in heaven how absurd is he in The D. coÌ„parison is more then vnseemely absurd comparing the Diocese to the soule which is in the head and in all the body besides For what shall the body be trow ye if the whole Diocese be the soule The city he saith is the head the country parishes belike are the rest of the members the citie and country joyned togither do make the Diocese yet the Diocese is not the body but the soule of the body Herevnto I may adde that which is objected pag. 55. of the Refuters answ from the text of holy scripture The epistles were directed to the Angel of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephâ—sus the Church of Smyrna the Church c. as if the whole cities were the Churches The Doctors answere pag. 62 is that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntil it was wholly converted to Christianity yet the whole citie meaning â—â—bs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles c. neither is it material that the Church is sayd to have bene in Ephesus seing in urbe the Church was cheefely seated as was said before I suppose the Refuter is not ignorant of that difference which the learned hystorians put betweene urbs civitas Vrbs ut M. Varro lib. 1. linguae latinae tradit ab orbe urno quae pars est aratri deducitur circum dividebantur enim aratro loca extruendo oppido designata ut ait Servius sulco muri designabantur Civitas autem tameâ—si pro urbe oppidove frequenter usurpatur proprie tamen ipsa est civium koinonia et societas moribus legibusque institutis gubernata nam et hi qui passim tractu aliquo habitant ijsdem legibus et institutis usi Civitas dicuntur Caesari sic habet Ioach Vadianus in Epitome trium terrae partium pag. 34. 35. Impress Tiguri Anno 1534. But what use doth the Doctor make of this difference The whole citie meaning Civitas saith he was not the Church till it was wholly converted to Christianitie Well then it seemeth when he saith the Churches were cities he tooke not the word citie for civitas which cheefly noteth the people that live in a communion togither He then acknowledgeth he tooke the word citie for that which is called urbs the walls and howâ—es within which the citizens for the greater part were inclosed If so he sheweth himselfe too absurd to be confuted with any other argument then such as is framed in Bocardo If not we may then with good leave I hope conclude that seing the Church of Ephesus was neytheâ— urbs nor civitas therfore it cannot at all be truely sayd to be the citie much lesse both citie and country And to what use then serveth if I may be so bold to ask once againe that difference he yeeldeth betweene urbs civitas Forsooth the whole citie mâ—aning urbs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles Well and may not the same be sayd of the whole citie meaning civitas Else why doth he tell us that when the Apostles planted presbyters in every citie they intended the conversion of the whole citie and country by their Ministerie Thus wisely hath the Doctor distinguished betweene urbs Civitas that what he affirmeth or A distinction without any difference denieth of the one the same in his understanding must be affirmed or denied of the other As for that he addâ—th to shewe his understanding of the text sc that the Church was seated not wholly but cheefly in urbe eyther beggeth the maine question as before was noted if he think there were some other Churches in the Country The Doct. beggeth or else coÌ„senteh to his refut that were parts of the same Diocesan body or he dissenteth not from his Refuter if he think the Christians inhabiting some townes and hamletts in the country did ordinarily assemble with those of the citie for the publick works of Gods worshâ—p Thus have we heard all that the Doctor can say in defense of his Sect. 16. ad sect 8. 〈◊〉 54. assumption as he first delivered it when he sayd those Churches were great and ample cities c. As for the change which he hath now made choise of viz. that they conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning he hath nothing else in defense thereof then a naked repetition in a manner of that which was before delivered to help the consequence of his reasoning yet I will vouchsafe to meÌ„tion it least he should think better of it then it deserveth If any maÌ„ ask saith he how it may be said that the Church conteyned City and Countrye when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in eyther of both I answere as before that the circuite of the Church or Diocese was the same when there were fiwe and when there were many yea when all were Christians His former answere whereto he nowe referreth us affirmeth the circuite of the Churches to be the same aswell before the division of parishes as after not actually but onely in the intention of the Apostles or first founder Which limitation he remeÌ„breth again in that answere
which was last examined in the former section And if he doe here also vnderstand it why doth he conceale it Is it because in those places he had not directly to dealâ— with his assumption as now he hath and he would not so plainely discover to his reader how farâ— he goeth in this defence from the wordes of his assumption as he first layd it downe in his sermon For for this cause it seemeth he chose rather to reject that clause of great and ample Cities whiles he was yet in examining the consequeÌ„ce of his argument And it had bene too much to lay before the eies of his reader at once all three changes or alterations that one of The D. hath 3. alteratioÌ„s but cannot defend one of them turning were into conteined when in stead of this they were cities he saith they conteyned the cities c. is more then he can well defend But before I come to trie the strength of his defence I must a litle better â—ifte the chaungling he giveth vs in steed of the former assumption viz. that the circuite of every one of these 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and countrie adjoyning First therefore I demaund what he meaneth by citie and countrie whether those parts of the ancient diocese which he calleth paroikian kai choran serm pag. 25. and def pag. 13. and 36. that is the citie with the suburbs and the whole countrie subject to the citie If so then this whole circuite in his vnderstaÌ„ding was the circuite of every of those 7. Churches But then I demaund againe did those Churches containe in their circuite only the walles dwelling houses and feildes and not also the people inhabiting within that circuite if he should either exclude all the people or include all the state of those times being such that the generall multitude in all cities and countrey were Pagans as he confesseth pag. 54. he should contradict both himselfe the truth which he delivereth p. 3. 5. where he saith that ecclesia in all places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. is appropriated to the companie of the faithfull and signifieth a companie of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say a companie of Christians Wherefore as I will not doe him that wrong to think he meaneth by citie and countrey the houses and feildes onely so if question be made what people he incloseth within the circuite of those Churches or of the cities and countries which he saith they contayned vnlesse he will depart from the truth and that with contradiction to himself he must acknowledge that he meaneth none other then the Christian people of those cities the countries adjoyning And yet if he limit every Church to so narrow a compasse for the people which it conteined who will beleeve him or how will he perswade and prove that the whole citie meaning Vrbs to use his owne wordes and the whole countrie belonging to the citie was conteyned within the circuite of the Church for since the Church of any citie or place is nothinge else but the company of Christians there If it be absurde to say that a small companie of Christians not an handfull to a great heape in comparison of the heathen that filled citie countrie did containe in their circuite an whole citie with the whole countrie adjoyning then is it no lesse absurd to affirme the same of any Church which is intituled the Church of this or that citie yea take all the people of any citie or countrie who is so simple but he knoweth that the citie and countrie containeth them and not they the citie Wherefore though all the people had bene converted to Christianity yet had it bene a grosse error both in logick and philosiphie to say that the Church did contayne the citie and the countrie To leave then the naturall and proper signification of citie countrie and to carrie the words by an usuall metonymie vnto the people q. d. they coÌ„teined citie countrie that is the people of citie countrie I desire to be informed from his owne mouth whether he meane those people onely that had already receyved the fayth or those also that were in time to be converted The former doth beste agree with that foundation layd by him in this defence chap. 2. sect 2. and 3. where he restreyneth as before is observed both the name and nature of a Church vnto a company of Christian people but so small a companie as at that time imbraced Christianity will fall farr short of his purpose not onely of concluding the Churches to be properly dioceses but also of inclosing within that whol flock or Church over which the Presbyters were made Byshops Act. 20. 28. the whole number of such as belonged to God in citie and countrie even those that should afterwards imbrace the faith as well as those that made present profession therof for so he vnderstandeth that scripture serm pag. 18. def pag. 66. and therefore inferreth serm pag. 19. that the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed to whole cities and countries annexed that they might both convert them feed them being converted as a litle after he saith were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the Countries adjoyninge which were converted or to be converted Which words doe clearely shewe that by the Cities Countries which at first he said were the Churches now he saith were conteined in the circuite of the Churches he meaneth all the 11. A contradiction in the Doct. understanding of the worde Church a childish errour people in generall and not those fewe onely that were already converted But in this construction of his words besides an apparant contradiction with himself in a maine principle of Christian doctrine which restraineth the name of a Church to a companie of Christian people he falleth into a childish error farre vnbeseeming a Doctor in divinitie in breaking downe that partition wall which all sound divines have set betwene the visible Churches of Christe and the invisible company of the electe not yet brought home vnto the faith For howsoever such as God appointed vnto life and intendeth in time to call are in his account members of his The D. assumption sensles absurd his defense of it much more invisible Church yet it is against coÌ„mon sense as well as the grouÌ„ds of true divinitie to reckon them for parts of the visible Church which as yet have had no manner of entrance into Christianity In this sense therefore which his sermon and the defence thereof aymeth at I reject his assumption as an absurd and sensles positioÌ„ And the defense which he tendreth is much more absurd when Sect. 17. he saith that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were few when there were many yea when all were Christians For vntill countrie townes were converted and subjected to the over sight of the
Bishop of the City adjoyninge how could they and their people be reputed parts of the citie-Citie-Church or inclosed within her circuite Wherefore since it is confessed serm pag. 24. that Country townes remeined heathenish for a time after the conversion of the Citie it must be confessed also that the Churches circuite at the first did not inclose the Countrie villagies as it did afterwardes Notwithstanding to justify his former assertion he alleadgeth that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a fewe the same Bishop of the City having jurisdiction over all the Christians both in the City and the Country aswell when all were Christians as when but a fewe He would have said that the Bishops which succeeded some ages after in the same City had the same jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country when they were all converted to the faith which the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe in the City Country adjoyning that first yeelded obedience to the Gospell For he acknowledgeth Def. pag. 54. that it could scarce be verified in any place till Constantines time which was above 200. yeares after the Apostle Iohns daies that all the people of City Country were Christians But with what bands can the D. tie togither these parts of his reasoning with what hands can the Doct. tie togither the parts of his reasoning The Bishops in Constantines time and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first Apostolike Bishops had over those fewe that first imbraced Christianity Therefore the circuite of the Church was at the first when they were but fewe the same that it was after when all became Christians Is there not much more probability in this coÌ„sequence The Bishops in Constantines daies and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe which at first imbraced Christianity Ergo the circuite of the Church and Bishops charge was farr lesse whiles there were but a fewe then it was when all the people of City and Country were converted vnto the Christian faith Which of these two hath more probability I leave to the indifferent reader to judge Wherefore till the D. can make good the consequence of his reasoninge all the proofes which he braggeth of for the demonstration of his antecedent the ancientest of them being after the first 300. yeares as appeareth Def. pag. 36. c. doe give just occasion of returning into his owne boosome that definitive sentence which he delivereth against his opposites viz. that the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome since the Apostles times ought without coÌ„parison to prevayle with all men in perswading theÌ„ to acknowledge that every Churches circuite was much inlarged by the generall conversion of all in Cities and Countrey townes above the authority of a fewe self-conceited persons such as the D. and his associates not so singular for learninge as they are singular in opinion when they would make the world beleeve if they could that every Churches circuite was the same at first when but a fewe imbraced the faith that it was after wheÌ„ all the people of City Country were made members of one diocesan Church If the D. shall flie as to a Sanctuary â—o his former evasion viz. that the Châ—câ—â—â—uite contâ—ined at the first both City câ—uÌ„tâ—y in the inteÌ„tioÌ„ of the Apost or first founders I haue enough already said to drive him out of this starting hole unless he caÌ„ provide some better forfication to releeve himselfe in this behalfe But he supposeth that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumptioÌ„ by repairing the breaches which his Refuter had made in the reason which his sermon tendred in defence thereof His words are these whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith the 7. starres were the Angles of the 7. Sect. 18. ad sect 9. pag â—5 56. Churches it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the couâ—tries adjoyning From hence his Refuter drewe this connexive syllogisme answere p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth â—ut 9. and some of them mother cities then they were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the countries adjoyning But our Saiviour c. Ergo Now the D. misliking the frame of this argument referreth him to his former manner of arguing sect 2. pag. 42. 43. where he shewâ—th how this lyllogisme is to be framed and there we find a double proof layd downe in defence of his assumption as he hath now shaped it vz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuite the cities and countries adjoyning the which he affirmeth to be proved first joyntly thus if the 7. Churches within their circuite comprized all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries But the first is true for our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches â—n Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and contayning within their circuite all the rest Concerning the Doct. joyntly let us severally observe first that he concealeth his conclusion secondly that he departeth from the words laid downe in his sermon and thirdly that he followeth not his owne directions giuen for the reducing of an Enthymeme or connexive argument into a simple syllogisme 3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting 1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion the reason is apparant he concludeth not his assumption which is in questioÌ„ For his propositioÌ„ being such as it is vz. that if the 7. Churches comprized within theire circuite all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries his conclusion must be this none other that the 7. Churches did comprize within their circuite all the Churches that were both in the cities and countries of Asia a point farr differing from that which himselfe proposed to prove to wit that the 7. Churches within their circuite conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning that is as himselfe explaineth his owne meaning pag. 52. the circuite of every one of those 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and country adjoyning for the consequence of his proposition as he hath proposed it runneth more currant then it would if he had sayd as he should thus If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuite all the Churches in Asia then every of those 7. Churches conteyned in her circuite the whole citie with the country adjoyning For here a man might very wel deny the coÌ„sequent although he sawe better proof then the D. hath brought for the justifying of the Antecedent 2. But when departeth he froÌ„ the words of his sermon both in the antecedent
in the prosyllogisme or confirmation therof when he said that our Saviour writing to the Churches in Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall c. For taking it for graunted that there were more Churches in Asia then those 7 and that our Saivour in writing by name to these did intend vnder their names to write to all the rest could the D. imagine that any man which denie those other Asian Churches to be writen vnto would upon his bare word imbrace that which now he affirmeth sâ—z that our Saviour in writing to all the C hes of Asia comprizeth all vnder these seven as being the principall and conteyning within their circuite all the rest This later I graunt is more direct for his purpose I meane to prove that those 7. churches at least some of them if not all were Dioceses in asmuch as other Churches were conteyned as he supposeth within their circuite but he as often before sheweth himself a notable trifler in begging the question when he taketh this for graunted which he The Doct. beggeth could not but know without good proof would never be yeelded yet he dealt wisely in not attempting what he could not effect for if those Churches of Colossa Hierapolis Troas mentioned in the scripture were not within Asia as he mainteyneth pag. 61. and if those of Magnesia Trallis recorded in other writers cannot be 12. A contradiction iâ— the D. proved as he saith p. 62 to have bene Churches in S. Iohns time all the world may wonder what records he wil bring to prove that there were any other Churches in Asia then these 7. which his text nameth And yet unlesse he prove also that those other Churches how many or fevve soever vvere conteyned within the circuite of those 7. or some of theÌ„ he must be much beholding to his reader if he wil take his naked affirmation for sufficient warrantise in this behalf 3. And since he rejecteth that connexive forme of reasoning which his Refuter gathered naturally from his owne words he might have done well to have practized here the lesson which he gave his Refuter pag. 44. for finding out of the right hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposition But it was some what an hard taske and therefore he would not put one finger to it notwithstanding that he may sâ—e how willing his Refuter is to learne and how readie to give him contentment in framing his arguments to his best advantage the connexive proposition shall first be disposed in an Enthymem thus Our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and nameth the principall Ergo those 7. Churches were great and ample cities c. or since he will needs have it conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning To bringe this Enthymem into a Syllogisme some little change of words must be made either in the Antecedent or in the consequent thus Whatsoever Churches are specially nuÌ„bred or named as principal by our â—av Christ when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia those Churches did conteine each oâ— them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning But the 7. Churches mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20. are specially nombred and named as principall by our Sauiour Christ when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia Therefore the 7. Churches mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20. conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyninge Or thus whosoever writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall he thereby signifieth that those 7. Churches conteined in their circuite each of them the citie and countrie adjoyninge But our Sauiour Christ writing to the Churches in Asia nombreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall Ergo he hereby signifieth that these 7. Churches conteined in their circuite each of them the citie countrie adjoyning Now to give the D. his choyse of these arguments not forbidding him to make a better if he can since there is no certeine or manifest truth in the The D. disputeth by begging 〈◊〉 proposition which conteineth the Hypothesis of his Enthymeme we may from his owne rule conclude that he disputeth sophistically and taketh that for graunted which he cannot make good while he hath a daie to live Thus have we seen how well he argueth to prove his assumption Sect. 19. ad pag. 43. joyntly let us now atteÌ„d a little how he coÌ„firmeth it severally 1. The Church of Ephesus saith he conteined a great and ample citie in deed metropolis or mother citie the countrie subject to it 2. the Church of Smyrna a mother-citie and the countrie belonging to it c. so proceedeth froÌ„ one of them to another to Thyatira Philadelphia with their territories But where are his severall proofes for these severall assertions It seemeth he is fallen in love with the trade of begging and The D. beggeth and is in love with the trade of begging else he would not begg 7. times to gâ—ther is growne past shame in it so as we may be past hope of dryving him from it els he would never produce 7. false positions to confirme his assumption before atteinted of falshood For since everie of those cities remeined for the greater part heathenish in the Apostle Iohns tyme it cannot be that any of them did conteine the whole citie much lesse citie and countrie The truth is each of these Churches was conteined within those cities as a small heape of corne is conteined in a great and large barne 2. And why doth he here also depart from the words of his sermon which were that some of those 7. Churches were mother-cities doubtlesse he sawe it was a verie slight and feeble consequence to reason as he should have done in this manner Some of those 7. Ch were mother-cities Ergo they The D. departeth froÌ„ the words of his sermon were everie of them great and ample cities c. And had his Refuter thus analysed his words it is likely the D. would have bin more offended then he is with that forme which he used in putting all his speach into one connexive argument 3. But to take his argument as he hath set it downe what meaneth â—e by the countries which he saith belonged to every one of those mother-cities Is it his meaning that the Ch of Ephesus Smyrna c. did conteine togither with their cities the whole provinces subject to those mother-cities or doth he limit the countrie to that part onely which made a particular diocese The later best fitteth his first purpose sc to prove that every of the 7. Ch was properly a diocese but the former agreeth best both with his own interpretatioÌ„ of his words p. 63. when he saith that some of those Churches were Metropolâ—is that is not onely mother-cities but also metropolitan Churches and with his former speach which affirmeth all the Churches in the cities and countries
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâ—d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ— instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ„ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌ„mendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌ„mended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌ„mendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌ„tioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ„ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to â—â—vill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌ„dly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâ—es of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
of scripture which equalleth them one with the other it were in vaine to affirme and indiscretion to vndertake to prove that any of these 7. Churches were metropolitan Churches And this may suffice for refutation of all that he hath sayd in defence of that one and onely argument which he proposed as grounded on his text to prove that the Churches were properly dioceses That which followeth in his serm pag. 18. touching the course which the Apostles tooke for the converting of any nation viz. first to preach the gospell in the cheife citie thereof and after the conversion of some fewe to ordeine Presbyters in hope by their Mâ—nisterie to converâ— the rest was carried by the Refuter to conclude by a new prosyllogisme the maine point of the former argument to wit that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities with their countries adjoyning And he had reason so to referre it because he found both pointes thus knitt togither it cannot be denyed that the Churches whereof the Angels were Bishops were great and ample cities c. For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation first preached to the cheife-cities c. But because the D. changeth the Analysis and carrieth it from the particular question of the 7. Churches to the generall Thesis which his sermon proposeth touching all the visible Churches which florished aswell in the age following the Apostles as in their owne times I will for the present passe by it whiles we are to examine what he alleageth more directly to conclude his explication of the text that he handleth to witt that the Angels of the 7. Churches were diocesan Byshops such as ours are which is the third point of his 5. mentioned in his sermon and handled in the 7. chap. of this booke and wherevnto perteineth the handling of that 3. 4. sect lib. 1. cap. 2. which there was referred to this place Cap. 2. Concerning the number of the angels mentioned in the text and whether they were Diocesan Bishops We are nowe come to examine how well the D. opened that doubt which his Refuter tolde him answ pag. 3. he either did not or would not see The doubt is whether by the Angel of the 7. Churches Sect. 1. ad sect 3. and 4. cap. 2. lib 1. of the. def pag. 31 32. 33. 34. be meant 7. singular persons onely which were 7. cheife Pastors or Byshopâ— in those Churches for in his sermon he had taken this for graunted as if there were no question to be made therof now though he Bishop Bilson also as his words shew perpet govern p. 235. 289 are therein very bold yet least the Refuter should seeme to be void of reason in tendring this doubt he putteth the D. in mind that the Holy Ghost doth not in the vnfolding of the mysterie of the 7. starres and. 7. candlesticks so precisely limitt the nomber of the Angels signified by the starres as he doth the Churches figured by the candlesticks and therefore urgeth the D. in this manner If M. D will needs have these Angels to be diocesan Byshops he must giue us at least some likely reason why the Holy Ghost limiteth not the nomber of the Angels aswell as of the Churches to 7. and no more which â—e spake to provoke him if he meant to defend his sermon and the argument which he draweth there for the justifying of our diocesan Byshops in their function to giue us some probable reason why the Ho Ghost hath not so clearly limitted the nuÌ„ber of the angels to 7 as he doth the nuÌ„ber of the Chur. But albeit the D. took notice of those words of the Refuter yet hath he not yeelded in al his defense any shewe of reason to give to his reader or Refuter any satisfaction in this point neyther answereth he directly to that which his Refuter objected but in his name setteth downe such a Thâ— D. dealeth deceitfully frame of reasoning as might best serve his turne both to divert his reader from expecting any such matter at his hands as was demaunded and to perswade that his Refuter reasoned over-weakly to prove that the number of Angels was not limitted In which later point not to insiste vpon the former whosoever judiciously compareth the Refuters owne words with those which the D. ascribeth to him he may soone discerne how deceitfully this D. dealeth For 1 whereas the Refuter in viewing the whole verse whereof his text is a part observeth that the Holy Ghost doth not so plainely and expresly limitt the number of Angels vnto 7. as he doth the number of the Churches the D. not daring directly to contradict this assertion for if he should have affirmed that the number of the Angels are in the words of his text limitted to the number of 7 as plainely as the number of Churches are in the words following every child might have seene that he falsified The D. clippeth the Refuter words and preventeth his purpose his text therefore he giueth his Refuters a more generall proposition to prove to witt that the Holy Ghost hath not at all any where or any way limitted the Angels to 7. And secondly that he might the easilier drawe his partiall readers to apprehend the weaknes of his Refuters arguments he blusheth not both to clipp his words and pervert his purpose He clippeth his words in making him to speak peremptorily that the Holy Ghost would have said the 7. starrs are the 7. Angels c. whereas he speaketh comparatively The Doct. clippeth the refut words and perverteth his purpose by way of probabilitie that as it is said The 7. candlestickâ— are the 7. Churches in like manner the Holy Ghost it seemeth would have said The 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches in case he had intended to signifie no more but 7. Angels He perverteth his purpose in drawinge this speach to prove the former which being taken as it was ment needeth no proofe For the words of the text doe shewe that the nomber of 7. is not given to the Angels in such expresse termes as it is to the Churches This therefore being in it selfe evident the Refuters meaning was from hence to inferre a probable reason to prove that the Holy Ghost in explaninge the misterie of the 7. starres had no intent to teach that the Angels signified by those starres were 7. persons onely and no more His reasons may be thus disposed If the Holy Ghost hath not limitted the number of the Angels to 7. by saying the 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the Churches then it seemeth he intended not to signifie that they were but 7. and no more But he hath not by so speaking limitted their number to 7. Therefore it seemeth he intended not to signifie that they were but 7. and no more The consequence of the proposion being the onely point that can be doubted of is confirmed by this prosyllogisme If the
were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand And from hence it followeth that all the Ministers of the word in those Churches which were many or at least more then one in each Church are also comprehended vnder the name of the angels of the 7. Churches For All the persons which then living in those Churches were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand were comprehended also vnder the name of the angels of those 7. Churches But all the Ministers of the word which attended on the feeding of the flock of Christ in those places were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand Therefore all those Ministers which were divers in each Church aâ— is before shewed were coÌ„prehended vnder the name of the angels of the 7. Ch. But there wil be a fitter occasion hereafter to fortify this conclusion I will therefore passe to the D. second syllogisme which standeth thus Of â— monades or vnityes such as be 7. singular person the number is iust 7. Sect. 3. The angels were 7. monades or vnityes as being 7. singular persons Therfore of the angels the number is iust 7. May I demand of him what moved him to add this clause to his propositioÌ„ such as be 7. singular persons Did not his science and conscience tell him that there are in the scriptures sundry monades or vnityes of men angels which are not to be taken for so many singular persons but rather for so many severall rancks or societies so that if this clause had bene omitted he foresawe his propositioÌ„ had bene liable to just reproofe Againe when he saith that the noÌ„ber is iust 7. doth he not meane that the number is just 7. singular persoÌ„s or 7. individua Who then hath such a vaile before his eyes The Doct. proveth idem per idem as not to see that this argument is a frivoulous trifling and a vaine stryving to prove idem per idem for thus he reasoneth The angels were 7. monades as being 7. singular persons Therefore they were iust 7. individua or 7. singular persons Wherefore for a direct answere to the argument as it standeth it shall suffice to reject the assumption as a palpable begging of the question And it is as palpable an vntruth which he adjoyneth for the proofe thereof when he saith That it appeareth by the inscription of the 7. Epistles writeÌ„ to them that the Angels were 7. singular persons For it The D. assumption beggeth the questioÌ„ and he proveth it by an vntruth cannot appeare by those inscriptions till he hath proved 1. that the Angels of the 7. Churches signifyed by the 7. starrs in his text were none other then those Angels to whom the Epistles were directed and that the Angels written to in those inscriptions were 7. singular persons There are I confesse which graunt the latter yet deny the former For though they primarily vnderstand toâ— proâ—stata the president of the Presbytery by that one Angell noted in the inscription yet they restraine not the name of starrs or Angels in his text to those presidents onely but intend theÌ„ also to all the Ministers of the word that attended one the feeding of these Churches Wherefore he should have proved and not assumed without proofe this point viz. that the Angels in his text are the same in number neyther more nor lesse then those Angels that are according to their sense primarily poynted at in those inscriptions Others there are who though they acknowledg a president in every societie of Ministers throughout those Ch yet they limit not that title in the inscriptioÌ„ to the president onely but take it for the whole society Wherefore this is a second poynt which the D. ought strongly to have coÌ„firmed if he would have reasoned soundly For whereas he addeth that whosoever is able to count 20. may easily The D. againe proveth idem per ideÌ„ or one vntruth by another finde just 7. if he meane as he must to conclude his purpose just 7. singular persons what else doth he againe but trifle in justifying one vntruth by another or rather in labouring agayne to prove idem per idem And may it please him in his next defense to recite them plainely and as he ought in this manner The Angel of the Church at Ephesus was one singular person the Angel of the Church at Smyrna was a second singular person and so of the rest I will if his Refuter cannot keepe tale for him and tell in the ende that notwithstaÌ„ding his boast he hath 7. times together begged The D. beggeth 7 times togither what he should and would have proved but cannot For he hath already been put in minde and that with more shew of reason then he can remove that in the inscriptions of those epistles the word Angel in the singular nuÌ„ber noteth the whole company of Angels or Bishops which were in each Church and not one singular person onely If his meaning be as it seemeth by his last words 7. Angels neyther more nor lesse to reason thus The Angels to whome the 7. epistles were written were 7. Angels or 7. monades of Angels neyther more nor lesse Therefore they were 7. singular persons though the falshood of the consequence appeareth by that already saide yet to make it more apparant I here tender to his veiwe these fewe arguments 1 The Angels by whom the Gospell is sayd to be published Apoc. 14. 6. 8. 9. were 3. Angels or 3. vnities of Angels neyther more nor lesse Therefore they were 3. singular persons 2 The Kings meant by the 7. heads of the beast Apoc. 17. 9. 10. were 7. neyther more nor lesse Ergo. 7. singular persons 3 The Virgins mentioned Math. 25. 1. 2. were 10. neyther more nor lesse The two fives there noted shewe the account to be just ten as every one that can tell 20. well knoweth 4 The King of the South and King of the North Dan. 11. 5. 15. were two monades or vnities 5 The parties refusing the marriage banquet were 3. monades or vnities so reckoned one by one Luk. 14. 18. 19. 20. 6 So were the servants that had the tallents committed to them Math. 25. 15. 18. 7 The men sound in the feild at the last daye are onely two vnities so are the woâ—men at the mill Math. 24. 40. 41. Shall we therefore conclude that every of those were so many singular persons neyther more nor lesse 8 And must we also limitt the number of those 144000. mentioned Apoc. 7. 4. 8. to so many persons neyther more nor lesse because 12. times 12000. doâ— precisely conclude that number It is well knowne that in these scriptures a certaine number is put for an vncertaine and vnlimited and that in some of these where a distribution is made of diverse vnities we are thereby to vnderstand not so many singular persons precisely but so many rancks or orders of persons agreeing in
