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
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
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
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
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
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
or by the nature of their office might not continue longer And the Doctor might aswel say that these two worthies doâ— make the office of the Pastor which is perpetual aÌ„nual for the case may so fall out that it may doth last but a yeare with some such is their demeanour therein And to conclude the very lawes of Geneva which conteyne the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying pag. 9. That in the end of the yeare the Elders shal be presented to the Seniory to know if they be worthy to continue in their office or to be discharged because it is not expedient that they be changed without a cause shal be Iudge However it be it resteth still an untruth vpon the Doctors owne head neither shall he ever be able to remove it in that he faith They hold the Presbyters of those Churches mentioned in his text which were not Ministers to be annuall or lay-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
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
an heap of untruthes compiled to colour his slaunder And the untruth of his second is no lesse evident for as the distribution of his sermon the transitions vsed therein doe wholly dissagree from his whole analysis here propounded as is before observed so they doe justify his refuter against himself not onely in the premisses of his first syllogisme which agree with his two assertions serm pag 9. but also insecluding the first and the last of his 5. pointes froÌ„ all interest in the proving of the assumption of his first syllogisme For as the Refuter rightly observed answer pag. 8. from the D. owne wordes serm pag. 61. that the proofe of his first assertion is to be searched for not in the last of the five but in the 4. former so it is plaine by the transitions which he useth serm pag. 17. 22. 52. that the direct proofe of the like function vnto our Bishops either in those Angels or any other Angels or pastors of the primitive Churches hangeth vpon the three middle points and not vpon the first which concerneth onely the persons of whome the ancient presbyteries consisted And though now he make a faire shewe of reducing the first of his 5. pointes to prove his first assertion anaskevasticos by disproving the presbyteries which we desire yet even this very defeÌ„se he maketh for himself clearely justifieth his Refuter that sayd he could not see how it did directly prove that assertion the proofe whereof he searched after For if in his first point concerninge lay Elders he indeavoureth as himself acknowledgeth both in the 54. pag. of thiâ— and 61. pag. of the next chapter first and principally to disprove the presbyterian discipline that so by consequence the disproof therof might be a proofe for our Bishops with what face can he affirme that this first point is a direct proof of the assumption of his first syllogisme which saith that diocesan Bishops were in his text meant by Angels 3. Wherefore for an answere to his question which he tendered for his first reason it may suffice to demande the like of him that is how he could perswade himselfe that his analysis here delivered was answerable to the genesis or first composition of his sermon when he sawe or at least wise mought have seene that 4. parts of his five doe not conclude his first assertion and that the fift could not be brought to his frame without a change of the doctrine first propounded in his sermon But it seemeth the D. is so well conceited of his owne Genesis that he is perswaded that if his Refuter could have discerned it he would have acknowledged every poinâ—e to be vâ—ry pertinent and direct the whole so perfect that nothing is superfluous or wantinge A straÌ„ge fancy when his owne Analysis maketh one of his foure pointes to be a superfluous excrâ—scens and more then needes which before semed to be of necessary vse For in reducinge his 4. pointes to this conclusion That the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Churches were diocesan Bishops his third point which himself as we have heard maketh but a consequeÌ„t of the secoÌ„d can yeeld him no better argumâ— then this Those ancient Pastors or Bishops were Diocesan Bishops Therefore they were Diocesan Bishops Wherefore when he hath advisedly vpon his second thoughts compared his owne Analysis with his Genesis I nothing doubt but winke he never so hard he will The D. him felte makes a forced analysis against conscience see though I feare he wil be loath to confesse that it is his owne self that deserveth much more then his Refuter to beare this imputation of a forced analysis devised against the light of his owne conscicence Notwithstanding I deny not but that his 5. points are all of them some way pertinent to the purpose though none of Sect. 7. them directly conclude his first assertion which he saith is proved by 4. of them For his owne words doe shewe that when he first set downe those five points in the proofe whereof the body of his sermon standeth he minded not so much the explication of his text as the confutation of the Elder and later sort of disciplinarians as he calleth them whose odious opinions he had interlaced serm pag. 6. 45. in the proposing of those questions which served to cleare his first assertion I will prove saith be pag. 6. 1. Agâ—inst both sortes that there were no lay-governiâ—g Elders in tâ—e primitive Church 2. And then more particularly against the former that in the first 200. yeares the visible Churches were dioceses c. 3. And consâ—quently that the Aâ—gels of the Churches were not pâ—â—ishonall but diocesan Bishops 4. And agâ—inst the later That the Bishops being advanced to an higher degree of Ministerie were set above other presbyters not onely in priority of order but also in majorâ—â—y of rule To the same purpose he speaketh here in his defence pag. 54. affirming as before that he indeavoureth the proofe â—f thos pointes agâ—inst the new and â—lder disc plâ—arians And though he pretende to drawe all these particulars â—o one conclusion which he saith is the explâ—cation â—f his text yet this appea eâ—h to be a mâ—ere The Doct. preteÌ„deth without truth and shaketh hands with his text pretence voide of truth seing the explication of his text lieth not in this conclusion here set downe scz that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were diâ—cesan Bishops c. but in this assâ—rtion propounded serm pag. 2. scz that by the Angels mencioned in his text we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of their callâ—ge as our reverend Fathers are It is apparant therefore that in the handling of these 4. pointes he shaketh hands with his text and layeth by both it and the explication thereof and as if he were now not in the pulpit to explicate a text of scripture but in the schooles to dispute or rather declaime pro forma he wholly mindeth the justifying of our hierarchy and the confuting of their opinions which favour the presbyterie Neither can any man otherwise judg that observeth his wordes before set downe and compareth togither both his three first pointes with those 3. opinions which he texeth pag. 4. and the fourth with that which he reprehendeth pa. 6. In which respect also it shal be no great error to thinke that his 5. point is in his principall intendment rather opposed against their opinion which holde that episcopall superiority which he pleadeth to be vnlawfull and as he sayth pag. 5. Antichristian then proposed for the proof of his 2. assertion as he now pretendeth pag. 54. 58. Add herevnto his owne wordes in the next chapter pag. 60. 61. where he affirmeth the question discussed in his sermoÌ„ to be two fold The 1 De facto whether the primitive churches were governed by D Bishops as they say or by presbytertes of such Elders as we speake of The second
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
perpetuitie of the episcopal function now in question Vnto these erronious conceits there had bene no dore opened had the Doctor bene pleased to have framed his questions in such termes as most fitly answere eyther to the first project of his sermon or to the 2. assertions before delivered in his Defence Agreable to his first project are these questions 1. Touching the explication of his text whether the Bishops meant there by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are 2. and touching the doctrine raysed out of his text whether the calling of such Bishops as ours are be of divine institution If he had rather stick close to the words of his two Questions before mentioned the first De facto is whether the angels c. the secoÌ„d De iure whether the calling c. as we heard even now Wherefore the reader may see that as before he changed his assertions Sect. 2. so now he changeth his questioÌ„â— neyther is it hard to discerne what might move him therevnto For in the first his owne The Doct. changeth his questions aswel as his assertions words discover his intent or purpose when he entreateth his Ref p. 60. to take notice what is the question betwixt them that so he may discerne his discourse concerning â—lders to be pertinent to the matter in quaestion Wherefore having set down the first question in those two meÌ„bers before expressed whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops as we sat or by Presbyteries of such elders as they speakeâ—f he taketh it for graunted p. 61. on both sides agreed on that the Churches were governed eyther by the one or the other so inferreth that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proof of his Bishops A direct proof so he saith but what Logician of any judgement will herein subscribe to his affirmation The question hath two members the Doctor holdeth the affirmative in the former and the negative in the later to prove the one and disprove the other is The D. disputeth not directly a double labour Wherefore since the Doctor susteyning the person of the opponent in this disputation beginneth with the first member of the question vndertaketh to prove this conclusion viz. The the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops such as ours are who would not now in an orderly and direct course of disputation expect at his hands some such Medius terminus as sheweth positively etherwhat agreeth to the function of a diocesan Bishop or what manner of government was anciently practized or such like And if he forbeare to argue to this purpose will not men of judgment be ready to thinke that either he hath little to alledg this way or to so little purpose that he distrusteth the issue of his triall But if he shall fly from the first member of his question which he made speciall choyse of and that with resolution to confirme it by vnanswerable evidence as his words every where and namely p. 29. 35. put his reader in hope and if in stead of confirming this point he shall bend the force of his disputation against the 2. meÌ„ber of his question to confute the reasons produced by the adverse part for the Presbyterie who can excuse his incoâ—stancie yea who that loveth him wel can judge otherwise then that it had bene much better for his credit to have openly professed that he would first deale with the later member and then come to the former or rather that he would first susteyne the person of a respondent and throw the burthen of proving upon his opposites as afterwardes he doth and plainly professeth it in the next sect pag. 62. But since he undertaketh the person of an opponent at the first entrance into this conflict let us see how artificially he reasoneth from the one member of his question to the other his disiunctive argumentation pag. 62. standeth thus Eyther the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or by such Presbyteries as they stand for But not by such Presbyteies as they stand for Therefore by Diocesan Bishops The proposition saith he is implyed in the very question betwene us And the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie The assumption is that first point of the five which new we have in hand But first I deny that his assumption is the first of his 5. points for wheÌ„ he sayth The primitive Church was not governed by such Presbyteries as they stand for doth he not therein oppose himself equally against both sorts of disciplinariansâ— aswell those that require a Presbyterie to assist their Parish-Bishop in every severall congregation as those which establish a presbyterie in every City for the governmeÌ„t of many parishes vnder one president having preheminence of order above the rest of the presbyters For so he explaneth the later member of his disjunctive question page 60. It is therefore cleare that his assumption here is no otherwise the first then it is the second third or fourth point of his five For how proveth he that his assumption is the first Forsooth he proveth it by the first as he sheweth page 62. Ergo it is the first and thus he proveth it They are not able to prove that ever there were any presbyters which were not Ministers Therefore the primitive Churches were not governed by such presbyteries as they stand for And why may he not reason from the 2. 3. or 4. point to the like purpose They are not able to prove that any of the visiâ—le Churches vsing goverment were parishes or that any parishes had their Bishop to governe them with the assistance of his presbytery or that the presbyters were in power of order and jurisdiction equall to their president and inferior to him onely in order c. Therefore the primitive Churches were not governed by such presbyteries as they stand for But this were to overthrow his dichotomies before set downe pag. 54. repeated lib. 2. pa. 41. specially that first distribution of his proofes which referreth the first point to a disproving of their presbyteries anaskevasticos the rest to the approving of our Bishops kataskevasticos wherefore I wil forbeare to contend any longer against his assumption weigh rather what he saith in defense of his proposition The disjunction implied in the proposition he affirmeth to be necessary Sect. 3. though not absolutely yet ex hypothesi and so presupposed on both sides The D craveth the question reasoneth from one member of it to another But I must give him to witt that if it were as necessary as he supposeth yet this kinde of reasoninge is on both sides esteemed no better then a pretty craving of the question neither can it be otherwise when he reasoneth from one member of the question to the other Else why may he not disprove their presbyteries by vndertaking the proof of our Bishops government with the change of the
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
meant by angels in his text were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as are our Bishops at this day And thus we may see what moved the Doctor to change his first question and how litle he gaineth thereby seing he cannot compasse his desire of dravving the first point of his five to conclude that assertion to which he referred the first part of his sermon Wherefore seing his disiunctive argumentation will not serve his turne and he will yet once againe for it seemeth he is vnweaâ—iable attempt the effecting of his purpose let me advise him to peruse his owne advise given to his Refuter lib. 2. 44. namely to set downe his Enthymem and to supply thereto that proposition which is implied in the consequence so to make vp a perfect syllogisme His Enthymem is this In the primitive Church there were no other presbyters but Ministers Therefore the primitive Church was governed by diâ—cesan Bishops such as ours are Here now the Doctor is wise enough to perceive that the propositioÌ„ implied in the consequence of his Enthimem and therefore needfull to be supplied is this viz. whatsoever church hath in it none other Presbyters but Ministers the same is governed by such Diocesan Bishops as ours are but his wisdome foresaw that if he brought this propositioÌ„ into the sunne to be looked on his Refuter yea I may say the simplest of his readers would easely have discerned that it needeth no lesse proofe then the conclusion it self or the assumption which he would so faine reduce to his purpose Yea as the falseshood of it was discovered aforehand by the Refuter and that vpon good and sufficient reason which the Doctor baulked as he passed by so it may evidently be convinced from his owne wordes aswell in his sermon pag. 69. 70. as in this defense lib. 4. pag. 36. where he confesseth that 〈◊〉 the apostles dayes all the Churches which they planted that at Ierusalem onely excepted wanted Bishops and yet had each of them a coÌ„pany of Presbyters which as Pastors fedd them in coÌ„mon and laboured the conversion of others Onely when they were to leave the Churches altogither by death or final departure into other places c. then they ordeyned them Bishops and not before and this saith he is that which Ierom cap. 1. ad Tiium affirmeth that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed over them were governed by the coÌ„mon counsell of Presbyters Wherefore the injoying of a Presbytery coÌ„sisting of Ministers onely doth not necessarily argue that the Church which hath such a Presbyterie is governed by a Diocesan Bishop as the Doctor without truth or reason taketh it for graunted even at their handes who with good reason flatly denied it Wherefore I hope he will at length acknowledge his passage concerning governing elders to be altogither impertinent for to pay him with his owne coyne pag. 60. coÌ„mon sense requireth that what he seeth impertinent he should acknowledge so to be charitie would though selfe-love would not that if he discerned not the untruth and inconsequence of his reasoning he should rather have suspected his owne analysis to be forced then have blamed his Refuter for his owne want of judgement Wherefore not following him any longer in his outwandrings it is high time that we come to examine his other question de iure Section 5. which standeth on two feet as the former on this manner whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as he holdeth or must be governed by their Presbyteries as they affirme The deceites couched in this question as it is proposed are in part touched before sect 1. and shall more fully be deciphered hereafter wee are now to see how well it suteth with the later part of his sermon and the defense thereof where he saith pag. 60. it is handled By the later part of his sermon he meaneth the last of his 5. points which affirmeth the function of Bishops he meaneth such as ours are to be of apostolicall and divine institution In the handling whereof there is nothing to be found against the presbyteriaÌ„ government save one onely naked syllogisme serm pag. 60. which concludeth the government of the Churches by a paritie of ministers and assistance of lay Elders in every parish not to be of apostolical institution because it was no where in vse in the first 300. yeares after the Apostles And now in his defense lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. he giveth no other proofe to justify the assumption which the Refuter denied but this that it is proved in the former syllogâ—sme set to justify the government by Diocesan Bishops For if saith he the government by Diâ—cesan Bishops was generally and perpetually received in those 300 yeares it is manifest that this government which they speake of was not in use Here therefore he like as he did before taketh one part of The D. againe taketh one part of the question to prove the other the question to prove the other Shall I againe answere him in his owne wordes This doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause Verely he had litle reason to tel us that he hath handled this question in the later part of his sermon viz. whether the Church must be governed by these Presbyteries vnlesse he had more orderly disputed against the assertion of his Opposite Yea if he had as largely reasoned against their Presbyteries as he hath for Diocesan Bps yet the question is not directly fitted to the points which he concludeth since he insisteth wholly upon the triall of this issue whether of those two governments which he or his opposites do commend be of apostolicall and divine institution And though he joyne togither apostolicall divine both in the first propounding and also in the winding up of this point serm pag. 7. 54. yet when he addresseth him self to the confirmation thereof pag. 55. he chiefly aimeth at this to prove the function of Bishops to be of divine institution and taketh apostol call iâ—stitution for his Medius terminus to conclude by consequence that it is a divine ordinance Wherefore it is evident that the maine argument of his whole sermon is the proofe of this assertition that the function of Bishops such as ours are for the substance of theâ—â— calling is a divine ordinaunce for this he pretendeth to drawe from his text in as much as the name of Starres and Angels is there given to such Bishops And to this he reduceth all the arguments layd downe by him in the handlinge of his fift position which he calleth the later part of his sermon and from this he inferreth those three vses which he would have us all to make conscience of viz. To acknowledge their function to be the ordinance of God and in that regard both to reverence their persons and to obey their authority as we are exhorted Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17.
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
esteemeth them to be the proper pastors of the Church lib. 4. pag. 141. lin 18. and giveth vnto other presbyters seâ—m pag. 45. no other pastorall authority then what is delegated vnto them by their Bishops Wherefore like as he reasoneth to shewe the lawfullnes and excellencie of the episcopall function pag. 54 so may we to prove by necessary consequence froÌ„ his owne wordes that it is generally or immutably necessary or perpetually imposed by Christ and his Apostles on all Churches For if the office of presbyters which in his opinion are but assitantes vnto the Bishops admitted in partem sollicitudinis to seed that parte of the Church which he should commit vnto them be not onely lawfull but necessary also to be reteyned and that jure divino then the same may be said much more of the function of Bishops that are as he supposeth the cheef and principall pastors even by Gods ordinance But if their function be not divini juris nor generally and perpetually necessary for all Churches then let the Doctor also professe plainely that he mainteineth not the office of Presbyters or any other Ministers to be The Doct. saith as much for the perpetuity of Di ocesan Bishops as of any ministers of the word yea more divini juris and generally or perpetually necessarie for the feeding or governing of the visible Churches of Christ Yea let him without staggering affirme that it is a thing indifferent not de jure divino necessarie but left to every Churches libertie to accept or refuse as they shall see expedieÌ„â— those that are authorized of God as Starres Angels Pastors and guides to convey vnto them the light of his truth and the word or bread of life and to convert them in the way of salvation But 2. doth not his reasoning import the contrary when he saith pag. 55. that if every Minister be to be honoured in regard of his calling with double honour viz. of reverence and maintenance which he saith serm of the dignitie and dutie of the ministers p. 65. 73. is due to them by the word of God yea jure divino theÌ„ much more is the office of Bishops who are the cheife and principall Ministers to be had in honour Yea doth he not from the doctrine of his sermon in question inferre these vses impose them on the consciences of his hearers pag. 94 96 viz. 1. to acknowledge their function to be a divine ordinance 2. to have theÌ„ in honour as spirituall Fathers as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians cap. 2. 29. and to receyve them as the Angels of God as they are called in his text 3. to obey their authoritie as being the holy ordinance of God according to the Apostles exhortation Heb. 13. 17. For can the consideration of Gods ordinance appointing their function commanding honor and obedience to be given vnto them in the dayes of the Apostles binde the coÌ„science at this day if their function were not of necessity to be coÌ„tinued Or can the exhortation of the Apostle Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17. touch the consciences of the people of England so strictly as he pretendeth and not reach at all to the conscience of those professors and teachers of the faith of Christ that live in other reformed Churches It is true I confesse that such Leaders and Labourers in the Lords worke must first be had before they can be honoured and obeyed but doe not these exhortations and many other apostolike canons which prescribe what is required eyther of Ministers for the good of their flocks or of people for incouragement of their Teachers as Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 4. 5. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 1. Cor. 9 14. Gal. 6 6. 1. Thess 5. 12. 13. Heb. 13 17. by an equall bond binde all Churches aswell to labour for the establishing of such Elders Bishops and Leaders as to see that when they are setled they may both give all diligence to performe their duties and receive all reverence and honour due vnto them And 3 how often doth he tell us in this defense lib. 3. pag. 24. 26. 44. 48 55. 59. 63. et alibi passim that many of his allegations doe testify for the superioritâ—e of Bishops not onely de fâ—cto but also de iure as giving test mony to the right and shewing what form of government ought to be as being in the judgement of the Fathers which he approveth perpetuall And though he returne the lie upon his Refuter lib. 3 pag 57. for saying that he plainly avoucheth a necessity of reteyning the government of Diocesan Bishops when he affirmeth that as it was ordeyned for the presâ—rvation of the Church in vnitie and for the avoiding of schiâ—me so it is for the same cause to be reteâ—ned yet he confessed pag. 64. that Ieroms judgement in the place alleadged was that Bishops are necessarily to be reteyned for the same cause to wit the avoyding of schisme for which they were first instituted And from the same words of Ierom he collecteth pag. 111. that of necessity a pâ—erelesse power is to be attributed unto Bishops Wherefore if the Which way soever the Doct. turneth him he offendeth D. be not guilty of a plaine-lie and notorious falsification of Ieroms meaning in carrying his words to a necessity in reteyning Bishops surely he hath much wronged his refuter to charge him with the like guiltynes for the like collection And if he consent not in judgment with Ierom he doth too much abuse his reader in fortifying his assertion with his testimony vnlesse he had given some intimation wherein he swarveth in opinion from him But 4. he discovereth his owne judgement touching the necessity of diocesan and provinciall Bishops something more clearely when he saith lib. 3. pag. 3. that of provinciâ—ll or nationall Churches the metropolitans Bishops of dioceses aâ—e and ougâ—t to be the governors For if he had intended onely a lawfullnes and not a necessity of reteyninge The Doct. wrongfully chargeth his Refuter their functions he would have sayd they are and may be rather then as he doth they are and ought to be the governors yea in his sermon pag. 32. doth he not imply a necessity I say not an absolute necessity as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter lib. 3. p. 57. but a generall and perpetuall necessity for succeding ages aswell as for the Apostles times when he saith that vpon this threefolde superiority of Bishops scz singularity of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction there dependeth a three-fold benefit to every church to wit the vnity perpetuit e and eutaxie or good order thereof For who can deny that those things are generally and perpetually necessarie to be reteyned in every Church whereon the vnitie perpetuitie eutaxie of every Church dependeth If the Doctor shall thinke to escape by saying that the perpetuity Sect. 5. ad lib. 4 pag. 102 147. and
eutaxie of every Church dependeth in deed vpon the power of ordination and jurisdiction but not vpon the investing of the power in Bishops because his second thoughtes have drawne him to distinguish betwene potestas and modus potestatis lib. 4. pag. 102. 1 17. we have reason to thinke as shall appeare anone that he The Doct. streyneth his witts in vaine to avoid conâ— dreamed not of this distinction till he had set his witts awork to remove the contradiction which his Refuter objected against him Notwithstanding he cannot with all his cunning avoyde that necessitie which floweth from the first braunch of episcopall superiority For if the vnity of every Church dependeth on the singularity of preheminence in one duringe life and that in such sort as afterwardes he explayneth his meaning to wit that whereas there were many presbyters in one City yet there neither were noâ— might be in succeedinge ages downeward froÌ„ the Apostles times any more then one Angell in a church or one Bishop in an whole diocese how can it be denied that there is a generall and perpetuall necessity of episcopall superiority for the preservation of the Church in vnitie 2. Neyther will the learning of that distinction which he now putteth betwene pâ—tâ—stas modus potestatis free him from placing the like necessitie in the function of Bishops for the exercise of that lawful power of ordination jurisdiction whereon the Churches perpetuitie eutaxie or good order dependeth For to let passe that which he saith serm pag. 32. how the superioritie of Bishops not onely did but also doth consist in that two fold power no lesse then in a singularitie of preheminence during life he avoucheth in plaine termes that the power which Timothie and Titus had for ordination and jurisdiction was not to die with them but to be transmitted to them that should succeed them in the government of the Church That the authoritie yea the function and authority which they had consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with their persons but to be continued in their sucessors sermon pag. 75. 79. Defence lib. 3. pag. 72. lib. 4. pag. 84. 98. and 100 That the commandements and injunctions given them to be kept inviolable vntil the appearing of Christ were directed to them alone and their successors serm pag. 49. 74. And that the duties prescribed for the execution of their office authoritie were to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ lib. 4. pag. 77. And which is yet more he addeth that their successors were Bishops onely yea Diocesan Bishops serm pag. 75. lib. 4. pag. 85. and that not de facto onely but also de iure Ibid. And that Presbyters neither were nor could be their successors lib. 3. pag. 73. and that neither are those instructions given in generall to presbyters neyther doth the charge of those affaires belong unto them lib. 4. pag. 79. Wherefore also he affirmeth or rather from the premises concludeth that the epistles written to Timothy and Titus were the very patterns and presidents of the episcopall function and purposely written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone but them and their successors viz. all Bishops to the worlds end how to exercise their function serm pag. 72. 73. Defence lib. 4. pag. 75. 83. Yea and further saith that those precepts 1. Tim. 5. 19. 22. are perpetuall directions which are not common eyther to other Christians or to other Ministers therfore peculiar to Bishops lib. 4. pag. 77. Thus It is sufficiently proved that the D. holdeth a perpetuall necessity of the episcopall function have we seene at large the Doctors judgement now to â—ay all these things togither If the power and authoritie and not so onely but also the function which Timothy and Titus had was not to die with their persons but to be transmitted vnto and continued in Bishops because Bishops and not Presbyters were their successors even de iure and not de facto onely And if for the same cause as also because the charge of those affaires viz. of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ belongeth not to the Presbyters nor is coÌ„mon to other Christians or Ministers the Commandements and injunctions given to Timothy and Titus to be inviolably kept till Christs coÌ„ming were directed vnto Bishops onely I would gladly heare with what new distinction the Doctor who directly and expresly affirmeth the premisses caÌ„ discharge himself froÌ„ implying or teaching The Doct. himself cutteth the throat of his own distinction and hath not one hole to hide himin by necessarie consequence that the episcopall function was appointed for the perpetuall use of the Church and is necessary to be reteyned in all Churches till the coÌ„ming of Christ His conjoyning togither Timothies function and authoritie to be continued in their successors cutteth the throat of his distinction betwixt potestas mâ—dus potestatis neither can he flie to that starting hole wherein he hideth his head his heeles at least hanging out lib. 3. pag. 57. lin ult when he expoundeth his words is to be reteyned by meet or fitt expedâ—ent or convenâ—ent profitable or needfull to be reteyned For he acknowledgeth the powre or authority it In seeking succour the Doct. doth nothing but contradict in one plaâ— what he â—aith in a nother self to be perpetually necessary as an essentiall or immutable ordinance of God lib. 4. pag. 102. 147. Neither will it releeve him to say as he doth pag. 146. that Pauls directions in his epistles to Tim. and Tit. were given though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were no Bishops should have the like authoritie For he flatly secludeth both the Presbyters and all other Christians or Ministers from all right and title eyther to the powre it selfe or the execution thereof lib. 3. pag. 71. 72. lib. 4. pag. 79. And sayth serm pag. 79. that it is much more necessary for the Churches of all ages succeeding the Apostles then for the first Churches in their life time to have such governors as Timothy Titus that is men furnished with episcopall authority in a preheminent degree above other Ministers 2. If he shall retire at laste to his first and safest evasion specially fitted to the question of ordination without a Bishop serm pa. 43. viz. that though such ordination be not regular or lawfull ordinarily as he sayth pag. 37. according to the rules of ordinatie church government yet in case of necessity that is in the want of a Bishop it is to be allowed as effectuall and as justifiable What is this but in effect to grant that there is the like perpetuity and necessity of the function of Bishops as there is of sundry other ordinances of God which all esteme to be divini juris For the coÌ„parison which himself maketh pag. 44. betwene baptisme administred by one that is no Minister and
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
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
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
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
of all Asia to be conteined in the circuite of those 7. Churches Notwithstanding if this be his meaning he playeth the Sophister in his induction For by citie countrie in his conclusion which is the assumpon of his principall syllogism he meaneth paroikian et â—horan which are the partes of a Diocese and his meaning must be the same in the two last Churches Philadelphia and Thyatira Wherefore well hunge together his argument hangeth togither in this fashion Of the 7. Churches 5. conteyned Mother cities the Provinces subject to them the other two conteyned Diocesan cities the countries to them belonging Ergo every of those Churches were of a like circuite and constitution in conteyning a Diocesan country togither with the citie But if that be true which he saith of Philadelphia and Thyatira that the one was subject to Sardis th' other to Pergamus then were the Churches of Philadelphia Thyatira conteyned within the circuite of Sardis and Pergamus as partes of the Country Province subject to those cities And hence it will followe that these 7. Churches were not of one forme and constitution but of differing condition some being onely Diocesan the rest metropolitan or provinciall Churches So that like as his first speach generally delivered of all 7. that they were great and ample Cities is now limited to those 5. mother Cities pag. 45. so in his next defence he may doe well to restreine vnto the same 5. Metropolitaine Churches that which now he affirmeth of all 7. viz. that they comprized within their circuite all the Churches that were in Asia whether in the Cities or in the Countries therevnto belonginge But since the spirit of God giveth equall honor to every of those Churches no prerogative to any one above another his proofes had need to be very pregnant demonstrative that shall perswade the contrary And this may suffice to shew how little cause he hath to bragg as he doth p. 52. that he hath made good his assumption The D. braggeth without cause by necessary proofe for in both his proofes first joyntly and then severally his antecedent is false and his consequence sophisticall Let us now cast a look a little vpon his dealing with that frame of argument to which his Refuter reduced the proofe of his assumption Sect. 20. ad sect 9. pag. 56. And first because he denied both proposition and assumption he complaineth and very justly that his hap was so hard that scarce any one proposition or assumption in his reasoning might be acknowledged to be true But he comforteth himselfe in vaine as the issue hath already I doubt not wil hereafter shew when he sayth his refuters happ is so hard that he is not able to prove any one eyther proposition or assumption of his to be untrue To infringe the proposition it is answered that though it were graunted that our Sauiour wrote those epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that all the rest depended as children vpon the mother For put the â—ase the Emperour finding some abuse commonly reigning in Asia should have written to those principall and mother-cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent that all other cities and townes should be warned by his reproofe of them might a man coÌ„clude thereupon that all other cities and townes of Asia were subject to the government of those 7 The D. reply is that this put case is worthy to be put in a cap case and therefore that all his readers may see he deserveth to have the â—loak-bagge he putteth a new case in this manner But say I quoth he put the case the Emperour should so doe with that intent that what he writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those towns villages which were within the circuite of their jurisdiction would it not strongly prove that all those other townes villages were subject to theÌ„ As if he had sayd grant me but thus much that all the rest of the townes and villages in Asia Will thâ— D. never cease craving were within the circuit of the jurisdictioÌ„ of those 7. Churches or cities then I can strongly prove that they were subject to them He addeth some experiment from our selues when the King or his Councell would have any thing intimated to all his subjects in certaine countries their warrants are directed to the Leiftenants of ech countrie and from them the high to constables c. And when the Archbishop would have any thing imparted to every parish he directeth his letters to the Byshops the Byshops to the Archdeacons and they to their officers in every Deanry c. which sheweth a subordination of officers in greater and lesser circuite of jurisdiction even so saith he by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the Churches it may be gathered that the rest of the particular Churches were subject to them And it may well be that when our Saviour writing to every one of the Angels severally and concluding each epistle with this Epiphonema Let him that hath an eare heare what the spirit saith to the Churches would have it vnderstood that what he writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches which were vnder his charge To all which I answer 1. to make his similitude cleare and sutable in the later part to the former he should have sayd that Christ intending to admonish or reprove all the Churches in Asia directeth his letters to the provinciall or metropolitan Churches they to the diocesan the diocesaÌ„ to the particular congregations vnder them Or else that what he wrote to the Angels of the metropolitan Churches they imparted to the diocesan Bishops the Diocesan Bishops to parishe-Parishe-Presbyters But then he should have assumed that which he cannot prove neyther by Scripture nor tradition wherefore it is plaine that his similitude halteth downe right 2. The D. similitude halteth And since the 7. Churches are equally written to and the Angells of each Church are equally honoured with a several epistle directed to them we may very well perswade our selves that none of those Churches or Angels was subordinate or subject to the other And therefore it was never intended by our Saviour Christ or his Apostles that the ecclesiasticall state should follow the civill or that the Churches planted in Mother-Cities or Shire townes should conteine within the circuite of their jurisdiction the townes villages or Country subjected to the government of the City 3. I also â—dd that though he could prove that the Angels and Churches specially written unto by Christ did impart the letters unto other Churches and their Ministers yet would it not strongly but strangely conclude the rest of the Churches and their Ministers to be subordinate or subject to those 7. Churches their angels For come we for triall hereof unto our selves and our owne stories The Archbishop of CaÌ„terburie in the dayes
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
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-mother-Church the cheife Presbyter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to theÌ„ Neyther might he remove his seate from it to any other Church though within his own Diocese Concil Carthag 5. can 5. 3. If the D. shall here tell us as he doth lib. 2. p. 117. that the cathedrall Churches which were the Bishops seas Mother churches to the whole Diocese were never Parishes nor the meetings there parishionall but panigyricall it wil be but a frivolous exception in this place for there will still remayne a difference of that moment betwixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries our diocesans that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops of that kind that ours are For besides the forenoted disagrement that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling as they were by the D. owne confession the truth therevnto inforcing him lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158. to preach the word to administer the â—acraments in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick By this time therefore I hope the reader may see that although we should graunt the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses yet that will not warrant him to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops such as ours and consequently though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries he cannot necessarily inferre that they were diocesan Byshops like
Ministers and thus he layeth it downe Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselves Apostles and were not or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers had a corrective power over other Ministers The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the lâ—tter Apo. 2. 20. Therefore these Angels which before I proved to be Byshops had a corrective power over other Miniâ—ters The conclusion which the D. first aymed at serm pag. 49. when he laid downe the parts of this assumption as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48. was this that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct even those Presbyters which assisted them as parts of theire Presbyterie in the government of the Diocese Wherfore the Refuters answer pag. 101. knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephesâ—s for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles were not And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra for suffering the Teachers of the Nicholaitan hâ—riâ—y then Byshops â—ad majoritie of rule for correction over diocesan Presbyters And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops nor those persons with whom they dealt Diocesan Presbyters To this the D. replyeth The D. reply is â—rivolous false and slandâ—â—â—us that the answer is frivolous because he hath before proved the former his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shiâ—â— Wherevnto my rejoynder is that the first part of his reply is frivolous or rather false and the second a maâ—â—â—cious slaunder 1. For to say he hath proved and not to shewe where is meere trifling And if he have not eyther in his sermon or any part of his defence before-going any one â—yllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point which he faith he hath before proved what truth can there be in his saying 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters since the Doctor confesseth pag. 124. the word to be used in some Councels graunting the word may be used in a sense and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. 104. of his answere is it not a malliâ—ious slaunder to say he devised it aâ—d that for a shift espetially seing in the rest of his answere to this argument he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan But the Doct. saith pag. 124. that he neyther vsed the worde at all neyther if he had would he have used it in The D. understaÌ„deth not his owne testimony that sense scz for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government for in his vnderstanding the country Ministers are called Diocaesani Concâ—l Agath cap. 22. Tolet. 3. cap. 20. and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop were called Civitatenses But to our understanding it seemeth that the Praesbyters called Diocesani Concil Tolet. 3. cap. 20. being opposed to another sort there termed Locales were not country Ministers affixed to particular places but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyterâ—e which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese The words of the Councell are these Hâ— verò clerici tam locales quam Diocefani qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint querelas suas ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters as the Doctor would perswade but rather giveth both names to the same persons Id statuinus quod omnes jubent ut CivitateÌ„ses sive Diocesani Presbyteri vel Clerici salvo jure ecclesie rem ecclesiae sicut permiserunt episcopi teneant â—t vendere aut donare penitus non presumant But to leave this quarrell about words and to come to the matter seing it is cleare that the Do first intended by this argument to prove that Bishops had corrective power over those Presbyters which assisted them in they re Diocesan charge is not the Refuters answere very direct and pertinent to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning when he telleth him That the Teachers against whom those angels eyther did or shoulde have sâ—t themselves were not such Presbyters Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne to prove that they were such Presbyters nor removed the presumptions which the Refut alleadged for his denyall doth not the blame of a weak consequenceâ—ly still heavy upon his shoulders Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one and the defense of the other and then give upright sentence First touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined the Refuter asketh pag. 102. Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop should call themselves Apostles And addeth any mans reason will give him that these false Apostles were men who coÌ„ming froÌ„ some other place would have thrist theÌ„selves into the Church there to have taught with authoritie and by right of Apostleship And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira he saith that they also might be such intruders or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach having no calling thereto but however it no way appeareth that they were Ministers and members of the presbytâ—â—â—e assisting the Angel of that Church Now what saith the Doct Doth he make the contrarie appeare viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie No for he will not determine whether they were Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops Presbyterie or not and whether of the Diocese originally or come from other places Onely he saith it is playne they were Teachers that being in their Diocese the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. Wherein observe we 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere scz that it no way appeareth that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers it is more then he can prove his bare avouching that it is plaine doth not plainely coÌ„vince it yet will it nothing advantage him nor disadvantage his Refut to grant it 3. Moreover in saying that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. eyther it is frivolous if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then is common to every Pastor or Minister in his owne charge since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbidd such companions or else it is a begging of The D.
answer is frivolous or a begging of the question of the question if he speake of such a judiciall licencing or silencing as Byshops in these daies exercise over other Ministers in their diocese But he will both prove that these false Teachers were subject to the censure of the Angels or Byshops remove that which his Refuter objecteth to the contrary The later he attempteth in this manner If they were not Presbyters he should say parts of the Presbyterie of that Church because they called themselues Apostles belike they were better men Is it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Byshop bycause he imagineth these who were subject to their censure were better men Is this the Refuters imagination or is not rather the D. conclusioÌ„ grounded vpon his own The D. cannot uphold his cause but by vntruthes imagination Why then may I not returne him his own wordes p. 124 Is the D. coÌ„science no better then stil to father vpoÌ„ the Ref vntruthes for his own advantage bewrayeth he not thereby what a cause he mainteineth that cannot be vpheld but by forgeries The Refuter to make good his deniall of that which the D. presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning vz. that the false Apostles were Presbyters and parts of the Angels Presbyterie affirmed that it was against sense to imagine that any such would assume to themselves the name and preheminence of Apostles and that any mans reason would rather give him that they were persons that came froÌ„ some other place Add hervnto that if they had been of the Ephesian clergie and so knowne to the whole Church to have imbraced an ordinarie calling and settled charge amongst them how should they with any colour perswade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ Doubtlesse the very consideration of the knowne difference betwixt the extraordinary Ministery of the Apostles and the ordinary function of Presbyters might have been sufficient without any further search to discover their lying forgerie which being knowne to have place among the latter should usurpe the name authoritie of the former But the text sayth Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be lyars by the wise and diligent care of the angel who examined or tried them it is therefore more probable that they were rather of the nomber of those wandring Prophets which as greivous wolves from without entred in to devoure then of those perverse teachers which springing up among them did drawe disciples after them See Aretius Beza and Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 2. And touching the false Prophetesse â—e zabell seing she is expresly said to be a woman though good Interpreters doe gather from hence that woemen were suffred to teach publikly in that Church see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20. yet were it too grosse to imagine that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers or to the charge of Presbyters And though it should be graunted that they were men not woemen which are deciphered by the name of that woman Iezabell yet the very name argueth theire greatnes theire prevayling by their subtile perswasions no lesse then Iezabel did by her coÌ„manding power to drawe many vn to their wicked wayes And the title of a Prophetesse importeth yâ— they boasted of an iÌ„mediate calling of extraordinary revelatioÌ„s Neyther doth the Doctor contradict this onely he saith If they The D. trifleth were not presbyters belike they were better men A frivolous speach and an unlikely consequence For what likelihood is there that they were better men seing some of them were found to be lyars in saying they were Apostles Or how doth the deniall of this that they were parts of the standing Presbyterie argue that they were no Presbyters at all But say they were of an higher calling to wit Evangelists or fellowe-helpers sometimes to the Apostles yet now Apostates from the faith as was Demas and some other what will this advantage the D. cause For sooth because himselfe imagineth that these who were better men were subject to the Bishops censure therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to his censure To come then at lengthe to that which he first proposed the reason I meane which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles Iezabel the false Prophetesse were subject to the Angels of the Churches wherein they usurped authoritie to teach he sayth If they were not subiect to them why is the one commended for exercising authoritie over them and the other reproved for suffring them For answere it shall suffice to ask why he assumeth for an apparant truth Yet the â—â—beggeth that which is rather apparantly false viz. that the Angell of Ephesus is commended for exercising authoritie over the false Apostles And why he pre supposeth in the coÌ„sequence of his reasoning that which he cannot justifie to wit that the false prophetesse of Thyatira was subject to the Angels censure because he is reproved for suffring her And thus wear lead as it were by the haÌ„d to see the falshood of the proposition of the arg before by himself coÌ„trived For a corrective power over Ministers cannot be firmely concluded eyther from the coÌ„mendation of the one that examined them which falsly called themselves Apostles or from the reproofe of the other that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people For put the case the D. were an Archdeaâ—on or which would please him better a Diocesan Lord that in the some parishes vnder his government corrupt teachers should â—ind free accesse to the pulpit but in other places by the carefull enquirie of the Ministers and Church-wardens finding what they are they should be restreyned me thinks in this case he should highely coÌ„mend the honest care of the one and sharply reprove the carlesse negligence of the other yet if a man should froÌ„ his coÌ„mendation or reproofe inferre that the persons so commended or reproved had the power of correcting and silencing Ministers I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicitie of such a disputer then vouchsafe him a direct answer See the loosenes of the D. reasoning But to leave suppositions and to let him see the loosenes of his reasoning by a more direct answer it is cleare that the Spirit of God doth no lesse commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Pauls doctrine Act. 17. 11. then he doth the Angel of Ephesus for examining them that falsely assumed the name of Apostles Wil the D. therefore acknowledge that they had a corrective power over that holy Apostle And who knoweth not that it is required of every private Christian to have their senses exercised in the word to discerne betweene good evill Heb. 5. 14. to trie the spirits of their teachers whether they be of God or not 1. Ioh. 4. 1. to bewarre of false Prophets and seducers Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4. to trie all
things and to hold fast that onely which is good 1 Thes 5. 21. yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them 1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13. to marke such as teach contrarie to the doctrine that they have received and to avoide them Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the generall bande of love binde everie one freely to rebuke his neyghbour not to suffer sinne upon him Leviâ— 19. 17. and doth not the Apostles sharpely taxe the Corinthians for suffering the false Apostles to domineare over them 2. Cor. 11. 20. Wherefore if it be a cursed confusion subversion of ecclesiastical power to subject every teacher to the jurisdiction or corrective power of everie private hearer and to coÌ„mit the managing of the keies or Church Censures to everie meane Artisan then the D. may see how grosse an error it is to think that the dutie of examining or trying and not suffering false teachers doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiasticall censurâ—â— vpon them And the indifferent reader may perceive that while the D. laboureth to vphold the preheminent suprioritie of Byshops he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Ministeriall authoritie and to bring in a mere Anarchy Perhaps the D. wil reply that besides this trial or judgement of Sect. 4. discerning which is coÌ„mon to all Christians needfull for their preservation from seducers there is another and an higher kind proper to the guides of the Church and necessarie for the preserving of the whole â—lock from haereticall infection This wee acknowledge to be true but withall we say it is none other then a judgement of direction as Doctor Feild calleth it in his treatise of the Church lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222. which endeavoureth to make others discerne what themselves haue found out to be the truth And this is coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word Elders of the Church as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth coÌ„mon to all the Elders of Ephesus viz. to attend on the feeding of the flocke and to watch against the danger both of wolves entring in and of false teachers springing up amonge them Act. 20. 28 -31 For how should such danger be prevented by theire watchfulnes if it were not theire dutie to trye out the leawde behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits and not to suffer them to spreade the contagion and poyson thereof in the Church committed to their oversight This is yet more manifest by sundry canons prescribed elswhere by the same Apostle as when he requireth of every Presbyter an abilitie to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine Tâ—t 1. 5. 9. and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add herevnto the practise of the Aposties admitting the Presbyters of the Church of Ierusalem to consultation for the trying determining of that question touching circumcision c. which had troubled the mindes of many beleevers at Antioche Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparant therefore that in the triall and examination both of teachers and their doctrine the scripture knoweth no difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters so that if Bishops will challendge to themselves a jurisdiction and power of correction over Presbyters because it belongeth vnto them to trie or examine not to suffer false teaching Presbyters then for the same reason it being the dutie of every Pres byter to trie the doctrine of Bishops not to suffer them to spread any errour without resistance Bishops also must subject theÌ„selves to the corrective power of every Presbyter But he will alleadge as some others have done that there is a third kind of triall and judgement proper to them that have cheif authoritie in the Church to wit a judiciall examination of persons suspected in open coÌ„sistory with power to censure such as are found faulty which as it is now exercised of our Bishops so it was then practised by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus Indeed if this were true he might with some colour inferre that the angels function was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops but who seeth not that this plea is none other then a mere begging of the question For they that deny these angels to Still the D. beggeth be Bps. such as ours doe not acknowledge any such prehemineÌ„ce in one Minister above another for the trying and censuring of offenders Moreover by this reply the cause is as litle relieved as if a shipmaster to stop one leake in the one side of his shipp should make two or three on the other side more dangerous then the former For to cover the falshood of the proposition a double errour or untruth is discovered in the AssumptioÌ„ viz. 1. that by the triall which the Angel of the Ephesian Church tooke of the false The D. to stopp one leake maketh two Apostles is meant a judicial coÌ„venting of theÌ„ in open Consistorie and proceeding vnto censure against them being found lyars 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative of that one which is here intituled the angel of that Church The falshood of the former doth appeare in part by some things already spoken it being before shewed that the triall and examination Sect. 5. both of teachers and of theire doctrine appropriated vnto Ministers in the apostolicall writings is none other then that judgement of direction whereby themselves and their people are informed guided in this cariage towards those teachers I add 1. that the Doctor cannot paralell the words or phrases here used ou dune bastasai kâ—kâ—us ' kai epeiraso c. Apo. 2. 2. hoti eas ten c. ver 20. with any other text of holy scripture where the same words do imply such a judiciall triall as he supposeth to be infolded under them 2. And since the persons which are sayd to be tryed not indured professed to be Apostles and therefore such as challendged an authoritie and calling superiour to that Angel what likelihoode is there that they would yeelde themselves subject to his judiciall examination and censure 3. Againe the text saith onely that they were tried and found lyars now if they were in open Consistorie judicially tried why were they not upon the discovery of their false dealing enjoyned to give open testimonie of their repentance And if they refused so to doe why did they not beare the sentence of suspension and excommunication or degradation Or if any such proceeding was held against them why is it not recorded in the text seeing it woulde have made much more for the angels commendation then that which is expresly mentioned 4. Nay that is recorded which soundeth rather to the confirmation of the contrary for that bearing which is commended in the same angel vers 3. is by good Interpreters and amongst other by Mr Perkins construed of his groaning under the burthen of those false Teachers
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
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
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-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-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
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
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
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-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
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
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
the ancient â—â—nons of the Apostles Can. 39. or rather 40. in the 2. epistle of Ignatius ad Trallian the text is appropriated vnto Bishops like as also is the name Prepositi in the Latin Fathers First to answer him in his own terms in stead of appropriated he would or at least should have sayd communicated unto Bishops for I know no maÌ„ so foolish as to appropriate eyther that text Heb. 13. 17 or the name Prepositis to such Bishops as ours Ierome was so farre from appropriating this text to Bishops that he doth rather appropriate it to Presbyters which at the first governed the Church as he saith on Tit. cap. 1. communi consilio Aequaliter inter plures ecclesie curam dividit Heb. 13. 17. Parete inquiens principibus egoumenois vestris c. Augustin a principall latin Father often vnderstandeth vnder the name Praepositi all the Ministers of the word Tract 46. in Iohan Habet ovile domini praepositos et filios mercenarios Praepositi qui fili sunt pastores sunt Et sunt quidem ecclesiae praepositi de quibus Paulus dicit Sua quaerentes c. And de civitate deilib 1. cap. 9. Ad hoc Speculatores hoâ—est populorum praepositi c. And epistola 166. ad finem Quod usqâ—adeo celestis Magister cavendum premonuit ut etiam de praepositis malis plebem securaÌ„ faceret ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris cathedra desereretur c. neque enim sua sunt quae dicunt sed Dei c. 2. But if the canons fasly called the Apostles haue rightly appropriated the text unto Bishops it will follow that both by the scripture and by their judgment that first framed afterwards approved them the Pastors care of soules and consequently the dispensation of the Word and Sacramentes is proper to the function of Bishops And if it be so it will then also followe and that inevitablie that those presbyters whose office is divers from the function of Bishops in their judgment aswel as of the author of that Epistle to the Hebrewes were no teaching Elders or Ministers of the word Which to affirme directly contradicteth the Doctors assertion peremptorily mainteyned by him lib. 1. cap. 3. viz. that there were no other Presbyters in the prim Church but Ministers and that the word Presbyter noting an ecclesiasticall person doth evermore in the scriptures councels and faibers signify a Minister 3. If to avoyde this disadvantage the D. shall choose rather to Sect. 4. ad sect 12. of the Doct. pag. 65. graunt that the text is to be vndetstood of Ministers in generall as he once understood it serm of the dignity of the Ministers theÌ„ can his diocelaÌ„ Bishops find no sure footing in this text as is already shewed All his hope and help therefore must lye in the last title which he supposeth is given to Bishops to wit th' Apostles of the Churches And to make this good he telleth us that he rendred a reason why they are so called viz. because they succeaded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches and that there of he gave an instance Philip. 2. 25 where Epapbroditus who was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi is therefore called their Apastle He should rather have produced some reason to demonstrate to ei esti that Bishops such as ours are so called then to shewe to diati why they are so entitled espetially seing he taketh notice of his Refuters quelition viz. by what authoritie that title is appropriated vnto Bishops Not with standing if his meaning be as it seemeth it is by the instance which he mentioneth to fortify the reason which he rendreth I wil desire no other demonstration then a cleare proofe of those premisses which must inferr this conclusion viz. that Bishops such as ours are in the Apostles writings called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches The which to conclude from the former instance given by him he must thus argue Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle Phil. 2. 25. because be succeeded the Apostles in the government of that particular Church But Epaphraditus was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi in function like to one of our Bishops Ergo Bishops such as ours were called in the Apostles writings the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches Both the parts of this argument are contradicted by the Refut and yet the Doct. harh nothing that can give sufficient confirmation to the one or other Some testimonies he hath that may serve to uphold as farr as their strength wil stretch the one half of each proposition viz. that Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of Philippians and that he was their Bishop or pastor but he hath no shadowe of any testimony or reason to cover the nakednes eyther of the first which saith he was so called because he succeeded the Apostles in the government of that Church or of the secoÌ„d which affirmeth him to be a Bishop in function like to one of ours All his labour teÌ„deth to make good against his Refut answer an other point something differing from the former viz. that he was therfore called the Apostle of the Philippians because he was their Bishop or Pastor Which might be granted and his purpose there-by at all nothing furthered For it is a weak consequence and sophirticall thus to argue The office of a Bishop or Pastor is noted in Epaphroditus when he is called the Philippians Apostle Ergo Diocesan Bishops such as ours are in the scriptures called the Apostles of the Churches But let us see by what authoritie he is swayed to imbrace that coÌ„structioÌ„ which he giveth to the words of the Apostle Phil. 2. 25. humoon apostolon first in translating theÌ„ their Apostle and then in saying he was therefore called their Apostle because he was their Bishop or Pastor First touching the translation however the word Apostolos be Sect. 5. usually in the newe testament appropriated unto such as we call Apostles men immediately called of Christ to an universall vnlimitted Ministerie yet is it well knowne both that Epaphroditus was none of them and that the word in his most naturall signification is of as large use as our English word Messenger And in this large fense it is used by Christ Iohn 13 16. oude Apostolos c. Neyther is the messenger greater then he that sent him Wherefore as the name of a Deacon though derived from the Greek word diaconos cannot sitly be given to all those that are in the scripture called diakonoi for I suppose the Doctor would not allowe the word to be so translated in these and such like places Mat. 20. 26. and 23 11. He that wil be or is greatest among you let him be humoon diakonos your Deacon Rom. 13. 4. for he is theou diaconos Gods DeacoÌ„ for thy good Col. 1. 25. The
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
dying day What hindreth save onely a prejudiciall conceit of his supposed Bishoprick there but he might think that like as Paul and Peter did so also Iames might spend many yeares in other places and yet have recourse thither as they also had so long as the Iewish policie remayned in force Was he not ordeyned of Christ to the office of an Apostle aswell as the rest with an ample commission and charge to goe forth into all the worlde beginning at Ierusalem so proceeding throughout all Iudea and Samaria and vnto the vtmost partes of the earth c Mark 16. 15. Math. 28. 19. Luke 24. 47. Acts. 1. 8. and doth not Mark testify of all without exception vers 20. that as Christ had commaunded them so they went forth and preached every where I but the Doctor will here perhaps urge that which he hath alleadged sect 4. p. 51. 52. though our Saviour bad his Apostles to goe into all the World yet his meaning was not that every one should traverse the whole world for great inconvenience disorder and confusion would have sollowed thereof Therefore the Apostles by the direction of the Holy Ghost before their dispersion from Ierusalem divided the worlde among themselves in such sort that one beinge assigned to one part and another to an other every man walked within his owne compasse and did not usually build vpon the foundation of an other c. 2. Cor. 10. 13 -16 Now as they were carefull to provide for other partes of the world so would they not all forsake Iewrie and Ierusalem but assigne one of their company to take charge thereof who though he were an Apostle yet being assigned to the peculiar church of one nation might not vnfitly be called as he was in deed the Bishop therof And hence is it that although the Apostles were commaunded to goe into all the worlde yet Iames stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death Loe here the Doctors wordes but doe ye not see that his conclusion weakneth the credit of S. Markes testimony in like sort as he doth elswhere pag. 116. one speach of Ieromes viz. that vntill factions arose in the Church which occasioned the bringing in of Bishops the Churches were governed by the cōmon councell of presbyters This saith he is vnture in respect of the Church of Ierusalem which had Iames for her Bishop before any Presbyters were there ordeyned So albeit S. Mark saith that the Apostles went forth as Christ commaunded them and preached every where yet the Doctor saith in effecte It is vntrue in respect of Iames for though he lived 30. yeares after Christ yet he went not forth to preach abroade but stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death But whether Ierome doe contradict himselfe or not for how trulie the Doctor so supposeth we are not now to examine his testimony is too weak to exempt Iames from partaking with the rest in that which Mark affirmeth of all without exception And it is no small wrong both to Iames to his fellow-Apostles to make them all guilty of transgressing Christs command the one in neglecting the other in procuring the neglect of the Apostolike functiō in the principall work thereof to wit in traveyling to make disciples and to constitute Churches among such as had not yet received the faith Sect. 11. True it is that every one was not to traverse the whole world this was not imposed on every one of the Apostles severally but on all joyntly and they were by the spirit of God directed where to imploy their labours Notwithstanding it is no true vision but a deceiptful dreame of the Doctors owne hart to īmagin that the Apostles before their dispersion frō Ierusalem by the holy Ghosts direction divided the world among themselves as it were into 12. provinces or rather Patriarch-shipps in such sort that none entred into the line or circuit of an other For had this been so then Peter was too blame to stay at Ierusalem with Iames when the rest were gone into other parts Gal. 1. 18. 19. and to make so many yeares residence as he did in Iudea Acts. 19. 32-43 10. 23-48 and 11. 2. and 12. 3. 2. And by what right could Paul attempt the planting of the Gospel in so many countries so far distāt one frō an other as he did Act. 26. 18. 11. 25. 26. 13. 2. with 14. 26. chapters following if all the world had ben divided vnto the 12. before their departure from Ierusalem 3. Or why should Paul Barnabas be joyned in one cōmission as joynt traveilers in the same line Act. 13. 2. if all the rest had a severall circuit allotted to each a part 4. Againe doth not that agreement Gal. 2. 9. when a distribution not of Countries but of people Iewes and Gentiles was made betwene Paul and Barnabas and those 3. pillars Iames Peter and Iohn argue very probablie that there was no such distribution of the vniversall world into severall partes as the Doctor imagineth formerly ratified by the holy Ghost 5. Lastly it is apparant that Paul for the coast into which he traveiled had not his whole compasse allotted him at once but was guided by speciall direction from one place to an other Act. 13. 2. 4. 16. 6 -10 18. 9. 11. 19. 21. And as in his own affection he alwayes strived to preach the gospell where Christ was not named least he should build upon an other mans foundation Rom. 15. 19 20. so he had from time to time the measure of his line distributed unto him of God 2. Corinth 10. 13. Wherefore as I freely acknowledge that every one walked within the compasse of his owne measure allotted to him by God so I flatly deny that there was any such generall division of the world made at once And concerning Iames though for the reasons before named I perswade my selfe he spent not all his dayes in Ierusalem yet I graunt he had as good warrant for the stay which he made there and the recourse he had thither as any the rest of the Apostles had for their traveile into more remote parts of the world to wit the direction of the holy Ghost and not an assignment from his fellow-Apostles onely But as the direction or assignement which Paul had to publish the gospell in Macedonia or at Corinthe Act. 16. 10. 18 9. made him not the Bishop of those people or countries neyther did Peters portion of the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus Galatia Capadocia c. 1. Pet. 1. 1. argue him to be their Bishop so in like manner though I should graunt that Iames his circuite was for the most part or altogither if the D. will inclosed within the countries of Iudea Galilee and Samaria yet this limitation doth not prove him to be the provinciall or natonall Bishop of those Churches The D. therefore buildeth upon that weak and sandy foundation of his own or other mens fancie in affirming that he might
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
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
Doct. will not doe him that favour to oppose himself therein to D. Sutliffe specially seing he hath already yeelded thus farre pag. 58. that if any be not perswaded of this point he will be content to suppose that Iames was not a Bishop of Ierusalem Notwithstanding as if the whole cause in a manner wholly relied Sect. 7. ad sect 8. pag 58. 59. upon this instance of Iames he indeavoreth by it to confute the learâ—eder sort of disciplinarians who holde that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree nor yet for termes of life and therefore if we may believe him deny that Iames was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at Ierusalem or President of the presâ—yterie otherwise then in his course not for any contynuance Of these conceites he maketh Mr. Beza the Author and because the Refuter â—ould him that he wronged Beza seing there is not a sillable nor a letter at all of him in the place he quoteth he saith all this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margent c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23 which if it be not againe miscarried by his printer seemeth to be foysted in I know not how For in the same Chap. and pag. Impress Anno. 1592. by Ioh. le Preux there are no such words as he alleadgeth But say that Beza in some later edition which I have not yet mett with hath such a saying viz. that though Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour eyther to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers what hindreth but that the Refuters answer might stand to wit that by his Bishopprick or presidencie he was not superiour to any degree but in order onely for when he compareth togither the differing functions of Apostles Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise an imparitie and difference betwene them not in order onely but also in degree and power In istis functionibus ex Apost Eph. 4. 11. â—â—tearepetitis inter se computatis non simplicem tantum ordinem sed etiam gradum agnosco cap. 1. pag. 5. To which purpose also he speaketh cap. 3. pag. 20. cap. 9. pag. 53. But to let the Doctor see how much he wrongeth him these wordes are fittest pag. 9. Apostolatus functionâ— fuisse illos 12. propria non tantum ordinis sed etiam potestatis eminnetia pralatos absit ut inficiemur ut mer am calumniam esse omnes intelligant quum nobis hoc mendacium tribuunt In which he calleth it no better then a calumniation to charge him as the Doctor doth And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza that Bishops were in degree superiour to other Ministers why putteth he not his hand to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza to shew the contrary Quantâ— majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare sive fundamentum illarum ponere quam superstruere et structas regere tanto magis istum gradum vtgere inter ipsos Apostolos oportuit 2. Et si tum esset ut nonnulli contendunt velut ipsa natura precipiente in omni sacro caetâ— gradus iste ad servandum inter collegas consensum necessarius saltem quam diu simul Hierosolymis congregatâ— fuerunt Apostoli nempe saltem ad illam dispersionem quae Stephani mortem est consecuta Act. 8. 1. vâ—um quempiam jam tum supra suos co apostolos extitisse oportuisset Wherevnto I will add the assumption and so inferre the conclusion But among the Apostles there was no superioritie in degree 2. neyther was it necessarie for the preserving of vnitie and consent among them that one should hold such a superiority above his fellow-Apostles whiles they remained at Ierusalem before the scattering that followed the death of Steven Wherefore it is not likely that among the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches there was any one superior in degree to the rest 2. neither can it be necessarie as some suppose even by the light of nature that in every sacred societie for the preservation of consent among colleagues one should have such a superiority in degree among the rest But to leave Mr. Beza let us see how the Doctor can make good Section 8. his purpose from this instance of Iames vz. that Bishops were superiour in degree to other Ministers and had a singular preheminence over them for term of life Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appeare for he is much deceived if he think to gaine his cause by such a sophism as this Iames was superiour to the presbyters of Ierusalem in degree and held a superiority over them during life But Iames was a Bishop Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles tymes superiour vnto presbyters in degree and that for terme of life For though we should graunt the assumption which is before disproved the argument is no better then if a man should argue in this manner Iames Mountague to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon is superior in degree of Ministerie to al the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells But Iames Mountague is the Deane of the K. Maiesties Chappel Ergo the Deanes of the K. Maiesties chappell are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministery I doubt not but the Doctor can well discerne in this latter a double deceipt because it inferreth a generall conclusion from premisses that are but particular assigneth a false cause of that superioritie above other presbyters And if he winketh not hard he may well see the same defaults are to be found in his reasoning For besides the generality of his coÌ„clusion there is an evident mistaking of the cause both of that superioritie in degree which Iames had above the Presbyters of Ierusalem and of his continuance in and about Ierusalem to his dying day To begin with the former whereas he should shewe that his Bishoprick gave him a superioritie in degree above the Presbyters of that Church it is apparant he hath no other Medius terminus to prove it then this that he was an Apostle and his honour degree by his Bishoprick not impaired so that in effect he reasoneth thus Iames being an Apostle and a Bishop was superiour in degree to the Presbyters of Ierusalem Ergo all other Bishops not being Aposteles as he was have the same superioritie above other Presbyters The Doct. proofe therefore which he presupposeth to be plaine and pregnant for his purpose is a plain inconsequence which with all his skill he can never justify Neyther can he easily mainteyne that which he assumeth for a truth viz. that Iames his honor degree by his Bishoprick was not impayred for as is already shewed cap. 6. sect 1. the authority of Clemens is
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
that which he seemeth to applaud in Zanchy on Ephes 4. 11. pag. 95 viz. that the former sort of Evangelists and the Prophets also did governe the Churches nowe one then an other For how should Churches be governed by them if they had not the like power and authoritie for government that Timothy and Titus had From the Doctors reasoning in defense of his owne assertion Sect. 7. ad pag. 96. let us passe to the answer yeelded by him to his Refut who argued in this manner Timothy and Titus were to exercise their Evangelisticall function in those places For Paul biddeth Timothy after he had bin at Ephesus to do the worke of an Evangelist Ergo they receyved no new authority at their placing there which they had not before neyther laid they aside but reteyned still their Evangelisticall function The Doctor denyeth the Antecedent and contradicteth the proofe thereof Whereas Paul willeth Timothy to doe the work of an Evangelist what is thee saith he but evaggelizesthai to preach the Gospell diligently c. the word Evangelist being there taken in the generall sense Here we are put to prove that the name of an Evangelist is here taken not in a generall sense but in a more speciall for the function of an Evangelist which may appeare by these circumstances 1. First the very phrase it selfe to doe the work of an Evangelist cannot in reason be cōstrued otherwise then q. d. to doe the work which an Evangelist is bound vnto by his particular function like as in the like phrase the work of an Apostle the signes of an Apostle the commandement of the Apostles and the foundation of the Apostles 1. Cor. 1. 9. 2. Cor. 12. 12. 2. Pet. 3. 2. Ephes 2. 20. the name of an Apostle is specially taken for the office of Apostleship 2. It is the Apostles purpose see Mr. Calvin upon the place by the honorable mencion of his office to provoke him to use the greater diligence therein thereby to gaine the greater reverence among those that should behold his zeale and faithfulnes in his calling But the speciall function of an Evangelist serveth better then the generall name of a preacher of the Gospel both to animate him vnto watchfulnes and to procure him authority amongst those with whom he conversed 3. Moreover since it is knowne and confessed that he was once an Evangelist if either he had ceased so to be or if he had borne at this time a more honorable office as the Doctor supposeth in all likelihood the Apostle would have givē him some other title least others should be led into an error by this name 4. Lastly if we looke to the use of the word evaggelistes in other places we shal find it no where carried in the Apostolicall writings to a generall signification as the Doctor fancieth but rather is appropriated to that extraordinary function of Evangelists which then was knowne by that name as Act. 21. 8. Eph. 4. 11. Wherefore since it is a firme vndoubted axiome in divinity that we are to receive that interpretation of any word or phrase which best accordeth with the scope of the place it selfe and the use of the like in other places I will hold it for a truth not to be gainsayd that the word Evangelist ought here to be takē not in the generall sense but for the speciall function of an Evangelist knowne by that name We now come to Zuinglius his testimonie alleadged by the D. Sect. 8. ad pag. 97. to prove that their being Evangelists did not hinder them frō being Bishops His case is very desperate it seemeth since he is drivē to crave releefe of one so well knowne to be a professed enemie to to the Lordly jurisdiction of Diocesan and Provincial Prelates But what Zuinglius forsooth that Philip the Evangelist who had bene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea and Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and divers of the Apostles when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certayne Churches Which saith the D may be much more verified of the Evangelists In deed if this last glose had bene Zuinglius his words his evidence had bene farre sitter for his purpose then it is and yet would it haue done him no service till he had proved that Timothy and Titus had given over their Evangelisticall traveiles which he will never be able to effect while he breatheth But now all that Zuinglius speaketh for him is such as if he rightly conceive his meaning he will be very loth I suppose to subscribe unto For he is so farre from affirming as the Doctor intimateth to his reader that Philip after his Deaconship was first an Evangelist and after that became the Bishop of Caesarea that he rather citeth those words of Luke Act. 21. 8. where he is called an Evangelist to prove him to be a Bishop for these are his wordes De ecclesiastica sive ratione et officio cōcionandi fol. 48. Quo in loco illud nobis primo notandum est Philippum hunc Caesariensis ecclesiae Evangelistam episcopum vel pastorem fuisse c. In which place that is first of us to be noted that this Philip the Evangelist of the Church of Samaria was Bishop or Pastor c. whereby it appeareth as also by the words afeerwards remembred by the Doctor constat iuxta Pauli sententiam idem esse episcopi et Evangelistae officium and by many other speaches in that treatise that he confoundeth the names of Evangelistes Prophets Pastors in one office But let us see how the D. removeth the Refuters answere First he saith that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of histories other ancient writers who take not the name of Bishop properly when they give it to Iames or any other Apostle as Doct. Whitak hath rightly observed The Doct. reasoneth from that which is no cause c. deceitfully de pontif rom pag. 303 the Doctor replyeth 〈◊〉 that if Zuinglius spake according to the phrase of histories c. then and therefore he spake according to the truth from whence I inferre that if Zuinglius have spoken the truth in this matter then the Doctor is in an errour and reasoneth deceitfully a non causa pro causa For whereas he would perswade that Iames was properly a Bishop because the Fathers so intititle him Zuinglius saith expresly of Iames Hunc Hieron et omnes simul vetusti patres Hierosol episcopum nominant non aliam ab causam quam quod in ea urbe sedem fixam posuisset Ierom and with him all the ancient farhers call him Bishop of Ierusalem for no other cause but for that he had made his fixed aboad in that citie 2. The Doctor asketh Although it be true that the Apostles could not properly be called Bishops what is that to Timothy and Titus whom he hath proved to have bene particularly assigned to the Ch of Ephesus Creet where
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
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
was upon the scope of the Doctors sermon so is the D. eye vpon the scope of the Ref. preface the former I suppose looking right forwards the later quite awrie For what can an eye not evilly affected see in that preface that should charge the Refuter in the scope therof like an Orator in his proeme to drawe and withdraw his reader as he sayth from the D. to the Ref. if he would be ledd by shews when without any oratoricall shewes at all he plainly declareth the reason that moved him to answer the sermon 2. Where the refuters whole preface is but as a prologue the D. divideth it into a prologue and an epilogue as if one should divide a Lions head into the head of a Lion and the taile of a Lion But if it were not all a prologue yet to divide an entire speach into a prologue an epilogue without any protasis or epitasis coÌ„ming betweene is as if one should divide a mans body into head and feete As for his nice division and subdivision folowing I mind not to trouble the reader with them 3. Where the refuter professeth that he deemed the D. sermon as needful to be answered as any book written of that subject The D. first premiseth a scoffe which I here passe by then by way of analysing maketh his refuter to tell his reader how there weee two motives that moved him to vndertake it Strong opinion and vnquiet desire which is in deed to torture and not to analize words His strong opinion was that he deemed it as needful to be answered as any book c. which as the D. telleth us though the refuter confirmeth with divers reasons yet they are such as he that shal compare them either with the truth or his opinion or one of them with another he shall see a pleasant representatioÌ„ of the Matachinâ— every one fighting with another he shall see that is to say if he hath the D. spectacles on But first his logick faileth him for a man that looketh with his right eye may easily discerne that the ref brought but one onely reason for that his opinion the other reason or reasons as it pleaseth the D. to number them for it seemeth he had on those spectacles that maketh a man to see gemmae obiecta geminos soles doe but prove the consequent of that reason 2. as for the Matachine fight I perswade my self it will upon due examinatioÌ„ of particulars prove onely but some spectrum arising out of that strong imagination which many times maketh any thing seeme to be what the fantastick desireth it should be The Refuwordes in which the Doctor seeth these marveils are to this effect That when he saw how his sermon tended directly to prove that the calling of our Lord Bishops as they now exercise it in the Church of England is not onely lawful and good but to be holden jure divino not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure but by divine right as the very immediate ordinance of Christ he demed it as needful to be answered as any book of that subject c. For that notwithstanding the D. commendation of it it is evident the doctrine thereof is utterly false very huriful and obnoxious and therfore necessary to be confuted Would not any man think him driven to goe nere the wind that rayseth up such tragedies and logicall clatterings upon these words or cannot he trow we see farr into a milstone that can see a matachine fight in them Well let us see how the D. proveth it ¶ The Refuters first reason sayth he is because he sawe the Sect. 2 0. 2. of the D. 3. of the ref sermon tended directly to prove that the calling of our Lord Bishops as they now exercise it c. The first reason Nay it is the onely reason why he deemed the book so needfull to be answered what saith the D. to it In which sayth he there were divers untruthes But whosoever with an indifferent eare shall enterteyne the answer following may I doubt not easily discerne that this saying of the D. is an â—njust slaunder that he himself hath delivered diverse untruthes The D. first â—andereth his Ref then delivereth divers untruths to colour it to colour it Let the reader now heare what the one and the other hath to say and give upright sentence First sayth he with what eye did he see that directly proclaymed in the sermon which directly and expresslly I did disclaime pag. 92. where I prosissed that although I held the calling of the Bishops c. to be an apostolicat and so a divine ordinance yet that I doe not mainteyn it to be divine jurâ—â— as intehding therby that it is generally perpetually immutably necessary as though there could not be a true Church without it which himself also acknowledgeth pag. 92. of his book With what eye did he see it even with the same eye that was upon the truth Let the Doctor deale plainly and answere to the point directly Is it an untruth in the ref to say that his 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 by Godâ— lawe Why then dooth he not directly contradict this assertioÌ„ and say that his sermon tendeth ro prove that their calling is to be holden jure humano by humane right and not as a divine ordinance Or if they hold their calling by another right which is neither humanum nor divinum jus why is he ashamed plainly to professe what it is hath he preached a whole sermon in defence of their honourable function published foure books in defence of his sermon and yet dareth not directly proclaime quo jure they hold their superiority But let us touch a litle some points of his sermon and of his defence therof Was not the callings of these 7. angels of which the text speaketh of divine right and doth he not affirme pag 2 and profess plainly to prove that the reverent fathers of our Church for the substance of their calling were such 2. Are not the true proper Pastors of the Church the lights and starres of the Church of divine right and doth he not pag. 3. 93 affirme our Diocesan Bishops to be such their calling therfore that honourable function of theirs must eyther be of divine right or the Churches of God themselves are not of divine right 3. Doth he not in divers places of his seÌ„rmon call it an apostolicall ordinance affirme it to be from heaven from God alledging divers scriptures for the proof therof 4. Yea is not the doctrine which he rayseth from his text in the explicatioÌ„ and applicatioÌ„ wherof his whole sermon is spent set dovvn by himself pag 94 in these very words sc that the episcopall function is of apostolical divine institutioÌ„ And doth he not def lib. 1. cap. 3. pa.