both his conclusions as erroneous And to let him see not his Refuters error which is none but his owne error the better I will this once thus argue against him and that from his owne pen. If this text Apoc. 1. 20 togither with cap. 2. and 3. following be rightly applied in his sermon of the duty dignitie of the Ministers then the name of angels of the 7. golden candlesticks Apoc. 1. 20. is not a peculiar stile belonging onely to diocesan Byshops but a common title apperteyning to all Ministers in generall But the first is true Therefore also the second Or thus If the name of angels of the 7. golden candlesticks in Apoc. 1. 20. and the two chapters following be a stile peculiar to diocâ—san Byshops and not coÌ„mon to all Ministers in generall then those texts of holy scripture are wrongly applyed to all Ministers in generall in the D. sermon of the dignitie dutie of the Ministers But the first is true Therefore also the second And consequently which way soever the D. turne his heade he cannot escape the blame both of error in misapplying his text and of contradiction with The D. misapplieth his text contradicteth himselfe himselfe But 4. because in his latter argument the D. concludeth not that assertion which his Refuter before contradicted it shall not be amisse to see if his last conclusion will necessarily inferre it by way of consequence For though he be a Doctor and his Refuter but a smatterer in logicke as he sayth yet shall he doe him that favour this once And therefore if he will attempt it he must argue to this effect Whatsoever name or title is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath asingular preheminence above other Ministers in any Church or countrie the same is given to that one in respect of that preheminence But the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is a peculiar stile belonging to one that had the preheminence of a diocesan Byshop in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of Angels is there given to one onely diâ—cesan Byshop in each Church in respect of his diocese The falsehood of this assumption being already layd open it shall suffice to shew the vnsoundnes of the proposition for which purpose observe wee these fewe instances First The name of an Apostle given to Paul so often in the epistles is a title peculiar to him who was one that had a singular preheminence above all other Ministers in that Church or countrie where he conversed when he wrote those epistles 2. So also is the name of a Minister of the gospell Ephes 3. 6. 7. and 3. the name of a prisoner in the L Ephes 4. 1. and 3. 1. 4. the like may be sayd for the title which Peter giveth himselfe 1 Pet. 5. 1. yet were it absurd to think that any one of these titles were given to Paul or Peter in respect of that preheminence which each of them had above other Ministers in the places where they conversed Thus we see that whiles the D. striveth to convince his Refuter While the D. seeketh to coÌ„vince his Refuteâ— of one error he falleth into 3. or 4. of one error he hath inwrapped himselfe vnder the juste blame of 3. or 4. And this I might hope woulde be enough to stopp his mouth from pleading for the preheminence of diocesan Byshops from the name of angels or the title the angels of the Churches in the text which he selected for the purpose but that I remember his vow lib. 3. pag. 154. that he will never give over his Refuters ill he hath put him to silence As for the testimonies cited by him out of Mr. Beza and D. Reynolds Sect. 1â— ad lib. 1. sect 4. pag. 34. sect 12. pag. 47. werevnto he referreth us sect 12. pag. 47. they fall full short of his purpose to prove that the name Angel is given to note such a prehemineÌ„ce in one above the rest or was a stile peculiar to one alone For it is but a private fancie peculiar to the D. and some fewe others whereby they would faine perswade the world that these Angels were diocesan Byshops like to ours as vaine is it as private For the Refut may graunt all that Mr. Beza D. Reynolds say and yet still deny that the name of angel is gvien to the president onely or exclusivè as if the rest of his fellowe Ministers had no right to that title with him As for his idle digression in assaying pag. 34. to shew against Beza that the president had a perpetuitie in the presidencie it is not worth worth the answering being as weakly mainteyned as it is here vnseasonably inserted For although we give vnto Timothy being an Evangelist a standing presidencie during his aboad at Ephesus yet the D. reasoneth absurdly when he inferreth that such as succeeded him in the presidencie had the like perpetuitie therein vnlesse he could prove their ministerial function to be as Timothyes was superior to other Presbyters No lesse absurd is his reasoning when he vndertaketh to shewe from the testimonie of the most ancient authors in the Church who were those singular persons whom the Holy Ghost calleth the Angel of the Church at Ephesus and likewise at Smyrna c. Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus as Ignatius testifyeth and Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna If therefore Onesimus was but one man and likewise Policarpus we may be bould to conclude that the angel of the Church of Ephesus was but one singular person and likewise the angel of Smyrna and so of the rest For answere wherevnto I say that if Ignatius or any other had justifyed that Onesimus was the onely person at Ephesus whome Iohn saluted by the name of the Angel though it may aswell be read an angel as the angel of that Church and so Policarpus and the rest the Doct might have bene bold not to make his bould conclusion but to say that he had one ancient author on his side in that point though as one swallowe maketh no sommer so one ancient giveth him no sufficient warrant that he hath the consent of the moste ancient authors in the Church But to make the best he can of Ignatius or any other if they say no more for him then as yet he hath made them Ignatius here or others elsewhere speak they are too mute to minister reliefe to that his assertion which in this 4. section he laboureth to mayntayn as we shall have occasion further to affirme when we come to the last Chap. of this booke wherein that he saith here concerning Onesimus and Polycarp being againe repeated by him lib. 4. pag. 40. with some addition shal be further debated Let us now goe forwards Chap. 3. Conteyning an answer to the D. argument handled lib. 2. chap. 7. sect 2. pag. 120. concerning the presidencie of the Angels of the 7. Churches The D. is willing it seemeth to plaie at small game
and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus and what is sayd of two is to be vnderstood of the rest Indeed the Refuter saw not this last clause for how should he see it before it came into the D. head to deliver it and now he might well have spared it vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning For would he have us to think that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus so also the other five were Policarpus and Onesimus If this be not his meaning why doth he tell us that what is sayd of two the same must be vnderstood of the rest If his meaning be that as he nominated two so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest if he list he must pardon us in case we intertayne not the thought seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names if he had ever mett with any evidence that revealed them But why doth this great disputer who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing so falsely and yet wittingly charge his Refuter whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser not to see or not to mention this his first The D. falsly yet willingly slandereth his Refuter argument Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it when he saith pag. 128. that the summe of all that the D. hath is comprized in 3. points 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus as it may well be supposed the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus 2. that from the 7. angels c. Had the Refuter put the word Angel in steade of the word Byshop which he used the D. had had no colour of cause as he had no cause to quarrel with him but the old proverbe is verifyed wranglâ—rs will play at small game rather then sit out and men sett to pick quarrells will take holde of small occasions rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine But to leave his evill and idle wandrings and to examine his Sect. 2. argument the first standeth thus in forme Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus But Policarpitâ— and Onesimus were Bishops he should say By-shops like to ours Therefore two of these angels were Byshops like vnto â—urs And the second thus From the 7. angels a succession of Byshops was continued in those 7. Churches vntill thae councill of Nice and afterwards Therefore those 7 angels were Byshops like to ours To both these joyntly the Refuter answereth thus that the Byshops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan as they were which followed in succeeding ages The D. Replyeth pag. 43. that if ever there had bene within the compasse of a diocese more Byshops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truely alledged that the circuite of the Byshops charge was inlarged from a parish to a diocese then there were some colour for this exception but these conceits sayth he I have disproved before and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these 7. Byshops were in the ende of 300. yeares diocesan Byshops then were theire first prâ—decessors such For answer wherevnto in a word I say 1. That it is besides the present question now to enquire whether there ever were within one diocese any more Byshops then one at once c. 2. since the D. upon his bare word denieth those things to be so he hath little reason to think that we will blindly subscribe to his confident conclusion inferred vpon his naked presumptions to make no worse of them For first it is no hard matter to make them false presumptions What saith he to Epiphanius cont Haeres lib. 2. haeres 68. contra Milet doth not he affirme that there were diverse Byshops in one Church or citie though not in Alexandria nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos velut aliae urbes Secondly as touching his owne testimonies which he produceth to shew that Policarpus was Byshop of Smyrna Onesimus Byshop of Ephes in S. Iohns time I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himselfe as he may easily discerne if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. The D. contradicteth himselfe 62. with serm pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. togither In theÌ„BCH 4168-0138 the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wâ—l againe be once tolde that fayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus and what is sayd of two is to be vnderstood of the rest Indeed the Refuter saw not this last clause for how should he see it before it came into the D. head to deliver it and now he might well have spared it vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning For would he have us to think that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus so also the other five were Policarpus and Onesimus If this be not his meaning why doth he tell us that what is sayd of two the same must be vnderstood of the rest If his meaning be that as he nominated two so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest if he list he must pardon us in case we intertayne not the thought seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names if he had ever mett with any evidence that revealed them But why doth this great disputer who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing so falsely and yet wittingly charge his Refuter whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser not to see or not to mention this his first The D. falâ—ly yet willingly slandereth his Refuter argument Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it when he saith pag. 128. that the summe of all that the D. hath is comprized in 3. points 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus as it may wâ—ll be supposed the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus 2. that from the 7. angels c. Had the Refuter put the word Angel in steade of the word Byshop which he used the D. had had no colour of cause as he had no cause to quarrel with him but the old proverbe is verifyed wranglars will play at small game rather then sit out and men sett to pick quarrells will take holde of small occasions rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine But to leave his evill and idle wandrings and to examine his Sect. 2. argument the first standeth thus in forme Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus But Policarpus and Onesimus were
Byshops he should say Byshops like to ours Therefore two of these angels were Byshops like vnto â—urs And the second thus From the 7. angels a succession of Byshops was continued in those 7. Churches vntill thae councill of Nice and afterwards Therefore those 7 angels were Byshops like to ours To both these joyntly the Refuter answereth thus that the Byshops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan as they were which followed in succeeding ages The D. Replyeth pag. 43. that if ever there had bene within the compasse of a diocese more Byshops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truely alledged that the circuite of the Byshops charge was inlarged from a parish to a diocese then there were some colour for this exception but these conceits sayth he I have disproved before and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these 7. Byshops were in the ende of 300. yeares diocesan Byshops then were theire first predâ—cessors such For answer wherevnto in a word I say 1. That it is besides the present question now to enquire whether there ever were within one diocese any more Byshops then one at once c. 2. since the D. upon his bare word denieth those things to be so he hath little reason to think that we will blindly subscribe to his confident conclusion inferred vpon his naked presumptions to make no worse of them For first it is no hard matter to make them false presumptions What saith he to Epiphanius cont Haeres lib. 2. haeres 68. contra Milet doth not he affirme that there were diverse Byshops in one Church or citie though not in Alexandria nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos velut aliae urbes Secondly as touching his owne testimonies which he produceth to shew that Policarpus was Byshop of Smyrna Onesimus Byshop of Ephes in S. Iohns time I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himselfe The D. contradicteth himselfe as he may easily discerne if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. 62. with serm pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. togither In the former he saith that Ignatius his epâ—stles were written but a litle before his death and therefore he denyeth the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis to have bene Churches extant what time the Apostle Iohn wrote the revelation Now if this be true as true it is then is it false to say as he doth serm pag. 62. that the epistles of Ignatius were written betwene the 90. yeare of our Lord and 99. and that his epistle ad Ephes is a pregnant proofe that Onesimus was the Byshop of Ephesus when the Revelation was written as he confidentlye avoucheth lib. 4. pag 40 For Ignatius his death fell out Anno 111. as Euseb noteth in ChroÌ„ Cent. 2. col 169. which was 14. yeares after the Revelation was written But if his epist ad Ephes wherein he mentioneth Onesimus their Pastor be a sufficient proofe that Onesimus was the Byshop of Ephesus what time the Apostle Iohn wrote the Revelation because he wrote while Clemens lived that is betwene the yeares 90. and 99. as he saâ—th serm pag. 62. then his epistles written to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis wil be as pregnant a proofe that those Churches florished when Iohn wrote the Revelation For it is evident by Eusebius his testimony Hist lib. 3. cap. 30. that these epistles and that to the Ephesians were written at one and the same time 2 Leaving him to his contradiction I must renew the Refuters answer that those testimonies are not free from suspition whatever the D. then or now hath sayd to free them The epâ—stles of Ignaâ—tus and Policarp that now goe vnder their names saith D. Fulke in answ to the Rhem on Act. 6. 7. are not authenâ—â—k but gathered out of the Apocryphall constitutions of that counterâ—â—yt Clemens And concerning Ignatius whome the Rhemists on 1 Pet. 2 13. alleadged to prove that the Byshop must be honoured above the King these words saith he shewe out of whose shâ—pp that episâ—le came he meaning Ignatius was a man of greater religion then to correct the scripture in Salomon Provb 24. 21. and Peter c. 3. Were those testimonies freer from exception then they are yet they yeild him no releefe seeing they speake not one word eyther for their diocesan jurisdiction or for their preheminent superiority above other Presbyters in their Churches But of their Byshoppricks what they were and whether such as he supposeth we shall have fitt occasion to speak hereafter there is enough already sayd to shew that his best evidence is to weake to perswade what he vndertaketh to prove viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were Bishops for the substance of their calling like to ours So that his explication of the text he handleth having no foundation in any part of Gods truth nor any humane testimony worthy of credit to support it I may well joyne with his Refuter and say he buildeth vpon the sand of his owne conceite and not vpon the rock of Christs truth when he raiseth from thence his high Turret that the calling of Byshops such for the substance of their calling as ours are is of divine institution And thus much for the first part Have patience a while Christian Reader and thou shalt God willing have the other two that are behind The faultes escaped in the printing are thus to be corrected Pag. 7. l. 16. the. p. 8. l. 14. deny p. â—0 l. 8. put out he pag. 41. l. 12. Mounte-bancke pag. 72. l. 23 put out him l. vlt. for who read how p 30. l. 2. for and reade what p 102. l. 18. put out is p. 110. l. 28. praeerant p. 118. in the title for poyntes reade poynt p. 175. l. penult put out in a connexive proposed p. 195. l. 33. for that read at p. 197. l. 13. put out no. p. 205. l. 11. put out and p. 206. l. 27. dividebantur p. 209. l. 7. put out for p. 229. l. 36. Miletum p. 227. l. 14. Mariam pag. 237. l. 20. for lacketh reade taketh p. 245. l. 1. Tuiciensis p. 274. l. 27. can p. 281. l. 25. reade not bearing p. 286. l. 5. put out that THE SECOND PART OF A REPLY Answering A DEFENCE OF A SERMON PREACHED AT THE Consecration of the Bishop of Bathe and Welles by George Downame Doctor of Divinitie In defence of an Ansvvere to the foresayd Sermon Imprinted Anno 1609. 1. Thes 5. 21. Try all things and keep that which is good Imprinted Anno 1614. To 〈…〉 THose two motives which doe most usually and not unjustly perswade the Reader to beleive his author the credit of the man the apparaÌ„t evidence that he bringeth have by many been thought to have united their forces in Doctor Downames defense For the man himselfe he hath been generally accounted judicious learned painfull religious syncere and ingenuous the defense he hath made carieth such
professing the same religion yet were they not one but many churches as appeareth Gal. 1. 22. and 1. Thes 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Wherefore the Doctor taketh that for an evident truth which is evidently The D. taketh for truth that which is false false in affirming that the Iewish Church was one because they were one cōmon wealth c. 2. Neyther doe they affirme who hold the Church of the Iewes one that their vnitie depended onely upon the person of one high preist but upon Gods ordinance which combined them all say they in one body of a church in binding them to assemble at times appointed unto one tabernacle or temple there to performe the parts of his worship in one vniforme order under the oversight of one high preist assisted by inferiour Preists and Levites But 3. how will the Doctor prove that they were as he saith one cōmon-wealth ruled by the same lawes before they had one high-preist Is not the law of their high preisthood as ancient as any of the lawes given by Moses to settle them in one forme of a cōmon-wealth Exod. 28. Levit. 8. cum seq And 4. when through corruption there were two high-preists Luc. 3. 2. which executed the office by their courses one after another as other preists did in their order was not the whole administration exercise of the office in the hands of that one which was the high-preist for his yeare Iohn 11. 49. with Act. 4. 6. What great difference then of one high preist between the time of this corruption and that which went before it To the the second I answer that it is an idle feeble flourish Sect. 3. leaving the maine point of the objection untouched and weakly performing what he undertaketh 1. It is observed before that they who in this point concurre with the Doctor viz. that the Iewish Church was but one doe hold their vnitie to arise from Gods ordinance The D. maketh an idle and feeble flourish who conjoyned the whole nation in one societie not onely under one high-preist but also in regard of one tabernacle at the first after that of one Temple vnto which they were all bound to resort 3. times in the yeare there to worship God in such sort as he had prescribed Which ordinances viz. of one high preist of one tabernacle or temple for the whole nation are now ceased because they were figures and types which had their end in Christ That their one high-preist was a figure of our one high-preist Iesus Christ is a truth so evident by the scriptures especially Heb. 3 1. and 4. 14. 5. 1. 5. 8 1 2. 9. 7. 10. 1. 9. 20. that the Doctor cannot but subscribe to it And it is no lesse evident that the same Christ was also shadowed out by their tabernacle temple Heb. 8. 2. and 9. 8 9 11 12 24. Ioh. 2 19 21. In another respect one tabernacle compact togither of many parts and one temple composed of many stones was a figure of that one catholike church which as one temple or howse comprehendeth all the elect as living stones and parts of the building 2. Cor. 6. 16. Ephes 2 21. 22 Heb. 3. 6. 1. Pet. 2 5. And their assembling togither in that one temple under the Ministery of that one highpreist was a lively type of the gathering togither of all the elect unto the heavenly Ierusalem to the generall assembly Church of the first borne written in heaven and unto Iesus the Mediatour of the new covenant Heb. 12 23 24 25 as sheep which come into one folde under the oversight of one cheefe Shepheard Iohn 10. 16. Heb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 2 25. There is an apparant truth therefore in that which the Doctor proposeth as a frivolous allegation viz. that these legal ordinances were figures and therefore are ceased especially seing it is held that there is neyther any one nationall Bishop answering in degree of office and preheminence unto their one high preist nor any one nationall temple unto which the generall body of the people doe resort for the practise of Gods evangelicall worship And though the Doct. may perhaps give allowance unto the former yet I suppose he will not easily acknowledge the later to be fit for the times of the gospell 2. All that the Doctor saith is no more but this he denieth the high Preist to be a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence government over the Preists and people What meaneth the Doct neyther in respect of preheminence no◠yet of government belike then he was a type of Christ quatenus a Preist but not as a high Preist yet as the scripture Heb. 9. 7. 8. 11. 12. 24. so the D. acknowledgeth that the high Preist figured Christ by his entrāce alone into the sanctuarie which none other Preist might doe how then can he deny that he prefigured Christ in the respect of his preheminence which was peculiar to his office and why not also in respect of his government over Preists and people in things perteyning to God what meaneth else that name of great high-Preist and great Preist set over the house of God Heb. 4. 14. and 10. 20. But 3. let us heare the D. reasons why he thinketh that the high-Preist was no type of Christ in respect of preheminence or government Forsooth then had he aswell as Melchisedeck been a type of Christs government and Kingly office aswell as of the Preisthood and consequently Christ might have been a Preist of the order of Aaron aswell as of Melchisedech And a little after Christs government apperteineth to his kingdome and not to his preist hood As if all preheminence and government were peculiar to princes inseparably annexed to the kingly office Surely if Christ have no preheminence nor government in his Church as he is our Prophet and Preist but onely as he is King then is he in these Offices considered a parte inferior to all other Prophets and Preists that had their part in ecclesiasticall government But how can he be a great Preist over the House of God Heb. 10 21 and sit not onely as a King but also as a Preist upon his throne Zach 6 13 and yet have no manner of government by his preistly function Wherefore the government now invested in Christ might be yea undoubtedly was figured a part aswell by the ecclesiasticall government of the high-preists succeeding Aarō as by the civil government of David and the Kings that sate on his throne I conclude then that the Leviticall high-preist was a type of Christ in respect of his ecclesiasticall preheminence and government although his principalitie and regall government joyning in one with the preistly function was rightly figured not in Aarō but in Melchisedek And although the conjoyning of both these preheminences togither in Christ was also praesigured in Iehoshua The D. pro poseth a weak consequence and a false antecedent to
not parishes But though he cannot fortify his owne assertion yet will he assay Sect. 7. ad sect 5. pag 7. to throw downe their hold that oppugne it with this jolly Enthymem The word Eeclesia signifiâ—th according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit which iÌ„magine there is no true Church but a parish Wherein he doth neyther rightly The D. in one Enthymem saniteth 2. set downe their assertion nor assume a cleare truth to refute it The first appeareth by H. I his table pag 6. of his book whereto the Doctor pointeth in that besides a particular congregation of Christians meeting for religious exercises which the Doct. calleth a parish he acknowledgeth the name of Church to be given in the scriptures vnto some other societies viz. the Catholike militaÌ„t Church on earth the invisible society of Gods elect absolutely Catholike the people of a particular coÌ„gregation considered without and besides their Ministers and the company of a Christian familie The truth is he holdeth the onely true visible Church indowed by Christ with the spirituall power of order and government in it selfe to be none other then a particular congregation Neyther is the truth hereof infringed by that which the Doctor assumeth seing the name of a Church given at large to any company of Christians in regard of their profession of the true faith cannot prove the power of Ecclesiasticall government to belong vnto every such company of Christians or to any other society then one particular congregation 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth that The D. reasoneth ex non coÌ„cessis which he shall never be able to justify when he saith that the word ecclesia signifyeth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians great or small For he cannot shewe any one place of scripture where the word Church in the singular number is giveÌ„ to such a multitude of Christians in an whole Nation Province or Diocese as was distributed into many particular congregations Yea his own table page 4. sheweth that when the scripture speaketh of the Christians in an whole nation it calleth them Churches plurally and not by the name of a Church singularly as Churches of Galatia Asia Macedonia 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. t. Gal. 1. 2. And the like phrase of Churches is used for the Christians of one province Act. 9. 31. the Churches had rest throughout all Iudea Galile and Samaria Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches c. I will this once tender him this argument The word ecclesia in the singular number doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese nation or province Ergo the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine that the Christians of an whole Nation Province or Diocese though distributed into many congregations may not with standing by the warrant of the word be rightly termed one Church Yea it serveth rather to confute then to coÌ„firm the point now in questioÌ„ viz. that the 7. Churches meÌ„cioned in this text were properly Dioceses not Parishes As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words Eeclesia Paraecia Diaecesis coÌ„monly translated Church Parish Diocese how they are taken in the ancient writers I see not what advantage he can make by it to conclude the question The summe of all that he saith is this In ancient writers Ecclesia paroecia Dioecesis having refereÌ„ce to a Bishop his whole charge doe signify a Diocese and not a parish Which how true it is I cannot now enquire vnless I should digresse into a new controversy For the present it shall suffice to observe that though it were granted to be true yet it will not justify his assertion that the 7. Churches of Asia mencioned in his text were properly dioceses not parishes for in the consequence of his reasoning if he shall so argue he beggeth the question in two particulars which he should The Doct. beggeth the question in 2. particulars but cannot make evident by good demonstration viz. that in his text the word Ecelesia hath reference to one Bishop and his charge and that it carrieth the same signification for the singularity or plurality of particular congregations comprized within it which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth Leaving therefore this whole discourse and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as apperteyning to another question viz. how ancient that distribution of Dioceses and Parishes is which in later ages preveiled and passing by his whole 3. Chapter concerning the 7. Churches being handled in the former part lib. 3. I will now proceed to his 4. Chapter and the argument there concluding that the first Apostolike Churches were properlie Dioceses because the presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities countries that is to dioceses Chap. 2. conteyning an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolicall Churches were properly dioceses not parishes because the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses Sect. 1. ad sect 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64. We have already heard in the former part how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia to be great and ample citie togither with the countries adjoyning when he saith it cannot be denied but they were such because our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7 and nameth the principall some whereof were Mother cities He addeth imediately after For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation they first preached to the cheise cities thereof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had converted some their manner was to ordeyne Presbyters hoping by their Ministery to convert not onely the rest of the citie but also the countries adjoyning so many as did belong to God Which words the Refuter answ pag. carried as the 2. reason to conclude the point before questioned because finding the former argumeÌ„t to be so obscure and vnfitting as it is before shewed to be he judged it in effect all one to say It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great ample cities c. for it is evideÌ„t that the Apostles in the cheife cities of any nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine Presbyters by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie and country adjoyning and to transpose the sentences in this manner It is evident that the Apostles in the cheife cities of every nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine presbyters c. Ergo it cannot be denyed but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities
c. But the D. saith his analysis mistakeÌ„ to say no worse as if he could have justly laid an heavier fault upon his Refuter if he had not favoured him And in deed he loadeth him with a fouler imputation when after in the same page he saith that in digesting his words before expressed into a connexive syllogisme he framed a proposition for the nonce to cavill withall A rash censure the less to be regarded because the Refuter may safely appeale to Gods owne tribunall who knoweth that he dealt syncerely and was led by the connection of both sentences to conceive the meaning to be such as is before shewed But he should saith the Doctor have looked to the end of that which he made the 3. sect where he should have found this to be the maine conclusion of all that followeth the first argument concerning the 7. Churches to that place viz. that the Presbyters in the Apostles times were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses But he thought it needlesse to carrie the word for so farre when there was need of help to prove the point aforegoing Notwithstanding let him walk in his owne way I doubt not but to make it appeare that the argument and the prosyllogismes thereof framed by himselfe doe discover both his owne mistaking of his Analysis to say no worse and the weaknes of his arguing aswell now in this defense as before in the sermon itself The maine conclusion to which he sendeth us hath these words serm pag. 18. lin ult c. The Presbyteries therefore in the Apostles times were appointed not to feverall parishes but to whole cities the couÌ„tries annexed viz. to dioceses that both they might convert them attend and fâ—ed them being converted The conclusion is long as you see and unfoldeth in it sundry propositions which since the Doctor hath not rightly distinguished I will presume though I looke to be required with shrewd words for my labour to propose to the view of the Reader in this manner The conclusion sheweth to what the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed 1. Negatively They were not appointed to severall parishes 2. Affirmatively they were appointed to whole cities and the countries annexed Which is first explayned viz. to dioceses 2. amplified by a twofold end of their appointment 1. that they might convert them 2. that they might attend and feed them being converted So then it appeareth that in the words of his sermon before Sect. 2. going pag 18. 19. we are to expect the proofe of these 5. points for else he stretcheth his coÌ„clusioÌ„ beyond the bouÌ„ds of the premises which should inferre it viz. 1. the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to severall parishes 2. they were appointed to whole cities the countires adjoyning 3. those cities countries were Dioceses 4. one end of that their appointmet was to coÌ„vert c. 5. the other end was to attend feed the coÌ„overted But of these 5. propositioÌ„s he coÌ„cealeth wholly in this defense the third and last The former it seemeth he took for graunted and therefore now coupling the two first togither he setteth them downe in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses the other was wisely concealed because there is not one word in his sermon to make it good though it be of the greatest moment for his purpose In deed he had sayd before that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments and to labour the conversion of the residue c. but how great a difference there is betweene these two ends of the Ministery of the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles and those that his conclusioÌ„ mencioneth it is easy for the simplest of his Readers to discern Whether the change were made unwittingly or of purpose to deceive I will not determine neither will I presse him for resolution of the doubt unlesse he please It is the analysis of his conclusion and all that apperteyneth thereunto which we now look after His coÌ„â—lusioÌ„ whatsoever it was at the first is now coÌ„prized in this copound axlome before delivered The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses which he maketh the antecedent of a Enthymem to inferre the principal questioÌ„ touching diocesan Churches in general viz. Therefore the Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were not parishes but dioceses The Antecedent he saith is proved by two arguments the first whereof not to speak now of the proposition which he omitted lieth in this sentence The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries thereto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged unto God And to the confirmation of this he referreth all that which his Refuter carried an other way For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation first preached to the cheife cities thereof c. to the words neyther were the parishes Which halfe perswadeth me that he hath borrowed his first argument for the proofe of the Antecedent from the second fourth points before noted to be couched in that conclusioÌ„ delivered in his sermoÌ„ For other wise his analysis cutteth theÌ„ off froÌ„ the coÌ„clusioÌ„ as superfluous branches maketh his first argument to be Cryptically inwrapped under the confirmation thereof Now if it were borrowed thenee then the wordes following serm pag. 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c in all equitie should be not a second argument to confirme his first antecedent but rather a new prosyllogisme to justify the generall proofe thereof To coÌ„clude whencesoever he derive it there is so small a difference between the Medius terminus of his first argument with both the prosyllogismes set to uphold it the wordes which in his second argument are of greatest force as he saith pag. 70. of this defence to prove that the persbyteries were appointed to Dioceses that they are little better when he hath made the best that he can of them then a beggerly repetition of one thing or a proving of the same by the same So that we may well think if his Refuter should The Doct. proveth idem per idem have contrived his arguments so as himself hath done he would have bene as readie as now he is to charge him with mistaking his Analysis But let him make the best advantage of his owne Analysis let us trie the valour of his syllogismes which he profereth to our Sect. 3. view And first of that Enthymeme which concludeth the principall question in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Therefore the churches indued with power of ecolesiasticall government were not parishes but Dioceses This consequence saith he the Refuter granteth ingranting the connexive proposition of the Syllogisme which he