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
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
Pastors Teachers the Deacons into treasurers for the poore and those which are Presbyters or Elders viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline Nicholaus Laurentius a late Superintendent in Denmark in his treatise of excommunication published Anno 1610. hath these asserrions That the right of excommunication is not in the power of any one man eyther Bishop or Pastor but in the power of the Pastors that company which Paul calleth the Presbyterie p. 62. That excoÌ„municatioÌ„ is eyther of the whole Church meaning the people or of certayn grave meÌ„ which are in stead of the whole Church so that the Pastor doe publikely in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence p. 64 That where there is no such Senate or Presbyterie except the Magistrate shall otherwise decree and provide the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish and the Superintendent and two of the Pastors in that Province wherein he dwelleth and bring the matter before them all c. ibid Many moe might be brought for this purpose if it were fitting for this place but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion and to shewe the Doct. weaknes in so overreaching as to charge that unjustly vpon his refuter which he himself is justly guilty of Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of foure other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor Sect. 1. pag. 4. of the ref and pag of the D. 4. 5. In the D. next section he chargeth his refuter to add to his former overreaching foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land because he said his doctrine was against 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs 2. contrarie to the profissed judgement of all our worthy wryters 3. contrariant to the lawes of our land 4. contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England A foul fault if true and no great credit for the D if not his refut in his sayings but himself in so saying hath vttered 4. notorious vntruthes let us therefore examine them and in this chapter the first of them The refuters words out of which the D. would extract the first of them are these that the Do. sermon is against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whome were worthy Martyrs who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Popes authority out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparity of Ministers and Lordly primacie of Bishops was but a politick devise of the fathers not any ordinance of Christ and that the government by the Minister and Seniors or Elders in every parish was the ancient discipline These be his words for his proofe he referreth us to three bookes the booke of Martyrs the booke called the Bishops booke and the booke called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious vntruth The witnesses saith he which the Ref. queteth were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops allowing the episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost incredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alledged against the same Incâ—edible in deed if they had been cast into the mould in which our nowe Bishops have been formed otherwise it is credible enongh that they may as I stil affirme that they doe testifye something against such a calling of Bishops as the D. mainteyneth and yet hold the function practise thereof lawfull Was it never heard of that some of our later Bishops that worthy Iewel and others allowed the episcopall function both in judgement and practise yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino which is the point in quaestion though the D. here would not see it And why may not they allowe of the Lordly primacie of Bishops jure bumano disclayme it jure divino aswell as allowe them to exercise civill authority and yet disclaime it as being lawful iure divino as may appeare they did in the places cited But 2. the D. goeth on and as if he had already said enough to prove his refuter to be as unconscionable as may be saith that he wondreth greatly at his large conscience in this behalf who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authours alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them A heavie charge if true but here it the comfort that upon due examination it wil be found to prove otherwise It is no newe thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies should be the readiest as the D. here is to laye the charge on others Let us novv trie out the whole in the particulars First concerning the testimony taken from the booke of Martyrs and the Bishops booke or booke intituled The institution of a Christian man the Doctor telleth us that he hath perused it and findeth nothing at all concerning the superiority of of Bishops over other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superiority of Bishops among themselves all whom with the ancient fathers I confesse sayth he in respect of the power of order to be equal as were the Apostles whose successors they are If it be but so as the Doct. here coÌ„fesseth they say enough to shewe and he hath subscribed it that the function of Archbishops is jure humano But if he had perused with purpose to find out what is there to be found he mought easily The D. caâ—â—â—niâ—â—eth have found full as much as the Refuter citeth it for For it speaketh not of Bishops severed from other Preists and Preachers but promiscuously of all Bishops Preists Preists and Preachers as appeareth by diverse passages of that part of the book there sett downe to witt the chap of the Sacrament of orders amongst which consider we 1. that there should be continually in the Church militant ministers or officers to have speciall power vnder Christ to preach the word administer the Sacramentes ioose and binde by excommunication and order consecrate others in the same roome and office whereto they be called that their power was limited and office ordeyned of God Ephes 4 coÌ„mitted and given by Christ his Apostles to certeyn persons onely viz. Preists and Bishops That albeit the holy-Fathers of the Church succeeding did institute inferior orders and degrees c. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mencion made of any degrees or distinction in orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers That the power and authority belonging to Preists and Bishops is of 2. parts potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis to the first wherof alwayes good consent hath bene about the second some disagrement and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people that the iurisdiction committed to Preists and Bishops by authority of Gods lawe consisteth in three speciall points 1. in admonition excommunication and absolution 2. in approving and admitting
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
of the parish 2. when the Bishops or ecclesiasticall Syndicâ— Iudge shall give licence and authority for the receiving of him into the congregation by the Pastor be shal not receive him into the Church but in the presence of the congregation and 3. not before he hath witnessed his repentance to the Congregation by confessing and bewayling his sinne before them craving â—â—â—don both of God and them togither with theâ—â— favour for his reciving in The which when the party hath done the Minister 4 ly shall ask the congregation whether they will forgive him his fault and commend his cause by prayer unto God that he would shewe mercy to him and coÌ„firm that in heaven which they doe on earth And the people answeringe thereto we will he shall againe ask them whither they will receive him into their company and count him as a brother wherevnto when they have answered we will then shal the Minister absolve him and receive him into the Church saying after this manner I doe here before this Church the guiding whereof is coÌ„mitted vnto me absolve thee from the punishment of thine offences and from the bonds of excoÌ„munication by the authoritie of God the power of Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost with the consent of the members of this Church present and also of the ordinary Ordinario suffragante And I doe restore thee againe to thy former place and ful right in the Church Behold here the order prescribed by theÌ„ for administration of this part of discipline and therein observe that the Bishop or ecclesiasticall Iudge had but a voyce in it he was neyther the doer nor the sole-doer but the Minister and the Seniors or cheefe men of the Parishe and the congregation had their voyces also and that as they could not doe it with out the Bishop so neyther the Bishop without them And thus farre they sought to bringe in the auncient discipline and doe shewe their judgement to be directly against his doctrine for the Bishops sole government as appeareth also by the former testimony cited out of the Bishops booke Consider we now what the D. sayth to the Seniors they speake of he telleth us that it is apparant that by Seniors they 〈◊〉 not ecclesiasticall officers because where they reckon vp all ecclesiasticall officers from the Clerks to the Church wardens Deacons Ministers c. they doe not once mention Seniors or their office And therevpon concludeth that by them they vnderstand some of the principall housholders in some places called vestry-men in some Masters of the parishe in some â—â—ncients of the parish Which is nothing to the purpose seing the ref never sayd that by the Seniors with whom they require the Minister to consult they mean any of the ecclesiastical officers theÌ„ established wherof onely they make mention in the Chapters noted in the Doctors margin yet when in the places alleadged by the Refuter they all those officers notwithstanding prescribe the Ministers to take to them Seniors and without their counsel to doe nothing in the the Church busynes to proceed with wicked persons according to Math. 18 and adjudging them worthy to be excommunicate and having gotten to approve it they must denounce it publiquely in the congregation that therein so much as may be they might bring in the anncient discipline will not any man that hath witt and honesty conclude that they acknowledged that of olde time there were Seniors let the D. call them what he will they call them Seniors who were joyned with the Pastors of particular coÌ„gregations in Church government and that they so farre as their comission and the lawes then established would permit them out of the love they bare to that discipline sought to bring it in The D. therefore wanteth witt or honesty in so charging his refut the former we knowe he hath the later the reader may see he wanteth else would he never at his first meeting with this testimony charge his refuter to be an egregious falsifyer to have produced forged allegations and when he is to take his leave of it will the reader to judge with what conscience that booke was alleadged as if the Refuter against coÌ„science had alleadged it But I will joyne with him in that request praying the reader in Gods feare so to doe as also how wel he hath proved his Refuter in the allegation thereof to be as he chargeth him an egregious falsifyer and to have produced forged allegations and so proceede to the rest of those notorious untruthes as he calleth them Chap. 4. Wherein the Refuter is discharged of the other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor The second notorious untruth layd to the Refuters charge by Sect. 1. ref pag. 4. D. p. 7. the Doctor is because he sayd that his dactrine is contrary to the profifsed profissed judgement of our worthy wryters Whitakers Fulk c. who in their answeres to the Papists who plead for their hierarchy with the same reasons that the D. doth for his doe determine that the government our Bishops exercise ever other Ministers is jure humano by the positive law of man onely the which if the D. say true is false and so the papists left vnanswered fre hence ariseth this second notorious vntruth but how doth M. D. make it appeare so 1. Can he deny the doctrine in his sermon to be cleane contrary to their judgement that holde the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers to be given them jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely No he dareth not contradict his Refuter in this point What then 2. Doth he deny that the Papists doe pleade for their hierarchy with the same reasons that he doth for ours no he onely indeavoureth to perswade that his arguments are good though theirs be naught 3. But doe not our worthy wryters those the refuter named with others in their answers to the Papists that alleadge the same reasons determine as the refuter saith that the governmeÌ„t which our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano not by divine right but by the positive lawe of man onely This is so evident a truth that the D. neyther doth nor can refell it Where then is that notorious vntruth wherewith he chargeth his Refuter by reason of those wordes is not he rather a notorious slaunderer in delivering The D. is the slauÌ„derer such an accusation as he cannot justify Iudge Christian reader wheÌ„ thou hast heard his answer First sayth he the popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold for they holde the order and superiority of Bishops to be jure divino implying thereby a perpetuall necessity therof in so much that where Bishops are not to ordeyne they think there can be no Ministers nor Preists coÌ„sequently no Church I holde otherwise as the Ref himself acknowknowledgeth p. 90 in fine If therefore the Papists doe bringe the like argumeÌ„ts to prove their
opinion which is so unlike to mine nothing hindreth but my arguments may be good though theirs be naught For those argumēts which demonstratively prove the episcopall function to be of Apostolical institution doe not straitewayes prove it to be divini juris Wherefore my opinion being so farr different from the popish conceite who seeth not that the judgement of our divines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposue to mine for though they hold not the episcopal function to be injoyned jure divino as being perpetually necessary yet what man of sound learning doth or dare deny that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles Thus we see how the D. hath ledd us along But notwithstanding the confidence of his speach observe wee the extreame povertie of his cause is he not neere driven think ye when to prove his great difference betwene his opinion and the Papists he is fayne to flye to the refuters acknowledgment of it in that 90. page where with the same breath he challengeth him to be contrary to himselfe seeminge at least to vnsay that in one place which he had sayd in another Doth he not remember that he hath often charged his refuter to affirme throughout his answere that he holdeth the episcopal function to be iure divino and to imply a perpetuall necessity thereof how then doth the refuters acknowledgement prove that the popish opinion is farre different from his Doth it not rather prove that in this very point wherein he layeth the mayne difference he he is fully knitt vnto them although forgetting himselfe as many Papists also do in their discourses he contradicteth at one time what he maynteyneth at an other But to let the world see how he jumpeth wth the Papists in this matter I wil relate his opiniō not in his ref words but in his owne The functiō authority saith he serm p. 79 which Tim. and T it had at Ephesus and in Crete cōsisting specially in the power of ordinatiō jurisdictiō was not to end with their persōs but to be cōtinued in their successors as being ordinary perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the Churches For if whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy and Titus furnished with episcopal power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours Loe here his owne wordes now who seeth not that they closely implye that which he saith the Papists doe more impudently The D. closely implieth what the Papists impudently affirme affirme viz that where Bishops are not to ordeyne there can be no Ministers or Preists and consequently no Church Yet there is a freind of the Do. who pleadinge the same cause blusheth not among other propositions delivered to disgace the Presbyterian discipline and the mainteyners thereof to affirme in playne termes that all Ministers created and made by the newe Presbyterie are mere laye-persons and cannot lawfully eyther preach Gods word or administer the sacraments so saith Tho Bell in his regiment of the Church page 136 and then addeth this is already proved and a little afer concludeth with Ieroms wordes often objected by the Papists against the Protestants ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem where there it no Preist or Minister there can be no Church But to returne to the D. seing all the reason he here bringeth to mainteyne his accusation is from the difference of opinion betwixt the Papists and him concerning the authority of Bishops it being made evident that there is no such difference as he pretendeth it will necessarily followe that this second vntruth how notorious soever here charged upon his refuter must be discharged upon himselfe For it is a truth so The 2. vntruth which the D. chargeth upon the Ref. returneth to himself evident as the D. cannot deny it that the judgement of our divines is wholly opposite to his in that they hold the calling of L. Bishops to be neyther divini nor apostolici juris neither as the Papists nor as the D. holdeth them if he did as he sayth so farre differ from them And putt case the difference betwixt the Papists and him were such as he saith yet what is that to the point in question I meane to prove the refuters assertiō to be a notorious vntruth nothing at all The D. in deed his opinion being so different as he fayth from the popish conceit asketh who it is that seeth not that the judgement of our divines opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to his and I may ask him what meant he to ask that question Maye not the D yea doth he not agree with the Papists in affirminge the episcopal function to be divini juris thereby intending that it is a divine and not an humane ordinance though he should differ from them in the point of the perpetual and immutable necessity of the function And may not our worthy writers of whome the Refuter speaketh yea can the Doctor shewe that they doe not contradict the papists aswell in the former point as in the later Will he say and can he prove that they determine such Bishops onely as have such a calling as the papists mainteyne to be jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely doe they not generally conclude and determine the matter of all Bishops whatsoever that are superior to other Ministers or can they holde which the Ref. saith they doe and the D. doth not denie that the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano onely and yet hold it an apostolicall ordinance also or can they hold that so farre forth as there is a perpetuall necessity thereof it is onely jure humano and that so farre forth as it is not perpetuall but so as the Church may be a church without it it is an apostolicall and a divine ordinance Or doe our writers therefore determine against the papists that the government aforesaid is onely jure humano because they defend it to be perpetually necessary Or doe they determine onely against those reasons of the papists by which they prove this government to be perpetually necessary Will the D. affirme this Is not the contrary to all this most evident to them that read their writings Doe they not plainly and directly without any relation to this or that conceite conclude against all those reasons which papists bring that the goverment of Bishops over other Ministers is not an ordinance divine or apostolicall but humane onely directly contrary to the D. conclusion lett his reasons be what they be may And it were worth the knowinge what reasons those are that demonstratively prove as he saith the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution yet prove it not to be divini juris and of perpetuall necessitie as also what worthy
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
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
which our Bishops exercise is wholly by Gods word But 2. though those words detracted by the Doctor had not bene added by them if he thinketh it wil prove that the function now exercised by Bishops is warranted to them by Gods word he forgetteth his owne distinction betweene potest as modus potestatis togither with the difference which he putteth betweene function and authoritie lib. 4. pag. 100 102. 147. Neyther 3. is that authority which the booke requireth Bishops to exercise such a sole power of correction as the Doctor giveth unto them for the same booke requireth also of every Minister aswell as of the Bishop at his ordination that he preach the word and administer the sacraments The D. owne testimony against him discipline so giving every Minister a stroke in the outward policie government of the Church aswel as the Bishop which the Doct. taketh quite from him But to conclude this point the booke of articles doth in deed shewe the judgement of our Church in some matters of policie and church government devised by men aswell as in more weighty points of faith set down in Gods word Wherefore the doctrine of our Church concerning the later is not to be sought for in the booke of consecration or the 36. article that establisheth it much lesse in the preface of that booke but rather in those articles which concerne faith and sacraments For the whole body of our Church being assembled in Parliament evidently perceiving that there were some clauses sentences and articles in that booke and the preface thereof not warrantable by the word did therefore approve of it no further then it concerned the doctrine of faith and sacraments and provided also that no Minister of the word should be tied by his subscription further to approve it as well appeareth by the statute 13. Elizab cap. 12. And here I wish the reader 1. to take notice that in all that booke there is no word of Archbishops Archdeacons Deanes rurall Deanes with the rest of that rowe so that they will not be found be like in the word nor hath God by his spirit appointed them in his Church 2. To observe how the Doct. that so boldly and confidently that I say no more rejecteth so many Synods Churches and learned men alleadged by the Refut and acknowledged by himself to be orthodoxal divines is not so wel seene in his allegation here as he would seeme to be surely he mought very well conceive that we might take exception not onely to his booke of ordering Bishops Preists and Deacons but to the article that establisheth it both being made by the Bishops themselves Iudges in their owne cause and seeking their owne preheminence espetially when they were both so farre excepted against by that whole assembly of Parliament as not to binde any by subscription to approve them so much as consonant to the word Thus much concerning the booke of articles and the D. dealing with vs therein Come we now to the Confession of the English Sect. â—â— church collected as the D saith out of the Apologie The wordes as he layeth them downe are these We beleeve that there be divers degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Preists some Bishops c. But he should have read out to the end of the sentence and not breake off with an c. so keeping many of his readers from the sight of them if he durst for overthrowinge his owne cause For the very next words insinuate that these diverse degrees If the D. had read his owne testimony to the end it would have bene against him are of order not of power and jurisdiction whiles they make the office of those divers degrees to be one and the same saying to whoÌ„ is coÌ„mitted the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion It seemeth the D. was somewhat shortwinded when he read that sentence and I challenge him to bring one word out of all that confession that giveth more authoritie to Bishops then to other Ministers that are called Preists Doth not the 7. article of that confession professe that Christ hath given to his Ministers one aswell as another power to binde to loose to open to shutt Doth it not make the authoritie of binding and loosing to be in thaâ— censure of excoÌ„munication and absolving from it aswel as in preaching mercie or judgement Doth it not make the worde of God the keye whereby the Ministers must open or shut the kingdome of heâ—veâ— And doth it not affirme that the disciples of Christ aswell as the Apostles received the authortie of opening and shutting by it And that the Preist is a Iudge in this case though he hath no manner of right to challenge an authoritie or power that is as the observation vpon it vnderstandeth it civil or to make lawes to mens consciences To be short doth it not affirme that seing one manner of worde is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all that therefore there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting If I belie not the Confession but that these be the very wordes thereof let him that readeth confider whether the Confession produced by the Doctor as an Advocate in his behalfe to prove the Refuters fourth vntruth hath not as a Iudge given sentence against his owne Client Worthily therefore hath he here cited this confession and of no lesse worth is his owne observation vpon it It is to be noted saith he that our Church acknowledgeth nothinge as a matter of fayth which is not conâ—â—yned in Gods worde or grounded thereon And I will note it with him and doe tell him that he noteth well for vs and againste The Doct. note is for vs and against him selfe himselfe For if the government of the Church by such Bishops as he speaketh of be a matter of faith why putteth he a difference betweene matters of discipline and the articles of fayth and referreth the question of the function and superioritie of Bishops to the former lib. 3. page 38 and howe is their government mutable and not perpetually necessary as in his defence he often affirmeth In deed he once sayd that the â—piscopall function and authoritie which Timothy and Titus had the same with ours as being assigned to certaine Churches consisting in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches This was the Doctors faith when he preached and printed his sermon page 79. but it seemeth his Refuter hath occasioned his departure from it But let we that passe and keep we him to his note here Thus I reason It is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing for a matter of fayth which is not conteyned in
Gods word or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors 2. It is to be noted that our CHVRCH acknowledgeth that though there be dâ—vers degrees of Ministers as Bishops Preists Deacous in the Church yet that one onely manner of word is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all and that there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting This assumption is the Confession now froÌ„ hence I may be bold to make one note more with this conclusion 3. Therefore it is to be noted that wheras our Churches practise is otherwise in the government that our Bishops now exercise it is net a matter of fâ—ith conteyned in Gods word or grounded thereâ—n but onely of poliâ—iâ— and humane tradition for the power of the keyes and discipline of the Church is one onely and given to all Ministers aswell as to Bishops by the word of God And consequently the doctrine of the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of The D. hath slaundered his Refut his owne testimonies produced for advocates being judges the Church of England and consequently that the Doctor hath here slandered his refuter his owne testimonies produced for Advocates being Indges But we have not yet done the D. as a man that will have somewhat to saye if the worst come to the worst asketh that if the Bishops being now better informed concerning their functions had nowe reformed their judgements according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity whether it would follow that their later thoughts which are comonly the wiser were false and worthy to be confuted I answere that it maye be asked whether he was more foolish or presumptuous in making that questioÌ„ For who is so foolish as to affirme that any mans later thoughts are false and worthy to be confuted because they are reformed according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity 2. Presumeth he not that if the Bishops be now of late grown to another judgement concerning their hierarchie then the Bishops their predicessors have bene in the dayes that are past that these later are wiser then the former and have reformed their judgments according to the holy scriptures c Doth he not thereby censure the former of error and ignorance concerning the truth in this behalf howsoever as it seemeth by his former note they made it a matter of faith conteyned in Gods worde or grounded thereon I will not here question the probabilities whether the thoughts of the nowe and late Bishops or their predicessors be the wiser this without comparison I dare saye that those Bishops that made not this title of superiority authoritie over their brethren and fellowe Ministers were men both godly and learned zealous lovers of sincerity wrote as against the coÌ„mon adversarie so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed and against ignorant Ministers nonresidents pluralitans many things of like sort nowe not onely tollerated but defended also let the Doctor advance the Prelates of these dayes above them if he will I will make no comparison Thus much shall â—uffice to acquite the refuter of the false and slaunderous imâ—utations of such notorious vntruthes as the Doctor hath layd vpon him in his answere to the first reason Chap. 5. Concerning the hurt like to come to the Church by the D. sermon and namely of advantaging the Papists We are nowe to handle the D. answere to the Refuters second reason as he calleth it though it be in deed but a member of the Sect. 1. Refut pag. 5. 6. D. pag. 11. 12. former in reply wherevnto I wil be more breife touching but here and there vpon a word or two most materiall the most parte of the Doctors speach being in deed nothing but sarchasticall and by-speaches The Refuter thought his sermon the more needfull to be confuted because though it was utterly failse yet he had caried the matter so handsomly smoothly and confidently that it caried appearance of truth and therefore discerned that much hurt was like to come to the Church of God by it Herevnto to let passe the D devised divisioÌ„ of the words he answereth by charging his refuter againe to crosse contradict himselfe saying that however his refut had sayd in the former reason that it is evidently false so not dangerous yet now he saith the doctrine is so by me handsomly and likely handled that it is so farre from being evidently false that every word hath an appearance promise of truth But the fight is here betwixt the Doctor and his owne shadowe not betweene the Refuter and his speaches Not the Refuter but the D. fighteth against himself Thinges evidently false are not dangerous in deed where and to whom the evidence appeareth yet dangerous enough to them that see not or will not see the falshood of them Thinges evidently false to one may have an appearence and promise of truth to another The Apostle 2. Cor. 11 3. c. feared leaste the Corinthâ—â— were beguiled as Eve was by Satan through the false APOSTLES that transformed themselves into an ANGELL of light and tolde theire tale so handsomely smoothly and confidently that it had an appearaunce and promyse of truth to the Corinthes why else was he affraid they would be beguiled by them though they scarce uttred one word of truth themselves being the Ministers of Satan and their doctrine utterly false even the doâ—â—â—ine of Divills And if the D. here reasoneth well who seeth not that he confuteth that reverend Bishop Iewell whom his Ref. as he saith in that speach imitateth Hardings doctrine was utterly and evidently false surely and yet dangerous too or Bishop Iewell said not well and yet he carried himself so smoothlie likely and confidently that to many it had shewe and appearance of truth why else doth that reverend Bishop bestowe so much labour in confuting it I could agayn say as much concerning the Ref. answer the D. defence but we must passe on The Doctor thinketh that he told his tale so smoothly in his sermoÌ„ that he had almost perswaded his refuter to be of his mind we cannot let him to think so nor he me to think that that imagination of his hart among others was vaine It may be he is now feeding himself vpon this fancie that as his sermon had almost perswaded him so this his defense hath altogither perswaded him to be of his mind but I suppose the refut or his freind will tell him that he haâ—h an ill stomach that feedeth fatt with such winde As for the rest of his speaches to the end of that section let the reader judge of them as they deserve The Refut proveth the hurtfulnes of the Doct. sermon 1. froÌ„ Sect. 2. the advantaging of the Papists and 2. from the scandalizing of others thereby Touching the first The Papists saith he would be much advantaged thereby seing that Antichristian doctrine even after the renewing
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
answere thereunto is easy For putt case those cheife treatises which he read and from whence he received satisfaction be without sound proofe as in deed they are may he not have the pith and substance of them all and yet all he hath be without ptoofe 2. He telleth vs that it is not possible that all which he and all the rest can say can be comprised in so short a sermoÌ„ And I beleeve it For by this his defence it appeareth that he himself can saie a great deale more then can be comprized in so short a sermon for besides all that he hath spoken pertinent to the purpose though nothing to prove the point in question I dare be bolde to affirme there are a century of vntruthes sarcasmes slanders and many things of like sort But all this while how proveth he that double contradiction he spake of Nay where doth the Ref. saye as the D. insinuateth that all that he and the men of his side can saie is comprised in his sermon That which the Ref. saith is possible enough to witt that the pith and substance of all how much soevet it be that he and all of his side can say in this controversy to any purpose may be comprized in as short a sermon as his which filleth vp an 100. pages and was not onely preached before that most honorable auditorie as he faith but also vpoÌ„ second thoughts and mature deliberation enlarged and published to the world Thus we see how well he hath proved both the vnreasonablenes of the Ref. motion and the contradictions charged vpon the reason thereof As for his good admonitions in his epilogue and elsewhere how ever delivered by him not without mixture of gall wormewood we have so learned to make use and profit of the wordes of our enemies as we willingly imbrace them ¶ Thus much in reply to that which the Doctor hath answered Sect. 5. D. page 20. 21. 2â— concerninge the Refuters preface he should nowe have defended his owne praeface against the answere to it but that he vtterly refuseth because 1. it is a mere libell consisting of notorious cavillations mallicious calumniations and personall invectives 2. there is no material thing in it which is not fully answered in the defence of his sermon 3. the defence of his sermon it selfe being growne to so great a volume he should greatly wrong both himself and his reader in answering it 4. his refuter beinge in the darke and he in the light it is a verye vnequall combate c. And therefore in steade of answeringe he falleth to advisinge as we shall see when I have given answere to these severall pointes Lett the reader concerninge the first judge whether the Dâ—s owne wordes may not be banded backe agayne and charged more justly vpon his preface theÌ„ vpon the answere to it But albeit both that his preface and this whole defence are in the highest degree guiltie of those 3. notorious evils charged vpon the Refu answere yet I will spare him therein and onely demaund whether it standeth with any equitie for him at his pleasure to smite as with his tongue yea utter in printe wordes more sharp then swordes and not forus once to oppose a sheild of juste defence to beare of his blowes for him as Tullie saith venenata tela jacere but not for us medicinam facere As if Caius Fimbria were revived who when Orar. pro Râ—scio Amerino he had not as he desited slaine Q. Scevola accused him in judgment quod non totum telum corpore recepisset that he had not suffred the whole weapon wherewith he was smitten to enter his body To the second I answer that the reason were good yf what he saith were true but the reader comparinge them togither will finde no one materiall thing eyther fully or once in part answered in the defence of his sermoÌ„ how ever here and there he shall meete with revylinge and reproachfull speaches cast vpon the Ref. for it As for the third I will not deny but his defence is growne to a great volume in deed and so great that he should not onely have wronged himself and his reader by making it greater as he sayth but that he hath wronged them both and his Ref too in making it so greate as it is considering it is growne to that greatnes as by many notorious vntruthes so also by those three imputations falsly charged vpon his Ref And I wish he had regarded more seriously what he had committed to the Presse for the judgment of the present age and all posterity and that he had not so much yeilded to his inordinate affection and corruption as to make his volume swell with such bitter speaches so full of choler vnpleasant flowers of his rethorick not respecting what became him that commendeth mildenes to others proposeth for that purpose the very example of our Lord and Mr. Christ If he had defended truth as truth requireth to be defended he would never have presented that plesant spectacle he speaketh of to the coÌ„mon adversary If in any sort bitternes hath bin vsed in our defense by any who have bin strangely dealt with through which perhaps some have vttered some distempered speach the D I doubt not hath paid them all home their owne againe with large interest and measure even full running over as one that counted it whatsoever he professeth to the coÌ„trary a disparagement to be overcome in such a contention Lastly touching the fourth where he casteth them into the dark that doe not putt their names to their writings c. What argueth that speach of his besides the wrong offred to the pen-men of the sciptures and other good men many moâ— as is before sayd but extreame dealing of the Bishops towards us why else should we not dare to be seene in a cause so clearely taught in the word of God and so famously professed and practised by so many even the best reformed Churches in the world As for the refuter he is asmuch in the light as the Doctor and as wel knowne to be the Refuter as the D. is to be the defender Let his Lordbishops lay by their imprisonment and other extreame dealings and cease to be Iudges in their owne cause and that without baile or mainprize or benefitt of appeale inforcing us to indure their sentences and the D. shall soone see his adversarie in the face Till then the reader will both judge his request vnreasonable seing manifest experience witnesseth that the mildest men for bookes written without bitternes have drunk deep of the Bishops cupp mixt with the spice of their imprisonments degradations and such like and also deeme him a man of no great valour for counting that combate vnequall when he figheth with an Adversary that is not shutt vp in prison and hath not his weapons blunted or rather taken from him by that meanes Thus much breifly to his reasons pretended for not replying to the
one word that savoureth of captious carping Yet if there were is it all one to to carp at the choise of the text and to spend of his spene upon the text it self But not to stay vpon this any longer the Doctor telleth vs that though the quarrel pleased the refuter so well that he repeateth it againe page 3. yet without cause for that seing the expositioÌ„ of the allegorie is not doubtful but confessed on both sides that as by 7. starres are meant the 7. angels so by the angels the Bps. of the Churches who seeth not that this assertioÌ„ the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn as it were vpon a rock But 1. lett him certify us 1. touching the exposition of the allegorie in his text and that if it be nothing doubtfull but confessed or agreed on on both sides why he doth in the 2. pag. of his sermon prepose this as a doubtfull point needfull to be examined viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the angels of the Churches The D. coÌ„tâ—adicteth himself 2. Wherefore he tendered this for his first reason of examining the doubt because to vse his owne words def pag. 29. when the Holy-ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels this interpretation it selfes allegoricall and therefore needeth some exposition And. 3. Wherefore in the very next words of his defence he mâ—ncioneth 3. different opinions touching the persons or functions ment by the Angels viz. whether all Ministers in generall the Presidentes of the presbyteries or diocesan Bishops 2. Moreover can he without blushing saye that it is confessed on The Doct. speaketh vntruely both sides that by the 7. starrs are ment the 7. Angels Was it not flâ—ttly denied Not without reason or shewe of reason at leaste doth not he himself afterwards cap. 2. sectioÌ„ 3. spend paynes in opening the doubt and proving that the angels were just 7. and no more 3. Lastly if this be all that he can rightly and strongly build upon the Apostle in the words of his text viz. that the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good his refuter hath good cause even still to affirm that this text neither was nor is any firme ground for him on which to set up such a mansion for his Diocesans as he assayed Who therefore seeth not that it is not the refuter with the text but the Doctor that quarrelleth with the Refuter in this pointe without a cause Especially seing when he coÌ„meth to that 3. page where he sayth the quarrell is repeated he doth wittingly both coÌ„ceâ—â— vnder an 〈◊〉 and overpasse without any answer that which is 〈◊〉 â—aâ—momâ—nt to justify his Refuter in this point For the Doct. 〈◊〉 â—noâ—lâ—dge a truth to lye in one of these assertions of of the Refuter to witt that eyther there is some other portion of scripture whâ—â—n that which he pretendeth to be here layd downe vnder a vâ—â—le is 〈◊〉 vnfâ—â—ed â—â—d delivered or that there is no such place to be sound 〈◊〉 the scripture Now let him make the best choise he can and which of them soever he choose the same shall make â—ood the refuters quarrell as the Doctor calleth it I meane the consequence of his reasoning in that place For 1. if he shall affirme that there iâ— some other text that plainely vnfoldeth the pointes here sayd downe vnder the vaâ—â—e of an allegorie then in reason should his censure be approved which saith it had bene fitter both in divinity and good discretion for him to have chosen some other more cleare portion of scripture then this which is allegoricall 2. If he shall grant as I think he will not that there is no such place to be found in all the scripture it will also inevitablie followe that the Refuters sentence was right when he sayd this text cannot be deemed a fitt Iudge to decide so great a controversy But it was one of his pointes of wisdome to passe by this dilemma Sect. 5. ad cap. 2. pa. 30. defen or two forked argument he thought it enough to repeate in that 30. page his former answere that the meaninge of the allegory is on all sides agreed on and to add this silly inference that since we doe confesse the Angels to be the Bishops of the Churches therefore by our confession the text was as fittly chosen as if it had bin sayd the 7. Starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches See see how faine he would if he could The D. beggeth of us what he dareth not give himself wringe from us an acknowledgement of that which himself well advised I suppose dareth not affirme namely that an allegoricall texte is as fittly chosen to prove any conclusion as another which vnfoldeth the same more plainely But it shall not be amisse to lett him see the strength of his consequence by another of like force Our adversaries the D. I meane the men of his side doe affirme and teach that the Angels were diocesan Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers and that the 7. Churches which they governed were properly Dioceses Therefore in their opinion the text was as fittly chosen as if it had bin said the 7. Starres are the diocesan Bishops who having a superiority in degree over other Ministers did oversee the 7. dioceses or diocesan Churches in Asia 2. As for the replie which he ascribeth to his Refuter viz. that though it be granted that the Angels are Bishops yet not such Bishops as The D. vntruely fathereth on the Refut what he said not the D. speaketh of if it had bin as truly his as it is vntruly fathered on him yet he giveth him no cause to answere as he doth viz. then the vnfittnes of the text belike is not because it is allegorical but because in his conceite it is impertinent He should rather have inferred thus Then I see the text is vnfitt in a double respect in parte because it is allegoricall and cheefly because though the meaning of the allegory be thus farr agreed on that it is confessed the Angels were Bishops yet it is a great controversy whether they were such Bishops as the Bishops of our Church are But the D. giveth litle hope that he will of his owne accord confesse so much this belike shal be answered with another inferred vpon a more sure ground It is certeine the consent of Interpreters being so farr divided as he acknowledgeth pag. 7. touching the nature of the function of these Angels can give his text no fitnes to conclude his purpose Belike therefore the fitnes that the Doctor imagineth to be in it is because in his owne conceit it is pertinent induced therevnto perhaps by the judgement of some fewe that are parties in the cause But his conceit though supported with the approbation of some that favour the Hierarchy is too light to be layd in the ballance against the judgment of all those Protestant wryters
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
the approbatioÌ„ of their function in this or that particular text of scripture that the Doctor himselfe may and doth imbrace the one and yet reject the other Else how dareth he understand that text Act. 20 28. as he doth serm page 18. 37. 69. of inferior Presbyters which had no power eyther of ordination or of externall jurisdiction contrary to the judgement of Bishop Barloe who iâ— his sermon thereon at Hampton Court pag. 3. affirmeth that the Apostle in those wordes speeketh fully for the prelacie and describeth therein every part of the outward function of Bishops As for the D. reasons moving him to examine what manner of persons were noted by the Angels of the Churches though it were no hard matter to mainteyne the Refuters objections yet suâ—ceasing to contend further therein I will overpasse his 2. section pag. 29 30 it having nothing materiall or worthy of reply save what is already spoken to in the 〈◊〉 section of the former chapter And as touching the 3. 4. sections concerning the number of the angels and their preheminence because we shall have fitter places for them hereafter lib. 3. cap. 3. I will therefore here passe by them and so come to his 5. section In his 5. section two things may be commended to the readers Sect. 4. ad sect 5. Def. p. 35. observation First the Refut saying pag. 4. that it was in deed needfull to inquire what manner of Bishops those Angels were because Bishop Bilson and Bishop Barloe had fancied to themselves another sort of Bishops then eyther the Holy Ghost hath mentioned in the newe Testament or any sound divine offred to teach thereout The Doct. from thence inferreth that the controversie which remayneth to be decided is this viz. whether sort of Bishops such as those learned and himself defendeth or such as his adversarie and his adhaerents stand for is that kinde of Bishop which hath beene of late devised Where it is easy to be seene howe cunningly he changeth The D. changeth the question the question he should have sayd The controversie to be decided is this whether the Holy Ghost doth vnderstand by the Angels of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. such Bishops as our English Praelates are or rather such as his Refuter and his adhaerents stand for But wittily and not vnwittingly doth he shun this controversie for it seemeth he knoweth that to be true which his Refuter added to witt that if the vse of the word Bishop manifestly warraÌ„ted vnto vs by God in his word and the joynt interpretation of all protestant divines would have contented him others of his side we neyther had need nor occasion of this examination Wherefore though he offreth two things to our consideration for the deciding of the former question viz. what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Angels what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches yet he closly slideth The D. closely slideth from debating pointes propounded and then braggeth c. from the debating of them and propoundeth his 5. points before noted diverse from these to be handled in their stead So that his first assertion which he promised plainly to prove hath none other direct proofe then the bare propounding of those two questions which he offreth to our consideration Which the D. knoweth well enough notwithstanding he braggeth of the contrary and adjureth his reader in the name of God without partiallity to see on which side is better evidence and more pregnant proofs and to assent therevnto Secondly where the Doct. vndertaking to prove out of his text that the office and function of his Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good the Refuter tolde him it was soone sayd but not so soone done there being nothing in his text to prove it because to be lights starrs angels which was all the D. had said or could shew out of the words is not proper to his Diocesans but coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations as himselfe had taught in his sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers pag. 20 61. The D. replyeth indeed but as a man out of temper chargeth his Ref to wrangle and to have nothi g to say but that which with an idle coccisme he often repeateth and in this place is altogether impertinent and that he was resolved aforehand to cavill with whatsoever he should find in his booke c. Whereunto I will say nothing but this that concerning the temper of the Doctor and truth of his speach I will not the D. is a party he must not lett the reader indifferent therefore judge The sight of the Doctors former proceedings moved the Refuter Sect. 5. ad sect 6. p. 36. 37. pag. 4. to tell him that if he had walked with a right foote in the path he was entred into be should by his text have taught vs the meaninge of these two points not quire contrary as he geeth about by these two points tâ— teach vs the meaning of his text But the D. enraged aâ— these words of truth and sobernes as Festus was at the words of Paul was ready to take up his answere much learning hath made thee madd save that he would not ascribe to his Refut any learning at all therefore chooseth rather to say that too much wrath which is furor brevis made him so to forgett himself that he wrangleth without witt and against sense But I wish the reader consider whether the Doctor doth not overrashly judge him sick of his owne disease For what can he say eyther to excuse himself or justly to blame his Refuter For sooth that no man that is in his witts will say it is not lawfull for a preacher to explaine his text True but if the Refuter never sayd it and if the Doct. cannot extract any such thing from his wordes may not the reader worthily censure him for a mallicious slanderer 2. He asketh what The doct slaundereth it was which in this section he had in hand was it not saith he to indeavour the explanation of his text And to shew what manner of Bishops are here meant by the angells of the Churches And I answere him no he had already explained his text and affirmed that the Bishops meant by those Angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are now he was to make way for the performance of his promise to prove The Doct. seeth not or would not see what he had in hand his former assertion 3. He asketh againe what could be more fitly propounded for the explication of his text then the consideration of those two things before mentioned And a little after who seeth not saith he that the handling of these points is the very explication of the text I grant that these two points were fittly proposed to cleare his first assertion wherein he reposeth the explicatioÌ„ of his text if he had handled them so as he
ought by giving direct answeres to his questions and adjoyning the confirmation of each point by some cleare evidence from the text it self the circumstances therof or some other scripture where the like wordes or phrases are vsed such a handeling in deed of these pointes had bin a good proof of his assertioÌ„ consequently a sufficient explication of his text But since he hath not once indeavoured thus to handle his two points which himself acknowledgeth ought to have bene discussed for the clearing of the text what should hinder the Refuter or his Reader still to affirme that his text in regard of these two doubts standeth still vnexplained and his first assertion left vnproved 4. To conclude the D. thus reasoneth If the text be that which is to be explicated who could be so senslesse as eyther to require that these points should be explained by the text or to find fault that by the handling of them the text is explained I answere first to the last accusation If the fault which The Doct. slauÌ„dreth the Refuter findeth be not such as the Doctor mentioneth but rather the contrary viz. that he goeth about to teach vs the meaning of his text without any due handling of those points by the bare coÌ„mending of them to our consideration then whether the Doctor be not againe worthy to be censured eyther for a blinde and inconsiderate or for an vncharitable and mallicious slanderour lett the christian reader judge As touching the other who The D. seemeth sensles or forgettfull would have thought him to have bin so sensless or at least forgettfull as he seemeth to be eyther in judging that his Refuter ment to limitt him in his explication vnto the words of the text to explaine it by it self without any other help the contrary whereof is plaine to be seene in his answere pag. 3. 4. or in deeming it absurd and impossible for a text of scripture to be explained by it self seing he himself explaineth and proveth by the very words of his text serm pag. 2. 3. his second assertion concerning the qualitie of their function But the cause is reasonable why the D. dooth the one and leaveth the other vndone For his 2. assertion viz. that the function of the Bishops meant by angels in his text is of God approved as lawfull doth clearly in all mens understanding arise froÌ„ the very name of stars and angels but it is not so easy nay it is impossible to drawe out of those wordes or any other circumstances of the text such a preheminence above other Ministers as his first assertion attributeth to these angels when it affirmeth them to be such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are Wherefore it was the Doctors wisdome if it were worthy of that name not to deliver us any one proofe syllogistically concluded throughout his large defeÌ„ce but to stopp his readers mouth every where with such words as these the text is rightly expounded of Diocesan Bishops And I doubt not by Gods help to make it evident that such Bishops are here meant by starres and Angels Yea it is proved that Diocesan Bishops are here meant by angels But hereof more when I come to the 2. last sections As for the two next sections there being nothing in them but Sect. 6. ad sect 7. 8. Def pag. 37 -39 gall and bitternes vented in personall calumniations both false slaunderous I hold them vnworthy any reply It is sufficient both for the Authours aswell of that modest offer of disputation as of the late Petition as also for the Refuter that the Doct. bare accusation The Doct. hath two sections ful of calumni ations of slaunders not meet to be named cannot make the guilt of them for why should they care to answere him in this case wherein he speaketh he neyther careth nor knoweth what And touching that loud-crying slaunder which he renueth in charging them to deny the King to be a member of a true visible Church since it is already sufficiently refuted I might well passe by all he hath said to weaken their defence and seing he doth with great scorne refuse aforehand to admitt of the answere sayinge it is no matter what they hold vnlesse they were more learned and iâ—dicious he deserveth no other rejoynder but this it is no matter what he speaketh vnlesse he had some better grounde then he hath to make good his accusation But in so haynous a crime as this is laesae Maiestatis it may be a deed of charity to defend them a word of two of it therefore The Doctor being displeased with them that argue our Bishops to be therefore no members of any true visible Church because they are not members of some one onely parishe did The D. added to his opposites reason a malicious speach now setteth a false glosse upoÌ„ it falsly and maliciously add that in these mens conceits it must needs be the Kings owne case In deed if any of them had at any time professed or given the least suspicion of this conceite that the King is not a member of any one particular congregation such as we define a parish to be there had beene reason for his inference But the D. knoweth that they all holde the King and his houshold to be an intire Church or distincte congregation by it self Wherefore if mallice and selfe-love had not too much prevailed with him he would vpon his second thought have revoked his slaunderous inference and not have sett a false glosse upoÌ„ it to make it seeme the more probable for thus he reasoneth The Kinge having a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions as being the governour of them all in greate Brittanie and Ireland is further from being a member of one onely parish then any Bishop in this kingdome Therefore by what reason they deny the Bishops to be members of the true Church because forsooth they be not of some particular parish by the same they may aswell denye the Kinge to be a member of the true Church Whereunto I answere 1. If he had any intent by this argument to justifye his former slaunder in stead of these words in his conclusion they may aswell deny the King c. he should have said in their conceit they doe and must deny c. which he cannot with any colour conclude vnlesse he will add to his Antecedent the like words in their conceit and opinion and saye that in theire The D proveth one slaunder by another or reasoneth absurdly judgement and conceit the King is further from being a member of one onely parish then of any Bishop in the kingdome But this were to prove one slander by another for they whom he slaundereth doe acknowledge that notwithstanding his generall reference to all the Churches in great Brittanie and Ireland whereof he is supreme governour by his Kingly office yet in asmuch as he submitteth
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
meere cavill joyned with an evident vntruth The D. jâ—ineth a cavill and an vntruth togither to say as the D. doth that the proposition sett downe by the Refuter is not his but stretched beyonde not onely his meaninge but also his wordes 4. But it was the D. cunninge to take advantage of the word seeminge here vsed but elsewhere omitted so to perswade if he could that his Resuter had no colour from his wordes to coclude that he did sett vp but onely that he did seeme to sett vp absolute poplinges for which cause also in meeting with the places where the Refuter reneweth this objection which yet is no oftener then his owne wordes gave occasion by his renewinge of his calumniation against the favourites of the government by presbyters he sendeth back his reader to this place saying that thâ—se objections though repeated in other wordes answering to his owne termes are answered before and that to their shame see lib. 1. pa. 194. lib. 3. pag. 142. But will he nill he we have gained the propositio so that if his answere to the assumptio be not the better the shame will light vpon his owne pate To come therefore to the assumption First lett it be remembred Sect. 8. that the Refuter propounded it not as his owne assertion which he ment to prove by the constitution of our Churches or the practise of our Bishops but as a pointe which the D. vndertaketh to prove in his sermon 2. He is likewise to be so vnderstood as ofte as he objecteth against our Bishops that having sole and supreme authority they rule as Popes or Popelinge wherefore the assumption which the D. rejecteth as false and foolish or frivolous is this in effecte That all diocesan Bishops have or ought to have in the D. opinion not onely supreme but also sâ—le-authority in matters ecclesiasticall within their diocesse Or thus The D. giveth and alloweth to diâ—cesan Bishops such supreme and sole authority c. Wherefore to make way for the proofe of this Assumption the Refuter first layde downe the state of the question into which the Doctor is nowe entred viz. whither the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops and then addeth that where they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subuct to the congregation so farr off are they from giving sole and supreme authoritie to the Pastors alone c. Mr Doct. taketh all from them all and putteth the reâ—â—â— into the bandes of his Diocesans alone c. From which words to conclude the former assumption and in the contriving of the argument to keep as neere as may be to the tenour of the syllogisme proposed by the Doctor to himself to confute thus I argue Whosoever giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from their several Pastors with their Elders and Parishes Therefore the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth downe sect 11. pag. 43. and adjoyne such an assumption as best fitteth with it And I nothing doubt but the Refuter will easily be discharged from all the untruthes the Doctor chargeth upon him and it be made to appeare that the Doct. himself is the man that climbeth that ladder of vntruthes to put his The D. not the Ref. climbeth the ladder of vntruthes Bishops out of that seate of papacie wherein by his owne rules they were quietly seated And first I will confirme the partes of this argument then blowe awaye the smoke of those untruthes which rose from out of the Doctor as sparkes flye vpward The proposition I thus prove Whosoever giveth vnto one Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese such a power of government as would be found both supreme and sole if it were invested wholly in the person of any one pastor for the government of one parishe he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and Parishes is such a power as would be found to be both supreme and sole authority in causes ecelâ—sticall if it were wholly invested into the person of any one Pastor for the government of one Parishe Therefore whosoever giveth vnto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth vnto the diocesan Bishop alone for his diocese both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is cleare enough of it self and the assumption is drawne from the D. words both in his sermon and this defense of it when he saith againe and againe that the authority which he denieth vnto parishes with their Pastors and Elders in this controversy is an immediate and independent or supreme authority sufficient for ecclesiasticall government And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoyned to him Wherefore if it can be proved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical goverment which he denieth vnto Pastors with their parishes and Elders it will inevitably folow that he alloweth vnto every diocesaÌ„ Bishop supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall To proceed therefore to the proofe of this pointe which is the assumption of the first prosyllogisme thus I argue In debating this question whither the Churches are to be governed severally by Pastors and Elders in every parishe or by Bishops sett over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese whosoever impugneth the former and mainteineth the later he giveth vnto every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denâ—eth to the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But in debating the question before mentioned the D. impugneth the former branch of the question and maintaineth the later Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denied vnto the severall pastors with their Elders and parishes Here the Assumption is in it self evident if the question debated be such as is before noted which none of his freinds need to doubt of since the D. himself excepteth not against it but intreateth the reader to take notice of the state of the question for future use pag. 41. and when he repeateth it cap. 3. pag. 61. he acknowledgeth it to be rightly sett downe in respect of the partes of the disfunction Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyllogisme standeth firme For
in this question to use his owne words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61. he must confesse vnlesse he will confesse himself to be ignorant in logicke that this disjunction is implyed The Churches of Christe are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parishe or by one Bishop set over an whole diocese And this disjunction as it is ex hypothesi necessarie it being agreed vpon on both sides that either the one or the other forme of goverment is to be imbraced and that one and but one of these assertions is true or false so it doth necessarily import both that they which affirme the former doo give vnto every parishe Church and her presbytery for the government of it self the same power which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops And that they which pleade for the government of Bishops doe allowe vnto every Bishop in his diocese the same power and authority which they denie to the severall parishes and their presbyteries For as it were a foolish question if both partes of the disjunction were true soo it were no lesse foolish if both partes were vntrue or false as it must be if that power of government be not lawfull for the one which is denied vnto the other Now to come to the vntruthes which the D. chargeth vpon his Sect. 9. ad Sect. 10. pag. 41. 42. Refuter he findeth in his assumption these two 1. that all authority is by the Drs. taken from the Pastors Elders and people in every parishe 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone To prove the first an vntruth he first granteth one parte of it true saying the Elders in deed I reject as a new devise 2. As for the parishioners though for our credit sake as he saith he leaveth out that dotage of their cheife authoritie as if we held it and so maketh vs beholding to him for leaving that out which wee never put in for where did he ever read that we give them the chiefe authority in government in them he acknowledgeth some authoritie in chusing or consinting to the choise of some Church officers And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes he leaveth them that Pastorall power which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of Parishes to witt their power of order as they are all Ministers and a power of spiritual or inward iurisdiction to rule their flock after a private manner and as it were in the Court of conscience The Elders indeed have little cause to thanke him but see how much the people and their Pastors are beholding to him he is content the people shall have some authority he had once sayde to choose but that was too much and therefore recallinge it he sayth to consent to the choise of some Church officers but they must stand to his curtesy hereafter to vnderstand at his pleasure who are those some Church-officers to whose choise they have authoritie to consent and who are those other some to whose choise they have no authoritie so much as to asâ—ent whether by the former he meane their Pastors and perhaps the Church-wardens and Parish clerks and by the later the Bishops Deanes Prebends Archdeacons c. yea or no. In like manner he alloweth to the Pastors of parishes a pastorall power both of order and jurisdiction but their Pastorall authority is not in foro externo but in fore consâ—ientiae and whatsoever it be it is delegated and coÌ„mitted to them by the Bishops serm pag. 45. to whom the care of the whole Church beloÌ„geth so that the authority is not theirs they are but as servaÌ„ts to the Bps so rule under theÌ„ as they are rued by theÌ„ as at large he assayeth to prove serm p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea in this defence p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastorall power onely which ever was granted vnto them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of severall Presbyters to them as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolicall but rather of humane papall institution Thus we see how deeply indebted the Pastors and people are to the Doctor for his allowance towards them 2. But how will these parts of power or authority thus allowed them by the D. prove an vntruth in the Refuter when he said that the question being as he said whether the Church should be governed by Pastors and Elders with the people or by Diocesan Bishops the Doctor taketh all from them all c. Must not that all which is said to be taken away be limitted to the question before proposed q. d. all that power of government which is controverted whether it belongeth to the Pastors with the elders people of every parish or to the Bishop in his whole Diocese all this I say the Doctor taketh from the Pastors Elders people and putteth the same not all simply into the hands of his Diocesan Bishop alone And in this sense which is the true sense though the Doct. shifteth out of it the refuters words are true as before is shewed The Doct. shifteth the sense Neyther can the Doctor without shame deny it seing that externall power of government which standeth cheefly in ordeyning censuring and absolving c. is the thing controverted in the quaestion before expressed which the Doctor holdeth to be the Diocesan Bishops right and unlawfully given to the parish-Bishop his Elders Wherefore the first vntruth falleth back upon the Doctors owne head when he falsly sayth that his Refuter affirmeth of him that he taketh all manner of authoritie from the Pastors Elders people And so also doth that second vntruth inasmuch as himself well vnderstandeth and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. vntruthes but they both fall back vpon his owne heade meaning in the proposition set downe page 41. to be of giving to the Bishop that power which is taken from the severall Pastors c. and not all power simply As for that he objecteth to prove that he giveth not all authority to the Bishop alone because others are in the ecclesiasticall government ioyned with him some vnder him as Deanes Archdeacons c. some above him as Archbishops and provinciall Synodes c. It shal be answered cap. 4. sect 8. where it is nothing to the purpose but an other shift from the question which is not defactâ— and of the time present viz what order of government now standeth in our Churches by our present lawes and constitutions but de â—â—re what forme of Church-government ought to be or at least lawfully The D. shifteth the question may be as being of divine or Apostolicall institution Or if dâ— facto yet it is for the time past for the first 200. yeares after Christ as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugne serm pag. 4. doe declare Wherefore if the Doctor will discharge himselfe from giving all the power of government in question to one Bishop
alone in his Diocese and so be guiltlesse of the vntruth he chargeth on the Refuter he must both affirme and prove that the Archdeacons and Deanes rurall and cathedrall togither with the Chauncelors and officialls which now rule vnder the Bishop and the Archbishop with his courts which are above him be of divine institution or at least were in vse in the time of the Apostles and so derived to succeeding ages And yet if he could and should performo this hereafter it shall nothing weaken the Refuters assertion who examining the tenor of his sermon and finding therein no intimation eyther of any assistants to restreyne his Diocesan Bishop or any superior court to rule over him did therefore truely Sect. 10. ad Section 11. page 43. Two other vntruths charged on the Ref. by the D. returne back into his owne bosome affirme that the Doctor put the reynes of the government coÌ„troverted into the hands of his Diocesan alone As for those two vntruthes which he sought and professeth to finde in the proposition they doe even as the former two returne home into his owne bosome For since he cannot deny but that the power which he taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes is in his opinion a supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall and such as wil be both supreme and sole in the Pastor yea more then Popelike if they had not a consistorie of elders joyned to him it is no vntruth to affirme but an vntruth to deny that he giveth both sole and supreme authoritie to the Diocesan Bishop whosoever he be that giveth to him alone that power of government which the Doctor taketh from every several Pastor with the Elders and people of every parish For whereas he objecteth that because he acknowledgeth a superior authoritie both in the Archbishop and his courts and in the provinciall Synods c. it is apparant that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that he giveth the whole authoritye ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected is before answered and here altogither impertinent because to wâ—â—ken the refuters proposition he must shewe that he giveth not supreme and sole authoritie to the Bishop in his Diocese although he give to him alone all the power that he taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But whereas he falleth backe to the assumption againe addeth touching his refuters speach in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that it is the supreme and lowdest lye and maketh the Assumption of his cheefâ—syllogisme evidently false it is a supreme and lowd lye in the Doctor if The D. maketh a loud lye I may returne him his owne words 1. to reckon this for one vntruth implied in the proposition when himselfe acknowledgeth it to be the assumptioÌ„ of his cheife syllogisme 2. to deny it for what could be spoken with a supremer lowder crye by him then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical and that not in this defense onely but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon where he offreth to prove it by divers testimonies To what end else citeth he pag. 30. Ignatius ad Smyrn and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens shewing that all must be subject to the Bishop who holdeth and menageth the whole power authority over all yea such a power as admitteth no partner much lesse a superior Yea what else meaneth his conclusion pag. 52. where he saith thus you haue heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are having a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop let the reader especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next chapter judge As yet therefore neyther the lowest nor the lowdest lies which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter doe belong to him they must goe home and rest with their owne Father for ought is yet done As for all that which followeth pag. 44. 45. eyther to Sect. 11. ad pag. 44. 45. sect 12. 46. 47. Def. free himselfe from giving popelike authoritie to Bishops or to prove his accusation against the Presbyterians that they make the Pastor of every parish a petty pope Well may it argue his wps good affection to the one and evill will which never said well to the other but it can neyther cleare him nor condemne them in his conscience who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides For neyther is the Doctors cause releived by that subjection which he affirmeth and the Refuter acknowledgeth of our Diocesan Bishops to their Archbishops c Neyther is their cause made the worse by the height or impudencie of that ecclesiasticall authoritie which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish For the question is not as the Doctor shifteth The Doct. shifteth the questioÌ„ it Whether by our Church constitutions Dioccsan Bishops doe lie subject to any higher authoritie or whether men may appeale from them c. but whether the Doctor doth not indeavour in his sermon to convey vnto every Bishop in his Diocese as his right by divine institution an authoritie and power of government in causes ecclesiasticall no lesse sole and supreme then the power which every Pastor should haue in his parish by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them if he had no consistorie of Elders to assist and restreine him And towching the parishbishop the question is this whether he should be or at least seeme to be an absolute Popeling as having sole and supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoyned vnto him If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slaundering and syllogistically conclude eyther from his owne sermon the Negative in the former question or from their writings whom he impugneth the assirmative in the later he shall I doubt not have good and honest audience In the meane time seing he hath not as yet affirmed much lesse proved that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolicall institution subject to the jurisdiction eyther of the Archbishop or of the provinciall synode it may suffice to close vp the former questio with his owne words p. 43. What hath he gained by all his owne triumphing outcries but the manifestation of his owne manifest vntruthes And for the later question since it is evident by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy that they doe subject their Pastor aswel as the meanest of the people togither with the whole congregatio to the Kinges authority to all his Majesties civill officers ecclesiasticall lawes and seing also it appeareth not onely by the same Tract art 26. but also by
his reasoning Sect. 2. ad sect 18. 19. p. 54. 57. whether it were so farr disordered by his Refuter as he would perswade his reader or rather be not perverted and put out of frame by himself It is a truth by himself confessed in the last section of this chapter pag. 57. lin 33. 35. that the body or frame of his sermon concludeth one and the same question but he is very angrie with his Refuter for reducing both the assertions which he proposed to be distinctly handled into one syllogisme For though he granteth that some such syllogisme as his Refuter framed â—aie be gathered out of diverse places of his sermon yet he denieth that it answereth to his intent The syllogisme is this The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is lawfull and good Both the premisses are clearely gathered from the 2. page of his sermon for the proposition is implied in the 2. assertion which saith That the office function of Bishops here ment by Angels is in this text approved as lawfull and commended as excellent And the assumption is thus propounded in the first assertion ibid. The Angels of the 7. Churches or the Pastors or Bishops of those Churches vnderstood by the angels were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as the reverend fathers of our Church are But let vs heare the Doctors censure of the refuters syllogisme Against the assumption he excepteth nothing wherefore I must take it for graunted that it is as his refuter affirmeth all one with his first assertion In like manner he graunteth the conclusion to be the same with that which he calleth the doctrine collected out of the text viz. that the colliâ—ge of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good which he setteth also for the conclusion of both the syllogismes which himself frameth pag. 58. neither denieth he the proposition to be in effect all one with that which himself taketh for the proposition of his first syllogism viz. that the calling of such as are here meant by Angels is lawfull and good Let us view his syllogism and compare it with the Refuter and this it is The calling of such as are here ment by Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan Bishops are such as are here ment by Angels Therefore the calling of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good What difference in the proposition betwene function and calling Bishops of the 7. Churches and such as are here ment by Angels What difference in the assumption betwene the Bishops of the Church of England and diocesan Bishops Are they not in the Dâ—â—ense all one if so what difference in the conclusions And wherein then hath the Refuter offended if his syllogism be for the sense and meaninge of each parte though the wordes and phrases doe a little vary one and the same with the first of the D. owne framing Forsooth the Doct. will tell you because he would against sense make the Reader beleeve that the proposition of his syllogism is that last assertion which was propâ—unded pag. 2. concerning the quality of their function But goeth not the Doctor rather against all sense yea against his owne conscience in labouring to make the reader beleeve that the conclusion of the Refuters syllogisine is that assertion or doctrine as he calleth it which pag. 2. sheweth the quality of their function For doth the Doctor speak of the Bishops of the Church of England and not rather of the Bishops of the 7. Churches in Asia when he promiseth out of the words of the text to shewe that the office and function of Bishops there meant by angels is in the same text approved as lawfull and commended as excellent And are the Bishops there meant by angels the Bishops of the Church of England and not the Bishops of those 7. Churches Behold how a greedy desire to quarrell with his Refuter without cause carieth The D. coÌ„ mitteth 3. foul faults to colour a falshood him at vnawares into these fowl faultes not onely of coÌ„tradicting coÌ„mon sense his owne knowledge but also of giving the lie to the holy ghost the author of the text And all this is done to colour that falshood which before he had forged sciz that his 2. assertion propounded pag. 2. was this viz. the calling of Diccesan Bishops is lâ—wfull and good A falshood sufficiently before discovered and by himself inconsiderately no doubt yet plainly acknowledged when he saith of the conclusion of the first Syllogisme p. 58. which is verbatim the same that before he called his doctrine that he did not expresse it being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of his text So this one sentence the calling of the diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good is propounded as a doctrine collected out of the text pag. 2. and yet is not expressed neither is it the doctrine but implyed onely in the collection of the doctrine How slippery is his memorie that The Doct. in one pag grossly coÌ„tradicteth himselfe in lesse then one page contradicteth himself so grossely But pardoÌ„ we him this slip for it is his coÌ„mon though a false Tenent that the later of his two assertions propounded pag. 2. of his sermoÌ„ is the doctrine which he collecteth from the text the former serving to prove the later which he saith lib. 4. pag. 2. doth much coÌ„mend the methode of his sermon But the reader by that saying may see how ready he is notwithstanding his disclayming of it with indignation lib. 1. cap. 1. to apprehend a slight occasion to blase his owne commendations and how needful it was he should discarde that second assertion which was first layde downe serm pag. 2. and in stead thereof tender vs that which every where in his defence he termeth his doctrine For if his 2. assertions taken in the very words which first expressed them be so knit together that the former shall prove the later the Enthemem which they will frame is this and no other The Pastors or Bishops meant by the angels Apocal. 1. 20. were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as the reverend fathers of our Church are Therefore the office and function of Bishops here meant by angels is in this text both approved as lawfull and commended as excellent Now to make good the consequence of this collectioÌ„ this must be added for the proposition The function of such Bishops for the substance of their calling as are the reverend fathers of our Church is in this text approved as lawfull and coÌ„mended as excellent Doth not this kind of reasoning think you very highly commend the Doctors methode in disposing his two assertions to his best advantage For however he begg the maine question in the proposition or The D. beggeth the main