fremeth pag. 58. of the answer If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. To visible Churches indued with power of ecclesissticall government the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed Loe here the D. reasoning now what if the adding of this assumption utterly marreth the fashion of his argument hath he not then spent his labour well to discover his owne heedlesse oversight to say no worse for had he well perused the parts he might have found 5. termes in his syllogisme viz. 1. The D. hath 5. germes in one syllogisme Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 2. appointed to Dioceses not to parishes 3. appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government 4. the Churches themselves indued with such power 5. Dioceses and not Parishes To redresse this grosse fault if so simple a Scholler as the Refuter might presume to give any direction to so great a Clerk as Mr. D. me thinks he should have done well to have exchanged the Antecedent of his Enthymeme with some Proposition in sense equivalent that might have yeilded the same predicatum which his conclusiō carrieth as thus The Churches to which the Presbyteries ordeined by the Apostles were appointed were properly dioceses such as ours and not parishes Or thus Dioceses such as ours and not parishes were the whole and onely charge of the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles The assumption then to be added must be one of these viz. The Churches which in the Apostles times were indued with the power of ecclesiasticall government were those vnto which the Presbyteries ordeyned by them were appointed Or thus The Churches which the Apostles indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were the whole onely charge of those presbyteries which they ordeyned So the conclusion would naturally flow from these premisses to wit Therefore the Churches which the Apostles indued or were indued in their times with the power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly such as ours not parishes which of these soever he shall choose the proposition is to be refused as utterly false Against the Assūption whether former or later I have nothing to except This onely I say if the Doctor shall dislike the later as too narrowly limited by those wordes whole onely charge I must then tell him his syllogisme is also herein deceitfull and faultie that his proposition speaketh of an appointment differing from that which he intendeth in his Assumption the feeding and governing of the visible Churches being but a part yea the least part of the charge of those Presbyteries in asmuch as he supposeth they were appointed also to an other more principall work viz. to labour the conversion of such as were yet enemies to the faith and not members of the Churches But if he will acknowledge the visible Churches to be the whole and onely charge of the Prebyteries ordeyned by the Apostles then the premisses of his syllogisme doe make warre the one against the other For the assumption so understood directly crosseth the assumption and the fortifications thereof which are pag. 65. fitted to confirme the Proposition or Antecedene of his maine argument and consequently through their sides it pearceth the hart of the proposition itself For if the visible churches indued with power of ecclesiastical govermēt were the whole onely charge of the presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles then were they not appointed for the conversiō of the rest of the citie countrie neither was that work the end or motive that swayed the Apostles to ordeyn them So that his proposition which affirmeth that those presbyteries were appointed for whole Dioceses hath nothing to support it Moreover if he shall dislike the limitation which I have added to his proposition restreyning it to such Dioceses as ours are or at least to such Dioceses as were also Churches he is to know that his consequence is naught and such as of which he hath no graunt from his refuter to boast of For unlesse it be presupposed that the Dioceses to which he saith the Presbyteries were appointed were Churches and like to our diocesan Churches his argument wil be deceitfull also in a second respect to wit because his antecedent and the conclusion speak not of one kind of Dioceses but of such as differ toto genere if the one be churches and the other not so or at least in specie if they be Diocesan Churches unlike to ours For as is heretofore noted Diocesan Bishops like to ours doe require the Churches where of they are Bishops to be dioceses or diocesan Churches like to ours This memorandum therefore being premised that by Dioceses in his proposition we are to vnderstand Diocesan Churches like to ours we are come to examine the first of his two arguments which himself frameth to prove the proposition before denyed in manner forme following They who were appointed to whole cities and countries to labour so farre at Sect. 4. they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God were appointed to Dioceses and not to Parishes But the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities and countries thereto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 3 44 PM 5 7 2011 were appointed not unto Parishes but unto Dioceses that is to Diocesan Churches like to ours This Proposition saith he I omitted as taking it for granted Be it so yet since he saw that his Refuter esteemed the consequence weake of that argum he framed to a conclusion somewhat differing he mought wel have bene jealous of his rejecting this proposition also For since the Presbyters of which he speaketh were planted in the cheife cities of such a nation as the Apostles desired to cōvers what hindreth but the countreyes annexed might be Provinces or rather whole Nations and not Dioceses properly Moreover how can they be sayd to be appointed to Diocesan Churches such as ours for to speak of other Dioceses that are estranged from Christianity is to rove farre wide from the question who are appointed unto cities and countries not to feed and govern them as all Churches are by their Pastors but to labour their conversion that yet remayned Pagans and Infidels To provoke him therefore in his next defence to undertake the proofe of this proposition which he now taketh for graunted I first contradict it thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countries for the working out of the conversion were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours Then I take his owne assumption with the help thereof to conclude the contradictorie of his former proposition in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to whole cities and countries for the working out of their conversion Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours This our proposition opposed against his may
be fortified by this Enthymeme Those whole cities and countries whose people are generally so â—stranged from the faith that their conversion must be laboured are not diocesan Churches like to ours Therefore neyther they who were appointed over such cities and countries set over diocesan Churches such as ours The Antecedent is a truth so apparant to all the world that it were madnes to contradict it And the consequence is such as I verify think no man of comon sense will ever call it into question As for the Refuters exceptions against the proposition which he had framed for an other purpose they are as the Doctor saith eavils not worth the refuting and yet to shewe his valour he will needes have a fling at them though with shame to himselfe For first for want of just matter of blame he forgeth a false calumniation in in saying That his Refuter absurdly eavilleth with him as if he had sayd that all in the citie and country were in S. Iohns time converted For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this that the Apostles ordeyned Preseyters for such an end as he supposeth yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities the countries adioyning And he backeth it with this reason that the seed of the word in many places was thick sowne but came thin up and the heat of perseeution at that time burnt up the zoale and profession of many Which if it were too weak to justify the exception why doth he not take notice of confute it thinketh he his unpartiall readers will take it for a sufficient refutation to say it is a cavill not worth the refuting The second exception is of more moment because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors owne argument before set downe For the ordeyning of Presbyters for whole cities and countries to labour the conversion of all that in those places belonged to God can never prove that they were appointed to the care and charge of diocesan Churches unlesse there be a necessitie that all which in time were to be converted by their Ministerie should be and remaine members of the same Church with them It shall not be amisle therefore to stay a while upon the examination of that which the Refuter hath sayd to justifie his deniall and the Doct. to mainteyn the affirmation of this necessitie Sect. â— In defense of the negative it was alleadged answ pag. 57 that it is very likely if not certeyne that they of Cenchrea received the gospell from Corinthe for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth for it is called the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply first layeth downe his own opinion touching this matter and then indeavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea out of his refuters handes His owne opinion or rather definitive sentence quast ex cathed a satis pro imperis he delivereth in this maner I say that they whose Ministerie was intended for the conversion of the citie and countrie to their care and charge both for the first conversion of them and government of them being converted the citie and country belonged And the Doctor onely saith it and dareth the Refuter or any of his vnlearned associates contradict it No verily they will rather assent to him so farre as truth and reason grounded on the truth of Gods word will permit them that is kat â—â— in parr but not aploos and in generall for it is most true that the Apostles and Evangelists whose Ministerie was intended eyther to begin or to bring forwards the conversion of any citie and country had the care and charge of the people in those parts aswel for the governing of them whom they did convert as for the labouring of their conversion at the first But how long and how was it for a perpetuitie or for a time onely till they might be furnished with their proper Ministery And when the faith spread it self from any of those cheife cities which first enterteyned it into the townes adjoyning that with such increase that the number of beleevers in those places were sufficient to make two or moe Churches or congregations did they all remaine still parts of one Church and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversie wherefore if the Doctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative he should haue plainly contradicted the refuter and sayd there was a necessitie that all which were brought to the faith in any city and country adjoyning by the labours of any appointed for their conversion should remayn though never so many or farre distaÌ„t meÌ„bers of the citie-Church which first enterteyned the gospell Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proofe then his bare word I say it to conclude this necessitie And it was not easy for him to yeeld any sound reason for the justifying of such an assertion in wisdome therefore he judged it better to say and affirme that which though it beleffe pertinent yet might seeme more reasonable viz. that such as were converted by their labours that were appointed to indeavor their conversion should submit themselves to be governed by them and in stead of yeilding any pregnant demonstration to confute his Refuters exception to make a shewe of removing that which was alleadged by him To this purpose he addeth that though Cenchrea be called a Church yet was it not such a Church as we now speak of indued with power of ecclesiasticall government but subiect to the â—urâ—sliction of the Church of Corinthe Thus he faith but hath he any other reason then such as before I say it to shewe the subjection of Cenchrea to the Church of Corinthe No surely for though he often reiterateth this affirmation pag. 46. 105. 129. yet his best proofe is most certeynly so it was I doubt not therefore but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost equalling the beleevers in Cenchrea and those in Corinth with the same name calling the one the Church in Cenchrxa the other the Church in Corinthe Rom. 16. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. will argue our assertion to be more probable when we say they were distinct Churches alike indued with power of ecclesiasticall government then his denyall that hath no other confirmation then I say it or so it was for what authoritie hath he eyther to subordinate one to another or to confine in one ecclesiasticall body those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches Thus much for his Proposition his Assumption coÌ„meth now to Sect. 6. 2d pag. 65. be examined which he saith is confirmed by two arguments the one the end intended by the Apostles in appointing Presbyters in cities which was the conversion of the nation for which themselves first preached in the cheife
as with Arrians as ours be with men of another language 3. And here by the way observe how the Doctor at vnawares pulleth downe with the one hand what he setteth vp with the other For against this comparison between those churches that lived among the Arrians and the French Churches among us alleadged to prove that the later are as he saith the former were models of diocesan Churches I may returne his owne exceptions thus The French Churches cannot be Models of diocesan Churches like as he supposeth the other were because their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of lay-men and wanteth a Bishop which they had neither are they placed and reâ—eined for the the conversion of the citie and countrie to them as in the Doctors conceit the ancient Churches among the Arrians were for otherwise how should they be converted as he argueth pag. 67. And this also by the way weakneth his arguing to shew that Sect. 6. the French and Dutch Churches among us are no parish assemblies For if they be neither diocesan nor models of diocesan Churches what else can they be then parishes such at least as the Refuter in this question esteemeth to be parishes or parishonall Churches 2. But in this point he sheweth himself what he is when knowing as is before noted sect 3. in what sense the Refuter holdeth those The Doct. knowing the Refut to speak in one sense â—â—ieth to an other Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches to be parishes he doth notwithstanding flie to another sort of parishes viz. such as ours now are deprived of the power of ecclesiasticall government and subordinate to an other Church as members thereof to his exceptions therefore in this behalfe this reply may suffice That which is one Church among many in one citie is one parish or one congregation such as in this question we define a parish to be But the French Church in London is one Church among many in one citie as the Doctor acknowledgeth p. 7. 1 It is therefore one parish as wee understand a parish in this question Againe That which hindreth not the french and dutch Churches among vs fro being each of them one ordinary congregation assembling to one place for the worship of God doth not hindâ—â— them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question But the Doctors exceptions viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches doe dwel in many distinct parishes according to the circuite of our English division of parishes in London and other places aâ—d that their Churches are indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof these exceptions I say doe not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them one ordinarie congregation assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God Therefore neyther doe they hinder them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question As for that one speach inserted touching the French and Dutch Churches when he saith they have a Presbyterie as the Church â—â— Geneva hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might have in an imitation of the ancient Christinians me thinks it scarce savoureth of truth or at least argueth forgetfulnes in himselfe For if that he speaketh of having a Bishop once in eâ—â—e and still in possâ— The Doct. speach either is vntrue or else contradicteth himself be referred to the French and Dutch Churches here in England where doth Alasco say that they once had a Bishop and how knoweth he that our Bishops would suffer them to have in each church a Bishop of their owne If to the Church of Geneva as he needeth not Alascoes testimonie to prove that they once had a Bishop so in saying that they now might have a Bishop what else doth he but contradict here what he earnestly pleadeth for lib. 4. pag. 166 viz. that the Churches of France and Geneva neyther in the first reformation could neyther now can obteyne the government of Bishops to be sâ—tled among them though they would but it is no new thing to meet with the Doctors slippings this way We come now to the Refuters regestion when he striketh at the Doctor with his owne weapon in this manner â—â— there were no parishes Sect. 7. ad P. 70. lin 8 in the Apostles times how could there be Dioceses seing every Diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes The Doctor telleth us it is but a floorish and a kind of answer that best fiâ—teth him that is at a non-plus But it is well knowne that this kind of answer is very usuall with divines nothing inferior to him eyther in schoole learning or divinity that to contradict any assertion belonging to the question aswell as the conclusion principally contraverted doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theologicall scholasticall disputations yea it is in deed of speciall use to put the adverse part to a non-plus or at least to let the indifferent Reader see the weaknes of his argument and therefore no mervâ—ile though the Doctors patience be not a little troubled with it But see we how he bestirreth himselfe to escape the stroak of it Good Sir saith he what is this to my consequence Againe to what end is this spoken to deny my consequence or the maine conclusion And a little after Therefore when he would sâ—â—me to denie the consequence of the propo-â—â—tion he doth not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against the assumption he dâ—niâ—th the principall conclusion Good Mr. D. with your patience is there no difference betwixt the deniall of the conclusion and the retorting of an argument against it And is it nothing to you if your maine conclusioÌ„ fall to the ground so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand uprightâ— but it is a fault in the Refuter when he would seeme to impugne your consequence to passe by it and to set upon your conclusioÌ„ when you thought it had been sufficiently garded Belike you looked not for such a stratageme at his hands whom you tooke to be amazed at the fight of your argument as you say pag. 71 and so shallow conceited when he is in his best wits that if we may beleeve you pa. 80. he can see no further then his nose end Yet perhaps if you had seene your consequence touched by the former part of his answer you would not have blamed him â— for running out against your conclusion before he gave the onset to your assumption But to let your scoffs alone tell us in good earnest doe you think your consequence is altogither out of the reach of this his regestion as you call it doth it not rather fall with the conclusion for how could Presbyteries be appointed to Dioceâ—es when there were none If therefore the want of
distinct parishes in the Apostles times doe argue that there were no dioceses doth it necessarily argue also that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to dioceses But the Doctor we see is a man of that courage that though he foresâ—e he cannot long escape his adversaries The D. â—â—â—eth from one starting hole to another till he be shut out of all hands yet he will fly from one starting hole to another till he be shut out of all For he telleth us his consequence is this If there were no parishes then the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but he knoweth I need not tell him that that is not all he should have added but â—o dioceses And for us it sufficeth if one part of his consequence be overthrowne for the other will fall of it selfe afterwardes Againe I must tell him that howsoever his consequeÌ„ce as he hath now with his detraction proposed it may seeme in vincible yet himselfe such is his happ hath shewed us a way how to crush it For if the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times will argue as is afore shewed that the presbyteries were not appointed to dioceses then it will also argue that they were appointed to parishes for he must confess vnless he will confess himselfe to be ignorant in logick as he saith lib. 1. pag. 60. that in this controversy this diâ—â—unction is implyed viz. that the presbyteries were appointed either to dioceses as he saith or else to such parishes as we spoke of The disproof therefore of his dioceses is a direct proofe of our parishes The which the Doctor as it seemeth foreseeing falleth vpon the examination of the argument which runneth thus If there were no parishes distinguished in the Apostles times then Sect. 1. there were no dioceses such as ours for every such diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes But in the Apostles times there were no parishes distinguished Therefore neither were there any dioceses in their daies such as ours are How necessary this clause dioceses such as ours is I have shewed heretofore because Bishops such as ours cannot be had without dioceses such as ours And here it maketh the consequence of the argument as cleare as the Sun in a cleare summers day Yet the Doct. denieth it because he imagineth that the diocese was the same and the circuit of the spirituall jurisdiction intended the same before parishes were divided with that it was after they were divided that is answerable to the civil but that is coleworts more then thrice sodden the falshood and vanity of which evasion is already sufficiently discovered in the answere to his 3. cap. sect 6. 8. It shall here suffice in one word to remember him of this that his owne wordes doe convince that the want of parishes distinguished argueth there were no dioceses such as ours which in execution and not intention onely comprize all the inhabitants of City and Country I might put him in minde of another difference betwixt our and the ancient dioceses which in circuite as he saith answered to the civill seing ours doe not so for some of them conteyn many shires within their circuite and sundry shires are dismembred by the spirituall jurisdiction which draweth them to severall dioceses But let us see how he removeth the piller that vpholdeth the consequence of the argument viz. that every diocese such as ours consistech of distinct parishes It is true saith he after the distinction of parishes but not before But is not this answere miserune An absurb evasion kersphogeton an absurd evasion and no better then a very denyall of the conclusion For to borrow the Doctors comparisions before applied to the question of dioceses and their circuit pag. 53. when he saith that every man consisteth of soul and body and the body consisteth of many members if one should answere him It is true that a man consisteth of those parts after the conjunction but not before and the body hath many members after the distinction of the members but not before would he not censure him for an absurd caviller and his answere for a poore evasion of one that is at a non-plus yet such and none other is the Doctors answer And. 2. that it may appeare to what purpose his answer serveth I will here frame the argument that fortifieth the consequence before denied and leave it to the readers judgment to give sentence betwixt the Doctor and the Refuter in this cafe Whatsoever consisteth of distinct parishes that cannot have his being or subsistence before parishes were distinguished But every Diocese such as ours consisteth of distinct Parishes No Diocese therefore such as ours can have any being or subsistence before there be a distinction of Parishes Now to answer as he doth that the assumption is true after parishes were distinguished but not before is it not all one in effect as if he had sayde that there may be and were dioceses before there there were any parishes so that vnder a pretence of contradicting the assumption with a frivolous distinction he doth in deed as a man amazed or rather confounded deny the conclusion As for the comparisions borrowed by him to justify his answer Sect. 9. they fall farre short of his purpose First he saith a batch of bread consisteth of many loaves after the distinction which before it conteyned undistinguished in the lumpe But he must remember that a Diocese doth so consist of many parishes as a Province doth of many dioceses and a Patriatchship of many provinces Wherefore as he confesseth that Metropolitan Bishops and Patriarcks and consequently provinciall and patriarchall Churches grewe followed th' one upon the combination of Dioceses and the other vpon the consociation of Provinces lib. 4. pag. 7 so his Refuter holdeth that these Diocesan Churches and Bishops had their originall from the conjunction of many particular congregations subjected to one Diocesan consistorie And it is evident so to be in asmuch as the first Churches planted in cities by the Apostles were for a while as the Doctor himselfe confesseth pag. 6. and 103. but a small congregation and when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinarie congregation the congregations were divided still as people in divers places were converted the Churches as he also acknowledgeth pag. 67. were multiplied so that the many parishes which grewe up in a diocese were not all distinguished at once as the loaves of one Bach are after the seasoning of the whole lump And therefore neither were they all coÌ„teyned within the bowels of the citie-citie-church undistiguished as the loaves are in the lumpe before their division but rather as the first constituted Churches consisted of diverse families but by the combyning of many christian families in one ecclesiasticall assembly so also they became in process of time diocesan and provinciall Churches not by reteyning all the Christians of an whole diocese or province in one confused lump till
his arguments seing the two are in effect but one yea one error twice produced for two distinct arguments Secondly the last point of the Presbyters attendance on their charge in The D. 2. arguments are in effect but one yea one errour twice produced for two distinct arg coÌ„mon which is rejected as unworthy to be ascribed to the Apostles appointment or allowance that for this reason following It is at no hand to be indured that the Apostles should be suspected to appoint or allow of any disorderly confusion But to ordeyne many Presbyters or Ministers in comon to attend not onely the feeding of the whole flock converted but also to labour the conversion of the residue in the citie and countrey adioyning is to authorize and give allowance to a disordely confusion Therefore it is at no hand to be indured that the Apostles should be suspected to have ordeyned many Presbyters or Ministers for such attendance in coÌ„mon The proposition cannot be doubted of neyther taketh the Doctor any exception against it The assumption he contradicteth but answereth not the probabilities urged to cleare it And first the disorder and confusion is declared by a like example of a schoole erected in some great towne by some great scholler who having entred his Auditors in the principles of grammer being drawne away by some occasions appointeth certeyne Vshers in coÌ„mon to take care of all that were so entred and to gaine as many more as they could not of the same towne onely but of all other townes round about Now if they thus left to their libertie shall goe now hither now thither and teach now these now those as it best liketh himselfe and them is it not likely think yet that there would be good teaching and learning in such a schoole To this cafe the Doctor maketh no other answer but this that he is worthy to be put into a cloakbagg which proposed it but is not himselfe more worthy of the cloak bagg that could finde no better answer Surely if his refuter had made such an answer he would have sayd so but I will not for he sheweth himself to have wit enough to scoffe it out wheÌ„ he is at a non-plus For seing he sheweth not the dissagreement of the things compared togither who seeth not reason to think the comparison is much fitter then he would have it 2. Againe the Refuter asketh how such a coÌ„mon imployment of preaching here and there at randon could be orderly then since it was afterwards disorderly for the Doctor acknowledgeth serm pag. 20. that this promiscuous attendance was taken away by Euaristus for avoyding confusion And 3. he also intimateth that schismes must needes ensue when the people being tied to the hearing of no one preacher might upon their fancie run some after one some after an other and so peradventure leave some quite without auditors To all which the Doctor in his discretion giveth his grave consuÌ„re That which he meaning the Refuter bebleth concerning disorder and coÌ„fusion is wholly to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion Now that we may not think he wanteth reason thus to censure Sect. 12. his Refuter he asketh as a man that did not or would not see in which of the parts of his assumption points as he calleth them this orderly and â—nconfounded man noteth such disorder and confusion or was not the coÌ„fused conceit he spake of in his owne braine But is the Doctor in deed so shallowe conceited as he would seeme to be can he not discerne by the plaine mencioning of the teachers hearers going to fro from one company and from one towne to another the one to teach the other to heare whom and where themselves list that the disorder and confusion objected lieth neyther in the first or second branch of the assumption which concerne the distinction of parishes and the assignement of Presbyters to their severall cures nor yet altogither in that which he maketh the third scz that the presbyters were in comon to attend the whole flock but in this rather that they were in coÌ„moÌ„ to indeavor aswell the conversion of the residue in citie and country as the feeding of the whole flock already converted Wherefore that which he alleadgeth froÌ„ the state of the French and Dutch Churches among us to shewe there is no disorder or confusion in the three points which himself proposeth is in deed but meere babling and a deceitfull drawing of the reader from the question which is not whither one parish The D. cuÌ„ningly withdraweth the reader froÌ„ the questioÌ„ may enjoy sundry teachers coÌ„municonâ—ilis it mutuo auxiliâ— to attend the whole flock none of them being appointed to a several charge but whether one Presbyterie or company of Ministers may be appointed in coÌ„mon to the charge of an whole citie the country adjoyning so as each of them may at his pleasure bestowe his labour eyther in teaching any part of the people converted wheresoever they shall meet togither in an uncerteyne assembly or in preaching to any of the rest that remayn infiâ—â—elitie and in traveiling for that purpose from one part of the Diocese to an other as his owne minde shall guide him the former is that which the Refuter granteth and judgeth to be the state of the Apostolike Churches therein like to the French and Dutch here in England The D. case is but poor and weak the later he disclaymeth for the reasons before mentioned Herein therefore behoid and pitty the Doctors poore and weak estare for wheras before as appeareth sect 5. he renounced the comparison which his Refuter made betweene these outlandish Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches though fitly agreeing in the pointes wherein they were to be compared as is shewed sect 4. Now for want of better help to wipe away that disorder and confusio objected against that coÌ„mon imployment which his conceit ascribeth to the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles he is faine to apprehend the same comparison to conceale that disagreement which though then it were impertinently urged yet now serveth well to shewe how weakly or rather disceitfully he disputeth For although in one congregation assembling in one place many Ministers may without confusion teach at severall times one after another as it was in the Church of Corinth 1. Cor. 14. 31. and now is in the French churches yet may it be yea it is already proved to be disorderly for many Ministers to attend promiscuously and at their pleasure sometimes on the feeding of a people converted and that eyther in whole or in part and sometimes on the instructing of such as in an whole citie countrey adjoyning doe yet remayne in unbeleefe Moreover it is well knowne that there is no such coÌ„munitie in the charge which the French and Dutch Ministers have of one congregation as he attributeth to the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles for among these the Doctor giveth
no cheiftie or preheminence to any one above the rest neyther perpetual not teÌ„porarie in any Pastoral duty of feeding or governing the people depending on them seing in his conceit they had neither Bishop nor President to guide the or to moderate their meetings in the absence of the Apostles who as he supposeth reteyned all episcopall government in their owne hands Which confused paritie or rather Anarchie as it was never imbraced of any reformed Church in these last times so it cannot without wrong disgrace to the Apostles be ascribed unto their ordinance As for the Apostles wordes to the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts. 20. 28. the Doctor seemeth inconstant and at odds with himselfe Sect. 13. ad sect 7. p. 75. in the application of them For he first quoted that text serm p. 18. to prove that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word and Sacraments where note that he limiteth the word flock and the duty of feeding to the company already converted which argueth as may well be supposed that he did not then conceive the residue of the City and Country yet vnconverted to be any part of that flock or The D. agreeth not with himselfe in the applicatio of Act. 20. 29. Church there spoken of but now he streatcheth both words to the whole nomber of all which in City and Country belonged to God and were by their Ministerie to be converted and rockoneth it as we heard before sect 7. one of the Refuters indigested fancies to restreine the flock over which those presbyters were set vnto the nomber of Christians already converted Heare we now the reasons that perswaded him to change his opinion for he useth not to doe and vndoe without reason First he urgeth the use of the word flock Iohn 10. 16. where the flock he faith is that for which the good shepheard gave his life vnto which apperteyned the sheep which his Father gave him even the elect not yet converted as he saith pag. 66. not onely among the iewes but the Gentles also even that Church which God meaning Christ who is God is sayd to have redeemed with his blood Acts. 20. 28 and that people of his which he saveth from their sinnes But how will he from his allegations inferre that the flock in which those Presbyters were set as overseers Act. 20. 28. was the people belonging to God aswell vnconverted as converted in the City of Ephesus and the Country adjoyning Doth not himselfe weaken the consequence when he faith This is spoken of the Church in generall yea but he proceedeth to say so the company of them that belong to Christ in any nation province diocese city or parish may be called the flock the Church the people of God Well then if the company of faithfull in one parish may be called the flock and Church of God aswell as a larger society of such as belonge vnto God in a nation province or diocese is not the Doctor yet as farre to seek as at the first for a found reason to perswade his conscience that the people yet vnverted but belonging to Gods election throughout the diocese or province of Ephesus were a part of the flock and Church which those presbyters were charged to attend to and feede May not a man with halfe an eye discerne that a greedy desire to contradict his Refuters assertion hath instead of better reason preveyled with him or rather as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter pag. 73. so transported him that he careth not how shamefully he contradicteth himselfe so as he may gainesay his adversaries present assertion Yet there is a worse fault that accompanieth this change of opinion in him for he absurdly consoundeth the visible Church of Christian professors knowne vnto men with the invisible Church or flock of Gods elect knowne onely to himself yea we may therevnto The D. coâ—radicteth himself coÌ„ foundeth the visible invisible Church maketh the Apostle author of a senselesse charge add a third fault no less absurd then the former when he makerh the Apostle Paule the author of a senseless charge imposed on the presbyters viz. to attende on a flock the nomber and parts whereof they neyther knew nor could know and to feede with the word and Sacraments such as were not yet begotten vnto the faith Attend we now a litle to the advantage which he maketh to his â—ause from this text to his removall of the disadvantage which his Refuter draweth from thence If sayth he they were to attend the whole flock in coÌ„mon then were they not assigned to severall parishes which were but parts of the flock to which purpose the place of the Acts was Sect. 14. quoted Before he borrowed as is observed sect 10. the first branch of his assumption to justify the second now the second is fortified by the third so that his owne pen maketh him guiltie of the fault which upon farre lesse cause he imputeth pag. 55. to Mark whethe D. be not coÌ„fouÌ„-ded in him self his Refuter scz to bring within the compasse of one syllogism two arguments which tend to justify the mayn point of the assumption Consider this well and with all remember that the 4. point is a bare repetition of that which he urged in the former argumet as is shewed sect 1. yea observe further that the second parr of his assumption which by this reckoning is the onely maine point of his argument is made a part of the consequence of his proposition as appeareth sect 2. By all which layd togither it is evident that this argument of his separatis separandis is nothing else but a concluding of the same by the same in this manner In the Apostles times the Presbyters were not assigned to severall cures whereby he meaneth parishes Ergo in their times they were not appointed to parishes But to come to his inference deduced from the place of the Acts. which he quoted if that be true which his words intimate that severall parishes were parts of the flock which the Presbyters were charged to attend how can there be a truth in the first branch of the Assumption which denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times must he not fall an ase at least lower then before when he sayd pag. 63. sect 6. that his assertion touching Churches not divided into parishes is to be understood â—â— epi to plaiston as true of most Churches I might ask him how it is possible the Presbyters should hold the charge of the flock in comon if it had severall parishes for the parts thereof how the flock could be undistinguished or attended on in coÌ„mon if the charge given to the Presbyters were such as upon like occasion might by a Bishop in his visitation be applied to all the Ministers of a Diocese as he afterwards affirmeth pag. 105. will it not be A contradiction in the Doct. hard think you