question consequence of his Enthimeme for graunted yet he may rest securely in this that the conclusion of his argument will never be impugned But if his Refuter had thus disorderly turned the frame of his sermon vpside downe or given the least intimation that he indeavoured to prove a Diocesan Bishoprick to be lawful in the angels of these 7. Churches because it is lawfull in the Lord Bishops of England there had beene some cause for him whereas nowe there is no colour of a cause to complaine as he doth pag. 56 57 that by a forced Analysis not answerable to his Genesis the frame of his sermon to let his racking and taintering speeches alone is put quite out of frame Wherefore since the Doctor chargeth his Refuter with the fault whereof The D. is guilty of the fault which he chargeth his refuter with himself is guilty it shall be no great wroÌ„g done to return him some other of his own words p. 56. nimia est miseria doctuÌ„ esse hominum nimis behold to how great trouble too much learning wil put a man For if his skil had not bene extraordinary I say not in analysing his owne treatise but in changing his two first assertions and bringing in other two in their stead all this stirr had bin needlesse But the stirre or strife is not yet at an end the Doctors greatest Sect. 3. ad sect 19 p. 56. quarrel against his refuter is yet behinde namely the censure which he passeth upon those 5. points which he prosecuted in the body of his sermon where he saith answ pag. 9. that the first the last are to litle purpose and that the other three doe not directly prove the point in question I will not here trouble the reader with the Doctors termes wherein he sheweth in what rage he was hereat let us rather examine how just or vnjust this the Refuters censure is the which that it may appeare let it be remembred that the Doctor acknowledgeth in the former section pag. 54 that the first 4. points must be referred to the proof of his first assertion the last of the fyve to the second Now this being so whosoever taketh his second assertion in the words wherein he delivered it serm pag. 2. shall easily discerne that it is labour bestowed in vaine to spend time in the proving of that which is cleare enough of it self For who ever doubted but that the office and function of those Bishops which are in his text meant by angels is there approved as lawful and commended as excellent Wherefore if his 5. point serve for none other vse then for the proofe of this The D. 5. point is idle assertion the D. hath no cause to blame his Ref for affirming he might well have spared that labour But albeit he could not indure so milde a reproofe his patience must now be tryed with a sharper Be it therefore knowne to him that he reasoneth absurdly if he The D. reasoneth absurdly referr his 5. point to the fortifying of his 2. assertion pag. 2. for thus then his enthymeme standeth The calling of Bishops such as ours are or at least such as the Bishops of the auncient Churches are affirmed to be serm pag. 7. is of apostolical and divine institution Ergo the function of Bishops meant by angels Apoc. 1 20. is in the same text approved as lawful and commended as excellent As for that difference which is betweene the later terme or praedicatum of the antecedent and of the consequent in this argument I will take no exception against it for though every apostolicall or divine institution findeth not approbation in this text Apocal. 1. 20 yet the honour of such an institution cannot be denied vnto any function which in this text receiveth approbation Wherefore he shall with good leave if he will exchange the later terme of his conclusion thus Ergo the function of Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is of apostolicall and divine institution But how will the D. cover the shame of his disorderly reasoning when in stead of justifying our Bishops by the calling of those Angels he doth contrariwise inferre their calling to be of divine institution because our bishops have deryved their function from divine or apostolicall ordination Is not this to set the Cart before the Horse to laye that for the foundation which The D. laieth that for the groundsell that should serve for the ridgepole should serve for the roofe or highest parte of his buylding It will not serve his turne to tell us that we mistake his 2. Assertion for it is already shewed that himself putteth a changling in place thereof when he delivereth vnder that name this conclusion that callinge of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good Notwithstanding since he will needes have this which the falsely calleth his 2. Assertion to be the doctrine whlch he intended to prove not onely by the explication of his text comprized in his first assertion but also by that 5. point wherein he bestowed his greatest labour if he have sufficiently fortified the former 4. pointes which serve to vpholde that explication which concludeth his doctrine what offence was it for his Refuter then or now againe for his reader to say that his labour in the last point was needlesse and might well have bin spared May he not well think that one argument soundly concluded from the canonicall text will more prevaile with the wise then many conjectural reasons drawne froÌ„ mere humane testimonies But may a man prove his patience yet a little further that with an harder sentence viz. That he contradicteth himself in urging The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself that 5. point as a distinct proofe to conclude the doctrine I speak herein nothing but the truth and that I received from his owne mouth For this 5. point to wit that the function of Bishops is of epostâ—licall and divine institution which he now pag 54. 58. maketh a proofe of the doctrine arising out of the text is expressely affirmed serm pag 93. to be the doctrine it self which ariseth out of the text and by way of explication of the text is proved And who so well observeth what lawfulnes and goodnes or excellencie he ascribeth eyther to the function of those Bishops which are meant by angels in his text assert 2. pag. 2. or to the calling of all other Bishops answerable to his description pag. 51. with 54. 54. he may plainly perceive that it is no other then such as hath institution from God and approbation from the text it self under the names of starrs angels wherefore if he himself had beene as carefull to observe the transitions which he vseth in his sermon as he is ready without cause to blame his refuter for not observing theÌ„ he might have discerned his doctrine handled in his sermon to be the very laste of his 5. pointes and not so diverse from it as
Notwithstanding for the clearinge of the state of the question two things are to be considered to wit first what he includeth in or excludeth from the substance of their callinge Secondly in what sense their function is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The substance of their callinge the Doctor explaineth serm Sect. 6. page 52. 53. where haâ—ing said that the angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are he addeth that is to say Diocâ—san and Provinciall Bishops being superiour in degree to other Ministers and having a singularitie of prehemmence for terme of life and a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction Neverthelesse the reader must not imagin that he speaketh of Provinciall or Metropolitan Bishops when he affirmeth the episcopall function to be of divine institution â—or in his defense he usually inserteth the word Diocesan as lib. 1. pag. 58. and lib. 4. pag. 139. to teach us that the Bishops whose function he mainteyneth to be of apostolical institution are no other then Diocesan Bishops As for Metropolitans though he thinke lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that their superioritie was intended by the Apostles when they appointed Bishops over mother Cities yet as well as he loveth them he dareth not affirme that any were ordeyned by the Apostles to the office or prâ—h minence of Metropolitan Bishops For every Metropolitan in his opinion lib. 3. cap. 1. pag. 20. 21. was The function of Archbps. is lesse beholding to the D. theâ— the function of Diocesan Bishops originally the Bâ—shop of his peculiar Diocese and not actually a Metropolitan vntill divers Churches in the same Province being constituted there was a consociation amonge themselves and a subordination of them to him as their primate So that the function of Metropolitans or Archbishops is lesse beholdinge to Mayster Doctor then the callinge of Diocesan Bishops Of the former he speaketh doubtfully lib. 4. cap. 5. p. 130. Their superiority arose as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directinge and force of necessity urging men to that course but as I rather think from the institution of the Apostles Of th' other he affirmeth very peremptorily lib. 4. pag. 139. 143. that the calling of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution The substance then of that episcopall function which he holdeth to be a divine ordinance the D. hath placed in these particulars 1. That they be diocesan Bishops or overseers of a diocese 2. That they be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. That they have a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power both of ordination and of jurisdiction in their places Loe here his enumeration and withall how he omitteth therein and that of purpose as it seemeth foure other more substantiall The D. omitteth 4. substantiall and lesse questionable points of the Bps. function but yeâ— wisely and lesse questionable points of their function who first had the name of Bishops appropriated to theÌ„ in the anceÌ„t Churches to wit that they were 1. Pastors of their Churches bound by their office to dispence the word and Sacramentes to their people and therefore 2. tied to make their positive residencie in that one City or Church whereof they had the Charge 3. assisted also every of them with his presbytery or Senate of Elders without whose advyce and consent in Church-matters nothing of weight was done and 4. not subordinated to the jurisdictioÌ„ or censure of any one Bishop superiour vnto him But of these pointes more he reafter lib. 3. 4. I now purpose not to insist on this defect in his laying down of the substanciall partes of the episcopall function neyther will I contend about the continuance of their Presidencie or singular preheminence whether it be essentiall or accidentall to injoy it coÌ„stantly for terme of life nor yet magnify the D. wisdome in his cuÌ„ning concealing of them as knowing how it wipeth his Diocesans over the shinnes In this rather I disire to give or receive satissaction whether that singularitie of preheminence and peerelessâ— power which he ascribeth unto Bishop be not a sole superioritie or sole power of rule as the Refuter affirmeth And this I the rather desire because the Doctor is so highly offended with the worde sole that as oft as he findeth it vsed by his Refuter in this question he rewardeth him with these or the like counterbuffs at every turne Whence coÌ„meth this sole I pray you that hath so oft bene foysted in I feare greatly froÌ„ The Doct. standereth shamelessly an evill conscience resolved to opâ—ugn and d face the truth lib. 3. pag 118. And in the next page God amend that soule that so often foysteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And againe pag. 126 O defiled conscience which ceaseth not to ascribe such odious and absurd asserâ—ions to me Thus and thus is M. Doctor pleased to declaime Why but how should the word sole or the name of sovereignty or Sect. 7. sole rule â—e so odious and offensive to the Doctors eares when notwithstanding all this face the thing is so pleasing to him that he pleadeth for it tooth and nayle To ask as he doth lib. 3. pag. 20. 68 69. where doe I say in all thâ— sermon that Bishops had or must have sole power or iurisdiction and whether Bishops cannot be superiour to Presbyters in the power of ordination or iuriâ—aiction vnlâ—sse they have all the sole pâ—wâ—r Thus to ask I saye helpeth litle eyther to frâ—e him from giving way to those assertions which he seemeth to abhorre or to make his Refuter guilty of so evill and defiled a conscience as he accuseth him of nay if he discharge a good conscience he must confesse either that his wordes doe not faithfully expresse his meaning or that he meant to give vnto Bishops that sol pâ—wer of rule which his Refuter gathereth from his wordes For what difference is there betwixt that singularity of preheminence which he maketh the first branch of the Bishops superiority serm pag. 32. and that sole superiority or sole power of rule which the Refuter speaketh of Doth he not teach us out of Cyprian and Herom pa. 33. 34 that the government and the whole care of the Church apperteineth to the Bishop which is one onely And that his singular preheminence is a peerelesse power and eminent above all yea such as admitteth no partner pag. 36. 46 And doth he not afterwards pag. 45. 46. 47. vndertake to demonstrate that the Bishop governeth in foro externo not onely the people but the prâ—sbyters also of an whole diocese as having authority to guide and direct them as their ruler and to censure and correct them as their Iudge Doth he not serm pag. 30. as is already shewed in the former chapter sect 10. out of Ignatius make 3. degrees of Ministers Deacons Preists and Bishops vnder Christ the Deâ—cons subject to the
Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishops and the Bishops to Christ And asketh he not pag. 46. what a Bishop else is but such a one as holdeth and menageth the whole power and authoritie above all yea and doth he not pag. 30. 31. out of the council of Sardis and out of Optatus and Hâ—erâ—m make those 3. degrees answerable to the high Preists and Levites placing the Deacons and Presbyters in the roome of the Preists Levites and the Bishops in the roome of Aaron the High-Preist the very cheife and Prince of all With what face then can he deny vnto the Bishop in his diocese a sole superiority or solepower of rule or say that the word sole is foisted in besides his meaninge Let him weigh the force of this argument and give us a direct answer to it the next time he writeth Whosoever ascribeth to every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner to governe in fore externo the Presbyters aswell as the people as their Ruler and Iudge holding and menaging the whole power and authoritie above all all subiect to him and he subiect to Christ he giveth to every B in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereignty and sole power of rule But the Dostor prescribeth â—o every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all c. Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereigntie and so power of rule The assumption is gathered from his owne wordes as is before shewed If he deny the proposition shall he not bewray in himself that evill conscience which he chargeth his Refuter with which is resolved to oppugne and deface the truth Can he be ignorant that a singular preheminence of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner put into the hands of any one to govern all the rest as their ruler and Iudge and he subject to to none but to Christ is not onely a sole superiority but a very sovereignty or sole and supreme power and rule Wherefore how soever every superiority in power or majority of rule be not a sole or sâ—preme power or superiority c Yet the Refuter hath rightly affirmed and the Doctor hath with check of conscience I feare denied the power of rule which he ascribeth to Bishops to be a sole power And touching our owne Bishops though he be loth to acknowledge Sect. 8. in plaine termes that they are sole ruling Bishops yet he affirmeth that which will easily evince it to be a truth For to let passe what he saith serm pag. 40. concerning ordination that the power thereof is ascribed and appropriated to the Bishop alone and that however by the councill of Carthage the Preâ—byters were to impose handes with the Bishop yet it was then as now with vs not for necessity but for greater solemnely c. To let this passe I say he confesseth lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 192. that the advice and â—ssistance of presbyters which the ancient Bishops used grew longe since out of use because it seemed needlesse both to the presbyters desyring their ease and to the Bishops desyring to rule alone And to take a way all shew of difference betwene those ancients and our Bishops who have not the like assistance of their presbyters that they had in former ages he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 5. pag. 111. That when Bishops used the advice of their presbyters the sway of their authority was nothinge lesse then when they usâ—d it not for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and advâ—se but never to over-rule the Bishop like as the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his Councell is nothing the lesse for it but the more advised The truth of this later speach is not here to be examined nor yet how well the former doth accord with the later there will come a fitter time for it hereafter for the present purpose it shall suffice to observe 1. That if a desire in Bishops to rule alone was one cause why the AssistaÌ„ce which formerly they had of their Presbyters grewe out of vse it may wel be thought that ours doe nowe rule alone seing they have no such assistance as they had 2. Neither can it be otherwise if that assistance which once they had was not to restreyne them of their willes but onely to yeeld them that help that great Princes free Monarches have of their grave Counsellors by whom they are advised in their affaires of state Here therefore I crave his answere to this argument Whosoever in their government proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them from swâ—â—ing the matter as pleaseth them they have a sole power of rule or do rule by their sole authoritie But our English Preâ—â—tes iâ— their Episcopâ—ll government and in proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them fâ—om swaying the matter as pleâ—seth them Let not the D. be ashamed to speake plainely what he closely insinuatâ—th Therefore they have a sole power of rule or do rule by theiâ— sole authoritie The proposition I suppose to be so cleare that the Doct. wil not deny it The Assumption is already acknowledged for true by himself I hope therefore in his next defence he will imbrace the conclusion and esteme it no longer an odious and absurd asserti on For why should he be ashamed to speake that plainly which he doth closely insinuate the rather for that one of his fellow Doct. D. Dove I meane in his defense of Church-government pag. 19. coÌ„ming to speak of a Diocesan D. Bishop ruling by his sole power saith that this is the cheefe matter now in question and further pag. 20. that he may speake something for the iustification of the Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie affirmeth that Timothy Titus were such Bishops Now no doubt the Doctor will expect an answer to that which was overpassed in the former chapter as impertinent to the point then in hand viz. That all power is not given to the Bishop alone because that in the government of the Church others are joyned with him some vnder him and some above him c. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 42. and he shall here according to promise have it And that he may see the force of his reasoning I wish him to remember that Christ saith of himselfe Math. 28. 18. all power is given to mean heaven and earth and to bethinke himselfe what answere he would give to one that shoulde thus argue In the government of the world there are others ioyned with Christ the Father is above him 1. Cor. 15. 27 28. and vnder him are both his Apostles and thâ—ir successors Mat. 28 19
power of order in Bishops that they cannot communicate it to any others Wherefore though he should never so impudently stand forth to mainteine that he doth not ascribe a sole power of ordinatioÌ„ to them yet wil it be inevitably concluded froÌ„ his owne wordes For whosoever have the right or power of ordination appropriated to theÌ„ alone as a prerogative peculiar to their function and that by the power of their order yea so peculiar to their order that they cannot communicate it to men of another function they must needes have the sole power of ordination If therfore Bishops have the power of ordination so appropriated to them alone and to the power of their order as is before shewed from the D. owne wordes it followeth of necessâ—â—y that they have a sole power of ordination given vnto them This is also implied in those speaches so often repeated lib. 3. pag. 72. 86. 93. 97. that the power of ordeyninge was in the Bishops and not in the presbyters And that Bishops had the power or right of ordeyning which presbyters had not And of ordination and jurisdiction jointly as he constantly mainteineth them to be the principall and most essentiall parts of the episcopall authority lib. 3. pag. 68. lib. 4. pag. 78. so he flatly denyed the charge of these affaires to belonge vnto presbyters The Doct. must â—ay by his slander and graunte that he giveth sole power c. to Bishops or else he cotradictâ—â—h himself often lib. 4. pag. 79 And speaking of those precepts which Paul gave to Timothe for ordination and Church government 1. Tim. 5. 19. 21. he saith pag. 77. they were not coÌ„mon to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to Bishops So that we may safely conclude neither can the Doct. impugne it without apparant contradiction to himself that our Bishops are sole-ruling Bishops and that the singularity of preheminence or preheminent power which he ascribeth vnto Bishops as an essentiall part of their function is in deed a sole power of rule or monarchicall superiority The 5. Chapter Concerninge the sâ—ate of the Question and namely of the D. distinction of ius apostolicum divinum Thus have we done with the first come we now to the second point before proposed to be examined viz. in what sense the sole Sect. 1. ruling Bishops such as ours are is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The Doctor often acknowledgeth it to be a divine ordinance in respect of the first institution as having God the author thereof But he can by no means indure his Refuter to say that he holdeth their function to be divini juris orâ—de jure diâ—iâ—o and perpetually or generally necessary for all Churches yea his chollerâ—i so kindled thereat that he chargeth him with untruth calâ—mâ—â—tion wilful depraving of his assertion as we may see both in his answere to his Refuters preface pag. 2. and in this defense lib. 3. pag. 22. lib. 4. pag. 138. But it is already shewed in the defense of that preface that the Doctor abuseth the refuter depraveth his words and meaning in as much as he had an eye onely to the first institution of the episcopall function when he sayd that the Doctors sermon tended to prove that the sayd function is to be holden jure divino by Gods lawe and not as an humane ordinance And sithence was reserved to this place the more full handling of those nice conceits in the Doctor which were then overpassed touching the difference betwixt things that are divini juris and others that were apostolici and that absolute necessity which he placeth in those things that are divini juris we are now to enter vpon the coÌ„sideration of these particulars First therefore because he now seemeth in this defense lib. 3. pag. 26. 116. lib. 4. pag. 137. 139. to allowe in his owne judgement that distinction betwixt those things that are divini those that are apostolici juris which in his sermoÌ„ pa. 92. he proposed in the name of some other divines viz. that the former are generally The Doct. neyther doth nor can make good his distinctioÌ„ perpetually immutably necessary the later not so he might have done wel to have warraÌ„ted this distinctioÌ„ either froÌ„ the scripture or froÌ„ the testimony of some orthodoxal writers FroÌ„ the Scripture he cannot 1. because he hath already laid that ground out of Actes 15. 28. which will refute it as is already shewed in defence of the said preface 2. Moreover it is well observed of sundry Divines as Aquinas 2â— 2â— q. 55. art 2. that jus divinum dicitur quod divinitus promulgatur And Lubbertus de Pont. Romano lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 338 that jus dicitur a jussum per apocopeÌ„ Where fore as he saith jus divinum est quod Deus jubet so we may say that jus apostolicum est quod apostolus jubet vel ab apostolis jubetur The true difference therefore if there be any betwene jus divinuÌ„ and apostolicum standeth onely in this that the former hath the expresse and immediate commandement of God to warrantize that which he prescribeth whereas the later proceedeth from the Apostles as the Interpreters of Gods will and his Ministers which by direction from him give rules vnto his Church to observe In which sense the Apostle Paul distinguisheth his commandement from the Lords 1. Cor. 7. 10 12. vnto the married I command ouk â—go alla ho kurios not I but the Lord. c. But to the remnant ego lego ouk hokurios l speâ—ke not the Lord c. Will the Docter now say of the former precept because it is jus divinum that it is generall perpetually and immutably necessarie and of the later that it is not so as being onely jus apostolicum I hope rather he will spare the Refuter or his friend the labor to prove that the later is no lesse generally perpetually and immutably necessary then the former Significat Apostolus preceptum illud vers 10. niti expresso verbi divini testimonio non autem ex revelatione singulari spiritus sancti profectum Piscat in 1. Cor 7. 10. Suum autem id esse dicit vers 12. de quo nihil desertè expresserit Dominus non quod ipse ex se temerè aut suo arbitrio esset coÌ„mentatus Id enim se fecisse negat infra vers 25. 40. Beza in 1. Cor. 7. 12. And therfore after many other precepts delivered by the Apostles in sundry cases not before determined by any direct and expresse verdict of Gods word as will appeare to him that wayeth what he teacheth 1. Cor. 8. 9. 13. 10. 25 -29 11. 4 -14 23 -25 he bindeth them all up under one generall charge 1. Cor. 14. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are tou kâ—riou entâ—lai the commandements of God Dei
precepta vocat hoc est divinitus inspirata et ob id authentica Aret in 1. Cor. 14. 37. 3. It is well knowne that the doctrine of the Apostles and their practise recorded in their writings yeeld us the most direct and expresse warrant which Christian people and their Teachers have I say not for the sanctifying of the Lords day which is our Sabboth because some great Favourites of the Prelacy holde it though vnjustly to be a varyable ordinance and alterable at mens pelasure but for the estableshing of a settled Ministery in every Church to feed the â—lock which dependeth on them 1. Pet. 5. 3. 4. Act. 14. 23. 20. Tit. 1. 5. Which I suppose all will graunt to be generally and perpetually necessarye Byshop Bilson not excepted Perpet Govern pag. 106. 107. and 208. And it is no lesle evident that there is no generall necessity or perpetuity in some precepts which Christ himselfe gave to his Disciples as Mat. 10. 5. 14. and 12. 16. and 15. 20. and 19. 21. Iohn 13 14. 15 wherefore the perpetuity or immutability of precepts given in the scriptures dependeth not vpon the authority of the person froÌ„ whom D. distinction falleth to the groâ—d they proceed immediately but vpon the generallity or perpetnity of the grounds or causes which give strength there vnto So that the things which are Apostolici juris and none otherwise divine ordinances then as they proceedd froÌ„ the spirit of God that directed the Apostles are generally perpetually immutable necessary in the presence and concurrence of those causes and grounds whichmade them at the first necessary And there is no other or greater perpetuity or necessitie in any of those things which are immediately divini juris Wherefore as the D. acknowledgeth the things which were ordeyned of the Apostle to be for the authority of their iustitution not onely apostolicall but also divine ordinances so he must confesse that whatsoever they established not for a short tyme but for succeeding ages the same deserveth to be estemed as a thing authorized divnio jure not apostGlico onely And herein we have the consent of sundry Orthodoxal writers Certâ— saith D. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. pag. 107. quod apostoli ut necessarium sanxerunt atque introduxerunt juris divini vim The D. distinction is against the iudgment or his own freindes aswell as others obtinet And in this very question of the superioritle of Bishops above Presbyters as it is their coÌ„mon Tenent that they are equall or rather all one jure divins by Gods lawe so they hold the doctrine and practise of the Apostles to be susficient warrant to conclude their assertion as we may see in Sadeel ad repet Turrian sophism loc 12. pag. 403. 412. partis secundae And in Chemnitius exam Conc. Trident. De sacram ordâ—n parte 22. sol 249. yea Sadeel pag. 117. putteth no difference betwene jus divâ—num and an Apostolicall ordinance for vpon these premisses Presbyteri certè apostolicis institutis habent jus ordinandi Illi vero qui haâ— aeâ—ate ecclesiam primi reformarunt erant presbyteri he coÌ„cludeth quare primi illi doctores potuerunt in ecclesia reformata ministros ac pastores ordinare idque jure divino In like manner Bishop Barlowe in his sermon on Acts. 20. 28. as one not acquainted with any difference in perpetuitie betwene â—us apostolicuÌ„ divinum giveth both indifferently to the episcopall function gathering out of one word posuit in his text that it was both praxis apostolike an ordinance apostolicall and thesis pneumalike a canon or constitution of the whole Trinitie enacted for succeeding prosterity Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 117. saith a thing may be called de jure divino two waies 1. because it is of God immediately 2. because it is of them who are so directed by Gods holy Spirit that they cannot erre And in this sense the superiority of Bishops over other inferior Ministers maye be called de jure divino or an ordinance divine Doctor Sutcliff de presb cap. 15. presseth among other argumentes apostolorum usum et morem to prove that the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers doth niti jure divino The same may be sayd of sundry others which at this daye hold the functioÌ„ of our diocesan Bishops to be an apostolicall and so a divine ordinance or give them a superiority of jurisdiction jure apostolico as the D. himself doth lib. 3. pag. 116. and are not so scrupulous as the D. is to allowe that the superiority of their function is warranted to them jure divino Neither feare they to conclude the episâ—opall govermeÌ„t to be perpetuall because it is an ordinance apostolicall Wherefore I would be glad to learne of the Doctor in his next defense seing he was not in his sermon or the margin of it pleased A request to the D. to tel us where he so lately learned that distinction to tell us who those Some are which in respect of perpetuitie doe put such a difference as he noteth betwene the thinges that are Divini and those that are apostolici juris For as he receyved it not froÌ„ any of the forenamed Favorites of the prelacy so neyther did he suck it from Doct. Bilsons breast the man that gave him in this question so good satisfaction For as the title of his booke sheweth that he holdeâ—h the government of Bishops to be the perpetuall government of Christes Church so the body of the booke it self doth plainely demonstrate that he concludeth the perpetuity thereof from no other argumentes then such as the D. urgeth to prove it to be an apostolicall divine ordinance Yea it seemeth that when the D. preached his former sermon of the dignity and duty of the Ministers either he had not yet learned or at least he little regarded this distinction For pag. 73. he taketh an ordinance delivered by the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 14. for a sufficient arguement to conclude that a sufficient maintenance is due vnto the Ministers of the Gospell jure divino by the lawe of God But let us come as neere as we can to his author of this distinction Bellarmin in deed distinguisheth betwene jus divinum and Apostolicum atfirming lib. de clericis cap. 18. that the mariage of preists is prohibired onely jure apostolico not divino Quod enim saith he Apostolus praecipit non divinum sed apostolicum praeceptum est But with him jus apostolicum is no other then jus humanum or positivum Ibid. cap. seq Moreover he urgeth the same distinction as the D. acknowledgeth lib. 3. pag. 101. to shewe what he tooke to be Hieroms meaning when he saith that a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter in nothing save in the power of ordination that is saith he lib. de Clericis cap. 15. in this onely he is superiour to other Ministers jure divino but in the power or jurisdiction jure
apostolico Which distinction though in this place the Doctor admitteth not yet elsewhere lib. 3. pag. 26. he alloweth it to reconcile those speaches of Ierom ad Euagr and in Tit. cap. 1. where he denieth the superioritie of Bishops to be of divine disposition yet affirmeth it to be an apostolical tradition He may be vnderstood saith the D. as holding their superioutie to be not divini but apostolici juris But how soever he accord with Bellarmin in approving the distinction yet since he holdeth the episcopall superiority to be so farre forth a divine ordinance as it proceeded from God in asmuch as the Apostles were directed by the holy Ghost in ordeyning it he cannot without apparant contradiction to himself imbrace Bellarmins The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe which way soever he turneth him construction of Apostolici juris who taketh it for jus humanum or positivum Neither can he easily winde out of the briars of an evident contradiction when he denieth it to be divini iuris and yet graunteth it to be be a divine ordinance yea such an holy ordinance of God as ought at this day not onely so to be acknowledged but also to be obeyed and that of conscience serm pag. 94. 98. For if this be so how should it want what perpetuitie which agreeth vnto other things that are in deed divini juris by the lawe of God For out of what fountayne drew the D. this deep learning which Sect. 3. ad pag. 2. of the D. answere to the ref preface ad lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. nowe he setteth abroach answ to the ref preface pag 2. and lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. viz. that the things which are divini juris by the law of God are so generally iÌ„mutably and perpetually necessâ—rie that no true Church can be without them What will he say to the pure preaching of the word the right administration of the Sacraments and of the Church Censures and the orderly sending forth of Ministers lawfully chosen and ordeyned to theyr severall charges Are not these things divini juris by the lawe of God and divine or at least apostol The D. distinction erronious call ordinances generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie for who can take libertie in any of these to depart from the rule of Gods word and not be guiltie of sinn against God yea in that one Sacrament of the Lords Supper are not all the actions recorded in the first institution viz. in the Minister to take blesse break and deliver the bread and to take blesse and diliver the cup and in the Communicants to take and eate the one and to take and drinke the other are not all and every of these actions I saye generally perpetually and immutably necessary to be observed therfore to be esteemed to be divini juris else have our divines little reson to hold them for essentiall parts of the Lords supper and to urge for proof thereof Christs Commaundement doo this in remembrance of me see D. Bilson ag the Rhem Apologie parte quarta pag. 675. in quarto Bucanus Instiâ— loc 48. pag. 677. 678 NotwithstaÌ„ding I hope the D. will not deny the name of a true Church vnto every assembly of Christians which wanteth in any part the puritie of the doctrine or that syncere form of administratioÌ„ which the word of God pre cribeth for his Sacraments or Church-censures For he is not ignorant that among divine ordinances and things necessarie some yea the greatest somâ— doe concern rather the welbeing then the very being of the Church aâ—e onely needful or behooful for the wel-ordering of the Ch lib. 4. p. 103. 104 but not so gâ—nerally and immutably necessary as though no true Church could be wiâ—hout them Wherefore to draw this controversly to a direct issue though without any violoence offered vnto he phrase we might affirme every commaundement of God whether generall or speciall and temporall or perpetuall to be jus divinum because the word jus is derived of jussum as is before observed yet because the word is restrayned by the * Canonistes and by Ius divinum est quod in lege coÌ„tineÌ„tur et evangelio atque immutabile semper permanet lib. 1. Iuris canon Tit. 2. coÌ„mon use appropriated to such ordinances as are layd downe in the holy scripture for the perpetuall use of the Church I will here acknowledge a generall and perpetuall necessity in those things that are to be holden jure divino yet place I not so absolute a necessity as the D. dreameth of in those things that are divini juris as though no true Church could be without any of them It is sufficient if they be so immutably necessary that the Church hath no liberty as it hath in things indifferent to alter or abolish them but where they may be had they may not without sin be neglected much lâ—sse wittingly be refused or changed If the D. shall herein professe an agreement with vs and say that he therefore denieth the episcopall function to be divini juris because though it be lawfull to be reteyned as being ordeyned of God by his Apostles for the Churches which they planted yet it is not by any commandement or warrant from Gods word perpetually imposed on all Churches for so he seemeth to affirm lib. 4. pag. 145. lin 6. and 26 I praye leave to demaund why in the 2. page of his answ to the Refuters preface he contenteth not himself to disclaime at large that generall and immuâ—able necessity which is ascribed to thinges that are divini juris pag. 94. of his serm but rather addeth this clause so as no true Church can be without it If it be not to explaine that necessity which he spake of in his sermon to what purpose serveth it For he found no such clause nether in the words of the Refuters preface which he taxeth of vntruth nor yet in pag. 90. of his answere where he saith a true acknowledgment is to be founde in what sense he denieth the calling of the Bishops to be Divini juris But let us see whether the Doctor both in his sâ—rmon and in Sect. 4. some places of this defense thereof mainteineth not the epilcopal function to be generally and perpetually necessary and that in as ample manner as some other ordinances are that without all contradictioÌ„ are estemed to be divini juris 1. He appropriateth or at least attributeth kat hexochen vnto Bishops yea even to our diocesaÌ„ Bishops aswell as vnto the Bishops or Ministers of the 7. Churches in Asia and that in respect of their function the name of Angels sent of God starres held in the right hand of Christ serm pag. 55. 95. Yea he saith pag. 55. They are as cheif Stewards over Gods family and principall spirituall governours over Christs body And to them he restreineth pap 70 the name of hegoumenoi rulers or Leaders which the Apostle Heb. 13. 17. chargeth to be obeyed Moreover he
ordination performed by Ministers that are no Bishops doth evidently shewe it The truth is saith he where Ministers may be had none but Ministers ought to baptise and where Bishops may be had none but Bishops ought to ordâ—yn But though neyther ought to be done yet being done the former by other Christians in want of a Minister the later by other Ministers in defect of a Bishop as the one so the other also is of force the Church receiving the partie baptized into the communion of the faithfull and the partie ordâ—yned as a lawfull Minister Now if this be a truth say I then there must be a truth acknowledged also in these conclusions The D. againe saith as much for the per petuitie of the episcopall function as of the functioÌ„ af other Ministers that followe viz. That according to the rules of ordinarie Church-government as the right of administring baptisme is a peculiar prerogative of the ministeriall function jure divino by the lawe of God so eodem jure even by the same lawe the right of ordination is peculiar to the Bishops And as all Churches under heaven till the comming of Christ to judgement are bound to strive for the establishing reteyning of that Ministerie which God hath authorized to administer baptisme so are all Churches by a like band tied to contend for the episcopall function which hath right to ordeyne And consequently the calling of Bishops for ordeyning is as generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie as the office of other Ministers is for the work of baptisme I add that in the D. opinion there is as perpetuall and immutable a necessitie of the episcopal function for the ordering of every Church as there is in the opinioÌ„ of many very judicious divines of wine for the holy and pure administration of the Lords supper For whereas he alloweth not of any other forme of Church-governement then by Bishops unlesse in case of necessity where orthodoxall Bishops cannot be had and that because any government whatsoever is better then none at all serm pag. 97 In the like necessity where wine cannot be had they judge it better to take in stead of wine water or any other kinde of drinke vsuall in such places then wholly to neglect the Lords sacrament or to maime it by an halfe administration in one onely element see Polani Syntag. Col. 3213. Wherfore as their allowaÌ„ce of a change in the outward elemeÌ„t of the Lords supper being limitted to such an extraordinarie case doth rather support then contradict their assertion that the Church hath not libertie to refuse wine or to preferre any other element before it the D. his excusing other reformed Churches for enterteyning a Presbyteriall aristocracie in stead of an episcopall Monarchie onely in such a case of necessity as he pretendeth might give his Refuter just occasion to think though he affirmed no such mattet that he held the episcopall governmeÌ„t to be divini juris thereby intending that all Churches are bound to preferre it aswell in their indeavours as in their judgement before Sect. 6. ad serm p. 79. Defens lib. 4. pag. 100. 146. 148. and 167. any other forme of government whatsoever But there is an higher pitch of the necessity of this function as may appeare by some words that slipped from the D. in the penning of his sermon pag. 79. to witt that the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeyne churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very The D. did hold the episcopal function perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches being of the visible Churches For from hence it followeth by good consequence as his Refuter rightly gathereth answer pag. 145 and 138. that seing in his judgment the function and authoritie which they had was episcopall and diocesan such as ours is now therefore also in his judgement the episcopall power or government of Diocesan Bishops is perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches Now herewith the Doctor is highly offended and chargeth him with mallice want of iudgemeÌ„t and with ignorant mistaking or wilfull depraving of his sayings and that against sense lib. 4. pag. 146. 148. 167. A great charge in deed but how doth he avoide the consequence objected for sooth to explaine his meaning he dismembreth his owne speach cutteth asunder the knot which with his own tongue and pen he had knit for whereas before he spake jointly as of one thing expressed by two words of their function and authority that it was ordinarie and The Doct. plaieth fast and loose tieth vntieth but every one may see the sleight to his â—â—ame perpetually necessarie now to shew his skill in playing fast and loose at his pleasure he saith pag. 100. and 147. he meant that their function was ordinarie and their authoritie was perpetually necessary But as slippery as he is his Refuter will not suffer him thus to slip his neck out of the coller all his wit and learning can neyther unloose nor cut a sunder that chayne which bindeth him to a grosse absurdity His wordes serm pag. 79 are these The function authoritie which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creete consisting specially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wellbeinge but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches Yf the Doctor had meant so to divide the later parte of his speach as he woulde now perswade what meant he not to discover his meaning plainely It had bin easy for him to have disioyned their function from their authority in his whole speach on this manner q. d. But neyther was the function which Tim. and Tit. had at Ephesus and in Crete to ende with their persons as being ordinary neyther was their authority to dye with them as being perpetually necessary c. Therefore had he so ment in deed and truth as he now professeth since there wanted not skill there must needs be in him a wante of will to speake plainely vnto the capacity of his reader The Doct. is guilty of that imputation which he professeth to abhorr so that he standeth here guilty of that â—oul imputation which elsewhere he professeth to abhorre lib. 2. pag. 52. viz. a desyre and intent of dazeling the eies of the simple I might say the eies of all even the moste judicious as all maye see that reade with a single eie and weigh with an upright hand what he hath written But to speake what I think he rather belieth his owne heart in The D. in all likelihood belieth his owne hart saying now that he then meant that which he never dreamt of till he had set his witts a work to finde out some flie
it hath no foundation in the word of God 2. Though that first point of his 5. concerning the Elders be as hath bin proved to this question impertinent yet will I take the like course with him therein 3 and lastly though he casteth of all the testimonies of the new divines either as incompetent being parties as he â—aith or as misalledged by him I will prove them both truely and rightly alledged and as competent as any he bringeth THE FIRST PART THE THIRD BOOKE Chap. 1. Conteyning an answere to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. booke wherein he laboureth but in vayne to mainteyne the first argument in his sermon viz. That the seven Churches of Asia whereof his text speaketh were Dioceses VVEe are nowe at the length come to see how artificially and soundly he collecteth from his text Sect. â— the Doctrine which he principally insisteth on viz. That the function or calling of diocesan Bishops such aâ— ours are is of Divine institution He saith pag. 94. of his sermon it is proved by the explication of his text which standeth in this assertion that the Bishops here meant by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are His argument therefore in an Enthymem runneth thus The Bishops meant by angels Apâ—â— â— 20. were such Bishops as ours are Therfore the function of Bishops such as ours are is of divine institution And in a playne syllogisme according to the course of his owne reasoning Def lib 4. p. 2. 3. thus The function of such as are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. is of divine institution Bishops such as ours be are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. Therefore the function of such Bishops as ours be is of divine institution Here I willingly subscribe to the proposition because the name of angels Starres holden in Christs right hand doth argue his sending and approbation but I flatly deny the Assumption or AntecedeÌ„t of his Enthimem as having no foundation in his text nor any one sound reason either in his sermoÌ„ or in the defense thereof to make it good For though he will at no hand indure to heare of any solo power of rule eyther for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops and that he doth vnderhand give such a power vnto them and that iure apostolico if he will strongly conclude the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. to be such Bishops as ours are he must clearly prove which he can never doe nor as yet ever attempted to doe that the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops But that his owne conscience may be the better convinced of the weaknes of his reasoninge and of his abusing the text which he handleth he is to be put in minde that himself serm pag. 52. 53. doth thus vnfolde the substantiall partes of the callinge of ouâ— Bishops to wit that they are Di cesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a peerâ—lesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction For hence it followeth that if he have not proved the Bishops ment by Angels in his text to be 1. some of them provinciall and and other some diocesan Bishops 2. all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power of ordination 5. and of jurisdiction if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified then it followeth that he hath left naked the main point which he should have coÌ„firmed namely that the Bishops here meant by Angels were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are Now it is apparant to all that peruse his sermon and the defense thereof that he never indeavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mencioned in his text to be a provinciall Bishop or in the power of ordination to have a peerelesse preheminence above others For though he tell vs serm pag. 18. that some of the 7. Churches were mother cities and deâ— lib. 2. pag. 63. that some of the succeeding Bishops were Metropolitanes yet all his strength is spent in proovinge every of those Churches to be a diocese and consequently their Bishops to be diocesan Bishops And though he speak some what for a preheminent power of jurisdiction in these Angels serm pag. 49. def lib. 3. pag. 135. yet in all his dispute of ordination he is silent of them altogither It remaineth then that we examine how well he hath proved the Bishops which are called the Angels of the 7. Churches to be like vnto our Bishops in those particulars sc that they were 1. Diocesan Bishops 2. Superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life 4. a peerelesse power of jurisdiction or as he expoundeth himselfe Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. a corrective power over other Ministers To prove the first sâ— that those Angels were diocesan Bishops Sect. â— that is to say in the large extent of their authority over an whole diocese like to our diocesans the onely argument that he hath either in his sermon or defense is drawne from the forme or constitution of those Churches whereof they were Angels which he peremptorily affirmeth but very weakly proveth to be dioceses properly The Doct. onely argument to prove the Angels to be DiocesaÌ„ Bishops is unsound in both propositions and not parishes he should say that those Churches were dioceses such as ours are over which our Bishops are placed wherefore to conclude his purpose he must reason in an Enthymem thus The 7. Churches whereof those Angels were Bishops were Dioceses such as ours are Therefore those Angels or the Bishops there ment by Angels were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans The Antecedent is an erronious fancy forged by the Doctor and hath nether testimony nor reason to support it as shall appeare by by In the meane while be it knowne to him that his câ—sequence also is to be rejected as weak and vnsound And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogisme he shall soone discerne it for to make a supply of the proposition which is presupposed in the consequence of his reasoninge he must argue thus The Angells or Bishops of such Churches as are Dioceses properly and nâ—â— parishes are Diocesan and not parishonall Bishops But the 7. Churches in Asia were Dioceses properly and not parishes Therefore the Angels or Bishops of those 7. Churches were diocesan properly and not parishionall Bishops In which proposition so supplyed if there be a necessary truth then must the Doctor confesse though against the haire and contrary to his former perswasion that the Bishops of whome mencion is made Acts. 20. 28. phil 1. â— were diocesan Bishops because the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi in his opinion were properly dioceses
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
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
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
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
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
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
dayes Pergamus which anciently had bene a Mother-citie was now subjected also unto Ephesus Wherefore he himselfe hath said enough to infringe the consequence of his owne reasoning viz. that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were froÌ„ the first erection subject to the Church of Ephesus because they were so subjected 350. yeares after S. Iohns dayes Perhaps he expâ—cteth as it seemeth by his conclusion in this section pag. 62. that his Refuter should prove the coÌ„trary but he is forgetfull and must be remembred that in all this controversie he is the opponent and his Refuter the respondent therefore without reason expecteth it yet to let him see that his Refuter was ledd by reason and not by idle conceits I will tender him these probabilities 1. In the civill distribution of provinces and administrations for government Philadelphia was subject to Sardis Thyatira to Pergamus as he noteth pag. 63. out of Plinie lib. 6. cap. 29. and 30. but in ecclesiasticall government the Churches of Philadelphia and Thyatira were nothing inferiour to Sardis Pergamus for they were all honoured with the name of candlesticks and Churches in the middest whereof Christ walked Apoc. 1. 11. 20 and their Angels equally dignifyed with the name of starres held in Christs right hand vers 16. 20. and equally saluted by a severall epistle directed to them Cap. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. 3. 1. 7. 14. none is reproved for the defaults of the other but his own none admonished to oversee the other or to be subject to an other Wherefore unlesse some other reason can be alleadged then the D hath yet found out it may be esteemed for a truth not to be doubted of that the Churches of Magnesia Trallis were not subjected to the jurisdiction of the Church or Bp. of Ephesus although for civil government they were within that Province 2. And if there had bene any such subjection or subordination in these Churches who shall better knowe it and who more â—â—tt to have intimated it then Ignatius who wrote to every of those Churches I meane to Trallis Magnesia Ephesus But there is not the least shadow of any such thing to be gathered from his writings nay the contrary rather seemeth firmely to be collected froÌ„ that preeminence which he giveth to the Bp. of each Church as the highest Church-officer under Christ even in those words which the D. urgeth for his superiority above other Ministers Epist ad Trall Quid episcopus nisi principatuÌ„ omnem supra omnes obtinens And ad Philadelp as he injoyneth the whole clergie and laitie even the Princes Câ—sar to obey the Bishop so he subjecteth the Bishop to none other then to Christ Episcopus Christo obediat sicut Christus patri et ita unitas per omnia servetur Which wordes doe prove most clearely that in his time no Bishop yeelded subjection to another as his Metropolitan or head And therefore neither was Demas theÌ„ Bishop of Magnesia nor Polybius of Trallis any more subject to Onesimus the Pastor of Ephesus then he was to eyther of them So that the Refut confident conclusion standeth firme against all the D. attempts to shake it that our saviour did not under the name of these 7. Churches write unto all the Churches of Asia in as much as those famous Churches of Troas Colossae Hierapolis Miletus Magnesia and Trallis which then flourished in Asia did no way depend on any of them Thus the former part of his assumption remaineth guilty of that Sect. 24. 2d sect 12. p2 62. 63. untruth wherewith the Refuter charged it And so will the later also lye still vnder the burthen of that falshood which is ascribed to it For if none of them were cities as hath bene sufficiently mainteyned already against the Doctors allegations how could any of them be Mother-cities Yet he vndertaketh breifly to declare that some of them were Metropoleis that is not onely Mother-cities but also Metropolitan Churches Where first we are to marke the Doctor his not onely but also as if it were a small matter to affirme and prove that some of those 7. Churches were Mother-cities he can easily mainteyne that and for an overplus he will prove which is a matter of more difficultie and not so easily enterteyned that they were Metropolitan Churches Well let his proofes be heard they are absolutely denied to be Mother cities and though some of them may be graunted to be Metropolitan Churches if thereby nothing else be meant then that they were such Churches as were seated in a Metropolis or mother-citie yet in the common-vnderstanding of our age which esteemeth them onely for Metropolitan Churches that have diocesan Churches subjected to them they may also be denyed to be Metropolitan Churches and it may be held as false as the former Those cities saith he which were capita dioikeâ—â—â—n the heads of the civile jurisdiction where the presidents of the Romane Provinces held their assemblies and kept their courts were mother-cities to the rest which were vnder the said jurisdiction But such were 5. of these c. May I aske him what he meaneth by these what the cities after-named Which way soever the D. turneth either he concludeth not the question or is absurd viz. Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Sardis Laodicea or the Churches seated in those cities If cities then he concludeth not the question for it never entred into the Refuters thought to deny the cities of Ephesus Smyrna c to be mother-cities If he meane that the Churches in those cities were heads of the civill jurisdiction c. he is absurd who will beleeve him and he abuseth Pliny for he speaketh of the cities and not of any Churches seated in them His argument therfore is none other then this The cities of Ephesus Smyrna c. were heads of the civill jurisdiction as Pliny testifieth But the Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna were the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna c. Ergo thâ— Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna c. were the heads of the cities jurisdiction and consequently mother-cities Thus he justifieth one falseshood with another a lesse with a greater and for The D. justifieth one falshood by another so well performeth he his first promise his second he forgat want of better proofe he recoileth back to his first assumption before confuted to wit that the Churches of Ephesus Smyrna c. were the verie cities And thus we have heard all that he can say to shew that some of these Churches were mother-cities he promised also to prove that they were metropolitan-Churches but either he forgot it or he thought it better in policie to overpasse it then to meddle with it For vnlesse he could prove that the Angel and Church of Thyatira were subject to the Angel and CHVRCH of Pergamus and likeweise that the Church of Philadelphia and her Angel were subject to the Angel and Church of Sardis which were to controwle and contradict the text
Holy Ghosts meaning to limit the nomber of the Churches be clearely discovered by twise mentioning the nomber of 7. Churches in saying that the 7. starres are the Angels of the 7. Churches and that the 7. candlesticks are the 7. Churches then it seemeth he would have saide the 7. starrs are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches in case he had intended to signify no more but 7. angels But the former is evident Therefore the later cannot be denied To all this the Doct. giveth no other answere then in pag. 32 that the Holy Ghost hath more plainely limitted the number then if he had said so For if he had said they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches a captious Sophister would have expounded septeÌ„ 7. by septeni seven a peece but when he saith The 7. starrs are the angels of the 7. Churches he plainely signifieth that there were iust so many of them as of the Churches But hath this Doctor think you any fellowes among men of his degree and learning that will subscribe to this answere and say as he doth that the words of his text doe plainely signify that there were just The Doct. hath not many fellowes in shifting so many of the angels as of the Churches and that they doe more plainely limit the number of 7 then if it had bene said The 7. starres are the 7. angels of the 7. Churches Or did it ever enter into the heart of any other who agreeth with him in the interpretation of his text to imagine that the Holy Ghost did therefore say that the 7. starres were the angels rather then the 7. angels of the 7. Churches because he would give no occasion to any captious Sophister to expound â—eptem by septeni so to coâ—clude there were just 7. in every Church When the Holy Ghost saith 1. Regum 20. that the King of Aram had in his army 32. Kinges with horses and chariots and went up with them to beseege Samaria if the Refuter should dâ—ny the number of the horses and chariots to be just 32. as were the Kings there mentioned it seemeth that such a captious Sophister as the Doctor is would be ready to contradict him and to answer that the number of horses in that army is more plainely limitted to the just number of 32 then if it had bene said that those 32. Kinges had 32. horses for if it had bene so sayd the later number of 32. might have beene expounded by 32. a peece But why strive I to discover the vanitie of the Doctors false and captious shifts which lye open to the viewe of all that are not blinded with over grosse partialitie Since therefore it is apparant that his text limitteth not the number of Angels unto 7 as it doth the Churches there is no reason he should so lightly overpasse those things from thence inferred by his Refuter as he doth saying pag. 33. It is not materiall what the Refuter inâ—erreth from the not â—mutation of them Let the reader weigh the inferences with his answeres to them and then judge The inferences are these That the Holâ— Ghost in not limitting them to any number woulde have vs to vnderstand 1. that there was moe angels or Bishâ—ps then 7 in these Churches as that place Actes 20. 17-28 concerning Eph sus sheweth and consequently they were not Diâ—â—â—sâ—â— Bishops 2. Where the â—â—sâ—ription of every episâ—le written to these Churches is to the angâ—l in thâ— singular number it must not be taken literally for one onely but figurativâ—ly and by a syneâ—hdoche the siâ—gular for the pluralâ— for more thâ—n one But because there is a vaile that hideth the light from his eyes though he iâ— scoffe desyreth his Refuter to helpe him remove it yet will I yeeld to his request in good earnest and afford him some help by refuting his arguments produced which hung in his light and whereby he perswadeth himselfe as it seemeth the Angels of those Churches were just 7. and no more which done his Refuters inferences will stand good for any one word he hath said to the contrarie His first argument is thus framed by himselfe The starrs which Christ held in his right hand were just 7 or limited Sect. 2. to the number of 7. Apoc. 1. 16. and 2. 1. The Angels of the 7. Churches were the starrs which Christ held in his right hand Apoc. 1. 20. Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. or limitted to the number of 7. A word or two to the assumption and then three or foure to the whole argument The assumption is false and not proved by the place quoted which saith that the 7. starrs are the Angels of the 7. Churches and not as the assumption saith the Angels are the 7. starres And I hope when the D. shall consider it he will finde not that they are all one but that there is a great difference betwene them For when it is said the 7. starrs are the Angels it is a metonymie of the adjunct as if it had bene said the 7. starrs doe signifye the Angels of the 7. Churches but so it cannot be said that the Angels signifie the starrs These 2. sentences therefore are not all one there is a sallacy in the aequivocation To the whole argument I shall need say little more for if the D. will but draw the curteine and looke a little vpon these arguments which are of the like forme and figure he may without any further helpe or more a doe discerne the deceit of his owne argumentation 1. The ramme which Daniel sawe cap. 8. 3. was one onely individuum or singular thinge The Kinges of the Medes and Persians were that ramme vers 20. Therefore the Kinges of the Medes and Persians were one onely individuum or singular thing 2. The hornes which Zacharie sawe cap. 1. 18. were just 4. or limited to the number of 4. so were the Carpenters which he sawe vers 20. But they that scattred Iudah were those hornes and they that frighted them away were the Carpenters Therefore they that scattred Iudah were just 4 persons or limitted to the number of 4. and so were they also that frighted them away 3. Aholah and Aholibah were two weomen the daughter 's of one mother c. Ezech. 2. 3. 2 3. 4. Samaria and Ierusalem were Aholah and Aholibah vers 4 Therefore Samaria and Ierusalem were two weomen the daughters of one mother c. 4. The wise virgins which tooke oile in their lamps to meete the Bridegrome were just 5. or limitted to the number of 5. So were the foolish virgins which lacked oile in their lamps Math. 25. 1-4 But the syncere professors of Christ and his truth are the wise virgins and the profane or hypocriticall professors are the foâ—lish virgins as all agree in their comments Therefore the syncere professors of Christ his truth are just 5. or limitted to the number of 5. And so are the profane or hypocriticall c.
Thus I could goe on a tribus ad centum but by this time I hope the D. seeth the aequivocation which lyeth in his owne argument for either he lacketh the word starrs in a double sence to witt for the tipe in the proposition and for the antitipe or thing signified in the assumption or else and rather the aequivocation lieth in the word were which in the proposition is taken substantiue but in the assumption significatiue For seing himselfe doth thus interprete his text serm pag. 2. The 7. starres are that is doe signifie the Angels of the 7. Churches his assumption is false vnlesse it be thus vnderstood q. d. The Angels of the 7. Churches were signified by the 7. starrs which Christ held in his right hand And if it be so vnderstood then to avoide foure termes which marre the fashion of his argument the proposition must be thus changed The persons whose Ministerie is represented by the 7. starres which Christ held in his right hand are just 7. But this is so grosse an vntruth that the D. cannot but see it and unlesse there be an other vaile to shadowe him wil be ashamed to avouch it much more to alleadge the words of the Holy Ghost Apoc. 1. 16. 2. 1. to mainteyne it seing he acknowledgeth all the Ministers of the gospel to the worlds end to be by their office starres and shining lights so his sermon of the dignitie of the Ministers p. 61. And in this sermoÌ„ in quest p. 55. he saith of Dioc Bishops in generall that they are starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand yea he affirmeth the same of our Bishops at this day pag. 98. Wherefore there being no need of any longer discourse to remove the vaile of this first argument I might here proceed to the second But before I come to it to prove the contradictorie to his conclusion I thus reason All the Ministers of the word that had charge to feed and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand But all the Ministers of the word that had charge to feede and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches were more then 7. singular persons onely Therefore the persons signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand were more then 7. singular persons onely The assumption needeth no proofe more then what is after gathered from Act. 20. 28. since it is of all our adversaries acknowledged and the deniall of it is the utter overthrowe of their whole building For how should this text justify the superioritie of Bishops above other Ministers if there were not diverse Ministers in each of these Churches subject to one Bishop And if there were but onely 7. angels that is Bishops in these 7. churches there was then but one onely angel or Bishop in each severall Church but it is cleare by that place of the Acts that there was more then one in that Church of Ephesus seing it speaketh of Bishops in the plurall number ordeined and set over that Church by the Holy Ghost and it must needs be with the rest of these 7. as it was with it and others Phil. 1. 1. Act. 13. 1. 2. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. The Proposition is a truth not to be denied seing it is also confessed by the Doctor serm of the dignitie of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. and easy to be proved if any man else should gainâ— say it For 1. the true reason why the name of Starres is vsed to signify the Ministers of God and to explane their function is this viz. that as the starres are set in the firmament to shine upon the earth Gen. 1. 17. and to governe the night Psal 136. 9. so it is the office of the Ministers in generall not of Diocesan Bishops in particular to shine as lights vnto the Churches in all puritie of doctrine and holynes of conversation Mat. 5. 14. 15. Ioh. 5. 35. Phil. 2. 15. cum cap. 1. 1. that men which naturally are in darknes 2. Cor. 4. 6. Eph. 5. 8. may have their hartes enlightened converted Act. 26. 18. Dan. 12. 3. and still directed in the way of obedience Psal 119. 105. Wherefore since it is the office and dutie of all Ministers in generall thus to sâ—ine and enlighten others it must needes be granted that the name of starres doth equally agree to all 2. And in this sense the word is vsed when it is sayd that the third part of the starres was darkned Rev. 8. 12. that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the starres of heaven and cast them to the earth Rev. 12. 4. For hereby we are to vnderstaÌ„d the corruption and apostacie not of Bishops Archbishops onely but of preachers Teachers in generall which in huge heaps and multitudes were drawne to imbrace teache haeresy superstition and idolattie 3. Moreover although it be so with the Ministers of the word as it is with the starres that as one starre differeth from an other in glory 1. Cor. 15. 41. some here excelling others in guifts and labours 1. Cor. 12. 4. 11. 2. Cor. 11. 23 shall also exceed them hereafter in glorie 1. Cor. 3. 8. yet it no where appeareth in holy scripture that the name of starres is given to any one degree or order of Ministers much lesse appropriated to the episcopall function to declare their preheminence dignitie or advancement above other preachers 4. Neyther is that gracious protection and safetie which is assured to the Ministers of Christ by his holding the 7. starres in his right hand Rev. 1. 16. 20. 2. 1. any priviledge proper to Bishops but a favour which he communicateth to all that faithfully serve him in their Ministeriall function whatever it be for the promise both of Christs presence and assistance Exod. 3. 12. Mat. 28. 20. to protect or deliver from evill Ier. 1. 18. 19. Ezek. 2. 6. 3. 8. 9. Act. 18. 9. 10. to preserve from falling 2. Tim. 4. 17. 18. Rev. 12. 4. doth equally agree unto all without any respect to their outward preheminence or lower standing Wherefore to prove the proposition against all gaynsayers thus I reason All that in those 7. Churches were bound by office to enlighten others and to guide them in the way of life by the light of their doctrine and had the promise of Christs presence to assist protect preserve them all such I say were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand But all the Ministers of the worde that had charge to fâ—ede and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches were such persons aâ— in those Churches stood bound by office to enlighten others and to guide them in the way of life by the light of their doctrine and had the promise of Christs presence to assist protect and preserve them Therefore all the Ministers of the word in those 7. Churches
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
one thing as Apoc. 14. 6. 9. three rancks of Ministers succeeding one another and concurring in one course of doctrine The 7. Kings and the two Kings above mentioned Apoc. 17. Dan. 11. were so many orders or states of government The parties refusing the marriage feast were so many companies agreing in one excuse c. In like manner if the Refuter shall say that those 7 monades of Angels reckoned up Apoc. 2. 3. were so many societies of Ministers conjoyned in one charge of one Church the D. may see his interpretation is backed by many like speeches in script where one monade or vnitie is put for many linked togithe in one societie Passe we now on to his 3. argument from which we might well Sect. 4. passe seing it might have bin better spared then ill spent it being nothing but a new repetition of what he urged before to prove the assumption of his second onely he hath here set in forme of reasoning the strength of that which was in substance of matter there delivered when he â—ayth The inscriptions of the 7. epistles written to the Angels doe shâ—w that they were 7. singular persons But least he should judge better of it then there is cause I will not refuse to examine it and this it is To whome the epistles were written they were just 7. for they were written singulâ— singulâ—s thâ— first to the first c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches the 7. epistles were written Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were juste 7. Once againe I must demaund whaâ— he meaneth by just 7 If 7. singular persons onely the proposition is grosly false and that also which he addeth for the proofe thereof for those epistles were not written singulae singulis personis each to one onely person but rather singulae singulis socâ—itaâ—ibuâ— each epistle to that societie of Angels or Byshops which attended on the Church in that citie mentioned in the inscription and not to them alone but also to the whole Ch. as is manifest by Apoc. 1. 11. and consequently in regard of that communion which all Churches have one with another to the rest of the Churches yea to every one that hath an eare to heare as the conclusion of each epistle sheweth chap. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29. and chap 3. 6. 13. 22. As for the testimony of Arethas Ambrose they nothing help to conclude his purpose scz that the Angels in his text were onely 7. persons For as we need not deny the Angels to whoÌ„ the epistles were written to be as Arethas saith iust of the same nuÌ„ber with the Churches so we may graunt with Ambrose that these 7. Angels were the 7. â—â—lers of the 7. Ch. And yet it followeth not that by the Angels mentioned in the D. text are ment onely 7. overseing Angels other Angels or Minist excluded as shal be shewed hereafter in answ to his next sectioÌ„ the testimony of fathers and new writers also they are moâ— that are with us then with him in this point namely that by the Angel of the Church in each inscription is to be understood more then one Minister or Church-ruler Mr. Fox in his meditations on the Revelation pag. 7. 9. 17. gathering and conferring togither the opinion of all interpreters that he could meet with sayth they all consented in this that vnder the person of an Angel the Pasâ—oâ— and Ministers of the Churches were vnderstood let the reader see what he sayth there concerning Augustin Primasius Hayâ—o Beda Richard Thomas and others I will also here shewe what some of them saye Augustin epist 132. sayth thus Siâ— enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Qâ—od si deAngelo superiorem Câ—lorum et non dâ— prâ—positis ecclesiae vellet intelligi noÌ„ consequenter diceret habeo adversuÌ„ te c. whereby he plainely sheweth that though he spake afterwards but as of one yet he vnderstood it of more then one as his 2. homely upon the Apocalyps sheweth Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae habeo adversum te dicit prepositis ecclesiarum That he sayth to the Angel of Thyatira I have somewhat agaynst the he sayth it to the rulers of the Churches And though Byshop Bilson alledgeth him to prove the contrary in the self same epistle the words following Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae the ruler of the Church is praised vnder the name of an Angel yet have we reasâ— to think he ment not to appropriate to one onely person eyther the title of prepositus ecclesiae or the praise there spoken of seing in the selfe same epistle compared with his 2. homely before named he includeth both the company of Presbyters the whole Church and it is easy to shew out of other his writings that by prepositus ecclesie ruler of the Church he vnderstaÌ„deth all them that had authoritie to preach the worde and to rebuke men of sinne c see his Tract on Iohn 46. and de civitate dei lib. 1. cap. 9. and Mr. Fox his meditations in Apoc ex August in Apoc. Hom. 2. Interdum Angelorum nomine ecclesias catholicas voluit intelligi neque enim soli opinor minîstri sed et universitas totius ecclesiae vocatur ad poenitentiam I could add to him Chrisostom in cap. 2. ad Tim. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. 10. Ierom on the same place and Phil. 1. 1. Gregory in his moral on Iob. lib. 11. cap. 3. Beda in Luk. lib. 2. cap. 7. Rupertus Tincinens lib. 1. in Apoc. c. 3. Albin lib. 1. in Ioh. 1. Aretius in Apoc 3. 1. Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Angelos ecclesiasticaruÌ„ in dextra sua habet Christus hoc est pastores omnes et episcopos seu verbi Ministros potestate sua regit c. And that it was not his meaning by the Apostles meaning of the word Angel in the singular nomber in each inscription as the D. would have it to vnderstand one onely cheife Pastor or Byshop over the rest but all the Ministers of each Church vnder that name may appeaâ—e by that he sayth that the 5. epistle was written vnto the Pastors of the Church which was at Sardis in cap 3. 1. againe in cap. 2. 1. verisilmile est c. It is very like that not some one of the ecclesiastical governors is noted here in the places following but the whole succession of the Byshops c. To passe by our owne writers Mr. Fox Mr. Perkins Mr. Brightman and others I will onely note what D. Fulâ—e saith in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1. 20. S. Iohn saith he by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should weare on their heads myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols But them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Againe they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers unto the Churches But to shut up with the D.