in one place Therefore both the presbyterie and the president thereof were assigned but to one congregation First he denieth the consequence vpon this ground that the Presbyters were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the countries adjoyning and in both aswell to labour the conversion of the rest as to take charge of them that were already converted Which being nothing but a repetition of that he before affirmed nakedly and without any proofe his refuter thought it enough to tell him that in asmuch as he hath before shewed his answere to be false the consequence will remain good notwithstanding And since he now boasteth that he hath proved his Refuters affertioÌ„ opposed against his answere viz. that it was no part of the presbyters proper dutie to labour the conversion of the unconverted throughout the citie and country adjoyning to be an indigested fancie of shallow if not giddâ—â— beades thaâ— see no further then their nose-end if the reader please to look back to that alreadie layd downe cap. 2. of this reply sect 7. 8. c. he â—lay perceive that the Doctor is very nose wise and his Phan tasia being bewitched with the sweet smell of the prelacie hath fathered on the Apostles such an intent in the placing of Presbyters in cities as never was discovered eyther to his care by any ancient tradition or to his eye in any monuments of antiquitie Wherfore his censure passed against his Refuter more properly belongeth to himselfe viz. that he slubbereth over the proofe of his owne arguments as having a better faculty in denying consequences then in proving any of the premisses whereon his cause relieth yet as if his dreames were Oracles he saith and indeed onely saith it for proofe he can yeild none that the ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles instent as he expoundeth it He addeth when all both in citie and countrie were converted to the profession of the faith which could scarcesly be verified of any citie country for 300 yeares after the Apostles began to place Presbyters in Cities I meane till constantines daies as the Doctor observeth pag 54 they acknowledged the generally care and inspection over them all to belong to that one Bishop of the citie and themselves to be part of that Church and therefore concludeth that the consequence of the former Enthymem will never be made good But the Reader may see how the D. is deceived in imagining that the former consequence is beaten downe by the strength of this last if he will take notice of that which he now assumeth contrived for his best advantage to conclude his purpose in forme of argument to this effect All that acknowledged themselves after their conversion to be part of the City Church and so belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that citie they all I say were a part of that Church from the beginning orat least a part of the charge of the Bishop and Presbytery first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that city But all the Inhabitants of the City Country after their coÌ„versioÌ„ to the faith acknowledged themselves to be part of the City Church and to belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that City Ergo all the Inhabitants of citie and countrie were a part of that Church from the beginning or at least a part of the charge of the bishop and Presbyterie first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that citie And consequently though it should be granted that in the first 200 yeares all the ChristiaÌ„s of any one great citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place yet it followeth not that the Presbyterie president thereof were assigned but to one congregation If he can make any better use of his assumption for any other conclusion that may be more for his advantage good leave have he to follow his owne way meane while I deny the proposition wherein as we take it the strength of his reasoning lieth wish him to behold the weaknes thereof in this argument following All that acknowledged themselwes after their conversion to be partes of any citie Church c. were from the beginning partes of that Church c. But all the people which inhabited the severall dioceses of any province as soon as they were converted to the faith notwithstaÌ„ding they enjoyed their own Bishops to governe them yet they acknowledged themselves to be parts of the metropolitane Church seated in that cheife citie the Bishop therof to be their primate or head All the people therefore which inhabited the severall dioceses of any Province were from the beginning parts of the Metropolitane Church or at least parts of the charge of the Bishop and Presbyterie seated in the mother citie And consequently the Churches and Bishops of Mother cities were in their first foundation properly provinciall and not diocesan onely The assumption of this Syllogisme is the same with that which the D. avoucheth lib. 2. p. 113. lin 25. 29. But the conclusion with the coÌ„sequent annexed crosseth that which he affirmeth pag. 20. 1. 3. and 21. 1. 1 which contradiction if he will avoid he must disclaime the proposition so acknowledge that he trusted to a broken reed when he perswaded his owne heart that the subjection which the inhabitants of an whole diocese yeilded in the 4. age after Christ to the citie-Church and the Bishop thereof could argue invinciblie that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 300 yeares before were provided aswell for the vncoÌ„verted as for those already brought to the faith As for the Antecedent of the former Enthymem which he rejecteth Sect. 5. ad pag. 81. with much disdeine but with little shew of reason to him that weigheth the matter because it belongeth to another question as is before noted I referre the handling of it to another place for the present it shall suffice to discharge the Refuter from those calumniations which the D. throweth on him for exchanging it with this Assertion All the Christians in any great citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place I mislike not saith the Doctor his addition of the townes about so he wil be pleased not to forget to take them into the defense of his Antecedent If he wil be pleased say I to take the Antecedent so and in such sense as it is tendred to him let him never think his Refuter will shrink from the defense thereof But the Doctor is timorous and feareth to be circumvented with the inclosure of that parenthesis unlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes and therefore he would faine have it to be removed or rather the word although to be set in stead of unlesse where we may see the old proverb verefied in him give him an inche and he will
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
hath his Refuter sayed that those Churches of Corinth Ephesus c. were parishes before the division of parishes or why doth he father on him such a senslesse assertion as this is For in his owne understanding it is all one as if a man should say that those Churches were parishes before they were any parishes at all as appeareth by his descanting upon this point pag. 69. and 70. But let us see how the Doctor fortifyeth each part of his argumentation First touching his assumption to prove that those churches were not such as were the parishes that followed the division he urgeth 3. differences betwixt the one and the other 1. parishes after their division had not a Bishop and a Presbyterie as those Churches had but onely one preshyter assigned to them 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a Superintendent as was the Bishop of those Churches over other Pastors 3. neither was any of them intended as each of those Churches was to be a mother-Mother-church These differences being nakedly affirmed The Doct. argueth like a Sophister may with a bare deniall be repelled but the answere at this time shal be rather this that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter For say that he could as he cannot mainteyne these differences those Churches might be yea were notwithstanding such churches as the parishes were after the division that is alike in the point which himselfe taketh notice of pag. 4. of his sermon as the substanciall point of the agreement intended the former being aswell as the later each of them one ordinary congregation assembled in one place But if his meaning be that they were not such in all points we may well demurre upon the matter till the question be debated which belongeth to another tract what manner of parishes they were which received their originall from the division of one citie Church into many parish-assemblies In the meane time to come to the consequence of his proposition whereas he saith it may not be denied specially by them that would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches I wil be so bolde as utterly to contradict this speach and say the contrary to it that it may very well be denyed even by such as would have the parishes so framed For in as much as they desire not the abolishing of parishes but the reducing of them to the patterne of the first churches it is evident that they in their judgment hold two kindes of parishes the one differing from the other agreeing with the forme and constitution of the first Churches And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defense of that conclusion which the Doctors argument throweth upon his Refuter he must needs distinguish in some respect or other betwixt the parishes that had their being before and those that began after that division of parishes whereof he speaketh and therefore must of necessitie contradict the Doctors consequence say that the first Churches which were parishes in asmuch as they were but one congregation before that division of parishes which followed when those Churches by reason of their multitude hugely increased were parted into more particular congregations were not in all points such Churches as the later parishes were Thus is the stroake of his first reason warded let me come now Sect. â— to encounter with the second If saith he that assumption was false which denied Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But the Refuter sayd before that that assumption had no truth in it here also must I adde the conclusion Ergo those Churches were not onely many congregations but also many parishes Vnderstand this to be meant of each Church severally q. d. Ergo each of them was not one onely congregation or parish but many And marke what followeth These two just exceptions saith he I have against his consequence So you may discerne how just cause he giveth me to take up against him his owne fashion of reply pag. 72. Good Sir what is this to the Refuters consequence Where doth he say that each of these Churches was but one congregation and not many and where that each was but one parish Is not the former his Antecedent or assumption and the later the consequent or conclusion Therefore to use his owne words pag. 73. when you would seeme to deny the consequence you do not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against some other assertion of his you deny the principall conclusion I might proceed therefore to rowse him up with the sweet sound of his owne bâ—lls pag. 47. and ring this peale into his cares Is not the deniall of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded c but I spare him the rest of his speach and return to the matter His argument is no other then such as he before objected pag. 73. and 76. and is already answered cap. 3. sâ—ct 10. and 15. to this purpose viz. that the refuter in affirming parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times cannot contradict his owne assertion which mainteyneth the Apostolike Churches to be parishes because in his understanding every particular congregation is a parish And if it be not so also in the Doctors perswasion why doth he so often use the wordes indiffâ—rently viz. severall parishes or congregations for one and the same thing Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togiâ—her in this very argument of his to contradict his conclusion and so to justify our owne I tender him for reqâ—itall this that followeth If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles tâ—me then the Churches oâ— Corinth Ephâ—sus c. Were in that age each of them but onâ— onely congrâ—gation or parish But that â—ssumpâ—ion â—s by the D. maintâ—yned to be true pag. 69. and 73 let him therefore disclaime that AssumptioÌ„ or give way to this conclusion Therefore the Churches of Coriâ—th Ephesus c were each of them in the Apostlâ—s â—imâ—s but one onâ—ly congregation or parish and not many But let us heare what it is that withholdeth his aâ—sent from the Antecedent or assumption of the Refuters bâ—forâ— set downe Though I deny not saiâ—h he bâ—t â—hat â—t the first and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect 3. pa. â—04 time of the Apostle Pâ—ul the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a pâ—pulous congregation yet â— cannot yeild to all his proofes Even so but why doth he not answere directly to the point by approving or contrarying that which is sayd of those three churches Corinth Ephesus and Antioche If it be false in his pâ—rswasion what maketh him affrayd or abâ—sht to dâ—scover the falshood thereof if true why doth he not plainly acknowledge it
he mainteyneth touching Timothy their Bishop in his account serm pag. 79. and 80. and Def. lib. 4. pag. 90. viz. that he was not ordeyned Bishop till after Pauls deliverance from his imprisonment at Rome And if the rest of the churches which were then in Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. stood in any subordination to Ephesus as the Mother-Church of the whole nation why should not Ephesus have some note of principality given vnto it above the rest of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. and 2 But himselfe reckoneth them all alike principall lib. 2. pag. 43. lin 2. at the least equalleth 4. other with Ephesus in the dignity of Mother-cities pâ— 63. following Thirdly concerning the Church at Antioch rather then the D. will acknowledge that the people therof assembled togither in one Sect. 7. 2d pag. 105. place which the Refuter gathereth from Acts. 14. 27. he indeavoureth to elude the testimony by a frivolous evasion that hath no appearance of truth It is apparant saith he that not all the Church consisting of busbandes and wyues their children and servants but some of the cheese and principall perhaps not many perhaps not any besides those of the clergie were called to that meeting Thus he saith but why doth he not acquaint us with the reasons that made this apparant to his senses doth he think still to win credit by his bare word when Paul and Barnabas were by imposition of hands commended to the grace of God for that work which they had now fulfilled will he say that the laity for the greater part or at least wives children and servants were excluded from the Leiturgie fasting and prayers which were then performed Act. 13. 2. 3 doth not himselfe acknowledge the Leiturgie to be the publique service of God in the congregation serm of the dig and duty of the Ministers pag. 25. lin penult Is it not the judgment of the sound divines leitourgein significat saith Aretius upon that place talieta ergazein publica obire muniâ— Collectaerat eccliaÌ„ saith Zanchius de oper redempt pag. 714. quta Lucas ait lcitourgoâ—ntoon autoon If theÌ„ the whole body of that Church without exception of age sex or outward estate joyned in prayer and fasting when they were separated to the work shall we think they disdeyned to assemble the whole or made speciall choise of few when they gathered the Church togither to relate vnto them what God had wrought by their Ministery Is it not safest most consonant to the rules of sound interpreting the text to vnderstaÌ„d by the church here the multitude and not the cleâ—gie onely or some few principall men seing in another case not long after it is expressely sayd that they which were sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioche from the Synode at Ireusalcm sunagago ntes to pâ—thos having gathered togither the multitude delivered the â—pistle y 2 the D. himselfe quoteth both this text Acts. 14. 27. and those before handled touching the Corinthian Church 1. Cor. 11. 18. 23 as signifying the Church of a citie and countrie adjoyning coÌ„gregated into a congregation pag 4. of this book Wherefore it is apparant that in coâ—tradicting his Refuters proofes from the scriptures he doth but labour to obscure the light which himselfe discerneth well enough but is loth that others should apprehend His other testimonies are out of Eusebius Ignatius and some Sect. 8. 2d pag. 105. sect 4. of our owne writers as the D. saith of all which this is his grave censure in generall That they are soarce worth the mencioning yet he doth his best to wrest them out of his Refuters hands let us see how well he doth it First out of Eusebius it is observed that he ealleth the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch paroikias that is parishes And because the D. had inserted serm pag. 4. and 26. something to perswade that Eusebius and others take the word in a larger sense to wit for the whole diocese or at least for citie and suburbs though conteyning many particular parishes to make it appeare that Eusebius taketh the word as we doe for one particular congregation of Christians he urgeth that phrase which he asketh concerning Timothees Bishoprick which he saith was of the parish in Ephesus Now it were saith the Refuter a strange kinde of spÌ„ach â—r Eusebius to terme the Diocese or the whole citie and suburbs of Ephesus the parish of Ephesus for who would say the parish in London for the Diosese of the Bishop of London seing the whole citie is not the tenth part of the Diocise And addeth that as Eusebius calleth the Church of Ephesus one parish in Ephesus so when he speaketh of the Christians in a Province he calleth their seuerall companies assembling togither in one place Parishes or Churches as of Creete Pontus c. lib. 3. ca. 4. lib. 4. cap. 22. To all which the Doctor maketh a slight answere first referring us to that which he hath before spoken touching the ancient use of the word paroikia cap. 1. pag. 11. where there is not one word that eyther taketh notice of the maine objection touching the parith in Ephesus or giveth any colour of answer to it therefore he addeth that Eusebius as he used the proposition en so sometimes kata to the same purpose the which is false and hath nothing to cover the naked falshood of it Vnto Ignatius who witnesseth that the Church of Ephesus in his time came togither ipi to auto into one place he giveth the like answere to that which is refuted before touching the words 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20. viz. that the faubsull in London may be in like manner exhorted though they be diuided into many congregations to come ofc togither into one place But he that should so write would be thought to speak very iproperly obscurely seing it is impossible they should all meet togither in one place for the publique service of God As for word polupletheia which Ignatiu useth as the D. imagineth of purpose to note that the Church consisted of many multitudes or congregations it is but a weak conjecture unworthy to come froÌ„ the Doctor for popupletheia is nothing else but polu plethos a great multitude and therefore argueth not many congregations but rather one great assembly But goe we forwardes whereas Ignatius calleth the Church at Antioch sunagogen a Synagogue which properly noteth one congregation as ritch as he is he hath no other answer to give us but that it is used in the same signification with ecclesia which argueth his povertie in asmuch as he doth therin againe but begge the question Yea but he hath another shift wherein he much glorieth viz. that Ignatius entitleth himself the Bishop of Syria epist ad Magnes Rom. as if he had strook it dead willeth his adversarie to tell him what manner of parish Syrsa was and desireth that may heare also what he can object against the two epistles and so giveth
to be one particular congregation seing it were absurd to entitle any Church a particular coÌ„gregation which is knowne to consift of many particulars And for the same cause who can with reason judge otherwise then that D. Bilson also took the Church of Ephesus to be one congregatioÌ„ when he alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the Church in the new Testament is put for the congregation of the faithfull not for the Preists alone Wherefore whereas the D. in the conclusion renueth his challenge that our new writers are childishly alleadged what else doth he but shew himselfe to be set to outface all The which the more appeareth by that his taxe layd upon his Refuter for alleadging Mr Tindall which as he saith was not a childish mistakeing but a wilfull misalleadging of him in both places there being in the former no such thing and in the later a falsifying of the testimony and to aggrevate the offence chargeth it upon him as coÌ„mitted againe lib. 4. cap. 7. sect 9. But if any fault be here coÌ„mitted save the mistaking of pag. 135. for 133. it is in the Doctor who mought also have amended that mistaking seing he could not but see it when he patched up his owne allegation out of both those pages but it seemeth he had rather make two faults then mend one And that it may appeare how he falsely accuseth his Retuter let the reader consider that as the words set downe by him are not Mr Tindals words at large but a breife of them so they are a true breife of them For proofe whereof it is cleare 1. that he maketh Bishops Preists and Elders all one pag. 53. 54. 251. 345. 2. He saith that by their office they were alwayes abiding in one place to governe the Congregation there pag. 251. And 3. however the Doctor saith he maketh the word CONGREGATION as large as the word ECCLEST A CHURCH yet he maketh the word Church or Congregation whereof a Bishop Preist or Elder had the charge no larger then one particular coÌ„pany assembling in one place as appeareth both by his exposition of Math. 18. 17. pag. 345. and by his words at large which the D. could not but though he would not see when he overskipped them pag. 133. where speaking of the 2. officers ordeyned by the Apostles for the governing of the Church he saith The Apostles disguished no man but chose men annoyâ—ted with the same spirit viz. wherewith Christ annointed them one to preach the word whom We call after the Greek tongue a Bishop or Prust that is in English an overseer or an Elder how he was annointed thou readest 1. Tim. 3. c. This Overseer becanse he was taken from his own business labour to preach Gods word to the parish bath right by the autboritie of his office to challendge an honest living of the parish c. Likewise in every congregation chose they another after the same ensample as is to be seene Act. 6. whom after the grword we call Deason that is in English servant or Minister whose office was to help and assist the Preist to gather up his duty and to gather for the poore c. But of Mr Tindalls judgement and words we shall heare more at large when we come to that place where he saith his Refuter falsifyeth his testimony againe in the meane time let the reader judge with what face the Doctor so charged his Refuter Thus much shall suffice to shewe how the Doctor sought but startingholes in all his exceptions against the refuters testimonies For when he hath done wrangling with all his proofes he returneth to his deniall of the consequence pag. 111. viz. that though it were graunted that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of one ordinarie congregation yet it would not prove them to haue been parishes As if he could deny them to be each of them one parish that is one coÌ„-gregation yet graunt theÌ„ to be one onely ordinary congregatioÌ„ Having done with those 3. Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch Sect. 11. ad cap. 5. sect 8. pa. 89. we are to proceed to that which the D. answereth coÌ„cerning the Church of Ierusalem viz. to the assumption of that syllogisma which affirmeth Cap. 5. sect 8. pag. 89. the Christians of lerusalem to have coÌ„tinued one assembly meeting togither in one place during S. Lukes storie Act. 2. 1. 2. 6. 44. and 6. 2. and 15. 22. 25. and 21. 22. This saith the D is false because the Church of Ierusalem never was a parish so farre was it from continuing so still c. and the D. dwelleth wholly in a maner upoÌ„ this answer but the Reader is to be advertised that he doth but trifle quarrell with words rather then impugne the maine point of the argument for when the Refuter affirmeth that the Christians at lerusalem continued one parishonall assembly meeting togither in one place the later clase is the explication or rather confirmation of the former q. d. they continued one parish-assembly in asmuch as they met togither in one place Wherefore the principall question here for Ietusalem like as before for the 3. above named Churches is whether the Christians there might did meet togither in one place to this purpose those places out of the Acts are quoted and if the D. can make the contrary appeare his labour is well spent otherwise he doth but beat the aier It is not probable saith he that the Church of Ierusate afeer they came to the number of 5000. did ordinarily meet all in one place Belike he holdeth it probable that before they arose to that number they did ordinarily meet togither in one place so that when he striveth to wrest from his Refuter the places alleadged out of Act. 2. he doth here as before is observed sect 5. rather quarrell with his proofes then contradict the thing thence collected But let us take the particulars of the thing as they lye in order Wee read saith he of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Pauls crosse and at the Spâ—tle but their ordinary and as it were parishonall meetings were by companies in more private places It is true wee read of diverse meetings some in more private houses as Act. 2. 1. 2. 46. and 4. 31. 5. 42. and some in more publique places as the Temple Act. 2. 46. 5. 12. 42. but that one were Panegyricall and the other Parishonall whether simply or as it were I for my part never read authour that hath gone before the Doctor in this distinction neither doth he yeeld us any shredd of probabilitie to grace his apprehension The maine point now stood for viz. that the Christians at Ierusalem were but one ordinarie assembly gathered into one place is apparant enough by the scriptures before quoted though in the Doctors eyes they seeme to be
eyther ignorantly or absurdly alleadged For however the two first verses of Act. 2. are by some learned Interpreters restreyned to the 12. Apostles because they think the promise of the holy Ghost belonged to them alone cap. 1. 4. 5. yet are there others also of good account that holde it no absurditie to think that the rest of the disciples which accompanied the Apostles cap 1. 14. 15. were pareakers with them of the holy Ghost because it suiteth well with Ioels prophesye urged by Peter cap. 2. 17. 18. and with that riches of Gods grace manifested in many others afterwards cap. 8. 17. 10. 45. 46. 19 6. And D. Saravia whose judgement should not be lightly rejected of Mr Doctor and his associates holdeth it lib. de minist grad cap. 5. for so certaine a truth that the whole number of 120 received the holy Ghost that he distributeth them into these â— ranks 12. Apostles 72. Evangelists and 36. prophets which put togither make the just number of 120. But I will not contend for this matter onely I wish that moderation which is in Piscator in Acts 2. 4 who though he appropriateth the gifts of the holy Ghost then given to the 12. Apostles yet denieth not but many others were then assembled with them in the same place But hereat the D. â—â—ombleth and cannot see though it should be granted that the 120. were all assembled togither how it should be a parishenall assemblie wherein the 12. patriarshes of Christendome were met togither why was not Iacobs houshold at the first one family though the 12. Patriarches of the Iewish nation were there combined in one society Yea was not Noahs coÌ„pany in the ark one family though they were the roote of all nations and people that filled all kingdomes countries in the world Or did the comming of Paul Barnabas because they were Apostles into the Synagogue at Antioche Act. 13. 14. alter the nature of the assembly and make it no longer a parishonall Synagogue As for the 6. and 44. verses of Act. 2. they were jointly cited to Sect. 12. 2d pag. 91. shew that those 3000. converts mencioned vers 41. had recourse to one place both before and after their conversion for they are included within the mention of that multitude which came togither vers 6. of those beleeveres which are sayd to be all epi to auto in one place vers 44. But the D. telleth us that Calvin preferreth another sense viz. that they were in one that is joyned togither in heart and affection as is sayd Cap. 4. 32. and the Doctor knoweth that others preferre the sense the Refuter giveth yea acknowledgeth also that it may be true and may signify they coversed togither in one place which is to grant asmuch as the Refuter asketh For if the words may be so construed then it must also be confessed that as yet they made but one assembly gathered in one place Not so saith the Doct. he speaketh not of their assemblies for ver 46. he speaketh of their meetings in the temple Belike his meaning is that their Church assembly is mencioned vers 46 not vers 44. if so there is some kindnes in him that will give his adversary another text as sit for his purpose as the former for if they all met togither for holy exercises in any one place temple or any other the Refuters assertion standeth firme Yea but the D. will not have his Refuter to be so much beholding to him for he addeth that in the temple they could not meet alone that there nationall râ—ther then parishonall meetings used to be assembled As if the comuning in of straÌ„gers into one of our parish-parish-Churches at the time of Lectures and sermons made the assembly to be no parishonall assembly but somewhat else perhaps we shall know of him hereafter what but how doth this concourse of others weaken the Refuters purpose will the D. say the Christians at Ierusalem were too many for one congregation because when they all met in the temple some others were intermingled with them doth not the contrary rather follow very strongly viz. that they all were not more then such as might and did assemble in one place seing they were all with one accord in the temple although they could not there meet alone Concerning the meetings of the 12. Apostles and multitude of Sect. 13. the Disciples Acts. 6. 2. and of the whole Church with the Apostles and Elders Acts. 15. 22. 25. the D. answer is they were not parishonall but rather Synodicall pag. 90. The later indeed is comoÌ„ly taken for a Synodicall assemblie because the Synode selebrated in succeeding ages followed the patterne there given by the Apostles in determining the like questions but if we looke to the persons there assembled it carried no great resemblance of a Synode for none were called thither from any other Church or Churches in the Countries adjoyning onely some were sent from Antioch to conferre with the Apostles and Elders which then abode at Ierusalem and they gathered the whole Church of the Citie togither for the hearing and determining of the matter then controverted which course was imitated in the next age before Synods grew into coÌ„mon use when one Church by letters and messengers sent and craved the help and direction of some other Church their Ministers in any question of weight that began to breed disturbance But for the Refuters purpose it sufficeth that the whole Church was then assembled in one place as vers 22 25 shew as the same is clearely collected also from Acts. 6. 2 so there is lesse reason to make it a Synodicall not a parishonall assembly There remaineth Act. 21. 22. where it is told Paul that the whole â—ultitude would come togither when they should beare that he was some which words are in all reason to be refered to those many thousands of beleeving Iewes mentioned vers 20 for of them it is sayd that they were informed of him that he taught to for sake Moses and for their satisfaction he was directed to goe into the temple and to shew himselfe an observer of the law vers 21. 24 and however the Doctor after his manner wrangleth with the allegatioÌ„ in saying the word multitude may be otherwise understood to wit of the people of lerusalem in generall aswell unbeleevers as beleevers yet he denieth not but it may be meant of the beleevers onely which is a plaine confession that the beleevers in that Church were at that time no more then such as might well asseÌ„ole into one place Neither doth the mention of many ten thowsands in those words posas muriadas c. vers 20. make the number such as by no meanes could meet togither in the publique worship of God seing it is apparant Luk. 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ did partake his doctrine were also many muriades And albeit he began at the
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
by them Ergo none other forme of Church-government save that which the Apostles ordeyned is lawfull and good The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same and it is justified by these Apostolicall precepts 1. Thes 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. 3. Ioh. 11. which allowe the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing and deny them the use of nothing but what is evill The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctors allowance of the Presbyterian discipline when he affirmeth it serm pag. 95. 97. to be good as silver and next to the best though he deny it to be of Apostolicall institution And the later assumption is the conclusion of his answere before set downe wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the coÌ„clusions of these arguments how soever the former conclusion is contradictory to the assumption of the later and the later conclusion directly contradicteth the assumption of the former argument Thus the reader may see that whiles the Doctor laboureth to A dubble contradiction in the Doctor winde out of one contradiction he sticketh fast insnared in two for fayling Neither let him think here to evade as before by saying that he affirmed not simple the presbyterian discipline to be good but only then when the episcopall government cannot be had for Mr. Doctor were simple if he could perswade himself that so slight an answere might free the reformed Churches that want Byshops from the obloquies of caviling papistes which he professeth to be his charitable intent in pleading so as he did for them and their discipline And since silver is simply good and at all times good though inferior in goodnes to golde he dealt deceitfully not simply or syncerely with his reader in comparing these 2 kindes of governments for their goodnes vnto silver and golde if he meant not to allowe the presbyterian government any other or larger goodnes then for those times or places where the episcopall regiment cannot be had But to look back once againe to the Doctors answere before set downe what if I should contradict his assumption and make use of his proposition to cut in sunder the windepipe of his conclusion in this manner ' Where that government which the Apostles ordeyned cannot be had there some other government might be admitted But whiles the Apostles lived in some Churches that government which they ordeyned could not be had Ergo whiles they lived in some Churches an other forme of government might be admitted The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his owne Th'assumption is fitted indeed to contradict his in the sense that he imbraceth vnderstanding by the government ordeyned by the Apostles the government by Byshops so that whereas he saith it might be had whiles the Apostles lived I on the contratie affirme that in some Churches at that time it could not be had And this I suppose will be made good by his owne words elswhere serm p. 69. The D. contradicteth himself Def. lib. 4. pag. 62. when he alledgeth the want of sit choise for one reason why all other Churches besides that of Ierusalem wanted Bishops for many yeares in the life tyme of the Apostles For how could Bishops be had to governe every Church when there was not sit choise of persons fit for that function The same reason is more plainly delivered by others that plead the same cause Bishop Barloe serm on Acts. 20. 28. fol. 6. saith that after the conversion of many people even in setled Churches the Apostles hasted not to place a Bishop because a presbyter fu to be made a Bishop is hardly found which the Doctor also acknowledgeth serm pag. 54. where he saith If a worthy Minister be amonge men as one of a 1000 as Elihu spukith Iob. 33. 23 vndoubtedly a worthy Byshop is as one of a millioÌ„ verie hardly therefore will he escape the bryars of another palpable contradiction And it will be no lesse hard to avoyde the stroak of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ which if he cannot turne aside then his propositioÌ„ now in question will lie in the dust overthrowne not by anie of our weapons but by the turninge of those upon him which he put into our hands As for the Arguments which he addeth to put new life and strength into his proposition though just exception may be taken against them for there is oddes betwixt the use of government not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches and the reteyning of it in all Churches or the altering of that government which they had once established yet will I not prosecure such advantages seing we are no lesse perswaded then he that there is a manifest truth in it The assumption followeth which hath two parts the one that Sect. 3. ad sect 2. c. p 38-44 the government by Bishops such as ours are was used even in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them both paâ—ts he indeavoreth to prove first by scripture then by other evidence His scripture proof for the former is nothing else then a naked repetition of the explication of his text scz that the 7. angels were the Bishops of the. 7. churches and for the substance of their calling like to ours which as he saith he hath proved for I may as confidently avouch we have disproved But for the proofe of the later besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint Iohn or rather by our Saviour Christ he alleageth section 6. Epaphroditus the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians commended by Saint Paul as his funergos kai sustratiotes copartner both in his function affliction the Philippians commanded to have in honor such Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem approved of all Acts. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 19. Archippus the Bishop of Colossa in respect of his function approved of Paul Colos 4. 17. And Antipas who had been Bishop of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost Apoc. 2. 13. His argument standeth thus In the Apostles times Epaphroditus was the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians Iames the just the Bishop of jerusalem Archippus the Bishop of Colossa and Antipas the Bishop of Pergamus But Epaphroditus was commended of Saine Paulas his Copartner infunction and affliction Iames the juste generally approved Archippus in respect of his function approved by Saint Paul and Antipas commended by the Holy Ghost Ergo the function and government of Bishops was approved and not contradicted by the Apostles Here the Proposition if vnderstood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours is altogither false and the D. doth but begg the question in taking for granted what he should have The Doct. beggeth proved if he could But if it be vnderstood of such Bishops as the scriptures testify to have bin in the Apostles times seing they were no Lordly governors but Pastors or Bishops in another function eyther higher as was Iames the Apostle or inferior as Pastors of one
he honoureth with the name of his sunergos fellow-workmen or helpers in the work of the gosp ll seing it is given not onely to Titus Timotheus Marcus and others which were Evangelistes 2. Cor. 8. 23. Rom. 16. 21. 1. Thes 3. 2. Colof 4. 10. Philem. 24. but also to some of whome it may be doubted whither they had any publique ministerie Rom. 16. 9. Philem. 1. yea vnto some which question-lesse had none at all as vnto Aquila and his wife Priscilla Rom. 16. 3. In like manner he giveth vnto divers women this commendation that they laboured much in the Lord Rom. 16. 12. and did wrastle or fight togither with him in the Gospel sunethlesan moi Phil. 4. 3. yet I hope the D. will not say that those weomen were coparreners in function with S. The Doct. misinterpreteth conâ—oundeth Paul It is therefore cleare that the Doctor mâ—sinterpreteth the word sunergos and confoundeth things that differ in putting no difference betweene a companion in labour and a copartener in function And touching the diocesan Bishoprick of Epaphroditus as the Sect. 5. Doctor rightly acknowledgeth it hath no reliefe in the word sunergos so he falsly averreth that the word Apostle doth prove it The proofe which here he tendereth is not worth the mentioning save to let the reader still see how the Doct. holdeth on in his trade of begging It is to be noted saith he that the twelve Patriarches of The Doct. still beggeth Christs Church which were sent into the whoâ— world were called the Apostles of Christ and not the Apostles of any Church in particular excepting lames who was the Apostle of the Iewes so those Apostolicall men who were set over particular Churches as the Bishops thereof were for a time called the Apostles of the Churches So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians c. If the Doctor could yeeld us as pregnant testimonies from the Apostolicall writings to shew that Diocesan Bishops were called the Apostles of the Churches as there are to prove that those 12 whoÌ„ Christ sent into the whol world were called the Apostles of Christ we should as willingly subscribe to the one as to the other But when to justify his former assertion that the very word Apostoâ—â—s given to Epaphroditus proveth him to be a diocesan Bishop he bringeth no other proof then this that the Bishops set over particular Churches were called the Apostles of those Churches And to mainteyne this he hath nothing to alleadge but that So Epaphroditus is called by S. Paul the Apostle of the Philippians who can beare with his so shamelesse begging But more of this he saith wee shall heare hereafter and I finde in the next Chapter sect 12. 13. 14. whereto he sendeth us some humane testimonies to prove that Epaphroditus was the Pastor or Bishop of the Philippians an answer to the reasons alleadged by the refuter for the justifying of an other interpretation of the word apostolos viz. that he was their messenger to S. Paul But touching the question of his Ministeriall function which the Refuter sayd could not be proved to be a Diocesan Bishoprick when he should handle it he flattly refuseth to enter vpon it yea sect 15. pag. 71. he saith that there he is so farre from inferring or proving it that he presupposeth it as sufficiently proved before and yet in his whole volume concerning diocesan Churches or Bishops Defence lib. 3. he hath not a worde that particularly toucheth Epaphroditus Wherefore it is apparant that the Diocesan Bishoprik ascribed to Epaphroditus is presupposed onely but not proved to be infolded under the word Apostle And consequently the commendation which Paul giveth him Phil. 2. 25. cannot conclude an approbation of his supposed episcopall function And here by the way let the reader observe what a trick the Do hath to avoid the proofe of this point though he were urged vnto it Now when he should have done it A trick of the Doct. to shift off a proofe because Epaphroditus is a principall instance brought to justify the later braunch of the Assumption which affirmeth that the government of Bishops such as ours having place in the Apostles times was not contradicted by them he putteth us off to the next chapter and there he sendeth us back to another treatise where is just nothing for this purpose and to terâ—ify his Refuter with his loud I had almost sayd leud rayling he calleth him a notorious caviller pa. 64. and saith he writeth as the most of his booke to bleare the eyes of the simple p. 70. for none other fault but this that he urgeth him to prove that the function of a Diocesan Bishop is understood in the name of an Apostle given to Epaphroditus and that such Bishops were at the first called Rulers or Apostles of the Churches Yet least the Doctor should conceive better of his discourse then it deserveth I will take a neerer consideration of all that he hath sayd And the rather because his assertion will appear to be the more absurd if he have wrested those names which he attributeth unto Bishops from the true meaning of the Apostle is the places alleadged by him Chapter 4. Declaring that the function of dâ—ocesan Bishops is not mencioned in the Scriptures vnder the titles of Rulers or Apostles that a diocesan Bishoprick is not given to Epaphroditus vnder the name of an Apostle Phil. 2. 25. as the Doctor would have it Def. lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 11. pag. 65. I Knewe saith the Doctor it was objected that Bishops are not mencioned Vide sect 1. ad sect 11. cap. 3. lib. 4. in the Scriptures the name Episeopus Bishop being given to Presbyters and therefore that it is not like they were ordeyned by the Apostles of Whome no mencion is in the Scriptures For prevention of this objection or assoyling of this doubt I declared first that the Bishops in the wriâ—nges of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes theâ—â— Rulers sometimes their Apostles If I should ask the Doctor what it is that doth second his first he would be ready to snatch at such an occasion for the renewing of his vnjust quarrell with his Refuter viz. that I snatch at wordes And if I should demaund from what wordes in his sermon the Refuter might and ought to have gathered that those names which he saith were attributed to Byshops were delivered for the prevention of that objection which he now discovereth I suppose the Reader should scarce gaine any better answere then this that his owne intent is best knowne to himself Yet had his Refuter reason to say as he did answer P. 34. that this long discourse touching the time of ordeyning Byshops should help to prove that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops for he promised serm p. 65. to explaine and prove this point by shewing the time when the place Where and the persons whome the Apostles ordeyned
who is your Teacher he doth affirm that Epaphroditus is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians vers 25. because he was their Byshop or Pastor In like manner touching Ambrose how loosely dooth he reason Ambrose saith that the Apostles mencioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephe. 4. 11. were Bishops Ergo in saying that Epaphroditus was by the Apostle made their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. he meaneth that he was affixed and limited to the Episcopall charge of that Church in like sort as the later Bishops were and for that cause called their Apostle Nay rather it followeth from Ambrose his wordes that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinitie with the Apostleship I meane in this that he had onely a temporarie overfight of that Church as the Apostle himself had before during the time of his aboade there And this hath confirmation from the wordes that follow which the Doctor was wise enough to conceale his whole speach is this Erat enim corum Apostolus ab Apostclo factus dum illum in exhortationerie eorum mittebat ad eos quia vir bonus erat desiderabatur a plebe Where note he was desyred of the people not because he was their Pastor but because he was a good man and was now sent vnto them by the Apostle and so made their Apostle for their present instruction or exhortation not to take perpetuall charge of them for as afterwardes he saith in vers 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss he was necessary for many other Churches as one that yeilded solisium er auxilium both comfort help to the Apostle By all which it appeareth that in Ambrose his judgment Epaphroditus by his ministeriall function was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop There remaineth Theodoret whose wordes make the fairest shewe for him yet are they not so full as he pretēdeth for that which he saith in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed c. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist seing they had a temporary charge of some one or moe Churches committed to them Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properlie episcopall and such as now is controverted Yea the Doctor himself doth so vnderstand Theodoret when he faith in 1. Tim. 3. that those who now are called Bishops were at the first called Apostles and that thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the philippians c. For he gathereth from Theodorets testimony conferred with some wordes of Ierom Def. lib. 4. pag. 72. that the first Bishops so reputed were Apostles and Apostolike men that is Evangelists and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remained none were chosen our of the Presbyters to the office of a Bishop whence it followeth that Epaphroditus in Theodorets judgment is called an Apostle not because he was a Bishop but for that he was an Apostolicall man or Evangelist Wherefore it is but a vayn bragge of Mr. D. 1. to conclude as he doth pag 67. that all the Authors which he cited give testimony with his exposition And 2. to ask with what face his Refut could deny it For although he hath face enough to affirme whatever may seem to advantage his cause and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed yet the truth will discover it selfe to them that with an upright eye search after it to their shame that seek to deface it Now whereas he addeth that his authors before mencioned Sect. 7. ad sect 13. p. 68. doe all goe against the interpretation of the word Apostolos which his Refuter bringeth he saith no more but what his Refuter had before acknowledged His Authors were produced not to confute his Refurer before he sawe his answer but to justify his owne collectiō from the words of the Apostle which since he cannot effect he shal doe best not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions especially seing in such a case as this when Interpreters doe varie about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture the judgment of the indifferent Reader must be swayed neyther by the number yeares or learning of the parties but by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they doe best accordeth with the circumstances of the text it selfe and with the use of the word or phrase in other places Wherefore the Refuter though he mencion the names of some which imbrace his interpretation yet grounded himselfe rather upon the probability of reason then the creditt of their testimony Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himselfe to reject so lightly as he doth the judgment of Mr. Beza and Piscator in saying they are asmuch parties in this cause as the refuter himselfe For if it be true he hath wronged Beza in affirming that in the question of Diocesan Churches and Bishops he goeth with him and against his Refuter Lib. 1. pag. 48. and Lib. 2. pag. 140. Lib. 3. pag. 11. and that he is so farr from condemning the A contradiction government of Bishops reteyned in other reformed Churches that he wished withall his hart that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva the episcopall government had bin reteyned for so he sayth Lib 4. pag. 161. 166. but it is no strange thing to the observant reader to find the Doctor very often in this contradicting fault amongst others Let us see what he answereth to the reasons that were delivered to prove the Refuters construction the more likely viz. that Epaphroditus is called their Apostle or rather Messenger because he was sent by the Philippians in their stead to minister unto the Apostle Paul The first reason hath two braunches 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. doe shewe how he ministred unto him 2. the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthes benevolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuitie frō the Philippiās to Paul c. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians 2. but he saith it is vnlikely that eyther he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard And why unlikely is not that interpretation mostly likely which best agreeth both with the parts of the same scripture and with the vse of the word or phrase in other places And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct Let them be compared together and sentence given with the truth First touching Epaphroditus that he was their Imbassadour or Messenger to the Apostle Paul the evidence alleadged by the Refuter from the same verse and cap. 1. 18. is so pregnant that the Doct. cannot deny it yea he
doth acknowledge it The word apostolos therefore signifying properly any Messenger as he must also confesse it is more then probable even necesssarie to construe those words humoon apostolon your Messenger or at least to take them in this sense that he is called their Apostle because he was their Imbassadour sent by them to the Apostle unless some necessarie reason can be produced to demonstrate the contrary Now what saith the Doctor in this case Hath he any sentence or syllable from the text it self or any other scripture to justify any one of his Assertions viz. that Epaphroditus was their Bishop that he is therefore called their Apostle no such matter What then Forsooth it appeareth by diverse of Ignatius his epistles that when the Churches sent one vpoÌ„ a ChristiaÌ„ Imbassage the Bishop was coÌ„monly intreated to take that Embassage upon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were upon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their Bishop vndertook that voyage He being therefore both their Bishop and their Imbassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that he was their Imbassadour I answere 1. may I not say that the Churches then sent forth their Bishops as the Apostles sent forth Peter Act. 8. 14. the Church Barnabas Act. 11. 22 2. Touching Ignatius Epistles will the D. stil presume upon the credulitie of his reader to take his bare word for proofe that the Churches in his time sent their Bishops in Embassage only upon intreatie There is small cause he should trust upon it when his reader shall vnderstand that he learned this evasion of BellaÌ„rmin The Doct. learnetn a shift of Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 16. who with this shift putteth off that argument which our Divines urge against Peters primacie from Act. 8. 14. where he is sayd to be sent with Iohn by the rest of the Apostles unto SamariÌ„a 3. And touching Epaphroditus seing he presumeth also that his word wil be taken in stead of better proofe that he was in like manner intreated to take the journey he deserveth to heare from me that which Bellarmin doth froÌ„ Doct. Whitakers de pont Rom. quest 2. pag. 260. Num adeum Philippenses supplices venerunt cnm eo precibus egerunt ut mitteree aliquem Romam si minus placeret ipsi proficisci nil eiusmodi habetur even this in effect there is no such matter Mr D. But be it that he went by their intreatie as Timothy at S. Pauls intreaty remayned at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1. 3. May the Church of Welles or rather of Canterburie for Philippi was Metropolis Macedonia as aferwards he telleth us pag. 71. send their Bishop abroad by the like intreatie upon the like busynes to wit to convey their benevolence unto some Bishop or person of great note that is a prisoner as Paul was at that time Who seeth not that even this Embassage argueth he was not a Bishop of that degree dignity that one of our Bishops bear at this day Moreover to pass by for the present his begging the questioÌ„ in asfirming him to be their Bp. if he were both their The Doct. beggeth againe Bishop and Embassadour is it not more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Imbassadour seing the word importeth so much then for that he was their Bp but he hath better probabilities in store to prove the coÌ„trarie let us givehim hearing It is unlikely saith he that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himself is the Apostle of our profession should be used in Sect. 8. ad pag. 66. 67. the Scriptures to signify the Messengers of men Is it vnlikely why doth he not knowe that the offices of pastors and deacons are also sacred functions and that Christ himself is intitled our Shepheard and Pastor of our Soules Iohn 10. 16. 1. Pet. 5. 25. and the diaconos minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. â— notwithstanding it is certeine that both these names poimen diaconos are given in the Apostolicall writings to Feildshepheards and servants of men Luc. 8. 8. 15. 18. 20. Iohn 2. 5. 9. In like manner though the word aggelos be the name of that sacred functioÌ„ of the celestiall spirits and communicated even vnto Christ himselfe Act. 7. 35. 38. Revel 10. 1. 5. yet it is given also in the Holy Scriptures vnto the messengers of men Iam. 2. 25. where Rahab is sayd to have received tous aggelous the messengers and sent them out another way It is apparant therefore that neyther the holynes of the Apostolike functioÌ„ nor the worthines of Christs person or office can yeild any probable argument to justify the Doctors affirming it to be unlikely that the word apostolos should be used in the scriptures to signify the messengers of men But heare we him again he addeth that in both places Phil. 2. 25. and 2. Cor. 8. 23. the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had bene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches But a small How small soever the commendation seemeth in the Doct. eyes who esteemeth basely of the church in comparison of their Bishop yet is it otherwise in their eyes see Heming Hyper in 2. Cor. 8. who concurre with us in the translation of both texts among whom are many the translators of our Church-bibles former later whom he dareth not accuse Iam sure to be parties with us in this controversie But what speak I of their judgment seing we have the Apostles own testimony that having given to one this high coÌ„mendation his praise is in the gospel throughout all the Churches doth yet enlarge his praise in saying not that onely but he was also chosen of the Churches to traveile with us with this grace which is administred by us c. 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. and therefore also he signifieth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he would not send those that were to carry the benevolence of the Corinths unto Ierusalem without their letters of commendations And by these testimonies of the Apostle we see the falsehood of that which he assumeth in his last reason specially fitted to prove that they in 2. Cor. 8. 23. were not called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their Messengers viz. that they were not sent by the Churches But let us look upon the colour he setteth vpon this vntruth it is evident saith he that Paul himself sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2. 10. so had he undertaken to procure a supply for relâ—ife of the brethren in Iudea And â—o that end having deâ—lt before with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two othersÌ„ to receive their contribution All which I graunt but hold it a very lame consequence and such as the Doctor with all his learning will never be able
acknowledgeth that it is truely affirmed of the rest of the Apostles Iames excepted that they had not certeyne Churches assigned to them and therefore were not Bishops To conclude it is apparant to them that with understanding read Cyprians whole epistle that to increase the power and honour of their function who were Bishops in his time he presseth the preheminence which God gaue to the high-prcifts above the reste Deut. 17. and Numb 16. much more earnestly then he doth the prerogative of Christs Apostles above the Deacons Wherefore the Doctor too much abridgeth the episcopal function of her due antiquitie in deriving the originall thereof at the highest fro Christs election of his Apostles For if this later wil prove the function of Bishops to be mentioned in the new Testament under the name of Apostles then will the former as strongly argue theire function to be mentioned in the book of Moses under the name of that preisthood which was given to Aaron and his successors But drawe wee to an end at the last and for the winding up of Sect. 13. adpag 72. all the Doctor once againe taketh hold of Theodoret but in vain seing himself affirmeth as was before observed sect 6. the first Bishops who were by Theodoret called Apostles or the Apostles of the Churches to be no other then Apostles or Apostolicall men yt is Evangelist for if they were eyther Apostles or Evangelists then were they not properly Bishops and if properly Bps such as afterwards were chosen out of the Presbyters the they were not Apostles nor Evangelists for otherwise the offices wil be confounded which ought to be kept distinct as shall be shewed more fully in the examination of that which he hath sayd in defence of Iames his Bishoprick in his 3. chap. sect 7. and touching Timothy Titus in his chap. 4. sect 11. As for the question of the time how long the name of Episcopus and Presbyter were confounded and when the Diocesan Bishop had the name Episcopus appropriated to him it is such as the D. might well have overpassed save that he cannot indure to be contradicted in any point of the least moment The processe of time whereof Theodoret speaketh when the name of Bishops was appropriated to such as in his dayes were usually so called was in the Apostles time as the Doct. gathereth not from any words of Theodoret but by conference of him with Ierome But Theodorets meaning is best gathered from his owne words In processe of time saith he they left the name Apostle to those that are properly called Apostles and the name of Bishop they gave to them that had bene called Apostles Who seeth not that in his opinion the name of Bishop was not appropriated to that function which in his time time enjoyed it til the name of Apostle was left to those that were properly so called But the Church-governours were called Apostles for many yeares after their time as the refuter shewed out of Epiphanius and Isidore Answ pag. 153. And the Doct. himselfe confesseth that the name of Apostle continued in vse so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remayned But under that Emperour Antonius Pius who reigned vntil the yeare 152. many of them remained alive as Nicephorus testifieth lib. 3. cap. 22. And as for those Bishops which by Ignatius are distinguished fro Presbyters are said by Ierome to have had their beginning at Alexandria after S. Mark the Doctor knoweth well enough it is easier for us to deny then for him to prove that they were Diocesan Bishops such as ours neyther is it pertinent to the present question here to debate that matter seing we now waite to heare what can be alleadged from the scriptures to prove that such Bishops had their ordination and originall in the Apostles times and that with their approbation And though he hath insisted long upon this point being as he esteemeth of great consequence yet his maine assertion that Bishops such as ours were in the Scriptures called the Apostles of the Churches and the instance produced to prove it to wir that Epaphroditus the Philippians Apostle was such a Bishop doe lie as naked as at the first having no shredd of Holy writt nor any peece of reason to cloath them Wherefore the conclusions that he inferreth upon these premisses viz that Bishops being then called Apostoli were superior to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri Episcopi that such Bishops as were superior to other Ministers were in the Apostles times and mentioned in their writings and consequently that the offices of such Bishops and of Presbyters were distinguished even then when the names were confounded These are the conclusions and what are they but as walles whose foundation is layde in the sande and dawbed with intempered morter and therefore how glorious soever in shew yet can they neyther longstand nor yeild any firme habitation for our diocesan Prelates to lodge in It hath bin already shewed that in the judgement of some of the Doctors owne witnesses Epaphroditus and others called the Sect. 14. Apostles or Messengers of the Churches were Evangelists rather then properly Bishops now to make the probability of this point the more apparant I here tender to Mr Doctor and the indifferent reader these considerations First touching Epaphroditus his imployment in traveile to and fro agreeth better to the function of an Evangelist then of a Bishop 2. and it seemeth he was sent rather for an interim till Timotheus might be spared to come unto them Phil. 2. 19. 25. then to make perpetuall residence there 3. Moreover there is small likelihood the cheefe care and oversight of that Church and their affaires was cōmitted to him by the Apostle seing he preferreth Timothy therein before him for of him he saith vers 20. 22. I have no man like minded that will naturally care for your matters c. But ye know the proofe of him c. him therfore I hope to send c. which words doe cast more disgrace upon Epaphroditus if he were their Bishop then all the titles of commendation given him verse 25. can wipe away For what praise can it be to a Bishop to be laborious in other places and faithfull in other services when in a naturall care for the affaires of his owne Church he suffreth others to goe before him and striveth not to excell them 4. Againe in this epistle sent as the Doctor saith by Epaphrodirus it is plaine he singleth out one whom though he name not yet he honoureth with the title of a naturall or faithful yoakfellowe cap. 4. 3. and beseecheth him to help not onely those weomen which laboured with the Apostle in the gospel but Clement also and the rest of his fellow-labourers If so much had bene sayd for the singular preheminence of Epaphroditus the D. doubtlesse would have made his best advantage of it wherfore me thinkes it should move him to make a Quere why the Apostles should thus
Ierome and to make him the more gracious with the Disciplinarians he saith it is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost they rely in this cause the like words he hath p. 61 following and lib. 3. pag. 45. and 58 but this is I say not almost but altogither a malicious slander For he is not ignorant that his refuter every where calleth for proofes from the scripture as others have done before him that his testimonie is then onely regarded of them when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth But it well appeareth by his citing Ierome so oft in his sermon 40. times at least well nigh twice as oft as he alleadgeth any other that he relyeth very much on his authoritie To him here he addeth Eusebius Epiphanius some others whose testimonie in his conceit should suffice to perswade for such a matter as this now in question But his Refuters exception is just such a ioynt act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church as the ordeyning of Iames to the episcopall charge of Ierusalem how should it be proved but by the scripture and who could better testify it then the Evangelist Luke who wrote the historie of their actes If then he hath not recorded it it is a strong presumption he was never Bishop there The Doct. replyeth saying as though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers such as he of best credit reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the actes As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses I overpass that consideration to sect 15. c. I am here to advertise the Reader the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought to releeve the weaknes of his argument For unlesse he can make sure and certein Proof of this among other partes of his induction that S. Iames was ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem how shall he justify his conclusion before set down to wit that the episcopal function is without quaestion of apostolicall institution And howe shall certeine and sure proofe of Iames his ordination to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem be made from such witnesses as the Doctor hath produced Are not the canonicall writings of the newe testament penned partly by the Apostles and partly by Evangelists which were their companions best able to testify what function Iames and other faithfull servants of Christ did beare and exercise in the Churches that injoyed their presence We find many things recorded by Luke concerning the Ministerie of Paul and Barnabas Philip and others by whose labours the kingdome of Christ was inlarged Acts 9. 15. 27. 13. 2. 3. 14. 14. 15. 22. 31. 8. 5. 40. 21. 8. Neyther are the scriptures silent touching Iames and his imployment at Ierusalem Act. 1. 13. 15. 13. 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9. 2. 9 why then should this ordinatiō of Iames to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church be wholly buried in silence if it had bene the joynt-act of the Apostles before their dispersion and an act of that moment wherein they gave the first president of a new function of greatest use highest place for all churches in succeeding ages Was it not as worthy more necessarie to be recorded then the first institution of the Deacons office Act. 6. 2. 6 Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption that Iames never had any such ordination seing there are no footsteps of it in the Apostolical writings and seing the Doctors defense is so slight as it is mark it I pray first he asketh whether the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Acts a frivolous question No man denyeth that as Christ did many things which are not written Ioh. 20. 30. 21. 25 so also did his Apostles but will he argue thus They did something not recorded in the scriptures Ergo they did this now in question How doth the Doct. forget himselfe thus to open so wide a dore unto the Papists to bring in all their superstitions under the name of vnwritten traditions Can he give us any one instance of an Apostolicall ordināce or of any Apostolike actiō of like momēt and necessarie use for all Churches that is not mentioned in their writings neyther can be proved otherwise then by the stories and writings of the Fathers And this may serve for answere also unto his second question whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers c. reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the acts In some matters of fact credit is not to be denied to their report as that Iames the Iust was martyred at Ierusalem and that Mark the Evangelist preached the gospel at Aleandria but there are many matters of fact testified by many ancients and those of the best credit as the D. speaketh which notwithstāding many worthy mē nothing inferior to the Doctor esteem worthy of no credit I wil instance only in Peters Bishoprick first at Antioch then at Rome which is contended for not onely by Papists but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacie let the testimonies be wel weighed which are brought for the maintenance of Peters episcopall chaire in both Churches Rome especially even by Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 227. 262. and 264 and they wil be found to be neyther in number nor in credit inferiour to those that the D. alleadgeth for Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalē yet as many other men of singular learning pietie doe deny credit to their report so the Doctor also as one nothing moved eyther with the authoritie of those fathers or with the judgement of his great Mr that gave him so good satisfaction in the studying of this controversy utterly secludeth the Apostle Peter from the office of a Bishop in any of those Churches as we may see serm pag. 81. 82. and in the 7. section of cap. 3. def If the Doctor shall say he hath reason to beleeve the testimony Sect. 5. of the Fathers for the one and to denie credit vnto them in the other know he that we haue reason also to withdrawe approbation from this which he alloweth But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question Although saith he the acte of making Iames Bishop be not set downe in the Actes yet the stori◠so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem Acts. 15. 21. of his assistance of presbyters of his presidencie in that Councill where Peter and Paul were present that it may appear their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there To the same purpose afterwards sect 9. pag. 61 he saith That the same scriptures togither with Gal. 1. 2. doe shew Iames his continuance as Ierusalē as the Superintendent of that Church not for a short time but for
the space of 30. yeares even to his death and also plainly prove that he was Bishop of Ierusalem Thus he saith and thus it seemeth his meaning is to argue The scriptures which shewe that Iames continued at Ierusalem as the Superintendent of that Church from Christs passion to his owne death doe also playnly prove that he was the Bishop thereof But his continuance at Ierusalem for so long space as Superintendent of that Church is testified Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1. Therefore the same scriptures doe playnly prove that Iames was the Bishop of Ierusalē And consequently their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there A Superintendent and a Bishop according to the naturall construction of the words in their originall is all one both of thē in a generall signification may very well be applied to that presidencie oversight which every Apostle or Evangelist had in every Church for the time of their aboad there For who had the superintendency or governmēt or if you will the episcopall charge of the Church at Corinthe for that space of a yeare six monthes which Paul spent there in preaching of the word among them or of the Church at Ephesus during the space of 3. yeares wherein he ceased not to warne every one night and day and to teach them both publikely and from house to house Acts. 18. 8. 11. and 20. 17. 20. 31. But as this superintendencie proveth not S. Paul to have been the Bishop eyther of Corinthe or Ephesus in the function of a diocesan or provinciall Bishop so neyther doth the like superintendencie in Iames at Ierusalem argue him to have the function of a diocesan Bishop or Archbishop although it could be proved that he continued in such a Superintendēcie there for that whose space of yeares before mencioned For it is not the continuance of 3. or 30. yeares that distinguisheth the function of a Bishop from an Apostle but an ordination and assignement to the perpetuall charge of one particular Church The proposition therfore of the Doctors argument is not true vnlesse he limiteth the superintendencie whereof he speaketh vnto this sense to wit that Iames was the Superintendent of that Church of Ierusalem in the speciall function of a diocesan Bishop But then his assumption is false not onely in regard of such an episcopall superintendencie but also in respect of that length of time which he ascribeth to him therein for the scriptures alleadged by him doe not prove either the one or the other Sect. 6. ad sect 6. p. 56 sect 8. pag. 60. For to weigh the places first severally then jointly what superintendencie other then Apostolicall can the Doctor discerne in Galath 1 S. Paul there testifieth that imediately upon his cōversion he went not up to Ierusalem to them that were Apostles before him but 3. yeares after he went up thither to see Peter and found there no other of the Apostles save Iames the L. brother vers 17. 18. 19. beholde here a manifest approbation of his Apostolicall function for he equally honoureth him and Peter with the name of Apostle◠but of any episcopall superintendencie wherein he should differ from Peter there is altum silentium no inckling at all nay rather of the two there reasoning is more probable which give preheminence vnto Peter because Paul went up to Ierusalem of purpose to visit not Iames but Peter and abode with him 15. daies 2. As for Gal. 2. he that peruseth the text may verie well think the Doct. had neede to have skill in Alchymistrie as well as in Divinitie if he vndertake from thence to extract for S. Iames an episcopall superintendencie at Ierusalem yet beholde how he pag. 56. attempteth it in this manner Iames Peter and Iohn gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselves would be for the circumcision Gal. 2. 9. And for asmuch as Peter Iohn traveiled to other partes Iames alwaise abiding at Ierusalem◠it is more then probable that the Church of Iurie was peculiarly assigned vnto him But how proveth he that Iames did alwayes abide at Ierusalem when the rest traveyled abroad◠doth it appeare in Gal. 2. that any such agreement was made betwene him and them no he saith it is very probable that so it was but there is no likelihood that Iames was forbidden to goe out of Ierusalem seing the rest were not debarred from returning thither I but it is more then probable that the Church of Iurie was peculiarly assigned to him seing Peter Iohn traveiled into other partes By the Church of Iurie he meaneth as I suppose all the Churches in Iudea mencioned Gal. 1. 22. 1. Thess 2. 14. and perhaps the rest that were in Galile Samaria Acts. 9. 31. for who fitter then he to have the oversight of these Churches also Now I grant that in their absence and during his aboade in those coasts it is probable he vndertook the care of those Churches like as Peter had the cheife oversight of the Iewes that were scattered throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia c. 1. Pet. 1. 1. during the time of his stay in those parties But as Peter remeined still the Apostle of the Circumcision became not properly their Bishop which the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 57. 97. so neither doth it followe that Iames had any episcopall but rather onely an Apostolicall Superintendencie over the Churches of Iurie But passe we forwardes the Doctor addeth it is not for nothing that both in Acts. 15. he is noted as president or cheife in that Councel and in Gal. 2. 9. Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giveth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn I graunt that Iames was President in that Councell held at Ierusalem Acts 15. and that he hath a prioritie in nomination before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. neyther are these things recorded for nothing but for our learning aswell as all other parts of holy writ Rom. 15. 4. But will the Doct. be pleased to discover vnto us the depth of that learning which he findeth to lie hid in these places yea he hath done it serm pag. 68. and Def. pag. 60. next following In the former he saith It appeareth Acts. 15. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior though not in degree yet in order vnto the rest of the Apostles when whiles they were at Ierusalem And in the later he quoteth Acts. 15. Gal. 2. to shew that because he was set over the Mother-church of Christendome to be the Apostle or Bishop of that people which had sundry prerogatives above al other natiōs in respect of that place he had precedence before the other Apostles In which words there are some cleare truthes which must be divided from other more doubtfull pointes Of the former sort not to mention againe the presidence priority before acknowledged in S.