own testimonie of more worth in this case then all the rest in his sermon of the dignitie dutie of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. he telleth us and that with proofe from scripture that neither the name of Angels nor the whole title Angels of the Churches doe argue any preheminence in degree Wherefore to ende this point since I have made it cleare that the D. hath neither proved the number of Angels in his text to be limited to 7. nor removed that which his Refuter objected to shew that their nomber is not limitted the Refuter or his freind hath done enough to pull that vaile from his eies which was the occasion as it seemeth of his wandring so farre as he doth out of the right way of truth in his sermon and the defence thereof For vnlesse a man would freely yeeld vnto him what he assured to prove but neyther did nor can namely that the Angels in his text are 7. singular persons and no 〈◊〉 he hath no colour though never so light to inferre as he doth that they were Diocesan Byshops But howsoever he cannot by strong arguments overthrowe Sect. 〈◊〉 his Refuter as he wisheth yet by opposing him with a few questions and 2. syllogismes pretended to be drawn from his words he doth his best to weaken his cause In answering the questions I will begin with the last first and because his 2. syllogismes are grounded upon the 3. last questions I will take them in by the way First therefore whereas he asketh whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations seing his Refuter saith that in Ephâ—sus there were more angels I answere as his Refuter had told him before and he could not but heare that the Church of Ephesus was then one onely congregation And that many angels or Bishops in Ephesus cannot prove that there were in Ephesus many particular congregations For since the holy Ghost calleth the Christians at Ephesus one Church and one flocke Act. 20. 17. 28. neyther dare I nor the Refuter without better reason then the Doctor doth yet bring any forsake the grammaticall sense and expound him as speaking of more then one particular congregation To the next question whether the Refuter answer pag. 2. taught not that the angels mentioned Apoc. 1. 20. were such Bishops or Ministers as were Pastors onely of particular congregations I answere that the last time I talked with him he told me he tooke the word Angels to belong in coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word whether they be such as are properly called Pastors or such as are more properly named Doctors or Teachers And therefore when he saith that the Bishops signified by angels are Ministers Pastors onely of particular congregations that last clause is added to exclude not any such as have the office of Teachers in one congregatioÌ„ but the D. Bishops such as exercise a Prelacie over an whole Diocese in that regard have appropriated to themselves the name of Angels or Bishops or Pastors And here to put in an answere to his second syllogisme the Doctor may be pleased to knowe that his skill in reasoning much fayleth him as will soone be seene if his Refuter who is as he saith but a smatterer in logick doe but devide his one argument as it must be into two The first is this Where are many Pastors of particular congregations there are more particular congregations then one But at Ephesus there were many Pastors Therefore at Ephesus there were more particular congregations then one The Doct. syllogisme hath 4. termes Behold here 4. termes in stead of three wherefore the conclusion may be and is false though both the premisses be true If the Doctor wil amend his fault he must change his assumption say thus But at Ephesus there were many Pastors of particular congregations The which as it is evidently false so it is no lesse slaunderous to father such a saying on his Refuter whom he calleth his adversarie If The D. assumption false and slanderous he shall strive to make good the assumption thus changed by that secoÌ„d argument which is closely infolded in his reasoning he must argue in this manner Where were many Angels there were many Pastors of particular congregations At Ephesus were many angels Therefore there were at Ephesus many Pastors of particular congregations And then I must returne him his proposition as having no colour eyther of allowance from the refuters words or of confirmation in his owne defense In deed if he had said that many angels of particular congregations are many Pastors of severall coÌ„gregations his proposition might have passed without controlement the word Pastors being taken in a large construction for all Ministers which breake the bread of life to their people But then he should be as farre to seek for the proofe of that which he must assume viz. that at Ephesus there were many angels of particular congregations for it hath bene already sayd that the Refuter holdeth the Christians of Ephesus to be but one Church or Congregation though it had many angels or Bishops to oversee and feed the same Now by this that hath bene spoken the answere to his 3. question or 2. as he hath set it downe and of his first syllogisme will ask no great study or labour For whereas he demaundeth whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one I answere that the word Pastor being in a large sense put for every one that by his office is bound to oversee and feed the flock over which he is set may be given to many in one congregation aswell as the name of a Bishop is Actes 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. so teacheth D. Bilson Perpet Govern pag. 284. D. Whit de Pont. Rom. pag. 351. And in this sense the Refuter taketh the word as is before noted when he saith answ pag. 2. and 4. that to be ST ARRES of heaven and ANGELS in this kingdome is not proper to diâ—cesan Byshops but common to all true Pastors of particular congregation and that by Angels in the Doct. text are signified such Pastors For finding that the D. confoundeth these names serm pag. 2. of Angels Byshops and Pastors he was well content to forbeare all strife about words and thought it sufficient to seclude diocesan Byshops by restrayning the Angels mentioned in his text to the feeding and oversight of particular congregations Wherefore the D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by adouble construction of the word Pastor when he thus disputeth The Pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation is but one But each Angell of the Churches saith the Refuter did signifie a pastor The D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by the double construction of the word pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation Ergo each Angel did signifie but one For the proposition is false in the Refuters construction of the word at large viz. for every one that hath
such an office as the Apostle vnderstandeth by the word Byshop in his writings And though the assumption be true rightly vnderstood yet is it false in the D. vnderstanding both words appropriated to one that is principally interressed above other Ministers of the word that are his helps and assistants in the feeding and oversight of any particular congregation Wherefore however the Doct. indeavoureth to wring out of his Refuters answere 2. conclusions directly as he saith contradictorie to some other his assertions yet as he hath not effected his purpose so hath he discovered falshood and deceit in his owne reasoning Sect. 6. And thus at length are we come to his first question wherein he would knowe of his Refuter 1. what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall sense in vnderstanding by the Angel in each inscription more thâ—n one And secondly where the Holy Ghost speaketh but as of one how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more then one There were of the Iewes who having seen many great signes wrought by Christ yet as if he had never yeelded any signe at all saide vnto him we would see a signe of thee Math. 12. 38. and 16. 1. and what signe shewest thou Iohn 6. 30 And the D. is not vnlike them herein Could he be ignorant that his Refuter answ pag. 3. yeelded reasons why he interpreteth the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle not literally for one person but by a syneâ—doche for the whole companie of Angels in each Church Yea though he twise taketh notice of his reasoning this way pag. 31. 33. he hath not once put one finger towards the removing of that which is objected in this behalfe Wherefore there is reason to demaund of him 1. with what face he dareth suggest so false a conceit into the mynde of his readers viz. that the Refuter hath either no reason at all or at least no good reason to vnderstand by the Angel in the inscription of each epistle more Angels then one And 2. why he should so stiffly urge the literall sense when he hath not answered that which is urged to infringe it Notwithstanding to move him once againe to enter into the consideratioÌ„ of this point I here tender him one of the Refuters reasons in forme of argument thus If there were more then 7. Angels in the 7. Churches then the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle must not be taken literally for one onely person but synecdochically for more then one But the first is true as that place of the Act. 20. 17. 28. concerning the Church of Ephesus sheweth for there it appeareth how there were more Angels or Bishops then one in the Church at Ephesus and therefore more the 7. in then 7. Churches Therfore the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle must not be taken literally for one onely person but synecdochically for more then one And seing the D. here reasoneth with his Refuter for the superiority of Bishops froÌ„ the name Angel as Hart doth w th D Reinolds for the sovereigntie of the Pope or of one Preist from the name Priest it shall not be amisse to fit him with the same answer that D. Reinolds gave Hart. Not so saith D. R. p. 252. The name of Preist in Deut. 18. 3. this law signifieth the Preists c. The law giving sentence against him that disobeieth the Pieist meaneth the Preists according to a kind of speach wherin the whole iâ— noted by the part And giving the reason why he so interpreted the singular by the plural he saith It is cleare by reason that the punishment of the transgressor hath relation to the lawe and the lawe willeth Deut. 17. 9. men to goe to the Preists If D. R. for that cause had reason to forsake the grammaticall sense why not the Ref. here seing the scripture sendeth us to diverse Byshops in one Church Act. 20. 17. 28. But to proceede in the refutation of his assertion or aunswere before expressed since it is graunted there were more Angels or Byshops then one in each of those 7. Churches the reader is to be advertized that now the controversie is come to this issue whether the singularity of the word Angel be a reason of more weight to carrie it to one onely person then the plurality of Angels in each Church is to interprete it by a synecdoche for the whole company The D. affirmeth the former and to countenance his cause putteth this difference betwene the name of an Angel or Byshop in generall and the Angel of this or that Church that where there are many Ministers in one Ch. though every one be an Angel yet one onely that hath prehemeneÌ„ce above the rest is to be honored with the name of the Angel of that Church On the coÌ„trary I affirme the later therfore wil vndertake to prove that where there are many Ministers or Angels such as he acknowledgeth to be in everie of the 7. Churches they have everie of them in regard of their function equall right to be called the Angel of that Church and thus 〈◊〉 reason If all the Angels or Ministers in each Church had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they administred then this title the Angel of the Church ought to be vnderstood synecdochically for the whole company and not literally for one onely But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption is thus proved All Gods messengers sent to oversee and â—â—ed his flock have equall right to be called the Angels of that Church wherein they minister All the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches were Gods messengers sent to oversee and feed his flocke Therefore all the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they minister The proposition is the D. owne assertion serm of the digni of the Ministers pag. 61. The assumption is his owne also in the next section pag. 34. The conclusion therefore I hope will passe for currant Moreover it is no lesse absurd to say that this or that Minister is an Angel or Byshop but not the Angel of the Church which he overseeth then to saye he is an Elder or Minister but not an Elder or Minister of the Church c. 2. yea to yeeld the name of an Angel simplie or the Angel of the Lord to agree fittlie to everie Minister of the word yet to restraine this title the Angel of the Church to one that hath a preheminence above other Ministers is to deceive himselfe and others by a mistaking of the cause why the Ministers represented by the Starres are called the Angels of their Churches rather then the L. Angels for the onely true cause is to distinguish them from the heavenly Angels who are more usually called the Angels of the Lord. 3. And if these 2. titles be coÌ„pared
the name of the Lords Angel is much better to expresse a prehemineÌ„ce in him that is so intitled theÌ„ the Churches Angel seing this later debaseth his Ministery much more theÌ„ the former But as these names the L. Minister or servant and the Churches Minister or servant Phil. 1. 1. 2. Cor. 6. 4. cum 4. 5. and Colos 1. 24. 25. are indifferently taken for one and the same person or function so can there no reason be yeelded why also these titles the Lords angel and the Churches angel should be devided into severall functions To conclude if neyther the singularitie of the number doe argue a singular person nor the right reason of the whole title implieth a preheminence in one above others seing it is graunted that there were many Angels and proved that the title here used is in regard of the signification of the phrase coÌ„mon to all the D. hath no reason to say that his Refuter doth without reason yea good reason forsake the literal sense of the number But albeit enough hath bene said to shew that this title The angel Sect. 7. of the Church is to be taken for the whole societie of Ministers in every Church rather then for one singular person set in a singular preheminence above the rest yet to satisfie those which perhaps may demaunde why the Sonne of God should give in charge to Iohn to write vnto the angel as one rather then to the angels as to many it shal not be amisse to add this that followeth 1. I grant that as the number of the Churches particularly named fully answereth to the 7. golden candlesticks which represented those Churches so it was very fit the epistles directed to the Angels of those Churches should in their inscriptions proportionate the number of the Angels to the number of the starres by which those Angels were shadowed which could not have bene if there had bene expresse mention of more Angels then one in each inscription Notwithstanding as it were absurd from the precise number of 7. Ch. to gather that there were not in all Asia more then 7 Churches or that they kat hexochen are called Church 5 to note a prehemineÌ„ce in jurisdiction or governmeÌ„t over the rest so it were no lesse absurde to inferre from the literal mention of one Angel in every Church that there was but one onely person in that Church to whome the name of the Angel of that Church did by speciall right apperteine 2. Their vnitie in the Ministeriall function joynt commission to attend vpon the feeding and governing of one Church which ought to be accoÌ„panied with a coÌ„moÌ„ care and joynt labour as it were with one hand and heart or affection to further the Lords work in the peoples salvation is much more fitly declared by the name of one Angel then of many if we observe the phrase of speach used else-where by the Holy Ghost and in other names or titles to the like purpose We often find the name of one prophet Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Esai 3. 2. Hos 9. 8. or Preist Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Ezech. 7. 26. Hos 4. 6. Malach. 2. 7. and Angel or messenger Isay 42. 19. Malach 2. 7. to be put for the generall body of the Ministerie or whole multitude of Prophets or Preists c. in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them as occasion serveth 3 Neyther need it seeme strange to us that a multitude or company of Ministers should be vnderstood vnder the name of one Angel seing a multitude of heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometymes in the scripture shut up vnder one Angel in the singular nuÌ„ber as may be gathered from Gen. 24. 7. 2. King 19. 35. and Psal 34. 7. compared with Psal 91. 11. Gen. 32. 1. and 2. King 6. 16. 17 seing also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels joyntly labouring in any one worke is set forth vnder the name of one evill or vncleane spirit 1. King 22. 21. 22. Mar. 1. 23-27 and 5. 2-3 Luk. 4. 33. 34. and called the Devill or Satan Luc. 8. 27. 30. 1 Pet. 5. 8. Heb. 2. 14. Ephes 6. 11. 12. 4 Moreover seing it is a thing very coÌ„mon and usuall throughout the whole booke of the Revelation by the name of one Angel to vnderstand a multitude or some whole societie of Ministers and Teachers it was very meete that the beginning of the booke should be sutable to the other parts and that the first vision should have none other construction then such as might holde proportion with or rather as a line leade us to the right vnderstanding of the rest that follow Here Iohn seeth 7. starres in the right hand of the sonne of man which are interpreted to be the Angels or Byshops and Ministers of the 7. Churches and he writteth 7. epistles to so many Angels In another vision he seeth 7. Angels to whom were given 7. trumpets singulae singulis to everie Angel one trumpet and they blewe theyr trumpets successively one after another and with differing effects Rev. 8. 2. 6. 7. c. After this he sawe 7. Angels and 7. vialls given vnto them singulae singulis in which vials were 7. plagues successively also powred out by every Angel in his time Rev. 15. 6. 7. c. 16. 1. 2. c. In these latter visioÌ„s like as in the former some of our best Interpreters do vnderstaÌ„d by Angels the Ministers and preachers of Gods word for in every age they lift vp their voices as trumpets Esa 58. 1. Num. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 12. to shew the people theire sinnes and to proclayme the will of God vnto men And when they denounce his judgments against the contemners of his truth and binde them vp in their sinnes Math. 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 23. they after a sort poure out the vials of Gods wrath vpon their heads Ier. 1. 10. and 25. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 10. 6. Rev. 11. 5. 6 Now there is none so foolish as to think that in the tyme of every vials powring out or of every trumpets blowing that one Angel precisely mentioned was one supreme Bishop that had a prehemenent pastorall authoritie over all the Ministers of that age it is acknowledged rather of many judicious divines that every of those 7. Angels standeth for a multitude of faithfull Ministers which in their tymes successively with one â—art and as it were with one voice published one the same truth to the world See amongst others Marloâ—at in Aâ—oc 8. 2. 6. 7. and 15. 1. 6. and Aretius in Chap. 8. 6. 9 13. The same may be sayd yea it is and must be acknowledged of those 3. Angels which followed one another Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9. to recall men vnto the true worship of God after it was corrupted by Antichrist Marlorat on that place Method Collat. pag. 322. and Mr. Fox his
meditations vpon the Rev. pag. 286. 290. Wherefore if we compare togither the parts of Christs Revelation it is much more consonant to the true use of the word Angel in other places to affirme with the Refuter that one Angel in each of the 7. Churches signifyeth not any one onely cheife Pastor but all those Ministers or Teachers which with a common care and joynt labour attended on the service of the Church wherein they lived so that it may well be said in his defence that he hath both reason and good reason to vpholde his assertion And that the D. may have his owne words returned home againe since he hath no weight of reason to limit as he doth the number of the Angels to 7. singular persons it maâ—tereth nothing what he inferreth froÌ„ falsly conceited limitation Sect. 8. Yet as if he had made all cock-sure on his side in his next section he tryumpheth in this manner Having saith he thus manyfistly proved that the angels of the 7. Churches were just 7 and consequently that there was one and but one in every Church whome the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church it wil be easy both to free my text frâ—m the câ—vils which more theÌ„ once my adversary objecteth against it and also out of the text to cleare the maine controversy in hand But it is a meare cavill in the D. joyned with slander to say that his adversary objecteth any cavil against The D. cavâ—lleth slandrâ—th his text In deed his Refuter hath saide more then once and it is so cleare a truth that he need not blush to avouch it an 100 times that his â—ext yeeldeth him no sure soundatioÌ„ whereon to raise any sound argument to justify the calling of diocesan Bishops because he hath no shadow of reasoÌ„ froÌ„ any word in his text to coÌ„clude that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. singular persons much lesse so many diocesaÌ„ Prelates For though he boast that he hath manysistly proved the former yet seing his proofes are disproved it mought be tolde him in imitation of his owne rethorick sect 12. pag. 47. that his manifestlie is a manifest-lie But let him be foreborne therein and let us see how his proofes doe hange togither in order to wiâ—t 1. That the angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. and consequently that there was one and but one in every Church whome the Holy Ghost â—â—lleth the angel of that Church It shal be graunted him that the latter will follow by good consequence from the former But in his reasoning pag. 32. he made the latter an argument or rather 2. arguments by an idle â—eâ—etition of one thing to conclude the former Wherein also how weakely he reasoneth is already shewed at large in as much as he cannot prove that there was one onely person in each Church saluted by the name of the Angel of that Church Neyther will it follow as is before observed that the angels of the 7. Churches mentioned in his text are 7. singular persons onely much lesse that they were so many diocesan Byshops though it should be graunted that in the inscription of each epistle one onely person beareth the name of the Angel of that Church It will therefore cost him more labour and sweat then he supposeth before he can out of his text cleare the maine controversie which is in hand For since the D. is here the Opponent mainteineth the affirmative sâ—z that the angels in his text were diocesan Bishops it is not enough for him as he well knoweth cap. 3. pag. 62. and chap. 5. pag. 101. to remove what his Refuter objecteth but he must also prove by necessarie and invincible force of argument what himselfe affirmeth But as for the latter to returne backe home his owne swete phrase pag. 105. he faire and mannerly slippeth his neck out of the coller and contenteth himselfe to attempt the former And I may well say to attempt it for he leaveth the strength of the objection vntouched The D. attemptetâ— but toucheth not c. as the reader may easily perceive if he compare his answer with the objection laid down pag. 4. of the Refuters answer where he saith That he which consideroth the text and the words thereof shall finde nought to prove his kinde of Byshops or ought to shew any such qualitie of their functioÌ„ as he iÌ„magineth For to be lights in the candlesticks starrs of heaven angels in this kingdome the heaven of heavens which is all the D. doth or any other can shew out of the words is not proper to diocesan Byshops but coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations as his owne selfâ— confesseth serm of the dâ—g and dutie of the Ministers pag. 20. 61. But to prove the D. once againe and to examine the force of the objection I will set it in order before his eâ—es thus Whatsoever text is such that neyther the D. dâ—th nor any other can flâ—we out of the words thereof any thing proper to diocesan Byshops but rather coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations the same yeâ—ldeth no proofe to uphold his kind of Byshops But this text Apoc. 1. 20. of the D. is such as is before sayd Therefore it yeldeth no proofe to uphold his kinde of Byshops The assumption which onely needeth to be cleared may be thus manifested The name of starres or angels togither with this title the angels of the Churches is common to all true Pastors of particular congregations and not any one of them properly to diocesan Byshops But all that the D. doth or any other can shew out of the words of the text Apoc. 1. 20. is eyther the name of starres or angels or at least this title the angels of the Churches Therefore all that the Doctor doth or any other can shewe out of the wordes of his text Apocal. 1. 20. to justify his kinde of Bishops is commoÌ„ to all true Pastors of particular congregations and nothing in it proper to Diocesan Bishops Here the assumption is in it selfe evident and the proposition is enlightened by the D. interpretation of the words of his text serm pag. 3. compared with the application thereof vnto all Ministers in generall serm of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers p. 20. 61. ut supra For in the former place he ascribeth to the Pastors or Bishops vnderstood by those names or titles none other dutie or dignitie then this namely to be as lights set on a candlesticke or shining in the Church which is as heaven upon A contradict in the D two sermons earth and as angels in Gods kingdome the heaven of heavens And in the later he giveth all this and much more to the office or function of Ministers in generall yea he alleadgeth this very text pag. 46. 63. to prove that they are both starres shining before others with the light of doctrine and good example and angels of the Lord or
rather angels of the Churches therfore to be received as angels For as herein they are like to angels p. 56. that they are sent forth unto the Ministerie for their sakes that are heires of salvation Heb. 1. 14. so they seeme to have some preheminence in respect of their Embassage and spirituall authoritie seing the preaching of the gospell is coÌ„mitted to men and not to angels as appeareth by the story of Cornelius Act. 10. 6. c. Neyther hath God sayd to any of the angels at any time that which he speaketh to his Ministers Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you â—orgive they shal be forgiven c. Wherefore as the D. cannot without check of conscience so neyther can any other without apparant gainsaying the truth eyther deny the names titles mentioned in his text to be coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations or restreyn any one of them to Diocesan Bishops Having thus layd open the strength of the Ref objectioÌ„ I come Sect. 9. now to examine the force of the Doct answere I answere saith he p. 34. that all Ministers who have charge of souls are in a generall sense called Angels Pastors Bishops because they are messengers sent from God to fâ—â—de and oâ—â—rsee his flocke But yet where there are many Ministers so called if there be one but one who kâ—t hexochen is called the Angel the Pastor the Byshop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest whereof see more in my answer sect 12. to page 6. Here let it be 〈…〉 against the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 to insinuate yet 〈…〉 â—â—pressy 〈…〉 that it is an honour proper onely to diocesan Byshops and 〈◊〉 coÌ„mon to other Ministers to be called the Angels of their Churches But it is already shewed that the honour of this name or title cannot be denyed vnto any Minister that hath charge of soules since it is a truth and so acknowledged that all such Ministers are messengers sent from God to oversee and â—eed that part of his flock whereof they have the charge 2. And whereas he câ—nningly slideth from the text which he proposeth to haÌ„dle The D. slideth froÌ„ his text to the inscriptions to the inscriptions of the 7. epistles Rev. 2. and 3. he is againe to be advertised that though he could justify the preheminence of one Minister above others from those inscriptions yet it will not follow that diocesan Byshops are onely meant by the Angels of the Churches in the text he made choyse of But 3. not to stand upon this advantage where he saith that where there is one and but one who kat hexochen is called the Angel Pastor or Bishop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest it nothing justifieth his cause but discovereth rather the weaknes thereof seing he no otherwise proceedeth then he began I meane in assuming The D. still beggeth for graunted what he should have proved and in pressing us with weake consequences to stand in stead of invincible arguments Before he affirmed there was but one in every Church called the Angel of the Church now being inforced to acknowledge that there were many other Angels or Byshops he will needs have that one to be called kat hexochen the Angel or Bishop of that Church so froÌ„ thence inferre that the same one Angel is plainely noted to have preheminence above the rest The strength of which reasoning may appeare by these goodly consequences following 1. There were others with Paul whome he might rightly call his fellowes and helpers wherefore he entitleth Titus kat hexochen his fellow and helper on the behalf of the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8. 23. and so plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest 2. In like manner seing there were others who in a generall sense might be called Apostles or messengers they whome he calleth in the same place the Apostles or messengers of the Churches were so called kat hexochen to note in them a preheminence above the rest 3 The same may be sayd of Paule when he entitleth himselfe a prisoner of Christ Phil. 1. and Epaphroditus his fellow-ptisoner Vers 23. Timotheus a brother Col. 1. 1. a Minister of God 1. Thes 3. 2. likewise of Peter intitlinge himselfe a fellow-Elder and a witnes of Christs sufferings 1 Pet. 5. 1. 4. And why then may not Bellarminargue froÌ„ Math. 16. 19. Iohn 2. 15. 16. that though others in a generall sense may be authorized to feed the sheep of Christ to guide the keies yet these things are spoken kat hexochen to Peter and doe there plainely note in him a preheminence above the rest 5 Without all contradiction the diocesan Byshopprick of Epaphroditus wil be dashed in peeces with this argument following if the D. former reasoninge have any validitie in it There were some others at Philippi who were in a generall sence yoak felowes to the Apostles wherefore when he speaketh precisely to one singular person I beseech the faithfull yâ—ke felow c. Phil. 4. 3. this one is called kat hexochen his faithfull yoake fellow and consequently this title noteth in that one an episcopall preheminence above the rest But what if we should graunt asmuch as his words doe ascribe vnto that Angel of each Church viz. that this title is given to one onely and plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest will he from hence inferre that because one angel in each Church had some preheminence above others therefore that one was a diocesan Byshop If so as he must to cleare the maine controversy now in hand surely he fayleth grosly in that fault whereof The. D. faileth in the fault imputed by him to his Refuter he accuseth his Refuter chap. 9. pag. 200. how justly let the reader judge in reasoning from the genus to a fained and Platonicall Idea or Poeticall species and that affirmativè for seing there are diverse sorts of preheminence viz. of order or oâ— dignity and in gifts or in degree of Ministerie or in charge and power of jurisdiction it is a sillie and simple argument to saie In each of the 7. Churches one Minister had some preheminence above the rest Therefore he had preheminence above them in degree of office or Ministerie But when he inferreth Therefore he had the prehemineÌ„ce of a dioâ— Bishop it is no lesse ridiculous then if he should say it is a byrd therefore it is a black swan But since he referreth vs to his answere to pag. 6. which Sect. 10. lieth sect 12. pag. 46. following there to see more of this matter I will search and see what he there hath for his purpose after that I have given the reader to understand upon what occasion he fell into the debating of this point The Refuter perceiving that the Doctor addressed himselfe to shewe what was the preheminence of these Bishops in respect whereof they are called the
angels of the Churches thought it not fitt to suffer him with begging to carry that away which he ought to have proved to witt that the BISHOPS which are intituled the Angells of the CHVRCHES were so called in respect of that preheminence which he fancied to be in them above other Ministers and therefore telleth him that they had the name of Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie and not because of any sovereigntie or supremacie over other their fellow Ministers as the Doctor implieth here and plainely though vntruely affirmeth afterwardes In these fewe wordes the DOCTOR findeth as he supposeth to say no worse of him two vntruthes the former he saith is an errour the later a plaine-lie because though he give to Bishops superiority over other Ministers yet neyther sovereignty nor The Refut cleared of the Doct. slaunder supremacie Concerning the lie which the Doctor slaunderously chargeth on his Refuter I shall have fitter occasion to speak hereafter here onely will I cleare him of that errour ascribed to him for sayinge that the Bishops of those Churches are named Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie Let vs therefore heare how worthily the Doctor disputeth to convince him of errour Though sayth he to be called Angel generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one amonge many Ministers in one and the same Church to be kata hexochen called the Angel of the Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regarde of theire generall callinge but a peculiar stale belonging vnto â—â—e who hath singular preheâ—â—nence above the rest that is to say a BISHOP Beholde here how he disputeth nowe 1. Can any judicious reader that compareth this speache with that which he delivered before pag. 34. finde in this latter any one materiall point more then in the former When he referred us hither to see more of this matter we had reason to expect some new argument and that of more weight to prove the point which was before but nakedly proposed But if my sight deceiveth me not nothing else is here to be seene but the selfesame sentence varied in a few words that carrie the same sense A thing which everie novice in grammer schooles that hath but read his copia verborum might have done in the turning of a hand as they say This slight dealing becommeth neyther so great a logician nor so grave a divine much lesse so censorious a Doctor yet beholde The D. â—wisteth a 3. fould cord of vanyty a greater fault or rather two other greater defaults to make vp a threefoulde corde of vanitie For he hath neyther convinced his Refuter of error nor justified his own assertion by him reproved 2 To convince his Refuter he reasoneth thus No coÌ„mon title belonging to all Ministers in regard of the generall calling of the Ministery is given kat hexochen to one onely among many Ministers in one Church But the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given kat hexochen to one onely Minister among many in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of angels Apoc. 1. 20. is not a coÌ„mon title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling to the Ministery Both propositions are false for it is already proved that vnder the name of Angels or the Angels of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 20. all the Ministers of the word how many soever are comprized wherefore the D. bare affirmation that one onely in each Church is kâ—t hexochen so intitled is no better then a bare broaching of an vntruth his owne The D. contradicteth himselfe delivereth an vntruth beggeth the question sermon of the dig and dutie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. which directly contradicteth this being judge with the begging of the question And to evince the falshood of the former proposition it is easy to give instance of sundrie titles belonging in coÌ„mon to all Ministers which yet are sometimes kâ—t hexâ—chen given to one singular person as when Iohn is intituled The Elder 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Ioh. 1. Paul a Minister of the Church or a Minister of Christ and of his gospell Colos 1. 24. 25. Rom. 15 16. Ephe. 3. 6. 7. Also when he giveth the name of a fellow-workman felow-souldier or Minister of God vnto some one among many 2 Cor. 8. 23. Phil. 2. 25. 1 Thes 3. 2. Wherefore vnlesse there were more truth then is in his reasoning he hath small reason to charge his Refuter with error for affirming that the Bishops of whome his text speaketh are named Angels in regard of their generall calling of the Ministery 3. See we now whether he hath any more strength of truth to mainteine his owne assertion to wit That they are called the angels of the Churches in respect of a prehemineÌ„t superiority in power and jurisdiction over other Ministers His argument must be framed to this effect Whatsoever title is given kat hexochen to one onely amoÌ„g many Ministers in one Church the same is a particular stile beloÌ„ging to one that hath singular preheminence above the rest that is to adioce san Byshop But the name â—f Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given to one onely among many Ministers in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of angels Apoc. 1. 80. is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath singular preheminence above the rest of the Ministers in those Churches that is to a diocesan Bishop And consequently the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given to diocesan Byshops in regard of theire episcopall superioritie above other Ministers in the same Churches whereof they were Angels Here the assumption being the same with that in the former arg may receive the same answ vz. is false hath no breath of life in it except to begg the questioÌ„ As for the proposition the falshood of it is more grosse palpable The D. beggeth in the assumption and delivereth a flat falseshood in the proposition then the former For besides that which is before delivered to shew that some titles belonging in common to all Ministers are and may be given kat hexochen to one onely among many which argueth that the giving of a title kat hexochen to one doth not prove the same to be a peculiar stile beloÌ„ging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others this may be added which was also before observed that if it should be graunted that such a title is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others yet from hence to inferre that it is a stile peculiar to a diocesan Byshop to use the Doct. words againe is as ridiculous as if a man should say it is a bird therefore a black swan or thus Mr. Dow. amonge many Ministers is a Doctor therefore he is a Duke a Deane a Byshop or Archbyshop Wherefore since both the premisses aswell in this as in the former argument are false the reader may safely reject
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
rather then to set out and to laye hold vpon a slender advantage rather Sect. 1 ad D. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect 2. Ref. pag. then to leave his diocesan Lords no footing in his text If an eminent superioritie cannot be gathered from the name of an Angel yet such a presidency as is given to one above others in every well-ordered society shall suffice to convey a diocesan Byshopprick to these Angels And if bâ—tter evidence fayle the confession of the Presbyterians shall serve to give them a Presidencie And though comonly he refuse the syllogismes which his Refuter reduceth into forme yet finding one handsomly framed to his hand though himself intended as he saith no such argument he is wel pleased to make use of it and to stand forth in defense of every parte of it The syllogisme runneth thus The Presidents of the Presbyters were Diocesan Bishops The Angels of the 7. Churches were presidents of the presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were Diocesan Bishops Concerning the Assumption it hath bene already shewed upon what reasons we hold it questionable whether these Angels were 7. onely persons of cheefe place in these Churches But here because the D. grounded himself upon the confession of the Presbyterians his refuter answered him by a distinction of a two fold Presbyterie mentioned in their writings the one a Presbyterie of governing Elders assisting the Pastor of each congregation th' other a Presbyterie of Ministers set over diverse churches Now because the former could yeeld the Doctor no colour of help to coÌ„vey a Diocesan Bishoprick to these angels he had expressly meÌ„tioned the later in the last wordes of the point before handled serm pag. 21. his Refuter signified his dissent from him in the assumption if his meaning were to give those angels a Presidencie over a colledge of Ministers assigned to sundry particular congregations And this he added that he knewe none that did confâ—sse the angels of the 7. Churches to be some of those Presidents Now the Doctor taking those testimonies of Calvin and Beza whom he hath often vâ—lified in other parts of his defense for plentifull proofe of his assumption he referreth us to that he hath alleaged out of their writings lib. 1. cap. 2. sect whether if we goe we shall finde just nothing to the purpose For Mr Calvin hath not one word touching those Angels Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 1. 2. And since he there expressly affirmeth that the presidencie which one Minister in caâ—h citie called a Bishop had over other Ministers his colleagues was brought in by humane consent and for the necessity of the times there is no likelihood that he held those angels in S. Iohns time to Humano consensit pro tempoâ—â—â— necessitate be Presidents of such a Presbyterie Yea his words doe shâ—w◠〈◊〉 1. that he speaketh of that forme of government which took place under the. Bishops that flourished after the Apostles and before the papacâ—e was discovered And though Mr Bâ—za doe affirme the Angel of the Church at Ephesus and so the rest each of them in his place to be the President of the Presbyterie there Annotat. in Apoc. 2. 1. yet hath he nothing neither there nor de Minist grad pag. 160. that can be drawen to shew that he estemed the Presbyteries or College of each Angel to be all of them Ministers of the word and Pastors of severall Churches But what need words be multiplied in so plaine a case Affirmeth he not himselfe serm pag. 22. that the parishes were not yet distinguished nor Ministers assigned to their severall Cures And must he not then vnderstand those Presbyrerians with whome he pretendeth to have agrement to speak of such a Presbyterie as had the charge of one onely Church not yet divided into severall titles Howsoever then he make a shew of justifying his assumption against the Refuters denyal thereof yet The D. subscribeth to his Ref. and proveth what was not gainesayd indeed he subscribeth vnto it and indeavoureth to prove it in a sense which now was not coÌ„tradicted for it is no disadvantage to us in the mayn question to give way to the assumption in such a sense as Mr. Beza avoucheth it since such a presidency as he alloweth to those Angels can never conclude them to be diocesan Byshops such as ours To come therefore to the proposition because the Refuter rejected it as false I will make good his censure both by removing Sect. 2. the D defence thereof by proposing some other just exceptions against it And 1. he cannot prove every president of a Presbytery in the Apostles times to be a Byshop much lesse a diocesaÌ„ Byshop in the usual construction of the word opposed to other Ministerial functions For if some Presbyteries were a company of Apostles Apostolicall men who were more then Byshops as he acknowledgeth serm pag. 38. and def lib. 3. pag. 81. needs must their president be more then a Byshop And who doubteth but that as Iames the Apostle was president not onely of the Synode Act. 15. but also of the standing Presbyterie Act. 21. 18 And Timothe an Evangelist president among the Presbyters at Ephesus for the time of his staye there by S. Paules appointment 1. Tim. 1. 3. so also every Apostle and Evangelist in the absence of the Apostles was the president of any Church where they made their residence though but for a short continuance Thus was Paul the president of that Presbyterie which imposed hands on Timothe 2. Tim. 1. 6. cum 1. Tim. 4. 14. of the Ephesian Presbyterie during his aboade amongst them Act. 20. 17. 31. And the like presidence even at Ephesus S. Iohn reteined doubtlesse when after his exile returning thither ibi denuò sedem ac donâ—icilium rerum suarum collocavit as Eusebius reporteth eccles Hist lib. 3. chap. 15. For it were absurd either to seclude him from all consultation with the clergie of that Church or to make him inferior vnto any of them And since the D. acknowledgeth that so longe as there remained any Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical meÌ„ they were the governors of the Churches lib. 4. pag. 72. we have reason to thinke that he cannot without contradiction affirme in generall of all the presidents that moderated the first Presbyteriâ—s that they were properly Byshops for he accounteth none of the Apostles to be properly Byshops lib. 4. pag. 57. and he subscribeth serm pag 86. to the saying of Tertullian de prescrip adv haereâ— that in the Apostolick Churches they re first Byshop had for their founder and Antecessor one of the Apostles or Apostolik men Now if all the presidents of Presbyteries were not properly Byshops how could they all be diocesan Byshops yea such as our Diocesans are 2. Certeinly the verie name of a president that had a Presbyterie adjoyned to him for the managinge of Church causes doth strongly argue the forme of Church-government then to