rest of the Apostles when and whiles they were at Ierusalem May I aske with what eyes he discerned in that text the appearance of this which he affirmeth In the Embassage which was sent from Antioch to Ierusalem was there any special respect had vnto Iames above the rest of the Apostles Or in their interteynment is there any intimation of any singular act performed by him that might any way argue any such preheminence in him Doth not the text rather in the whole tenour thereof import the contrary For to whom were Paul and Barnabas sent to the Apostles and Elders saith the text Act. 15. 2. to whom did they deliver their Embassage to the Apostles and Elders and whole Church which received them saith the text verse 4. who summoned the Assembly or appointed the time or place of their meeting did Iames the text saith not so all the record is that the Apostles and Elders came togither to consider of the matter vers 6. There is no likelihood therfore that Iames had any standing preheminence among the Apostles before his presidencie in this Synode And what presumption can he produce frō this text or any part of the whole storie to shewe that he remayned superiour unto his fellowe Apostles after that meeting was ended not a syllable out of any text Wherefore in urging this place to prove a continued superioritie in order over the rest of the Apostles seing he is as one who seeketh to fetch water not fyer out of a punish stone he discovereth The Doct. expumice aquam postulat his extreame povertie in this case And which is worse injuriously maketh the Holy Ghost the authour of his owne fond conceits 3. For is it not a foolish conceit to speak no worse of it to īmagin that the function or charge of a Bishop cast upon Iames being an Apostle could give him more honour then he received of Christ by his Apostolicall office Doth not this overturne that difference of dignitie and degree which God hath set in his Church among the Ministers of his word and sacraments giving the first and highest place 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes 4. 11. unto his Apostles and subjecting unto them all other functions aswell of Bishops and Pastors of Teachers as Prophets and Evangelists And doth it not strongly favour of their madnes see Doct. Reynolds conference with Hart cap. 2. divis 3. pag. 119. cap. 3. divis 1. pag. 126 who acknowledging the Apostles to be all equall in the power honour of the Apostleship doe yet ascribe unto Peter a preheminence above the rest in regard of pastorall or episcopall jurisdiction But to proceed on to the last place Act. 21. 18. c. what is there Sect. 9. in it to be found that can give the Doctor any releife when Paul came Ierusalem and went in unto Iames he found the Elders present with him verse 18. he saluted not Iames alone but all that were present and declared what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his Ministerie vers 19. upon the hearing thereof they all glorified God and sayd Thou seest brother how many thowsands of Iewes there are which beleeve c. ver 20-25 From hence the Doct. rightly collecteth I grant that Iames had the assistance of the presbyters as he saith pag. 52. in that counsell and advice which was given to Paul for the purifying of himself and shaving of his head c. vers 23. 24. But if he shall proceed from this assistance of Presbyters to inferre that therefore Iames was their Diocesan Bishop First I wil make so bold as to deny the consequence for why should not Iames his Apostolicall function inable him to hold a presidencie or cheife place amongst the Presbyters of Ierusalem during the time of his aboad there we heard before that Pauls presidencie in the assembly of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 17. c did not make him their Diocesan Bishop Who doubteth see Iunius his Animadvers in Bellarm. Cōt 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. not 25. but that wheresoever any Apostle or Evangelist made stay for a time there he was acknowledged in regard of his singular gifts and for the prerogative of his calling authoritie worthy to haue the oversight or presidencie before the rest of his fellow labourers The presidencie therfore which Iames had in the assembly of Elders at Ierusalem proveth not that he was their diocesan Bishop in office or preheminence like to one of ours 2. Nay rather we may upon better grounds conclude the contrary for it is cleare by the words of the text aforesayd that Iames neither spake nor did any thing in that assembly of his own head or by his sole authoritie The Elders were joyntly interessed with him both in receiving frō Paul the report of things wrought by his Ministrie and in giving him advice howe to remove the offence which the beleeving lewes had conceived against him But it is otherwise with our Bishops in their Diocesan government They have no such assistance of Elders by whose advice and assent their sentēces are ratified neitther doe they consult with the rectors of their parishes for the ordering of any ecclesiasticall causes but impose their command on them to execute their decrees S. Iames therfore though he were an Apostle yet exercised not that preemi nēt authoritie over the presbyters at Ierusalē which our dioces Prelates doe over their presbyters and consequently he was not a Diocesan Bishop in function preheminent superioritie like to one of ours Thus the Reader may see by speciall viewe taken of the places Sect. 10. ad sect 4. pa. 51. 52. also which the Doctor alleadgeth for the episcopall superintendencie of Iames over the presbyters and Church at Ierusalē that there is no warrant from the scripture to convey to him any such function Now to lay them togither let us try if they will affoard him any better proofe for that 30. yeares continuance which he giveth unto Iames in his Superintendencie of that Church When Paul went to Ierusalem 3. yeares after his conversion to visite Peter there he found Iames the Lords brother Gal. 1. 18. 19. he was present also and President in the Councell held at Ierusalem Act. 15. which was the very time that he mencioneth Gal. 2. 1. as many divines of best note doe judge Againe at Pauls last comming to Ierusalem Act. 21. about the yeare of Christ 56. and 7. yeares before Iames his death he was there found among the Elders of that Church In a word therefore this is all that those scriptures doe testify for the Doctor viz. that in 30. yeares space Paul comming 3. or 4. times to Ierusalem found Iames the L. brother there Is he not then strangely besotted with prejudice that can perswade himselfe that these scriptures doe shewe his continuall residence at Ierusalem as the superintendent of that Church for the space of 30. yeares that is from Christs passion till his owne
be fitly called and was in deed the Bishop of that one nation And he is no lesse deceived in avouching that the charge of that one Church or nation was peculiarly allotted vnto him iÌ„mediately after Sect. 12. Christs passion or at least about the time of their generall dispersion from Ierusalem For besides that these two cannot stand togither there being a good space of time betwixt them as many appeare Act 1. 14. and 9 27. and 11 1. and 12 2 3. he that deligenly observeth the tenour of S. Lukes storie touching the state and government of the Church at Ierusalem shall meet with many presumptions which stronglie argue that for many yeares after Christs passion Iames had no such prerogative eyther of superioritie in order above his fellowe Apostles or of Superintendencie over the presbyters and people of that Church as is thought to be annexed to his episcopall function The first act of note after Christes ascension was the choyse of Matthias into the roome of Iudas wherein the text sheweth that Peter stood up in the middest of the Disciples and proposed the matter to the Assâ—mblie Acts. 1. 15. 26. whence as the Fathers Chrysostome Oecumen in Actes 1. doe gather so our owne writers doe acknowledge that Peter and not Iames had the presidencie Whitak de Pont. pa. 288. Chamier de Oecum pont p. 431. Reynold Conf. cap. 4. Divis 1. 2. In like manner on the day of Pentecost after they had all received the Holy Ghoste Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice Acts. 2. 14. and as the mouth of all answered for all see Chrysost Oecum Marlorat on the place to wype away that infamous slander of drunkennesse wherewith they were all charged At which time he also poured forth those gracious words of reprehension and exhortation which gayned in that day 3000 soules to God Act. 2. 22-41 3. Within a while after the taking a new occasion to preach Act. 3. 12. had such successe that many of his hearers imbraced the faith cap. 4. 4. And this he did when Iohn was in companie with him cap. 3. 1. 4. 11. like as afterwards when they both stood as prisoners before the rulers of the Iewes he so clearly maynteined their innocencie that they were both set at libertie cap. 4. 8. 21. 4. Likewise when the Apostles were all at once brought into question for their preaching Christ Peter as the prolocutor or cheife-speaker maketh the apologie for himselfe the rest cap. 5. 18. 27. 29. 5. Moreover when Ananias Saphyra kept back part of the price of the possession sold and layd downe the remaynder at the Apostles feet their lying and dissimulation was discovered and punished not by Iames but by Peter for at his word they both fell downe dead to the great terrour of all that heard the report thereof cap. 5. 3-10 If therefore this corporall punishment stood then in place of excommunication as some affirme See D. Dove Def of Church-govern pag. 21. it will follow that as before in preaching so here also in censuring of offenders which is deemed one principall part of episcopal prehemineÌ„ce Peter as yet caried a greater stroke theÌ„ Iames or any other the Apostles in the Church at Ierusalem 6. Yea he was had in so high estimatioÌ„ or rather admiratioÌ„ among the multitude for many other miracles wrought by his haÌ„d that they brought their sick layd them down in the streetes that at least his shadow when he passed by might shadow some of them cap. 5. 15. 7. Adde hereunto his râ—sidence at Ierusalem â—o well knowne abroad that Paul 3 yeares after his conversion came thither of purpose to visite Peter and found him there Gal. 1. 17. 19. and though after this he spent some time in other parts of Iudea as at Liâ—da Ioppa Cesarea in every place winning many to the faith cap. 9. 32. 35. 42. 10. 24. 44. yet he returned back to Ierusalem cap. 11. 2. and not long after was there cast into prison cap. 12. 3. 5. Neyther did this drive him after his deliveraÌ„ce thereout wholly to forsake Ierusalem for though for a time he went into an other place cap. 12. 17. yet repaired he thither againe and was there before the Synode that determined that controversy mentioned chapt 15. 7. Wherfore until this time which was about 18. yeares after Christs passion see D. Whitak de pont pag. 345 if any of the Apostles had any standing preheminence above the rest eyther in the ordering of their meetings or in the government of the Church of Ierusalem we haue better warrant to give it unto Peter then the Do can alleadge for Iames or any other So that if we should take as the D. doth this superioritie or superintendencie for a sufficient proofe of an episcopall function wee might hence inferre that Peter had it and not Iames at least for 12. yeares after Christs passision see Doct. Whitak vbi supra pag. 341 that is till the second yeare of Claudius the Emperour But I purpose not to inforce any such conclusion it shall suffice from the former premisses to conclude that S. Lukes storie contradicteth their testimonie which report Iames to be ordeyned by the Apostles Peter Iames Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem imediately after Christs passion For it were absurd to think that Peter should consecrate him to the office of a Bishop in that Church and reteyne in his owne hands for so many yeares after such consecration the cheefe power and preheminence that is supposed to belong to that function Wherefore as the Refuter had reason to except against the Doctors evidence first alleadged being altogither humane not divine so I doubt not but himselfe will see if he wink not too hard that he abuseth the scriptures which he cited to grace their testimonie on whom he principally relieth But to passe forwards let us now see what successe the D. hath Sect. 13. ad sect 4. pag. 31. in answering the rest of the refuters exceptions And first that objectioÌ„ which himselfe setteth downe sect 4. p. 51. in this manner If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem then they gave him the episcopall power But they gave him no power which the Lord had not before invested in his person as an Apostle Therefore they did not ordeyne him Bishop With the Doctrs leave I will change the assumption and distinguish it from the confirmation thereof which lieth more cleare in the Refuters owne wordes answ p. 131. The argument therefore must stand thus If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem then they gave him the episcopall power But they gave him not the episcopall power Ergo they did not ordeyn him Bishop The assumption as it now standeth is thus fortified The power of ordination and jurisdiction was not given to Iames by the Apostles for both were invested in his person by the Lord himself so as he being an Apostle might use eyther of them freely as
occasion was offred wherever he became But the episcopall power in the Doctors understanding form pag. 32. 69. 73. is the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ergo the episcopall power was not given to Iames by the Apostles Now what is the D. answer I answer saith he by distinction The power of order if I may so terme it Iames had before as those who are Bishops sine titulo but the power of iurisdiction was coÌ„mitted to him wheÌ„ he was designed Bishop of IerusaleÌ„ c. The edge of this answere is bent directly against the assumption of the Refuters objection and against the proposition of the prosyllogism added for the confirmation thereof Onely whereas the Refuter affirmeth the power both of ordinatioÌ„ of jurisdictioÌ„ to be invested in the person of Iames by Christ when he made him an Apostle therfore neyther of them given him by his fellow-Apostles the Do telleth us that Iames received froÌ„ Christ onely the power of order but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him when they designed him the Bishop of Ierusalem So in stead of power of ordination power of jurisdiction into which the Refuter distributed all episcopall power and that according to the Doctors own direction as is before shewed he now yeeldeth us a new distribution of episcopall poewr into power of order and power of jurisdiction The D. is driven to make new distributions and yet utterly silenceth both the difference and the reason of the change which a man that loveth plaine dealing should not have done especially when he hath to deale with such as are of a very shallow conceit as he saith lib. 3. pag. 103. for though they may from henceforth rest perswaded that he confoundeth not the power of order in Bishops with their power of ordination because he maketh the later but a part of the former lib. 3. p. 102. 105. yet they may stand in doubt whether the power of jurisdiction which now he opposeth to the power of order be the very same that before he distinguished from the power of ordination If the same then his answer is both false and absurd yea contradicted by himselfe For when he reduceth all episcopall power wherein they excell presbyters unto the power of ordination and the powre of jurisdiction he carrieth the later unto publick The Doct. contradicteth himselfe and dealeth absurdly or deludeth his reader c. government in foro externo with authoritie over presbyters and people both to guide and direct them as their rulers and to censure and correct them as their judge serm gag 45-51 Now it Iames had nothing to doe with this power by vertue of his Apostleship how should the rest of the Apostles which were not made Bishops as the Doctor avoucheth sect 7. pag. 58. have the same authority in this behalfe wheresoever they came that Iames had at Ierusalem or Timothe at Ephesus as the Doctor confesseth cap. 4. pag. 96. Againe how often doth he tell us that this power of jurisdiction aswell as that other of ordination was derived vnto Bishops from the Apostles and that the Bishops are their successors in this power of government serm pag. 45. 70. and in this defence passim yea he saith That the Apostles each of them reteyned this power in their owne hands whiles they continued neere vnto or meant not to be long from the Churches which they had planted and for proofe thereof citeth 2. Thes 3. 14. 1. Cor. 5. serm pag. 65. Def. pag. 63. I aske therefore whence they had this power which they reteyned in their own haÌ„ds for a time coÌ„mitted to others wheÌ„ it seemed good to theÌ„selves he cannot say they received it by any such assignement to some particular church or Churches as Iames is supposed to have to IerusaleÌ„ seing he denieth them to be properly Bishops And if he shall say that the power of governm t or jurisdiction was inclosed in that Apostolicall coÌ„mission which they had from Christ Mat. 18. 18. and 28. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. and 21. 15. 16. is it not both false and absurd to deny that this power was invested in the person of Iames when he was made an Apostle Now if to avoyd these inconveniences he shall acknowledge that he taketh jurisdiction in an other sense his market is utterly marred in asmuch as he doth onely in shewe to delude his reader impugne that which his refuter affirmeth whereas in deed he justifyeth him in his whole argument For if both those powers of ordination and jurisdiction wherein the D. placeth the power and superioritie of the episcopall function were given vnto Iames by Christ and neyther of them by his fâ—llowe Apostles theÌ„ he received not the office of a Bp. by their ordinatioÌ„ Having thus freed the Refuters objection from the force of the Sect. 14. shewing 6. errors in the D. answer Doctors answer the Reader is to be advertised of these errors which Mr Doctor hath broched therein 1. that the Apostles received from Christ the power of order onely and not the power of jurisdiction 2. and therefore by their Apostleship were but as Bishops sine titulo For since the D. giveth vnto Iames in regard of his Apostleship received from Christ none other power then that of order which made him as a Bishop sine titulo he must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles were also as Bishops sine titulo and not indued by Christ with that power of jurisdiction distinguished by him from the power of order unlesse to avoid these rocks he will fall into the gulf of an other errour no lesse absurd viz. that the Apostles were not all equal in power by their Apostolicall function And if it be so as he saith that Iames had power of jurisdiction given him by his fellowe-Apostles when they designed him Bishop of Ierusalem it will follow from hence 3. that the Apostles gave him a power which themselves had not And 4. that those Apostles which were not made Bishops as Iames was never had that power of jurisdiction which he enjoyed Yea 5. the episcopall charge which Iames had at Ierusalem gave him a preheminence above his fellow-Apostles not onely in superioritie of order while they remayned there as before he affirmed but also in power of jurisdiction 6. And consequently all other Bishops ordeyned by the Apostles were in the like power superior to the very Apostles as many as were not properly Bishops These are the Doctors absurdities and the very naming of them is sufficient to abate the edge and weaken the force of his answer yea under correction be it spoken as it may well make him blush at the reading of his bragge preface pag. 17. where he saith in his conscience he is perswaded that no one of his proofes in all his sermon is disproved nor he convinced of any one uintruth throughout the body thereof so it may be a good motive to him no longer to strike against the
were tainted with partiall humors And though he professed he would not take upon him to speake so hardly yet the Doctor will needs have his reader beleeve that the Refuter sought to discredite all historians in generall by the mentioning of that speach Therefore to free his owne witnesses from all suspition in this case he saith the most learned Bishop truely noted what might be obiected against the historians of later times But if the Doctor uprightly weigh the intent scope of that learned Bishop he may perhaps discerne that Eusebius his ancientest witnes is not without the compasse of those stories which he speaketh of And if he in his learning judged it for that reason more safe to rely upon the authenticall records of the Conncels Fathers that were eye and eare-witnesses of the thinges which he urgeth had not the Refuter as good reason to desire also to see Iames his ordination justified by the testimonie of S. Luke or some other Apostolike man that lived in that age 2. But Eusebius as the D. supposeth is free from that imputation and much more Hegesippus Clemens And is not Ierom as free as any other belike the Doctor hath him in suspition though he be all in all in the evidence that he produceth as appeareth serm pa. 66. and 69. As for Eusebius how free soever the Doctor judgeth him in this case his testimonie standing him in good stead I suppose he wil not discharge him of that crime of framing matters to his own conceit in applying that which Philo wrote of the Iewish Essees to Christian Monks lib. 2. Hist eccles cap. 17. whereof the reader may see Reynodes and Harts Conf. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. and 492. 3. Neither is it a cavill as Mr D. in his quarrelling spirite is pleased to censure it to say that those Fathers Euseb Ierom c. finding the name of Bishop continued in the successioÌ„ of one Pastor after an other iudged of those that first governed those Churches according to them that lived in their times For if they speake not improperly which the Doct. will not admit for then he must yeeld himself to have played the sophister what else should move them to ascribe unto Peter the place of a Bishop at Rome and that for 25. yeares coÌ„tinuance see Euseb in Chron. and Ierom de script eccles in Petro unlesse the Doctor had rather say of them as one of great reading doth of Eusebius in this point D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 6. divis 3. pag. 260 viz. that the same befell them which Thucidides Hist lib. 1. saith of the old stories of the GraeciaÌ„s Men receive reports of things done before their time from hand to hand one froÌ„ an other abasanistons without examining trying of theÌ„ So som through a desire as it is likely of honouring the sees of Antioche and Rome and hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both devised that he sate 7. yeares in the one and 25. in the other Eusebius fell upon it and wrote it in his Chronicle but if he had tried it by the touchstone of the scripture he would have cast it off as counteryfeyt Thus saith Doctor Reynolds of that matter in like manner we may say without any wrong to Eusebius since we have before disproved by good warrant from the scripture that report of his concerning Iames his continuance for 30. yeares the Bishop of Ierusalem that his desire to magnify that See among others made him also too câ—edulous in countenancing those speaches of Egesippus and Clemens which by due examination might have bene found unworthy of any credit For what probabilitie is there in Egesippus his tale apud Euseb Sect. 3. lib. 2. cap. 22. concerning Iames that he was a Nazarite from his mothers wombe and never drunk wine to grave the tale he should have excepted the times of partaking in the sacrament of the Lords supper Moreover that he absteyned from eating of flesh from shaving his head and from annointing his body with oyle who would not take him by this description for a patterne of Monkish perfection rather then of the episcopall function specially seing it is added he was wont to enter alone into the temple and spent there dayly so much time in prayer that his knees Cameli instar tuberculis contractis obduruerunt Belike he forgat his Maisters doctrine Mat. 6. 6. Ioh. 4. 21. But the best is yet behind Huic vni licebat in sancta sanctorum ingredi c he only had libertie to enter into the most holy place for he used not any woollen garments but onely lynnen if this be true then as he joyned a Bishoprick to his Apostleship so he had the high-preisthood vnited to his Bishoprick unlesse we may think the use of lynnen garmeÌ„ts to be a lawfull dispensation for any man that was no Preist to usurp the high-priests office in entring into the most holy place 2. Now to come unto Clemens how fabulous I might say blasphemous is that which Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 1. reporteth out of him that Christ after his resurrection gave knowledge unto Iames the iust to Iohn and Peter and they delivered the same to the rest of the Apostles For this tale is flatt repugnant as Doctor Reynolds obserserveth Conf. cap. 3. divis 2. p. 163 to the word of truth wherein we read that knowledge the holy Ghost was given by Christ to all the Apostles joyntly See we Luk. 24. 45. Iohn 14. 26. and 16. 13. Act. 2. 4. and 4. 31. 2. Moreover in this fable he contradicteth himselfe like as lyars are wont to doe forgetting what he had said before to wit that it was an other Iames not Iames the just unto whom togither with Peter and Iohn Christ gave preheminence above the rest of the Apostles 3. And since wee are now in hand with the reputation of Clemens and Egesippus the first reporters of Iames his Bishoprick from whom eyther at the first or secoÌ„d hand the rest of the witnesses have received their warrant it shall not be amisse hither to drawe the examination of the Doctors defence pag. 60. of their credit against the moderate censure of the Refut answ pag. 133. How unsavorie a speach saith he is that of Clement recorded by Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 1. that Peter Iames and Iohn would not arrogate to themselves that glorie to have the Bishoprick of Ierusalem but chose Iames the Iust unto it Why was it a greater glorie then their Apostleship or can there be any lawfull calling in the Church too high for them whom Christ vouchsafeth to make his Apostles yea cheefe among the Apostles Such speaches as this in the Fathers are like black wenns in a faire body that have more need of a cover for excuse then of setting out for commendation The like may be sayd of those he calleth good Authors Eusebius and Egesippus who alleadge so carnall a respect of the Apostles in preferring Iames
Fathers he replieth neyther shifts nor against the fathers but true defenses in favour of them For the Apostles being sent to preach the gospel to all nations made their chiefe aboad in greatest cities of most resort as at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Rome c. now because this residence in the mother cities was afterwards supplyed by the Bishops of them therefore were the fathers wont to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities wherein they aboad most which they might the rather for that the word episcope in their speach to wit Euseb â—emens betokeneth in a generall meaning any charge or oversight of others c. It is plain then that the Doctor in his former wordes giveth his tongue and pen libertie to run out beyond the bounds of truth 1. In carrying unto his witnesses to impugne their testimonie that which was intended onely to contradict his owne position 2. in construing that to be meant of an absolute denyall of the name of a Bishop which was spoken of the episcopall function properly taken for that which now beareth the name The reader therefore is to be advertised that although the Refuter indeavoured by some exceptioÌ„s against the Doctors witnesses to shew that their testimony is too weak to bind the conscience to enterteyne their report for an undoubted truth yet he is so farre from giving them all the lie as the Doctor not very christianly chargeth him that treading in the stepps of many other worthies he salveth their credit by distinguishing the speciall proper signification of the word Bishop from that which is more generall and improper For properly in the phrase of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3 1 2. Tit. 1. 7. it noteth him who by his function is limited and fastened to the perpetuall oversight of one particular Church and now in coÌ„mon speach it is appropriated to the function of a Diocesan Prelate but in a more generall construction as the Apostleship is called episcope a Bishoplike-charge so the Apostles were by the Fathers termed Bishops And some of them as Iames and Peter vvere sAid to be Bishops of thosE Churches wherein they were reported to have made their longest residence And that the Fathers doe use the word in this latter construction the Refuter judgeth it most probable becausE he is perswaded not without good reason that in the former signification Iames being an Apostle neyther was nor could be a Bishop So then if the Doctor who holdeth Iames to be properly a Bishop yea a diocesan Bishop in function like to ours will justifie his assertion by those fathers whom he alleadgeth ought he not to haue demonstrated that which he wholly overpasseth to wit that the Fathers which entitle Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem meane thereby that he had proper function of a diocesan Bishop But he thinketh it sufficient to remove the grounds which his Refut layd to make good his deniall let us therefore come to it The Refuter saith that Iames neyther was nor could be properly Sect. 7. a Bishop seing he continued in the Apostleship a distinct office from it The D. answereth that none of his authors were so simple but they knew aswell as the refuter that Iames was an Apostle neyther knew they any reason which the Res would seem to know why his being an Apostle should binder his being the Apostle or angel of that Church for so were the Bps at the first called Yet with his leave some of theÌ„ were so simple that they thought this Iames called by Paul the L. brother was the sonne of Ioseph by an other wife before he was espoused to Marie the mother of Christ see Euseb lib. 2. ca. 1. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. col 579. vbi dicitur Epiphanius idem sentire which is in effect to denie him to be one of the 12. whom Christ selected to that office of Apostleship For among them there were onely two called by the name of Iames the one the sonne of Zebedaeus and brother of Iohn Math. 10. 2. Mark 3. 17. the other was the sonne of Alpheus Mat. 10. 3. Mark 3. 18. and brother to that Iudas which was also called Lebbaeus or Thaddâ—us Luk. 6. 15. 16. Act. 1. 13. with Mat. 10. 3. 4. and Mark 3. 17. Ambrose also was so simple that he accounteth this Iames Comment in Gal. 1. 19. â—ot onely the sonne of Ioseph but also one of those brethren of Christ which continued in unbeleife Ioh. 7. 5. after the 12 were daily attendants on thei Maister 2. Neyther were they all unacquainted with that difference between the functions of an Apostle a Bishop properlie so called which the Refuter maketh his reason for the deniall of the later office to them that bare the former Augustin distinguisheth the Apostleship from a Bishoprick as a greater office from the lesser Quis nâ—scii illum apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui preferendum de Baptis lib. 2. ca. 1. this sentence of Augustin is alleadged by D. Sutcl De pont Rom. lib. 2. ca. 10. pag. 140 143. to strengthen this consequence that if Peter were an Apostle then he could not be a Bishop or Pastor proprie loquendo Epiphanius an other of the Doctors witnesses is more playne for this purpose For having said that Peter and Paul were both Apostles and Bishops in Rome he saith withall Haeres 27. that there were other Bishops whiles they lived because the Apostles went often into other countries to preach Christ and the City of Rome might not be without a Bishop What can be more playne to shewe that since the Office of an Apostle requireth traveile abroad into diverse countries to preach Christ and the office of a Bishop bindeth to attendance at home on that one Church wherof he is made an overseer therefore and Apostle cannot be properly a Bishop Let me therefore here say to the Doctor as Doctor Reynolds did to Mr. Hart Conf. cap. 6. Divis 3. ad finem you may learne by the Fathers themselves that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that citie they meant it in a generall sort and signification because he attended that Church for a time and supplied that roome in preaching of the gospell which Bishops afterwards did And if this satisfy not the Doctor let him goe roundly to work and prove by other parts of their writings who are his witnesses in this question of Iames his Bishoprick that Iames his coÌ„tinuance in the function of an Apostle was no hindrance to his receiving and holding of a Bishopr properly so called In the mean while let us passe on to the new writers which concurre with the Refuter not onely in denying Iames to be properly a Bishop but also in that more generall assertion that an Apostle could not be a Bishop properly Chapt. 7. Concerning the new writers that ioyne with the Refuter in denying Iames to be a Bishop properly and whatsoever else the D. hath for the upholding of Iames his supposed
Bishoprick COncerning the new writers the Doct. would never so lightly Sect. 1. ad sect 5. pag. 53. 54. sect 6. p. 55. esteme their judgment as he doth were he not highly conceited of himself For what protestant is there of any worth that honoreth not the very name of Doct. Whitakers Bishop Iewell and Doctor Reynolds I might send him to many others which in generall deny any of the Apostles to be properly Bishops so judge also of Iames in speicall Calvin in Acts. 21. 18. Lubbert de Papa lib. 3. cap. -5 pag. 209. and Lib. 4. ca. 5. pag. 296. Chamier de pont Lib. 3. pag. 450. and 453. cum multis alijs But the Doct. perhaps will more regard some of his owne society such as Doct. Sutlif who de pont lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 152. affirmeth the same of Iames that he doth of Peter and Iohn scz that he was not properly a Bishop And cap 6. pa. 114. to Bellarmin and Turrecrem urging the Fathers to shew that Iames was ordeyned Bishops of Ierusalem he answereth non aliud per ordinationem intelligitur quam quod Episcopi partes peregerit et ex reliquorum Apostolorum consensu Hierosolymis mansit And cap. 8. pag. 130. he directly contradicteth our Doctor in saying that his ordination they spake of was not a conferring of jurisdiction to him seing he had it by his Apostolicall office The which may serve to stop the Doct. mouth touching the Fathers which he challengeth to be whollie for him in this question For till he hath proved that Iames was properly a Bishop and that the Fathers ascribed to him the proper function of a Diocesan Bishop in calling him the Bishop of IerusaleÌ„ he shall but prove himself a trifler to say as now he doth that without any disparagement to these worthy wryters the affirmation of so many ancients in a matter of fact agreable also with the scriptures and proved by the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem c. may overweigh their deniall As for the scriptures I haue shewed they are rather against it then with it and in a like matter of fact scz Peters Bishoprick at Rome the like evidence may be produced neyther doth the Doctor hold it any haynous crime in himselfe by his deniall to overweigh their testimonie 2. Notwithstanding it is not the opinioin of Doctor Whitakers or any other which the Refuter coÌ„mendeth to the D. consideration but the reasons rather whereby their judgement is swayed For as he saith answ pag. 132. the same arguments that prove Peter might not be Bishop of Rome are as effectuall to conclude that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem seing they were both equall in the Apostleship And what though it were so as the Doctor saith sect 6. pag. 55. that 6. of those 8. arguments which Doctor Whitakers de pont quest 3. ca. 3. sect 9. urgeth be such as the Refuter with all his sophristâ—ie cannot with any shew of truth apply to S. Iames If the other two be such as the Doctor withall his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth exeÌ„pt S. Iames from their reach is it not sufficient to give him the foile in the maine controversie now in hand Yet there are some things avouched for the removall of those 6. arguments which are already sufficiently disproved as that he saith the storie of the Acts doth testify S. Iames his standing residence at Ierusalem and that his precedence in honour before Peter and Iohn is noted Gal. 2. 9. And somethings doe rather make against him then for him For if he were the Apostle of the Iewes at large as may be truely gathered from his epistle written to the 12. tribes that were scattered abroad Iam. 1. 1. and that compact made between paul and him with Peter and Iohn Gal. 2 9. how was he properly the Bp. of the Ch at IerusaleÌ„ For as it was fit that Peter should have professed the Gentiles to be his charge if he had bene their Bishop at Rome so it had bene no lesse fit that Iames should have professed himselfe to have bene the Apostle or Bishop of the Iewes in Ierusalem or at least in Iurie if he had bene by Peter and Iohn confined to that one Church or Province Againe if he can for his advantage I meane to justify his denyall of Peters Bishoprick at Rome carry the words of all the Fathers that say he was Bishop there to this meaning that he was one of the founders of that Church may not his Refuter in defence of his deniall of Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalem take the like libertie in construing the Doctors witnesses to this meaning that he taught and governed that Church for the time of his residence there If the Refuter in denying the later give all the D. witnesses the lie shall the Doctor goe free from the like blame of giving the lie to many ancient Fathers in denying the former Let him therfore take home his owne words cap. 2. pag. 46. See see homo homini quantum praestat that is strong in his hand which were weak in an others the truth belike is so partiall that it is true onely in his mouth But joyn we now in issue with him in the triall of the 2. first reasons whether they will not conclude with the Refuter that Iames Sect. 2. ad sect 7. pag 57. was not properly the Bishop of Ierusalem The reason is thus framed by the Doctor Bishops have certeine churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certeyne churches assigned to them Ergo the Apostles were not Bishops But because he hath somewhat abated the force of the argument in both the premisses I will deliver them in D. Whitakers owne words Episcopus vnum tantum gregem habet quem paescat ut suum At Apostoli nullam certam provinciam habuerunt neque vllas certas ecclesias quibus alligatâ— sunt The Bishop hath but one only flock which he is to feed as his owne The Apostles had no certeine province nor any certeyne Churches whereto they were tied The medius terminus wherein the strength of the argument lieth is not simply to haue a Church or Churches assigned but to haue one onely flock and to be bound unto it to feed it as his owne the reason ergo is thus to be contrived Every Bishop hath one onely flocke whereunto be is bound to feed it as his owne But none of the Apostles had one onely flock whereunto he was bound to feed it as his owne Ergo none of the Apostles was a Bishop The Assumption which was thought most likely to be impugned was fortified with a double Bulwark 1. omnibus Apostolis dixit Christus Ite in vniversum mundum et illi memores legationis suae ita fecerunt 2. Qut scirent sibi spiritus sancti ductuÌ„ semper sequendum esse quocunqueâ—os ipse vocaret eo continuâ— profiscendium ij sedes suas certis quibusdam locis affixas habuissent nunquam
certe But of these fortifications the Doct. taketh no notice onely to the assumption which himselfe framed he answereth by distinguishing the times scz that though none of the Apostles had any provinces or partes of the world allotted to them by Christ when he gave them their indefinite coÌ„mission yet the holy Ghost for whose direction they were willed to stay at Ierusalem directed them to goe not confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world and some to an other This is that which he delivered before sect 4. pag. 52. and is already answered sect 11. of chap. 5. but what is it to purpose here For when they were directed to goe some into one part and some to an other had they then every one his peculiar Church assigned to them and were they bound to feed the same as every Bishop is to attend his owne flock I suppose the Doctor dareth not affirme it he rather yeeldeth the contrarie in saying they ceased to traveile in their old dayes and then were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested Well did they all traveile till they were old and is that the time whereunto his distinction of times referreth us for the assigning of Churches vnto them Not so neyther for he saith Iames did not traveile at all as the rest from one country to another So then howsoever he maketh a shew of answering by a distinction of times yet indeed the very marrow and pith of his answere is by a difference in the persons to contradict the assumption and to give Doctor Whitakers the lie if I may use the Doctors owne homely phrase for in plaine termes he saith herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned And againe the assumption therefore which is true of the rest of the Apostles is not true in Iames and were to be denied If the syllogisme were thus framed Bishops had certeine Churches â—ssigned to them Iames had not a certeine Church assigned to him Ergo he was not Bishop This assumption saith he I have disproved But the best is his disproofe of this assumption though he hath proportioned it also to his owne strength is sufficiently declared to be nothing worth For he neyther hath nor can prove that nay much less many ancient Fathers as he hath alleadged doe affirme Iames to be a Bishop in that sense which he imbraceth sc properlie a Bishop and ordeyned to that function by his fellow-Apostles But it shall not be amisse for the Reader to observe the Doctors cunning in changing the Medius terminus of The Doct. cunÌ„ingly changeth the medius terminus of the obj the objection which he undertaketh to answere And since he will have it specially fitted to Iames I will do it and so leave it to all indifferent judgment whether it hold not in Iames aswell as in Peter Every Bishop hath one onely flock to which he is affixed to feed it as his owne But Iames had not any one onely flock to which he was affixed to feede it as his owne Ergo Iames was no Bishop I hope the Doctor will not say he hath disproved this assumption Section 3. as it now standeth for this cannot be disproved without proofe made of the contrary sc that Iames had one onely flock assigned to him and was affixed to it or bound to attend on the feeding thereof But he is so farr from having confirmed this that he hath See how the Doctor hovereth up down not certeinly resting any where not yet bin heard so much as once to affirme it And if he meane in his next to make it good first let him tell us which was that one onely flock that was assigned to him Here he saith it was the Church of Ierusalem and his proofes from the Fathers make mencioÌ„ of no other yet elswhere pag. 56. he saith it is more then probable that the Church of Iurie was peculiarly assigned to him and p. 52. he coupleth both togither saying that the Apostles would not all forsake Iurie and Ierusalem but assigned one of their owne companie to take charge therof And in the words iÌ„mediately following he saith he was assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation and therefore was in deed the Bishop therof which argueth the whol body of the people of the Iewes aswell those that were scattered in other countryes to whome he wrote his epistle as the Inhabitantes of Iurie to be his peculiar charge vnless he speak improperly in taking the whol for a part onely If therefore the Doctor will say that Iames had one onely flock assigned to him let us know whether the whol nation or the province of Iudea onely or rather the diocese for I know he will not say it was the parish Church of Ierusalem I give him this choise so be that he will be constant in that he chooseth and not hover up and down as he doth not knowing as it seemeth where to rest The first is so repugnant to the testimony of Saint Paul who testifieth Gal. 2. 9. that Peter and Iohn joyned with him in the charge of the Iewish nation that I think he will be ashamed to stand forth in defense of it And if he will mainteyne the second he must proclaime to the world some prerogatives more theÌ„ ever were knwon in former ages which this Church had above all other Churches For whereas the Churches planted in other Mother cities were at the first but Dioceses in the Doctors perswasion and by the coÌ„bination of severall Dioceses in one Province each of them became a provinciall Church this contrarywise was at her first establishing and bringing into order a province and upon the multiplying of Churches in Iudea it was distributed into sundry Dioceses And whereas other Churches had presbyters before they had any Bishop this had a Bishop who was actually a provinciall prelate before there were any eyther presbyters inthe Diocese or Diocesan Bps in the Province which later is contrary to his Tenent in this defence often avouched lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 20. lib. 4. pag. 7. viz. that the Bishops of Mother cities were originally but DiocesaÌ„s not actually MetropolitaÌ„s till other ciâ—ies in the proviÌ„ce were coÌ„verted subordinated to him as their Primate Moreover if the state of Iudea Ierusalem excepted be considered what it was before the Apostles were dispersed abroad it will be found to be a body of people voyd of Christianitie therfore no flock for a Bishop to feed but rather a charge fitt for an Apostle to work upon in indeavouring their conversion And since Peter bestowed great paynes that waye in diverse parts of Iudea for many yeares after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles as is before shewed from Lukes storie cap. 5. sect 11. 12. it vvill be hard for the Doctor to prove thaâ— the inhabitants of Iudea wer allotted to Iames as his peculiar flock
too weak to upholde it so it will soone appeare that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings so an abasement and not a preferment to him For what is it It is not saith he a clipping of his wings more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutuall consent every mans province as it were or Circuite and charge was assigned to him As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned to clipp the wings of all the rest for company to testify one vntruthby another For as he cannot prove so I have disproved cap. 5. sect 11. his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his severall Province or circuite by mutuall consent And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them why should he deny them to be properly Bishops every one of them in his circuit or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their authority and so a clipping of their wings to be confined within one province or to one nation when as by their Apostolicall function they had authority to preach and to execute all ministeriall duties in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come ye◠of all the rest Iames his share must needs be by farr the least if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle or at least a Titular Apostle onely for as he saith of titular Bishops lib. 3. pag. 130. that they were such as had the bare name but not the authority of a Bishop so he must also affirme of Iames that he was but a titular Apostle seing th' authority of an Apostle which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shal be offred and in planting Churches where none were c. is denied unto Iames if his whole authoritie be confined to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem which was already founded to his hand And if it were a punishment to Meletius and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour to haue his whole authority confined to one Church as other Bishops although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle As for the next point viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect 9. pag 62. Doct. Refuter pag. 134. for o yeares even till his dying day to omit what is already sayd cap. 5. sect 10. 25. for the contrary we are now to examine whether the cause of his stay there was as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church in the function of a Bishop The reason of his continuance there saith the refuter was not so much the ruling of the Christians that were converted which might have bene otherwise performed as the converting of multitudes both of Iewes and of other nations that vsually flocked thither which was a work of the Apostolicall function Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth that it is nothing to the purpose to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed But he is to be advertised that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there then he shall shew himself verie voide of reason to make the government of that Church eyther the onely or the principall cause of his so long remayning in that place And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight then that the Refuter mencioneth it is but a wrangling part in him to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion in this case Neyther is it any thing to the purpose to urge him to shew that the church of Ierusalem was otherwise governed vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts And where he sayth There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles c. eyther he doth but trifle or which is worse dissembleth his owne knowledge for if by a Pastor he meane a Diocesan Bishop he knoweth very well that it is not onely doubted of but flatly denyed that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles But if he take the word at large for every or any one that feedeth whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinarie calling of Presbyters Act. 20. 28. then he sheweth himselfe a meer trifler since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant that Iames was in this large constructiō of the word their Pastor by a temporary assignment and that besides him they had other Pastors even so many as there were presbyters in that Church But when he saith there is no doubt to be made but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth of his staying there 30. yeares was the same with the cause of the stay of Simon and the rest of his successors till their death he doth too apparantly begg the question For the cause which the Refuter propounded and the Doctor contradicted not ceased before Simons election to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem for his election was not till Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore there was no such recourse eyther of Iewes or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time or his successors as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection for the generality of them took place after that desolation made by Titus his army there was not the like need now as before for one of the Apostles there to reside to labour the cōversion of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place There remaineth one speach of the Doctor which in the Refuters Sect. 10. ad sect 8. pag 61. apprehension bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up as was shewed by this argumēt That charge saith the Doctor sermon pag. 68 which the Apostles had in cōmon whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames 〈◊〉 particular But that saith the Refuter p. 134. was not the charge of Bishops but of Apostles Ergo neyther was the charge which Iames had the charge of a Bishop but of an Apostle Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense The proposition is his owne he loveth his credit and he will not recall it what then Doth he contradict the assumption and say that the Apostles whiles they governed joyntly the Church of Ierusalem had the charge not of Apostles but of Bishops in the very function of Diocesan Bishops such as
he supposeth Iames and his successors to be no for then he should throttle his owne answer to Doct. Whitakers first argument pag. 57. where he flatly denieth any of the Apostles Iames excepted to be properly Bishops And by his distinctioÌ„ of the times both here and page 52 he playnly signifyeth that the indefinite commission of the Apostles to goe into all the world received no limitation till by the Holy Ghosts direction they dispersed themselves some into one part of the world and some into an other What then When plaine dealing will not help an aequivocating answer must serve the turne As though saith he the charge of the Apostles is not by the Holy Ghost called episcope Act. 1. 20. that is Bishoprick And as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes As though say I the holy Ghost doth not use the word episcope when he so entileth the charge function of the Apostles Act. 1. 20. in a larger sense for an vniversall and unlimited Bishoprick then the word episcope episcopoâ— is taken eyther in other parts of the apostolical writings as 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. when it is applyed to such as had the standing charge of one Church or in the Doctors understanding when the name of Bishop or Bishoprick is given to Iames and his successors And as though Iames did not receive a great change in regard of his charge and function when being at the first an Apostle absolutely he was made the Bishop of one particular Church by his assignement to Ierusalem As though also the Doctor did not at unawares justify his refuters assumption in graunting that Iames before his assignmeÌ„t to the particular charge of IerusaleÌ„ was an Apostle absolutely For if he were absolutely an Apostle whiles he ruled the Church of Ierusalem in coÌ„mon with the rest of the Apostles then they also in that time were absolutely Apostles and consequently their charge there was not the charge of Diocesan Bishops but of Apostles as the Refuter affirmeth Wherefore unlesse he will recall that which as yet he standeth forth to mainteyne viz. that the charge which Iames had in particular for the government of the Church at Ierusalem was the same and no other then that the Apostles before had in coÌ„mon he must bear the losse of all his laboâ—r in pleading for Iames his Bishoprick for it will followe necessarily upon the premisses of the argument before set downe that Iames his charge at Ierusalem was the charge not of a diocesan Bishop but of an Apostle And thus much shall suffice concerning Iames let us now heare what the D. can say for the Bishopricks of Tim Titus Chap. 8. Answering the first 8. Sections of the Doctors 4. chap. lib. 4. and shewing that Timothy and Titus were not ordeyned Bishops as the Doctor supposeth FRom Ierusalem the Doctor traveileth to Ephesus and to Creet Sect. 1 ad sect 1. pag. 74. of the Doct. in hope to shewe the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops And that first out of the scriptures for so he promiseth pag. 72. of his sermon And to make it good he saith That it is apparant by the epistles of S. Paul to Timothy and Titus that he had ordeyned Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creete the epistles themselves being the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function For as the Apostles had coÌ„mitted unto them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination and iurisdiction which in the epistles is preâ—upposed so doth he by those epistles informe them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function first in respect of ordination as Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 2. 22 and secondly in regard of iurisdiction as 1. Tim. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 19. 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Titus 1. 10. 11. and 3. 9. These are his wordes and the very pith of his arguments Where first let the reader observe that he bindeth himselfe to mainteyne this assertion viz. that it is apparant by the epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit. that he had ordeyned the one Bishop of Ephesus and the other Bishop of Creete Which if he had as soundly confirmed as he did confidently vndertake actum esset de certamine the controversy had soone bin ended But how should this be made apparant by S. Pauls epistles when he neither doth nor can produce from thence any one word that soundeth that way Yea it repenteth him as it seemeth that he had said It is apparant by his epistles for in his defence to prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus Creet he maketh this his first reason pag. 74. because in his epistles written to them it is presupposed that they were by him ordeyned Bishops of those Churches and the Antecedent he proveth pag. 75. by this argument because it is presupposed in the epistles that the Apostle had committed to them episcopall authority both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Whereas if he had stuck close to the wordes of his sermon in dissolving as now he will needes his first sentence into a two fold reason he should have argued thus It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that the Apostle had coÌ„mitted episcopall authoritie to them both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction c. Ergo it is apparant by those epistles that he had ordeyned them Bishops But though he sawe it he was ashamed to be seene to The Doct. reasoneth loosely changeth his termes and argumentes and then taxeth his Refuter for not answering his argument argue thus loosely and as we have often done so againe must wee give him leave to change at his pleasure not onely his termes or phrases but also his very arguments But when he taketh this liberty he wrongeth his Refuter against all equitie to taxe him as he doth both here and hereafter pag. 78. lin 16. for not answering his argument For who can answer an objection before he heare it And who that considereth the tenour of his first sentence before set downe would haue dreamed a twofold reason to be infolded therein Nay who would not have judged as the Refuter did that the later clause had bene a confirmation of the former But to take his arguments as he hath nowe tendred them when he saith It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul had ordeyned theÌ„ Bishops of Ephesus and Creete if his meaning be that their ordination to the episcopall charge of those Churches is presupposed by the Apostle in his epistles written to them I utterly reject his assertion as a false presupposall or rather forgerie of his owne which hath no warrant from any line or letter in those epistles And to his proofe thereof viz. because it is presupposed in those epistles that the Apostle
to the readers sentence therein let us proceed to that example or supposall before mencioned the rather for that he most proudly insulteth over his Refuter as if he were a Brownist or Anabaptist or had broached sundry schismaticall novelties as I am not ashamed once againe to lay downe his wordes to the readers viewe so I doubt not but to cleare him from those â—oul imputations Suppose saith he a Democracy where the common wealth is governed by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing admitting ordering and consuring of officers and directing them how to behave themselves in their offices What if this government fall into the handes of the nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some one mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole-governour still observing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be sayd that those lawes were the very patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall and Monarchicall government whereby the first maker of those lawes would inform in the one the nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the severall Churches or congregatioÌ„s which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church-busines in processe of time it came to be restreyned to the Clergie onely the Bishop and his presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things growe worâ—â— and worse the Bishop like a Monarch gâ—â—t the reignes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of ordiâ—aâ—im and iurisdiction remeine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and precedents eyther of the second or third kinde of government neyther were they given to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie togither These are the Refuters words now the Doct. having first solaced himselfe in an idle repetition of the particulars interlaced with scornfull gibes to shewe the unlearneder sorte the trim Idea as he pleaseth to speake of that discipline which the Refuter and his fellow challengers have forged he coÌ„meth at his leasure very gravely to refute his supposed novelties one after an other in this order First it is here presupposed saith he that every Church indued with power of ecclesiâ—sticall government was a parish c. which dotage I have before refuted Shall I say that we have before proved his assertion that the first Churches were properly dioceses to be a meere dotage I will rather say he might well have spared the mencioÌ„ of this controversy seing the Refuter doth not once mencion the word parish or parishonall The second supposed novelty he maketh this that the foruse of Church government at first was democraticall or popular the chief authority being in the people which by the Presbyterie did ordeine and censure all Church-officers His Refuters wordes are these The administration of Church-matters was first in the severall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyters had the managing of all Church-busynes And againe the right was in the Church and the execution in the Presbytery But doth the Doctor speak as he thinketh when he calleth this schismaticall novelty and for this esteemeth his Refuter a Brownist or Anabaptist Knoweth he whome he woundeth in thus censuring him his opinion hath he never observed in his reading the Centuries cent 2. Col. 134. this saying Si quis probatos authores huius sâ—â—uli perspiciat videbit formaÌ„gâ—bernationis propemoduÌ„ democratias similem fuisse Singulae enim ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum dei pure decendi sacramenta administrandi absolvendiet excommunicandi haereticos scelerátos ministros eligendi ordinandi justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi c. The same wordes are recorded also in Catalogo test verit lib. 2. Col. 108. but more directly to purpose speaketh D. Whitgist in his defense pag. 180. In the Apostles times the state of the Church was popular And pag. 182 I therefore call it popular saith he because the Church it self that is the whole multitude had interest almost in everything Shall he be now with the Doctor a Brownist or Anabaptist for so saying And why shall not Thomas Bell a professed enemie to all Brownists and wholly devoted to the Prelates service be taxed of schismaticall novelty for teaching as he doth that excoÌ„munication precisely and cheefly perteyneth to the Church and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons fit for that purpose and chosen for that ende this he saith and this he proveth by Christes wordes Math. 18. 17. 18. dic ecclesiae tell the Church c. that is to say in his vnderstanding vnto the whole congregation see his regiment of the Church cap. 12. sect 4. If his credit be little worth which the Doctor yet me thinks he should be ashamed to justify the Rhemists and Bellarmin against Doctor Fulk and Doct. Willet who affirme that the right and power of the keies and so of excommunication belongeth vnto the Church and the Pastors prelates exercise it as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church see Doctor Fulk answ to the Rhem on 1. Cor. 5. sect and D. Willet Synops cont 5. quest 4. part 2. But Mr. Beza if you will beleeve the Doct. making mencioÌ„ of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular government giveth him this stile Democraticus quidem fanaticus De Minist gradibus cap. 23. pag. 155. But Mr Bezaes wordes in that place doe shewe that he giveth that stile to Morellius for no other cause then this that he presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order which for election of Church-officers is religiously and prudently observed in the citie of Geneva Which is such as well accordeth with the Refuters doctrine for it alloweth the Church to be electionum sacrarum conscia et approbatrix to take notice and give approbation howsoever a prerogative is given to the Pastors Magistrates to goe before the people in the choise 2. Notwithstanding the Doctor asketh if it be not a phrensy to urge the peoples supremacie in Church government and whether there be any shewe in scripture or in reason that the sheep should rule their shepheard or the flock their Pastor Say as much should be graunted as his questions imply must he not first prove that his Refuter giveth supremacie of rule unto the sheep or people over their Pastor before he can conclude him to be ledde by a fanaticall spirit against scripture reason But is there not want of judgement rather in the Doctor that imagineth the Pastor to be ruled by the sheep or people when the Church which is the whole body hath the managing of all Church-affaires by her Presbyters which are the principall members Doth not Cyprian that holy Martyr say lib. 1. epist 4.
plebs ipsa maximè habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere And how oft doth Austin say that Peter signified the Church and bare the person of the Church when Christ sayd unto him Tibi dabo claves c. Mat. 16. August tract 50. 124. in Iohan. Item in Psal 108 de agonia Christi cap. 30. And Gerson Trilog 8. quest Claves inquit datae sunt ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo On which words the Bishop of Chichester in his answer to Tortus pag. 65. giveth this note Cum vnum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio omnes enim idem sentiunt But to passe by many others the wordes of Ferus in Act. 11 are worthy of the Doctors observation Peter the Apostle chief of the Apostles is constreyned to give an account to the Church neyther doth he disdeyne it because he knew himselfe to be not a Lord but a Minister of the Church The Church is the spouse of Christ and Lady of the house Peter a servant and Minister Wherfore the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also reject and depose them if they be not fit And in giving this preheminence to the Church above Peter doth he speak against the scripture or against reason Doth not S. Paul acknowledge the same touching himselfe and his fellow Apostles 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancie if not frenzie to urge as the Doctor doth lib. 3. passim the superioritie of one Bishop in an whole Diocese or Province above all the Presbyters and people thereof Notwithstanding as the Refuter doth no where say so neither can it be gathered frō his words that the form of Church-governmēt was at the first or now ought to be wholly democraticall or popular the Doctor is not ignorāt as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. 3. that his Ref pleadeth for the Aristocraticall forme of government as that which in his opiniō ought to be established in the severall Churches Neyther doth he therein crosse himselfe or any of his fellowes that favour the parish discipline for they all as I am perswaded doe hold the ecclesiasticall government to be a mixt forme compounded of all three states as many worthy divines doe confidently mainteyne P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. see his Com. plac clas 4. sect 9. Baros de polit civ ecclesiastica lib. 2. pag. 42. 43. D. Whitak de Roman pontif pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ who is the head not onely of the whole Church in generall but also of every particular visible Church Ephes 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27 the Church may be truely reputed a Kingdome or Monarchy so it hath some resemblance unto a Monarchy in regard of that preheminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers But because no one Pastor or Bishop hath power to governe or determine causes ecclesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure but ex consilio compresbyterorum by the Counsell of his fellow-Elders the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy And in asmuch as the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment it agreeth in part with a Democracie notwithstāding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry sommer in a dripping Section 8. yeare when he supposeth in his third fancie that we hold the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. Titus to have bin provided for such a popular state wherein the people doe rule their leaders They were provided for a mixt state wherein many presbyters vnder the guidance of one Pastor or president doe administer execute all matters with the peoples consent approbation And in the affirmation as we have the assent of the most and the best divines of later times Calvin on Titus 1. 5. Beza on Tim. Cap. 5. 19. 22. and Tit. 3. 10. and sundry others so we have the Apostles owne warrāt in the close of his epistles with these words grace be with you or with you all 2. Tim. 22. Tit. 3. 15. for by this it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of cōmon use not onely for other Ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Moreover since the Apostle chargeth Titus to observe in the ordination of Elders that order which he had before enjoyned him Tit. 1. 5. whence can we better derive that order then from his owne practise and his fellow-Apostles who used aswell in ordination as in other Church-affaires both the advice and help of other Ministers and the approbation of the people as appeareth by these scriptures Acts. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 2. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 6. 22. 23. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. 2. Cor. 2. 10. The Doctor therefore is misledd by his owne conceit when he imagineth that the Apostles wordes unto Timothy and Titus Lay not handes rashly c. And doe thou avoid an Haeretick did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their handes that neyther people nor presbyters had or might have any stroak at all in those matters As for his gibing objection Belike the whole Island of Creete was a parish too it deserveth no other answer then this when he justifyeth his collection from any words in his refuters answer I will acknowledge him for an honest man mean while let the reader take notice of this that the Doctor in a fewe leaves after pag. 88 noteth this speach of his refuter that Creet had many Churches which argueth necessarily that the whole Iland could not be one onely parish The last fancy falsly fained by the Doctor is this that the popular Sect. 9. state of the severall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocracie and after into a Monarchie he should haue sayd that the well tempered Democracie did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracie after into an absolute Monarchy But he endeavoreth to shewe that the severall Churches were at the first governed Monarchically to wit by the Apostles or Apostolicall men severally For Apostles he nameth Iames that ruled perpetually and Peter and Paul c. for a time And of Apostolicall men that were perpetuall governors he hath good store as Mark Timothy Titus Evodius Simō the sonne of Cleophas c. But where are his proofes that all these or any of them governed Monarchically and by their sole authority Concerning Iames it is already shewed that his government was farre short of that sole authoritie which our Bishops carry
at Ephesus when the second epistle was written to him which though it may be mainteyned upoÌ„ better probability then the Doct. hath to impugne it yet I willingly overpasse seing for our purpose it is sufficient that other places of scripture sufficiently witnesse his attendance on Paul after he was left at Ephesus For as he sent for him to come to Rome 2. Tim. 4. 9. 21. so he was there with him at the writing of his epistles to the Philippians Colossians and to Philemon as their inscriptions vers 1. of each epistle doe shew And from thence he was sent to the Philippians in Macedonia as may well be conjectured by Pauls own words Phil. 2. 19. 23. And to the Hebrewes he saith Cap. 13. 23. know that our brother Timothy is delivered with whom if he come shortly I wil see you which argueth that he had been a prisoner being elswhere imployed was by the Apostle expected that he might againe use him for a companion in his traveiles It is apparant therefore that as the Refuter saith the Apostle still imployed him in his Evangelisticall function And so he did Titus also seing he was called to meete him at Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. and afterwards being at Rome was sent from thence to Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. which argueth plainely as is before observed that they were not by Paul ordeyned Bishops As for that discourse which the Doctor runneth into serm pag. Sect. 4. ad p. 99 76. and. 77. concerning the time when Timothy was left at Ephesus it was overpassed by the Refuter as an idle digression from the present controversy of his being affixed to the perpetuall charge of the Church of Ephesus But since he urgeth it a fresh and saith that their opinion which think that Timothy was required to staye at Ephesus but for a short time when Paul went into Macedonia Acts 20. is contrary to S. Pauls former testimony 1. Tim. 1. 3. I will examine the strength of his objection which runneth thus In both those voyages of Paul into Macedonia mencioned Acts 20. 1. 3. Timothy accompanied him Therefore the time of his staye at Ephesus after Paules going thither recorded 1. Tim. 1. 3. cannot accord with any of those voiages Act. 20. The Antecedent he laboureth to prove in his sermon as followeth Not the first which followed the tumult appeased vers 1. because iÌ„mediately before the historie of the tumult it is sayd that he had sent Timothy into Macedonia and himselfe followed cap 19. 22. 20. 1. not the second which was from Graecia resolved vpon to avoyd the ambushment of the Iewes ver 2. 3. because it is expresly sayd that Timothy accompanied him from Philippi went before him to Troas to Assos froÌ„ whence he accompanied him to Mâ—letum verse 4. 5. to 15. For answere to the first I grant that Timothy was sent into Macedonia before the tumult was begun at Ephesus but that the tumult followed ymediately upon his sending thither it is the Doctors vaine imagination refelled rather then confirmed by S. Lukes storie For he reporteth cap. 19. 22. that after the sending of Timothy Erastus into Macedonia Paul epesche chronon stayed for a time in Asia The like phrase in other places importeth some good space of staye as 1. Cor. 16. 7. Act. 15. 33. 18. 23. see Aretius in Actes 15. 33. Calvin on 1. Cor. 16. 7. yea the wordes themselves epesche chronon eis ten asian subsistit ad tempus in Asiam scz profecturus ad verbum ut habet Piscator inhibuit scz susceptam profâ—ctionem mencioned vers 21. these very wordes I say doe shew that he deferred his owne foreintended journey into Macedonia for a time of purpose to speÌ„d some time in Asia in visiting strengthning the Churches And the Apostles own words 1. Cor. 16. 5. 7. 8. 9. doe plainly import that he resolved to returne vnto Ephesus there to set forwardes the Lordes work because he sawe both an effectuall doore opened vnto him to doe much good and a strong opposition of many adversaries likely to doe hurt if he should have departed out of those quarters what hindreth then but that Timothy might dispatch his journey and returne thither again in this time of the Apostles stay at Ephesus and in Asia which came betwene his sending them and that Tumult that is recorded afterwards Wherfore if this cannot be with better reason impugned then yet I see it will follow inevitablie that Timothy his aboade at Ephesus was very short seing it is certeine he was with Paul in Grecia Acts. 20. 2. 3. 4. when he resolved to returne froÌ„ thence through Macedonia Now to answer the second that which he supposeth moste certeine is altogither vntrue viz. that Timothy with the reste that are named Acts. 20. 4. accompanied S. Paul into Macedonia till he came to Philippi and there parted from him to goe before vnto Troas The words of the Evangelist are that Timothy others accompanied him achrites asias vnto Asia that is til he came to the Coasts of Asia and that there they parting from him went before and tarried for him and Luke with others that continued with him at Troas Whereby it appeareth that they all took shipping in Graecia the better to avoid the ambushmeÌ„ts of the Iewes and so passing by the coasts of Asia as they must to goe into the coasts of Macedonia there landed Timothy the rest who were to meet with Paul and his company at Troas after he had dispatched his affaires in Macedonia Wherefore the Doctors misconceiving the tenour of S. Lukes storie is a greater errour then their opinion that referre the time both of Timothies stay at Ephesus injoyned him 1. Tim. 1. 3. to Pauls second voiage towards Macedonia recorded Act. 20. 3. And of S. Pauls writing his first epistle to Timothy vnto his being in Macedonia there mencioned vers 6. For what hindreth but that Timothy parting froÌ„ Paul in the coasts of Asia neer to Ephesus might then be requested to stay at Ephesus and be saluted also with letters from Philippi or some other citie in Macedonia Surely if the Doctor had not been strangely misledd by his owne conceit he would never have deemed this a strange conceit in Mr Beza So then it being apparant that the Doctor hath nothing of any moment to object against Timothies stay at Ephesus in one of Sect. 5. those voyages which Paul made into Macedonia is it not much more safe to ascribe it to one of these then to dreame as the D. doth of a new voiage thither after his deliverance from his bonds at Rome Specially seing he hath no warrant neyther from Gods word nor from any sound historiographer to mainteyn his strange conceit but onely a false supposall that it cannot fittly be ascribed to any of his journeys mencioned in the Actes For how can he prove that which he so confidently avoucheth touchiug Pauls deliverance from his bands
at Rome and renewing of his former traveiles for 9. yeres after And when this is proved how will he demonstrate eyther from Pauls epistles or any other monumeÌ„ts of antiquitie from whence himselfe saith serm p. 78 the Actes of those 9. yeares must be gathered that Paul made a newe voyage into Macedonia and in that traveile passing by Ephesus lefte Timothy there And if he could prove this is he not singular in his conceit that this was the time of placing Timothy in his Bishoprick For did not Paul himfelse tell the Elders of Ephesus wheÌ„ he parted from them at Miletum Act. 20. 25. that he knew that they all among whoÌ„ he had gone preaching the kingdom of God should see his face no more And hath the Doctor forgotten that himselfe teacheth us serm pag. 70. 88. and pag. 63. of this defense that the Apostles did substitute Bishops in their roomes when they were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted and that for the avoiding of factions in their absence No reason therefore he should thinke that Paul would neglect to give them a Bishop at or before so solemne a departing from theÌ„ specially seing as he knewe he should see their face no more so he foresawe that after his departing there should greivous wolves enter in and perverse Teachers spring up from amongst themselves Act. 20. 29. 30. To conclude therefore this question thus I argue If Timothy had any ordination at all to the Bishopprick of Ephesus the same must be at one of those journeys which he tooke into Macedonia Actes 20. 1. 3. But he had no ordination to his Bishopprick at any of those journeys Therefore he had none at all The consequence of the proposition is apparant by thinges last touched viz. that at Pauls last parting from those coastes he knew he should see them no more and that no monumentes of Antiquity doe ascribe this worke to any latter voiage And in the first whereof mencion is made Actes 16. 10. 12 Timothy was his companion as appeareth vers 1. 3. c. neyther was the Church at Ephesus then planted much less fit to receive and mainteine a Bishop as may be gathered from Actes 18. 19. 25. 26. 19. 1. 7. c. As for the assumption though the Doctor acknowledgeth the truth of it yet we relie not on his conceites but on farre surer groundes For it is also shewed that he was not affixed to the permanent charge of that Church neyther did he long stay there but followed the Apostles call aswell after as before To all which I adde this one reason more peculiarly fitting the time mencioned in the assumption If Timothy had not as yet received the episcopall charge of the Ephesian Church when Paul took his leave of their Elders Act. 20. 25. 28. then was he not ordeyned in any of his iourneyes into Macedonia mencioned Act. 20. 1. 2. 3. But the antecedent is true Ergo also the consequent The assumption or Antecedent I prove as followeth At what time the Church of Ephesus enjoyed many Bishops to whome the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did apperteine in coÌ„mon by speciall charge given them by St. Paul and that without any intimation of any superiour set over them to whose direction they should yeeld obedience at that time Timothy had not yet received such an episcopall charge as giveth him a singularitie of preheminence above all other ministers in that Church But at the time of Pauls taking his leave of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. the Church of Ephesus had many Bishops to whom the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did apperteine in comon c. Therefore at that time Timothy had not received such an episcopall charge c. The assumption is manifest by the wordes of the Apostle Actes 20. 28. and the proposition is moste apparant by the manifest opposition betwixt the singular regiment of one Bishop and the joint charge of many Moreover it is justifyed by the Doctors secret allowance serm pag. 18. 69. and very plainly by him that gave the Doctor best satisfaction in this whole controversy perpet govern pag. 223. There was saith he a time when the Church was governed by the coÌ„mon-advice of the Presbyters as Ierom affirmeth In this time spake Paul to the Presbyters at Ephesus Act. 20. 28. Neyther let the Doctor think here to stopp our mouthes with the shifting answer which he elsewhere useth viz that these Presbyters governed onely in private as under the Apostle who kept in his own hands the episcopall authoritie for this is to coÌ„tradict the Apostle himselfe who plainely resigneth to them the whole charge of that Church as knowing that he should see them no more vers 28. 32. with 25. 26. It is a cleare truth therefore that Timothy not having then any sole preheminence in the government of that Church was not their Bishop and consequently he was not at all ordeyned their Bishop as is before shewed His allegations follow from diverse authors which report of Sect. 6. ad sect 10. p. 91. Timothy and Titus that they lived and died the one at Ephesus the other in Creet His Refuter told him that he might credit the report of his authors yet deny them to be diocesan Bishops and good reason he had so to tell him because an episcopall function cannot be concluded from their living dying in that place He now telleth us that it sufficeth his purpose to wit to prove that they held their ordinary residence there which the objection denieth therefore againe I tell him that vnlesse he will fit the objection to his owne strength and so contend with his owne shadow he must prove more then an ordinary residence even a band of coÌ„tinuance there as their proper charge For till this be effected his proofes are to as little purpose as those that many papists alleadge for Peters Bishoprick at Rome because towards his later time he there lived for his ordinarie residence and at length there died I adde this to provoke the Doctor to a better examination of his owne witnesses that they doe not prove such an ordinarie residence as he would justify by them For some of them are worthy of no great credit as Vincentius Antonius and Nicephorus authors on whom the leaden Leagend is grounded And Dorotheus one of the most ancient that he alledgeth is much abused For he reporteth thus of Timothy in Synopsi Evangelium Iesu Christi Ephesi exorsus Illyricum usque et in vniversa Hellade praedicavit ubi mortuus et honorifice sâ—pultus est That beginning at Ephesus he preached the gospell of Iesus Christ to Illyricum and through all Greece where he did and was honourably buryed doth not this directly contradict that which the Doctor alleadgeth him for and plainely argue that he was an Evangelist as we affirm Come we now to the second objection Chapt. 10. Concerning the second obiection against
not the writing of the Apostles Acts make a second and the writing of the Evangelicall or Canonicall epistles a third and the receiving and penning of the revelation a 4. And as for the. 72. or rather 70. For Luke mencioneth 70. not 72. chosen by Christ cap. 10. 1. how confident soever the Doct. be in assigning to them an Evangelisticall function yet we cannot hastilie subscribe to him therein much lesse can wee graunt that which he affirmeth of Philip that he layd aside the evangelisticall function to take a temporary Deaconship Act. 6. and so returned to it againe but these are parerga by-controversies about which we will not contend Let us therefore attend to the reason urged by the D. to prove Sect. 〈◊〉 ad pag. 95. 96. that Timothy and Titus were advanced and not debased when they were made Bishops For saith he whereas before they were but Presbyters though called Evangelists in a large sense they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of handes ordeyned Bishops Behold here quot axiomata totidem paradoxa as many paradoxes as axiomes For how will he prove 1. that they were before but presbyters The D. beg geth 3. times together and contradicteth himself in one sentence c. 2. called Evangelists in a larger sense 3. now made Apostles of those Churches 4. and by imposition of hands made Bishops The two last are nakedly sent forth without any one ragge to cover their shame the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth before acknowledged by himselfe pag. 94. where he comprizeth Timothy and Titus no lesse then Philip and some others under the name of Evangelists specially taken for the extraordinarie functioÌ„ of those that went up and downe preaching the gospell being not affixed to any certain place And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertioÌ„ of a palpable falshood For how could they be but presbyters seing they stood in the extraordinary function of Evangelists Forsooth he saith thâ—â— what the fathers say of the 72 disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery the same may of Timothy and Titus much more be verifyed But doth he noâ— abuse the fathers in making them the authors of his owne paradoxe For doe they match the 72 disciples or any other Evangelists with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise then they doe the Apostles with the degree or place of Bishops Neyther is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops or to lift up Bishops above Prophets but to countenaÌ„ce that superioritie which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters by a comparison of the like difference which they apprehended betweene the Apostles the 70. disciples Wee haue therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superiour to all ordinarie presbyters for besides that already gathered from Ephes 4. 11. it is apparant by that honour which the Apostle and by that obedience which the Churches to which they were sent gave unto them whiles they were his fellow-helpers and companions in his traveiles 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16. 10. 16. 2. Cor. 1. 1. 7. 13. 15. 8. 23. Philip. 1. 1. and 2. 20. 22. Wherefore I conclude once againe that to make them Pastors or Bishops when they were Evangelists is not to advance them but rather to throw them downe from a higher degree of Ministerie to a lower In the second place whereas the Doctor had sayd that Timothy and Titus were furnished with episcopall power at the time of Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 pag. 9â— their stay in Ephesus and Creet by S. Pauls appointment and the Refuter denied that they received any new authoritie which before they had not c. the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner If they received no new authoritie why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of handes whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Tim. 4. 14. 2. Tim. 1. 6. and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop I graunt that Paul mentioneth hands-imposition on Timothy that some of the fathers doe thereby understaÌ„d his ordination to be Bishop Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove eyther from those words or any of the fathers writings that the imposition of hands mencioned by Paul was a second ordination to a new office or a furnishing of him with any new Ministeriall authoritie which before he wanted What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop may be construed as is before noted coÌ„cerning Iames their speaches are which say that Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem of a new or differing imployment in the work of the Ministerie for the temporarie charge he received which argueth no new authoritie or office imposed on him 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands his owne pen hath given him a direct answer pag. 94. lin 32. where he saith that Timothy and Titus who were of the later sort of Evangelists and therefore in an extraordinary function lin 15. of the same page were ordeyned Ministers of the gospell by imposition of handes which I would fayne know how he can prove by any testimony divine or humane vnlesse he carry those wordes of Paul 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. to his first ministeriall function 3. Againe he asketh may we think that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to severall Churches had that authoritie wheresoever they became which Timothy had at Ephesus Titus in Creet And he addeth verily Philip the Evangelist had not authoritie to impose handes for the furnishing of men with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent to Samaria for that purpose Act. 8. 5 -17 If it be his drift thus to argue Philip the Evangelist had no authoritie to give graces fit for the Ministery by imposition of handes Therefore besides the Apostles none but Bishops had that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Creet I answer his reasoning is many wayes faulty For he cannot prove eyther that Bishops have or that Timothy and Titus had that authoritie by imposition of hands to give such graces Neyther is it true which his words import that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and Iohn Act 8. 17. were graces fitting the persons that received them to the work of the Ministerie Wherefore although it should be graunted that the Evangelist Philip had no authoritie to give those peculiar graces yet he might haue as great authority wheresoever he came as Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet so that his assertion implyed in his quaestion viz. that besides the Apostles onely Bishops had the like authoritie to that which Timothy and Titus had hath no colour of any sound reason to uphold it Yea it is strongly confuted by
by ordinary meanes for himself interpreteth the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee was givē the by prophesie c. of his calling to the Ministery not by humane suffrage but by divine revelation by the cōmandement or oracle of the Holy Ghost lib. 4. p. 141. his calling therefore to the Ministery by his own confessiō must be extraordinarie 2. Neyther can it be denied to be extraordinarie in Titus that the Apostle cōmitted to his Church the finishing of his owne work for the first establishing of the Churches in Creta and furnishing them with Bishops or Elders to instruct them For himself confesseth that the Churches which were yet in constituting and vnfurnished with Presbyters to teach them had no need of a Bishop to govern them Lib. 4. pag. 63. 3. In like manner this large commission not confined to any one Church or Diocese but with equall charge extended over all the Churches in the whole Iland was more then ordinarie seing the ordinary Bishops and Elders were restreyned to the oversight of one onely Church or flock as appeareth by Act. 20. 28. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. and the Doctor that hath sought all records he could meet with for the next successors of Titus can finde none that had the like extent of jurisdiction till the next age after the Apostles and yet there is an apparant difference betweene him that the Doct. mencioneth and Titus as is before observed cap. 8. sect 13. next before this 4. Moreover it was extraordinarie that Timothy Titus were authorized to cōmaund and to speake with cōmanding authoritie 1. Tim. 1. 3 4. 11. 5. 7. Tit. 2. 15. for the auncient Bishops knewe that this was rather Apostolike then suting with the function of Bishops Ignatius in ep ad Rom. knowing his owne measure would not commaund as an Apostle but exhort c. but because these men by their daily conversation with the Apostle knew perfectly his doctrine and doings the Pastors of the Churches to which they were sent were to receive direction frō them and to yeeld obedience to their instructions 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16 10. 16. 2. Cor. 7 13. 2. Tim. 2. 2. 3. 10. 5. Yea even in gifts and the way of attayning them D. Downames Betters doe acknowledge this extraordinarie preheminence that they were indowed with extrordinarie gifts as the revealing of secrets and discerning of spirits and that they had their knowledge for the most part infused by revelation perpet govern pag. 88. Bishop Barlow serm in Act. 20. 28 fol. 6. And since some of these extraordinarie preheminences then shined most clearly when they were assigned to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet it followeth inevitably that their function was even at that time extraordinarie and therefore not episcopall but evangelisticall Now whereas he saith that their function was the same ordinary function which their successors all other Presbyters did exercise because 1. they were assigned to certeine Churches as the Pastors thereof 2. ordeyned thereto by imposition of hands 3. and by that ordination furnished with the power of ordination and jurisdiction what else doth he then indeavor to justify the point controverted by others no lesse doubtfull if not apparantly false To returne now to that assumption which at the first affirmed joyntly that the very function of Timothy Titus aswell as their authority Sect. 4. was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. it is most plaine by the reason added in his sermon pag. 79. before he bringeth in his conclusion that he then intended as his wordes signifyed to justify the perpetuity of their function for the wordes of his reason are these If whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy Titus furnished with episcopall power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours To this connexive proposition himselfe addeth the assumption and conclusion pag. 104. following But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed With what face now can the Doctor deny that this argument aymeth at the perpetuall necessity for all Churches not onely of that authority or power which he calleth episcopall but also of the very office or function of Bishops such as he affirmeth Timothy Titus to have bin His complaint therefore is very injurious as we have elswhere shewed to the full when he chargeth his Refuter with wronging him in saying that he maketh this episcopal power perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches that he contradicteth himselfe in another place when he acknowledgeth that where the episcopall government may not be had an other may be admitted But albeit the Doctor be loth to confesse himselfe guilty yet is it a signe of remorse that he refuseth to mainteine that necessity of the episcopall function which his argument at first directly concluded Howbeit he proceedeth in false accusation against his Refuter in saying he doth but elude his reasō with a malepert speach because he wished him not to wave crave but to prove the question for doth he not crave rather then prove that which he assumeth for an The D. waveth and craveth daunceth the round evident truth when he giveth us no other argument then his owne naked affirmance that it is evident c. to justify the assumption or Antecedent of his reason viz. that it was necessary whiles the Apostles lived to substitute in the churches already planted men furnished with episcopall power therein like to Timothy Titus And doth he not wave to and fro or rather goe back againe to the first point controverted in this whole Chapter when he avoucheth in the same Assumption that Timothy Titus were furnished with episcopall power when the Apostle Paul substituted them in the churches of Ephesus and Creet Wherefore if his drift were in this division such as he avoucheth in the entrance thereof viz. by a new supply of arguments to prove Timothy Titus to have bene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet the issue of all his reasoning is no better then a plaine dancing the round in this fashion Their function and authoritie was episcopall because it was not Evangelisticall for it died not with their persons and therefore was not Evangelisticall It died not with their persons because it was ordinarie and perpetually necessary c. for if it were necessarie to have men furnished with episcopall power whiles the Apostles lived it was much more necessary after their deathes Now that it was necessarie whiles they lived it is evident by the Apostles practise in furnishing Timothy and Titus with episcopall power at Ephesus and in Creet Who seeth not by all this his discourse that we are now just where we began All this waving therefore from one
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
same is it not all one to succeed them in the government of those Churches and to be their successors in the like authoritie Perhaps he meaneth now to conclude though before he sayd it was needlesse that DiocesaÌ„ Bishops were their successors in office if so then hath he somewhat more to doe then he expecteth he must prove his propositioÌ„ which he beggeth Meane while till his meaning herein be knowne I flatly deny his assumption and am ready once againe to listen to his proofes of this proposition that diocesan Bishops succeeded Timothy and Titus in the like power of government over the Churches of Ephesus Creete First touching Timothies successors in Ephesus whereas he alleadgeth Sect. 13. ad pag. 86. 87. that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2. 1. was one of Timothies next successours he was answered that he doth but tediously begge the question in assuming that the same Angell was a Diocesan Bishop and now overpassing this point as The D. beggeth if he sawe it not he appealeth to his Refuters conscience whether that Angel was not the Bishop or governour of the Church of Ephesus and succeeded Timothy in the government c. Wherein if he should gratifye him with the graunt of as much as he desireth scz that the Angel was one singular person a Bishop yea and a successour unto Timothy and one of those 27 Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councell of Calcedon yet the Doctor isnever the neer it will not follow that he was a diocesan Bishop for that other braunch of the Refuters answer unto Leontius testimony standeth yet unremoved viz. that howsoever the later of these 27 Bishops might be DiocesaÌ„s yet the former were not The Doctor sayth It is certayne that both the later and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops but I answer he is much deceived if he think we will take his bare affirmation It is certeine for a sufficient confirmation of the matter in question And if Timothies iÌ„mediate successours were for certeinty Metropolitan Bishops why is the Doctor so fearfull as he seemeth to be lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 4. pag. 131. to ascribe their originall also to the Apostles institution And why doth he by consequence contradict it in saying It is evident and cannot be denyed but that there were diocesan Bishops such as ours before there were any Metropolitans lib. 3. pag. 20. lib. 4. pag. 7. for me thinks he should blush to affirme that Timothy and Titus were bare Diocesans if their iÌ„mediate successors were Metropolitans As touching Creet and succession to Titus in the government thereof the Doctor confesseth that he hath not any where read of his next successor The first that he findeth to haue that ample government was Philip mencioned by Dionysius of Corinth apud Euseb lib. 4. Cap. 21. 23. Yet betweene him and Titus there is an apparant difference for Philip had the speciall charge of the Church of Gortyna whereas Titus was equally trusted by the Apostle with the oversight of all the Churches in the whole Iland He addeth though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Provincial Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of government Ephesus and Creet varied not After having sayd that Mark at Alexandria Evodius at Antioche Linus at Rome had the same authoritie that Timothy and Titus had he argueth demonstratively in this manner It may not be doubted but that each of these had Bishops he should have sayd Diocesan Bishops to their successors in the Apostles times Therefore the Refuter should not make it so strange that Diocesan Bishops were successors of Timothy and Titus Whereto I answer It seemeth then the Refuter is not to be blamed for esteeming the later a strange point if the former may be doubted and why should he not make a doubt of it seing the D. hath no better testimony or reason to confirme it then his owne naked affirmation It cannot be denyed Thus we have seene the Do. best defence for that episcopall function which he giveth to Timothy Titus his next labour is to remove the objections made against his assertion Chap. 9. Concerning the first obiection against the Bishopricks of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 9. and 10. pag. 89-92 THe first objection he layeth downe in these wordes That Timothy Sect. 1. ad sect 9. p. â—9 and Titus may seeme not to have bin appointed Bishops of Ephesus and Creet because they did not continue there but were removed to other places Wherein although the Doctor hath omitted the maine point that should give strength to the consequence viz. that they continued there by the band of their office as being affixed to the perpetuall charge of those Churches yet as if the Refuter had made choise of his owne wordes contrived it for his best advantage he telleth the reader it is an objection of his owne framing But it is usuall with him when he would seem to remove our objections to fit them to his owne strength that his answer may seeme to carry the victory with it Otherwise since himselfe assenteth pag. 94 to this difference between the function of Evangelists and Bishops that the former were not tied to any one place as the later are he might and in upright dealing onght to haue framed to himselfe at the first this objection viz. that Timothy and Titus were not tied or bound to attend during life on the charge of those Churches in Ephesus Creet and therefore they were not by Paul ordeyned Bishops of those Churches But then his distinction of perpetuall and ordinarie residence would not have reached to impugne eyther the antecedent or the consequence of the argument For the consequence implyeth this proposition that all whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops of particular Churches were affixed or bound to the perpetuall charge of those Churches This if the Doctor deny it may easily be proved by the lawe of God and man and by the testimony of the best writers in all ages but I will spare this labour seing the D himselfe cannot impugne it as I suppose without contradiction to himselfe For how can Bishops enjoy by the prerogative of their function 〈◊〉 singularity of preheminence during life if their assignment to the charge of the Church which they holde bindeth theÌ„ not to attend on the feeding and oversight thereof as long as they live I graunt that Bishops may upon speciall and extraordinarie occasion not onely traveile to other places but also be removed unto other Churches but in their absence they remaine bound to the charge of the Church first coÌ„mitted to them till by a lawfull calling they be removed to the setled oversight of an other church Wherefore an ordinary residence in Ephesus and Creet is not sufficient to prove that they were Bishops of those Churches
unlesse it may also appeare that they were bound to the perpetuall charge thereof and that the same band recalled them back when those extraordinarie matters were dispatched which called them away for a time But this is more then he can prove eyther by testimony of scripture or any other evidence If he will conclude such a band of continuance from the Apostles wordes 1. Tim. 1. 3. and Tit. 1. 5. he must argue thus Paul requested Timothy prosmenein to continue still in Ephesus and appointed Titus epidiorthosei ta leiponta to continue to redresse what was Sect. 2. wanting in Creete Ergo they were bound to make their ordinary residence there as having the proper charge of those churches during life If there be any strength in this consequence then there must be a truth in this proposition that men are bound to make their ordinarie residence during life in those places where they are eyther requested prosmeinai or left epidiorthosai c. But the Doctor is not able with all his skill to prove a continuance or ordinarie resiance during life much lesse any band or tie unto such continuance in the wordes of the Apostle before mencioned For it appeareth that a farre shorter continuance and that without any band of office or calling therevnto is noted by the word prosmenein Mat. 15. 32. Mark 8. 2. and Act. 18. 18. And Grammarians doe teach that the word hath sometimes the significatioÌ„ of expecto to tarry or wayte for an others coÌ„ming which construction as it doth well accord with the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 13. till I come give attendance to exhortation c. so it was of ancient times received as appeareth by the reading which Augustin lib. 2. cont Parmen followed Rogavi te ut sustineres me I requested thee to tarry for me at Ephesus And certeynly these words Till I come compared with the former I requested thee to abide or stay for me at Ephesus doe argue very stroÌ„gly that Paul had no purpose to bind him unto perpetuall residence there as a Bishop on his perpetuall charge Si Timotheus erat episcopus Ephesinus fuit ne rogandus ut in sua paraecia maneret c. Let Mr Doctor read Sadeel to Turrians sophismes loc 12. sect 8. And as for the word epidiorthoosâ— Tit. 1. 5. it is nothing else with Scapula in his LexicoÌ„ then insuper emendo velcorrigo to ad an ameÌ„demeÌ„t fault or correct somewhat alreadie done or spoken for as there is prodiorthoosis a â—ore amendement of an evill by preventing it before it breake out so is there also epidiorthoosis an after amendement of a fault already coÌ„mitted see Aretius in Tit. 1. 5. Wherefore a continuance in redressing is not necessarily implyed in the Greek word as the Doctor may further see for his learning not onely by the reading which his Mr the Bishop of Winchester embraceth perpet gover pag. 47. 299. but also by that translation which the two last Church-bibles doe reteine I left thee in in Creta that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting or lefte vndone True it is that some wryters of good note to expresse the force of the preposition epi doe preferre this or the like reading I lâ—ft thee in Creta ut pergas corrigere that thou shouldest goe forward or continue to redresse c. thereby to signify that Titus succeded Paul as one put in trust to continue the work begun and to finish that which was left unperfect But even they which doe urge this signification of the word doe notwithstanding acknowledge the time of his continuance in Creta to be very short see Calvin Piscator Beza and others in Titus 1. 5. Wherefore the Doctors collection which from the Apostles words inferreth that Titus was not lefte there for a brunt to set things in order so to come away but to continue redressing what should be amisse and still to keep that Church in reparation is a false glosse Which as it hath no warrant from the word epidiorthoosai so it crosseth the true meaning of those words ta leiponta things remayning for they shew that he was left there for the rectifying of those things which by the Apostles departure thence remayned out of order and not for the repairing of such future defects as the Doctor conceiveth might arise by reason of the death of Bishops and Presbyters and many personall corruptions in doctrine discipline and manners whereunto the Church was subject for that the Apostle aymed at any such defects and their redressing it is more then he will be able to prove in hast But though he cannot make good his owne collection from the Sect. 3. ad sect 10. p. â—2 Apostles words 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5 yet he can easily throw downe his Refuters inferences which conclude that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops because Titus was sent for out of Candy to Rome and from thence dispatched into Dalmatia And Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second epistle was written to him he staied for some good time with Paul at Rome These saith the Doctor are goodly inferences to oppose to the evidence gathered out of the epistles But in vaine braggeth he of his evidence gathered out of the epistles since it is made manifest that the epistles have nothing to further his purpose And he wrongeth both Refuter and Reader in concealing the maine strength of those Inferences which he mencioneth for from those testimonies of Timothy and Titus their removing to diverse places after their stay in Ephesus and Creta he first collecteth That the Apostles tooke the same course of implying Timothy and Titus in their Evangelisticall function which he had before usually done and thereupon asketh who may be so bolde or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paulhad made the one Bishop of Ephesus the other Arch Bishop of Creet The Doct. therefore might have seene if he would that his Refuter argueth to this purpose They whom the Apostles implyed in their Evangelisticall function after their stay at Ephesus in Creta like as he had usually done before they I say were not made Bishops by him the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Timothy and Titus were so imployed after they had been lefte in Ephesus and in Creet Therefore they were not made Bishops by the Apostle of Ephesus Creet The proposition he deemed so plaine that he thought none would be so bold or vnreasonable as to deny it for could not the Apostle foresee what use he was like to have further of them or could he not find others which were at liberty whom he might send hither thither c. The assuÌ„ptioÌ„ he proved by their removes before mencioned To all which the Doctor maketh no other answer then a denyall of the conclusion in saying It is intolerable boldnes and arrogancie not to acknowledge that Paul had made them Bishops Onely he contradicteth him for saying that Timothy was not
contradicteth also an other report of his witnesses Eusebius Ierom and Dorotheus viz. that Anianus succeeded Mark in the government of the Church at Alexandria in the 8. yeare of Nero as being then and there Martyred For the Doct. himself serm pag. 82. referreth the Martyrdome of Peter Paul to the very later end of Nero his reigne which was 4. or 5. yeares after Againe howsoever some doe give him the name of a Bishop yet nothing is sayd by any one that can conclude the function of a Bishop Sect. 6. as being affixed to the charge of one Church Yea rather they all give him not onely the name but also the right function of an Evangelist not onely in accompanying the Apostles but also in traveiling from place to place to plant and establish Churches And among the rest Nicephorus most fully justifyeth him to be a right Evangelist For lib. 2. cap. 43. he reporteth that Mark published the gospell not onely in Egypt but also in Libia and in all Barbaria also to them of Pentapolis and Cykue and that he there coÌ„stituted Churches and gave them Bishops c. But the Doctors oversight is most to be admired in his bringing of Eusebius to witnes The D. own witnes is against him his Bishoprik at Alexandria For the contrary appeareth by the order which he observeth in setting downe the number and names of such as he accounteth Bishops of that Church For in his account Anianus was the first and Abilinus the second lib. 2. ca. 24. 3. 12. and Cerdo the third which after Anianus the first Bishop governed that Church lib. 3. cap. 16. What can be more ful and plaine to shewe that in Eusebius his judgement Anianus and not Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria As for those words whereon the Doctor buildeth lib. 2. cap. 24. that Anianus first undertook the publik administration of the Church at Alexandria after Marke the Apostle and Evangelist If prejudice had not stood in his light and others in whose stepps he treadeth they might have seen their grosse mistaking of his meaning who distinguisheth him from his successors by the name of an Apostle and Evangelist For if Mark must needs be the first Bishop because Anianus first obteyned Bishoprick after him then let Peter be acknowledged the first Bishop also at Rome because at Antioche Ignatius was the second Bishop by succession after Peter Euseb lib 3 ca. 30. And at Rome Clemens after Peter governed that church Ieron lib. 1. cont Iovin Yea let not Iames any longer be reckoned the first Bishop of Ierusalem because he undertook the charge thereof after the Apostles or rather iÌ„mediately after Christs passion But if the Doctor can discerne as he doth serm pag. 82. and 83. that Eusebius excludeth Peter Paul from the place or function of a Bishop at Rome when he giveth the first place to Linus after them the second to Anacletus and so forwards doth he not wittingly wrong his witnesses and deceive his reader when he taketh their word for a certeine evidence that Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria in saying that Anianus did first obteyne the government after Mark. In the fourth place Simeon the sonne of Cleophas is by the Sect. 7. ad p. 112. 113. Doctor produced as ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem after Iames as Eusebius testifieth lib. 3. cap. 10. But it is little for the credit of the episcopall function that it is inforced to crave aide of such fabulous reportes as flying fame scattereth and he must pardon us this fault that we can hardly credit the tale for if the Apostles had thought it necessarie that each Church should be governed by a diocesan Bishop would they have suffered Ierusalem to have wanted one for 10. yeares togither after Iames his death For Iames lived not above 30. yeares after Christs passion as the Doctor acknowledgeth serm pag. 69. but the destruction of Ierusalem which happened before Simeons choyse as Eusebius saith fell out in the 40. yeare after Christs death Cent. lib. 2. col 664. was there now imediately after the cities destruction more need of a Bishop there then before and was the choyse of their Bishop a matter of that moment that all the Apostles and Disciples of Christ remayning alive must needes meet togither to make the election and must he needes be one of Christs kindred yet let it be granted since the Doctor will have it so that Simeon was the next vnto Iames in the government of the Church of Ierusalem as Eusebius affirmeth and be it granted also that Iohn ordeyned Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna and that he constituted Bishops in diverse other places and that the Apostles in every place committed the Church to Bishops and left them their successours as Irenâ—us and others testify how will the Doctor prove that all these were diocesan Bishops induced with a singular power of ordination and jurisdiction in many Churches or congregations which is as his Refuter saith the very soul of a diocesan Bishop The Doctor in his wisdome passeth by this point as if he had not seene it in his Refuters answer and falsely chargeth him to take exception against the assertion of the Fathers which affirme Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles Whereas it is evident that he denieth onely the Doctors inference that from the Fathers affirmation concludeth diocesan Bishops such as ours to be of Apostolicall institution This ariseth saith he from the mistaking of the word Bishop which in the first tymes signified no more then an ordinarie Pastor Wherefore since the Doctor doth nothing else but in an ydle florish repeat that which he had in effect before delivered viz. that the Apostles derived their authority aswell for government as for doctrine vnto Bishops we should but waste wordes and time in vaine if we should vouchsafe him any other answere then that already given and remaineth yet vntouched Chap. 14. Answering the D. 6. chapter and sheweth that he hath not any one argument or testimony to prove directly as he pretendeth that the episcopall function is of divine institution HAving answered all that the Doctor bringeth to prove by coÌ„sequence the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance because Sect. 1. ad sect 2. cap. 6. pag. 138. 140. it was of apostolicall institution we are now to goâ— on and examine what he can alleadge in the last place directly to prove that it is of divine institution But before he begin to enter into the lists he beggeth the change of the question propounding The D. beggeth the change of the questioÌ„ this for the conclusion which he intendeth to prove viz. that Bishops were ordeyned of God which change we can be content to allowe so that he will acknowledge his error in conceyving these latter proofes to be more direct then the former for he fetcheth a farre more large compasse by consequence to conclude his maine doctrine seing there is much