to ours at this day Chap. 4. Conteyning an answer to the D. last argument draven from his text lib. 4. cap. 6. sect 3. pag. 142. handled by the Ref. pag. 155. 156. of his answer We are nowe come to that argument wherewith the D. closeth Sect. 3. all up lib. 4. cap. 6. sect 3. the which we might well overpasse seing he hath not one word in it more then is already answered Yet least he should think better of it then it deserveth I will give the reader a sight of it Those saith he that are called by the Holy Ghost the Angels of the Churches and were signified by the 7. starres which were in Christs right hand had divine both institution and approbation The diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the 7. Churches were signified by the 7. starres which were in Christs right hand Therefore thâ— Di Bishops of the 7. churches had divine both institution and approbation The proposition which needeth no proofe he proveth 1. by the name of angels 2. by the name of starres 3. by Christs holding the starrs in his right hand But the AssumptioÌ„ which carrieth both these names to Diocesan Bishops and affirmeth that they also were the starres in Christs right hand as he tooke it for graunted in his sermon The D. proveth what needed not proofe passeth by what he should haâ— proved so in the defence thereof he overpasseth it telling us that now he went not about to prove it because it was proved at large in the former part of his sermon And because the Refuter did againe put him in mind of his doctrine in his former sermoÌ„ scz that all Ministers are starrs Angels c. he againe repeateth his answer before refuted to wit that these names kat hexochen are attributed to Byshops to signifie their prâ—heminence To the rest of the Refuters words he vouch safeth none other answer then this that they are thâ— uttring of his splean and emptying of his gall against Byshops Wherefore I will acquaint the reader with the substance of them that he may judg whether they dâ—serve so to be censured Is there not sayth the Refuter pag. 155. preheminence of dignitie to ministers as starrs vnlâ—sse some of them may be as the sun from whome all other have their light all faithfull Ministers shyne as starres in the eyes of the Churches though they lift not vp themselves to darken the brightnes of their brethren by their glâ—ttring and glorious blâ—sing As for the 12. starres Rev. 12. 1. he saith they are eyther all Ministers or else the 12. Apostles onely For him therefore to appropriate this to diocesan Bishops is rather to shew his flattering humor then soundly to expound the text And then wondreth if the Doct. blushed not and trembled not when he spake of the prerogative of glorie which his diocesan Bishops shall have in the world to come and when he made the prophet Daniel patrone of such Lordly idlenes c. and sheweth that it is so much the more to be wondred at lâ—mented in him because of that which he knoweth professeth in his former sermon that all Ministers are starres angels c. as the reader may at large see pag. 156. In which words of the refuter there are these 4. Arguments closely couched which do clearly discover how the D. abuseth the text he haÌ„dleth The Refutâ— proveth by 4. arguments that the D. abuseth hiâ— text 1. To appropriate vnto diâ—â—â— Bishops that which is eyther coÌ„mon to all Ministers or proper to the Apostles is rather to shew his flattering humour then soundly to expound his text But the name of starres Apoc. 1. 20. is coÌ„mon to all Ministers and all Ministers are vnderstood also by the 12. starres Apoc. 12. 1. vnlesse we shall reâ—â—rte it onely to the Apostles Therefore to appropriate the name in both places to D. Bishops is rather to shewe his flattering humour then soundly to expound his text 2. The name of starres cannot expresse their preeminence who are as the suâ—â—s from whom others derive their light But such are Diocesan Bishops as both the D. serm pag. 47. lin 13. 54. antepenult Bishop Bilson perpet govern 291. affirme Therefore c. 3. To appropriate to Diocesan Bishops that prerogative of glorie which Daniel noteth in the starres he speaketh of cap. 12. 3. is to make the Propheâ— a patrone of Lordly ydlenes or at least to give that prerogative unto a work of another nature then that which the prophet mentioneth For that which by Daniels doctrine maketh men shine like starrs in heaven is the turning of many vnto righteousnes by faithfulnes and painfulnes in the Ministerie of the word But the workes which lift up Bishops above other Ministers are the ordeyning of Ministers the suspending of them c. workes of Lordly ydlenes not of painfulnes or faithfulnes in the Ministery of the word Wherefore the D. in appropriating to Diocesan Bishops that prerogative of glorie Dan. 12. 1. maketh him a patrone of Lordly idlenes c. 4. He who knoweth and professeth that all Ministers are starres angels so intituled Apoc. 1. 20. and that the preaching of the word is the cheefe worke of the Ministerie to which double honour is due cannot without contradiction to himselfe magnify their Ministerye by the same titles who eyther claime by priviledge to be exempted from that great and necessary worke of their calling or load themselves with so many cares and so much busynes not belonging to theire function that they cannot have an hower to think vpon that service for which they are cheefly counted Starres Angels or which is worse by their sole authoritie thrust out painfull labourers c. But the D. knoweth and professeth as is abovesayd Therefore he falleth into an apparant contradiction which is to be wondred The Doct. contradicteth himself at and lamented in magnifying by the same titles the function of Diocesan Bishops who eyther claime the former priveledge c. Now because the Doctors onely releefe against these arguments of the Refuter standeth in referring us to the former I onely desire the indifferent reader to consider the answeres before and hereafter made to his best proofes drawen eyther from his text or any other scripture for the justifying of the interpretation of his text or the doctrine of his sermon and then to judge whether the large proofe he speaketh of be not meere begging of the question and a grosse contradicting of himselfe Chap. 5. Concerning the argument drawn by the D. from Apoc. 2. 2. and 20. Lib. 3. cap. 5. sect 20. pag. 135. 136. Having already sifted all that the D. hath urged from his text for the singular preheminence and diocesan jurisdiction of his Sect. 〈◊〉 Byshops we are now to proceed to that argument which himselfe syllogistically framâ—th to prove that they had a corrective power over other
and their haereticall doctrine of which he laboured what he could to disburden the Church But however this be taken there is little reason for any man to thinke that those false Apostles were in open consistorie convâ—nted and censured as the Doctor imagineth And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe how will the second point be manifested which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers was the peculiar right of one Bishop here called the angell of the Church To tell us that he hath before proved that by the Angel of each Church one onely Bishop is meant will be no sufficient defense seing his proofes are already disproved cap. 3. sect 1. 2. 3. c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie viz. that under the name of one Angell the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned Apoc. 2. 2. 20 we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters in this manner They who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring or reproved for suffering false Teachers in their Church had a corrective power over other Ministers But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira was reproved for the later veâ—s 20. Ergo those Angels which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church had the corrective power over Ministers And since it appeareth by the commandement which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 11. that the praise oâ— dispraise of every angel belongeth in part unto the whole Church a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters Calvin Beza Marlorat Aretius Perkins c. though it should be graunted that one Minister to wit the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie is principally aymed at in the name of the angel of each Church yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction was his pâ—culiar right nay rather it will follow that so farre as his fellow angels and not they onely but the whole Church did partake with him in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him so farre also they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding Wherefore if the Doctors meaning be in his assumption to restreyne the praise or dispraise mentioned Apoc. 2. 2 20. vnto The D. wresteth the text or must yeeld the cause one onely person whom he reputeth to be the Bishop his Assumption is to be rejected as an erroneous wresting of the text contrarie to the true meaning thereof But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption viz. that in the praise or reproofe of the angel the rest of the Ministers or Elders and the whole Church did partake with him then must he subscribe to this conclusion to wit that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch did partake with the Angel of each Church in the power of administring the Church-censures And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text or any part of the holy scripture in defense of the explication of his text viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. Bishops for the substance of their calling such as ours are We are in the next place to see what strength there is in that argument whereby from the title of Angels in his text he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text handled by him Lib. 3. pag. 150. c. against the Refuters answere pag. 105. 106. LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title The angels of the Churches to justify Sect. 〈◊〉 the titles of honour which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates his argument is this The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title in calling them the angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therfore we should not think much that they are called Lordes The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositioÌ„ That vnto whoÌ„soever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour which is not vniversally true as the D. I suppose wil confesse in many particulars For the name or tiâ—le of Maior Bayliffe Alderman Constable c. I might say King Dukâ— Earle c. must needs be in his understanding by many degrees inferiour to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the word sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62. such as are Co-workers and Stewards of God c. But to give the former unto Ministers were to bringe confusion into the Church to overthrow that difference which the lawes of God man have set betwene civill eccles functions And though a man should offer to salve this mischeife with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings c. by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops yet I perswade my selfe he would not easylie admit of this disorder yea doubtlesse he would thinke it a great disparagement to his reverend Fathers spiritual Lords that everie painefull Minister of Christ should be equalled with them in those honorable titles which doe now lift them vp above their brethren And yet by his owne confession pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned they have all right to those titles of Doctors Fathers Pastors and Saviours of their brethren which are more glorious then that name of Angels of the Churches which he now appropriateth vnto Byshops We may take it therefore for an evident truth that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq is not true argument no not though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature I meane such as declare the same kind of honor either civill or ministeriall For I make no question but the D. would judge it as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops to beare the name of Archdeacons Officials or Curates c. as for Kinges Emperors to be called Dukes Captaines or high Constables And I judge it much more absurde to argue as he doth from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers to shew the dignitie of their function vnto titles of civill honour apperteyning vnto great personages that excell in externall pompe and worldly glorie And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument when to shewe the inconsequence thereof he said that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither
are of a different nature For Angels and starres are glorious creatures of heaven and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office but Lord Lordship and Grace are termes of civill honour not so well be sitting the Ministers of Iesus Christ Hereto the D. replyeth I confesse they doe not so well befit them because they come short of the honour and excellencie which in the name of angels the Holy Ghost ascribeth to them as if the honour of the episcopall function were much abased not increased as the world judgeth by those titles of civill honour given vnto Byshops for what else can he meane in sayinge they doe not so well befitt them because they come short c. And why then are ye so vnwise ô ye Princes and Nobles as to give vnto Byshops for the honouring of their those titles that doe debase them Be wise and instructed from henceforth to deny them these base termes of Lordship and Grace to give them those titles of honour which are peculiar to Christ and not common with them to any other creature viz. Pastors of soules the light of the world and saviour of their brethren see the D. serm of the dignitie of the Ministers pag 62. 64. But why maketh the D. a shew of removing his Refuters answere The D maketh shew of removing his Ref. answ but doth not once touch it and yet leaveth it altogether vntouched For he cannot give his argument a discharge from the inconsequence objected against it till he shew eyther that the titles which he coÌ„pareth are not of an other nature or that the termes of civil honor coÌ„troverted doe wel beseeme those whose calling is adorned with titles of greater honour in another kind to witt in regard of a spirituall and celestiall dignitie To attempt the former were to quench the light of coÌ„mon reason and to indeavour the latter is to conveye the controverted titles of civill honour by an equall right vnto every Minister seing the titles of greatest spirituall dignitie doe equally belong to all the Ministers of the word as is before observed The D. therefore as one that wittingly will not see the weaknes of his consequence spendeth all his strength in fortifying the AntecdeÌ„t viz. that the names of Lords c. given to Byshops by earthly Princes is a title of lesse honour then that which the Holy Ghost giveth them in calling them the Angels of the Churches I wil not now urge him a fresh to give us some better reason then any he hath yet proposed for the proofe of that which he taketh here for graunted sz that the Holy Ghost appropriateth vnto Byshops such as ours the name of the Angels of the Churches I will onely examin how well he hath proved that this is a more honourable title then the name of Lords They are called saith he not onely Angels that is messengers and Ambassadors of God as all Ministers are in respect of their Ministerie but each Sect. 3. of them also is called the Angel of the Church whereof he is Byshop in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church as the holy angels are said to be their angels over whom they are appointed governours guardians therfore the name Lord giveÌ„ to them in respect of their governmeÌ„t authority is a title of lesse honor theÌ„ that which in the same respect is giveÌ„ theÌ„ by Christ Here also I must passe by a double error in his words before discovered namely that Byshops onely and not any other Ministers have right vnto this title the Angels of the Churches and that more 〈◊〉 As if it were more honour to be the knight of a shire in ParliameÌ„t then to be the Kings â—eutenant honour is implyed in this latter then in the name of the Lords Angels or Embassadors which he acknowledgeth to be coÌ„mon to all Ministers see for that these points the answ to his 7. sect lib. 1. cap. 2. The weight and worth of his reasoning is now to be examined which standeth in this Enthymem Everie Byshop is called the Angels of the Church whereof he is Byshop in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church like as the holy angels are sayd to be their angels over whom they are appointed Therefore the name Lord given to them in respect of their government is a title of lesse honour then the other that is given in the same respect Why if both titles be given to Byshops in one and the same respect doth it not rather follow by good probabilitie that equall honour is implyed in both should not then the D. have done better to have fortified the consequence of his argument then to leave it naked as he doth And why neyther in this nor in the former Enthymem supplieth he not the consequence or proposition which according to his owne rules lib. 2. pag. 44. might make a perfect syllogism at least why doth he not fill up his comparison and tell us from whose governmeÌ„t the name of Lord given vnto Byshops is borrowed Perhaps because he saith in the next clause of his defence that Bishops have that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporall he would have us to conceive that it is for that cause a title of lesse honour then that other which Bishops have common to them with the holy Angels of God If this be his meaning as â—â—gesse it is for I know not what better colour he can preteÌ„d for the justifying of the coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of his reasoning we are then to inquire whether he be not deceived eyther in laying downe the reason of the name Lord given vnto Bishops or in making that the cause of a lesse honour included in the name His own words are the occasion of drawing the former into question when he saith They are not therefore civil Lords because they have the title of Lords coÌ„mon to them with the Lords temporall for who knoweth not the distinction betwene the Lords spirituall and temporal We are not ignorant of the distinction so often mentioned in the actes of parliament but the D. seemeth not to know the right meaning and use thereof For if the Bishops be not civill Lords nor their Lordship a civill honour because they are distinguished from the nobles of the laytie by the name of Lords spirituall then it followeth that theire Lordship and honour annexed thereunto is meerely spirituall But it is so well knowne to all the world that Bishops doe partake with temporall Lords in all the appurtenances of civil Lordship and civill honour that to deny it were delirare cum insanis to plaie the madd man The reason therefore of the distinction retained in our lawes is rather to shew the different condition of the persons then the diversity of their Lordship because the one are spirituall persons or clergie-men and the other temporall men or lay-persons Or â—f the D. will needs have theire verie Lorpships to be distinguished by those
termes Spirituall and temporall then the difference must be this that Bishops have besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies common to them with the Lords temporall an ecclesiasticall Lordship or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall However it be since he denyeth them to be civill Lords and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them in regarde of the same government which is implied vnder the name of the angels of the Churches he should in reason derive the Lordship of Byshops rather from Christs Lordship which is spirituall then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil For if that be true which he conceiveth Byshops have no more affinitie with noble personages in the name of Lords then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors Both may be called Pastors of the people as he saith serm of the dig of Min. pag. 53. but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies the Ministers of their soules In like manner our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes but the one are civill Lords the other not so but spiritual Wherefore as he affirmeth serm pag. 62. Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors because as he is the Pastor of our soules so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes but of their souls so he maketh or at least might from the like ground affirme Bishops to have the name of Lordes coÌ„mon to them with Christ seing as he is a spirituall Lord so are they also Lords spirituall and not civill Wherefore if wee may measure the greatnes or smallnes of that honour which any titles convey vnto Ministers by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons with whom they in those titles are compared then have wee good warrant to conclude the honour included in the name of Lordes attributed unto Bishops to be by so much greater then that which is implied in the other title of the Churches Angels by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels But no staied building standeth upon so â—andy a foundation for as men shall please to vary the things with which they may by any title compare the Ministers of Christ so theire honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure and that vnder one and the same title For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers Ephes 4. 11. with Christ the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 4. Heb. 13. 20. then is it a name of farr greater honor then the name of Angels or Angels of the Churches but it is by many degrees more base if it be referred to the shepheards that watch attend on their flocks in the feilds from whence in truth it was at the first derived Wherefore it must be confessed that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed Sect. 4. scz that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord being coÌ„mon to Bishops with Lords temporall to be a title of lesse honour then the name of the angels of the Churches that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels We may with much more probabilitie affirme that by how much it is a greater honour to have a Lord-like government in any Church then to have a tutorship or Guardianship therein by so much the name of Lorde given to Bishops in respect of their government is a title of greater honour theÌ„ the other which expresseth their Guardianship which in some respect is allowed to the Churchwardens of every parishe For why should we not measure the height of that honour which titles doe imply rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the names import then by the condition of the persons or things with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled To end this dispute let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor for whereas nowe he graunteth the name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire government and authoritie a little after pag. 153. he denieththe title to be given them with relation but as a simple title with honour revereÌ„ce For how can it be a simple title of honour used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them if it be given them in respect of their government And thus much for answer to the argument drawen from the name of Angels in his text to justifie those honourable titles of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops like to ours There remayneth some what alleadged by the D. to shew that â—â—e 7. angels were Byshops for the substance of their calling like to ours as yet vnanswered but it is from humane and not divine evidence He promiseth indeed serm pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence that the government by Byshops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them His scripture proofe is nothing but this The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse and for the substance of their calling like to ours as I sayth he have proved Which proofes because his Refuter had removed before he came to that part of the sermon he therefore tolde him that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion but what was already answered now the D. telleth us that this is vntrue For saith he I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Byshops That they were Byshops why that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed he should therefore say and make his saying good that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours but so to affirme were to avouch an vntruth wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing but what was before answered Which wrong is the greater because he could not but see by his Refuters words following answ pag. 128. that in so saying he had an â—ie to the D. proofes from scripture which was the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wel againe be once tolde that â—ayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna
and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus and what is sayd of two is to be vnderstood of the rest Indeed the Refuter saw not this last clause for how should he see it before it came into the D. head to deliver it and now he might well have spared it vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning For would he have us to think that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus so also the other five were Policarpus and Onesimus If this be not his meaning why doth he tell us that what is sayd of two the same must be vnderstood of the rest If his meaning be that as he nominated two so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest if he list he must pardon us in case we intertayne not the thought seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names if he had ever mett with any evidence that revealed them But why doth this great disputer who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing so falsely and yet wittingly charge his Refuter whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser not to see or not to mention this his first The D. falsly yet willingly slandereth his Refuter argument Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it when he saith pag. 128. that the summe of all that the D. hath is comprized in 3. points 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus as it may well be supposed the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus 2. that from the 7. angels c. Had the Refuter put the word Angel in steade of the word Byshop which he used the D. had had no colour of cause as he had no cause to quarrel with him but the old proverbe is verifyed wranglâ—rs will play at small game rather then sit out and men sett to pick quarrells will take holde of small occasions rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine But to leave his evill and idle wandrings and to examine his Sect. 2. argument the first standeth thus in forme Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus But Policarpitâ— and Onesimus were Bishops he should say By-shops like to ours Therefore two of these angels were Byshops like vnto â—urs And the second thus From the 7. angels a succession of Byshops was continued in those 7. Churches vntill thae councill of Nice and afterwards Therefore those 7 angels were Byshops like to ours To both these joyntly the Refuter answereth thus that the Byshops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan as they were which followed in succeeding ages The D. Replyeth pag. 43. that if ever there had bene within the compasse of a diocese more Byshops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truely alledged that the circuite of the Byshops charge was inlarged from a parish to a diocese then there were some colour for this exception but these conceits sayth he I have disproved before and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these 7. Byshops were in the ende of 300. yeares diocesan Byshops then were theire first prâ—decessors such For answer wherevnto in a word I say 1. That it is besides the present question now to enquire whether there ever were within one diocese any more Byshops then one at once c. 2. since the D. upon his bare word denieth those things to be so he hath little reason to think that we will blindly subscribe to his confident conclusion inferred vpon his naked presumptions to make no worse of them For first it is no hard matter to make them false presumptions What saith he to Epiphanius cont Haeres lib. 2. haeres 68. contra Milet doth not he affirme that there were diverse Byshops in one Church or citie though not in Alexandria nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos velut aliae urbes Secondly as touching his owne testimonies which he produceth to shew that Policarpus was Byshop of Smyrna Onesimus Byshop of Ephes in S. Iohns time I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himselfe as he may easily discerne if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. The D. contradicteth himselfe 62. with serm pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. togither In theÌ„BCH 4168-0138 the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wâ—l againe be once tolde that fayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus and what is sayd of two is to be vnderstood of the rest Indeed the Refuter saw not this last clause for how should he see it before it came into the D. head to deliver it and now he might well have spared it vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning For would he have us to think that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus so also the other five were Policarpus and Onesimus If this be not his meaning why doth he tell us that what is sayd of two the same must be vnderstood of the rest If his meaning be that as he nominated two so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest if he list he must pardon us in case we intertayne not the thought seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names if he had ever mett with any evidence that revealed them But why doth this great disputer who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing so falsely and yet wittingly charge his Refuter whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser not to see or not to mention this his first The D. falâ—ly yet willingly slandereth his Refuter argument Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it when he saith pag. 128. that the summe of all that the D. hath is comprized in 3. points 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus as it may wâ—ll be supposed the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus 2. that from the 7. angels c. Had the Refuter put the word Angel in steade of the word Byshop which he used the D. had had no colour of cause as he had no cause to quarrel with him but the old proverbe is verifyed wranglars will play at small game rather then sit out and men sett to pick quarrells will take holde of small occasions rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine But to leave his evill and idle wandrings and to examine his Sect. 2. argument the first standeth thus in forme Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus But Policarpus and Onesimus were
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
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
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
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
conversion of the residue eyther in citie or countrey For howsoever we deny not but that it belonged to them both as Christians to use all opportunity of winning to the faith as Ministers to preach to the heaeÌ„ also if they were present in their coÌ„gregatioÌ„s yet it was their office to attend on the flock whereof the holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. And not like Apostles or Evangelists to imploy themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians By these fewe words saith the Doctor the deep wisdome of the parish disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a fewe converted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted c. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set was onely that number of Christians already converted c. 3. that their proper office was to attend them onely which were already converted and not to labour the conversion of the rest c. The last of these I confesse is plainly averred by the Refuter and the second by consequence implyed But the first hath no shadowe of any foundation in his words so that the Doctor his deep wisdome hath drawne it I suppose out of his owne drowsy imagination And yet if it be an erronious conceit why bendeth he not the stroak of some one reason or other against it Yea how will the D. free himself from error seing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer that doth more savour of that conceit then these words of the Doct. Def. pag. 54. that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were fewe and when there were many yea when all were Christians and those in his sermon pag 25. that vpon the division of parishes there happened no alteratioÌ„ to the state of the Bishop 2. Moreover if the second be an errour whose hand is deepest in it whether the Refuter who alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers or the Doctor who citeâ—h the same scripture serm pag. 18. to justify this speach that the Presbyters were to attend the flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments Very likely then he supposed it to be a truth A contradiction in the Doct. that the flock over which they were set was onely that number of Christians which were already converted And he had good reason so to judge because that flock onely was the visible Church which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus But now he seeth it is an error so to conceive because our Saviour calleâ—h the elect not converted his sheep Ioh. 10. 16. and the L. in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet converted As if men could give or take the charge of such a flock or people as they neyther know nor could be taught to discerne by any notes that come within their vnderstanding because the Lord who knoweth all that he hath chosen and appointed in time to call and to whose cies things to come are as manifest as things preseÌ„t doth entitle his elect though yet vnborn or at least vnconverted by the name of his sheep or his people 3. As touching the third point the Refuter hath plainely discovered his judgment how farre he granteth it and in what respect he denieth it to be the dutie of Presbyters to labour the conversioÌ„ of Infidels For besides the coÌ„mon dutie of Christians to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith they are as he faith to preach vnto them if they will come into their assemblies but to imploy their labour in traveiling to and fro in any countrie or diocese to preach vnto them where they find any concourse of people this he denyeth to be any part of the Presbyteriall function and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle or Evangelist Which plaine dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor by shewing how in what course holdeth it their dutie to labour the conversion of infidels whether by the like traveil and imployment that the Apostles Evangelists vndertooke in places where the gospell had not yet any entrance or whether in any other fashion that the Ref apprehended not But he I will not say craftily concealeth from his Reader the parts of his Refuters distinction and as if he had simply denyed them any way to labour the conversion of any that were allenated from the faith he resteth on this trifling replie as though saith he the Apostles intended by their Ministery the conversion and salvation of no more but those few that were at first converted And then for the better manifestation of their wisdome he should have sayd of his owne inhability to make good his assertion he opposeth them with a fewe questions which yet are more then needed but let us heare them they are these 1. Whether the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were not Ministers of the word 2. whether they were not many in some places more in some fiwer yea sometimes as many as those who were before converted Act. 19. 6. 3. whether they being many were onely to attend that smal number of converts 4. whether the Apostles in ordeyning many intended not the conversion of more then those few 5. whether it was not their office to labour their conversion 6. If not how they were to be converted 7. Nay if they did not labour how were they converted Of these 7. the. 3. 4. and 5. might have been spared seing they are already answered viz. that the conversion of citie countrie did not belong to their office as any proper work thereof and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordeyning them otherwise then is before expressed The rest also might have been overpassed since he knoweth his Refuters mind therein save that he would closely intimate vnto his Reader as it seemeth two arguments to justify his owne assertion for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner The Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were all Ministers of the word and were many in each Church yea in some places as many as those that were besides converted wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their Ministerie to convert the rest and that it was a duty proper to their office to labour their conversio How true it is which in the first place he avoucheth I will not here debate it belongeth to another treatise the later part of his Antecedent importeth that the Apostles ordeyned many Ministers for each Church though the number of converts were so small that in some places it scarce exceeded the number of Presbyters A matter so unlikely that if the consequent annexed must hang in
suspence till he hath made good proofe of this assertion I seare it will wearie the dearest of his friends to wait for the proof thereof All that he hath yet found worth the mencioning is that the Evangelist reporteth Act. 19. 6. 7. viz. that Paul having found at Ephefus certeine Disciples about 12. in number that had been partakers of Iohns Baptisme by imposing hands on them gave them the guifts of the Holy Ghost so that they spake with tongues and prophesied From hence he gathereth 1. that these persons were at that time enabled by the giftes of the spirit for the worke of the Ministerie 2. Yea ordeyned Presbyters appointed to take the charge of that Church 3. That they did equall the number of all that were besides converted 4. And consequently that sometimes in Churches newly constituted the number of people converted was not much greater then the number of Presbyters placed among them for this he affirmed once before Cap. 1. pag. 6. The first of these may be doubted of we consider how generally the gifts of the holy Ghost were at other times beslowed Act. 8. 12-17 10. 44. 46. But I will not contend about this point The second is more unlikely then the first and the third more absurd then the second and therefore the last which floweth from these hath nothing to releive it for as there is not a syllable in the text to uphold eyther the one or the other so it suteth not with the Apostles wisdome so farre to exceed here the proportio which he held in other places betweene the number of the Presbyters and the state of the Churches to which they were assigned as himself confesseth in this 67. page lin 10. 2. Moreover it was the usuall course of the Apostles in all places where they came to plant the gospell first to continue their own preaching for the gathering of a competent number to the faith then to give them Presbyters to feed those whom they had converted as the Doctor also acknowledgeth in the first of his two arguments pag. 65. It were absurd therefore to imagine that he should now take a preposterous and contrarie order at his first coming to Ephesus to ordeyne them 12. Ministers and himselfe to stay there 3. yeares after to labour their conversion by his owne preaching 3. Again we may truely say of preaching Presbyters that which he saith of Bishops serm pag. 65. there was not that use of them among a people which was to be converted before they needed to be fedd and governed especially while the Apostles was present and had the assistance of Evangelists to labour their conversion with him Act. 19. 22. 4. Were the Refuter as full of questions as the Doctor he might ask him how 12. Presbyters could have that honourable stipend which in justice is due to the for their work fake as himself understandeth the Apostle 1. Tim. 5. 17. see lib. 1. p. 127. if the number of converts that were bound to mainteyn the were but so many persons or thereabouts 5. And if he shall ask to what use their guift of prophesy was imployed if they were not Presbyters affixed to the care of that flock he may take answer from these scriptures Act. 2. 17. 11. 27. 13. 1. 15 31. 1. Cor. 14 29. 31. 1. Tim 4. 14. which shewe that all prophesying was not inclosed within th breist of his preaching presbyters But I have sayd enough to shewe that we deny not without cause out assent to his idle fancie of a number of Presbyters given to some Churches by farre too many for the number of persons already converted Wherefore till he hath yeelded better proofes for this supposall it cannot conclude his purpose viz. that the Apostles intended the conversion of citie and countrey adjoyning by the Ministerie of those Presbyters which he ordeyned in any citie that had enterteyned the faith The 2. last questions before delivered intimate this opinion selted in the Doctor that if the Presoyters ordeyned in cities by the Sect. 9. Apostles were not appointed to labour the conversion of the rest yea if they did not indeavor it then there was no meanes to effect their coversion Hereto if the Assumption be addeth But there was a meanes appointed for their conversion and it was in time effected Then this coclusion will follow Therefore they were appointed to labour their conversion and as their office did binde them so they did indeavor it But the proposition is false and discovereth an high presumption in the Doctor that dareth limit the wisdome work of God unto one onely meanes that such as he fancieth to himselfe without any warrant yea against the clear light of the word For was not the conversion of Infidels unto the faith the principall work of the extraordinarie function of Apostles and of Evangelists that accompanied and assisted them in their traveiles 2. And when the Apostles themselves left any Churches to the care of Presbyters ordeyned by them did they not use the labour of their fellowe helpers to finish the work which they had begun 3. And why doth Mr Doctor take no notice of the meanes mentioned by the Refuter to wit the private labours both of the pres-byters of every well affected Christian striving to winne others unto the faith and the publick exhortations and instructions directed by the Ministers to those heathen that had accesse to the church-assemblies seing the scripture acknowledgeth that even by these helps the work of the Lord in the gathering togither of his Saincts hath bene very much furthered Rom. 16. 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15. 16. 4. 3. Iam. 5. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 14. 24. 25. 4. But though the Doctor make light account of these helps yet the Apostles were not ignorant that his hand was not shortned who had given them good as of his blessing upon such weak meanes so also of his working out the calling and salvation of such as belonged to his kingdome by many other wayes Act. 8. 4. 5. 26. 40. 9. 38. 10. 3. 5. 11. 19. 21. Isa 2. 3. Zach. 8. 23. Ioh. 1. 41. 45. 4. 29. 39. 12. 20. 21. Apoc. 3. 9. And therefore we have no cause to think that any feare of wanting fit meanes for the conversion of Gods elect that yet were drowned in paganisme should carrie them to comit this work vnto those Presbyters whom they ordeyned for the feeding of the flock already converted So much to the 7. questions there remayneth 3. more to make Sect. 10. ad pag. 67. 68. up the compleat number of 10 which though they be nothing to the present busynes yet may not be overpassed least he crow over his Refuter without cause Were all these Presbyters saith he Pastors property of that one flock or was there but one properly the Pastor or Bishop the rest being his Assistants 2. when more were converted then could well assemble in one ordinarie
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
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-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
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-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
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
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
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
hath his Refuter sayed that those Churches of Corinth Ephesus c. were parishes before the division of parishes or why doth he father on him such a senslesse assertion as this is For in his owne understanding it is all one as if a man should say that those Churches were parishes before they were any parishes at all as appeareth by his descanting upon this point pag. 69. and 70. But let us see how the Doctor fortifyeth each part of his argumentation First touching his assumption to prove that those churches were not such as were the parishes that followed the division he urgeth 3. differences betwixt the one and the other 1. parishes after their division had not a Bishop and a Presbyterie as those Churches had but onely one preshyter assigned to them 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a Superintendent as was the Bishop of those Churches over other Pastors 3. neither was any of them intended as each of those Churches was to be a Mother-church These differences being nakedly affirmed The Doct. argueth like a Sophister may with a bare deniall be repelled but the answere at this time shal be rather this that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter For say that he could as he cannot mainteyne these differences those Churches might be yea were notwithstanding such churches as the parishes were after the division that is alike in the point which himselfe taketh notice of pag. 4. of his sermon as the substanciall point of the agreement intended the former being aswell as the later each of them one ordinary congregation assembled in one place But if his meaning be that they were not such in all points we may well demurre upon the matter till the question be debated which belongeth to another tract what manner of parishes they were which received their originall from the division of one citie Church into many parish-assemblies In the meane time to come to the consequence of his proposition whereas he saith it may not be denied specially by them that would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches I wil be so bolde as utterly to contradict this speach and say the contrary to it that it may very well be denyed even by such as would have the parishes so framed For in as much as they desire not the abolishing of parishes but the reducing of them to the patterne of the first churches it is evident that they in their judgment hold two kindes of parishes the one differing from the other agreeing with the forme and constitution of the first Churches And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defense of that conclusion which the Doctors argument throweth upon his Refuter he must needs distinguish in some respect or other betwixt the parishes that had their being before and those that began after that division of parishes whereof he speaketh and therefore must of necessitie contradict the Doctors consequence say that the first Churches which were parishes in asmuch as they were but one congregation before that division of parishes which followed when those Churches by reason of their multitude hugely increased were parted into more particular congregations were not in all points such Churches as the later parishes were Thus is the stroake of his first reason warded let me come now Sect. â— to encounter with the second If saith he that assumption was false which denied Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But the Refuter sayd before that that assumption had no truth in it here also must I adde the conclusion Ergo those Churches were not onely many congregations but also many parishes Vnderstand this to be meant of each Church severally q. d. Ergo each of them was not one onely congregation or parish but many And marke what followeth These two just exceptions saith he I have against his consequence So you may discerne how just cause he giveth me to take up against him his owne fashion of reply pag. 72. Good Sir what is this to the Refuters consequence Where doth he say that each of these Churches was but one congregation and not many and where that each was but one parish Is not the former his Antecedent or assumption and the later the consequent or conclusion Therefore to use his owne words pag. 73. when you would seeme to deny the consequence you do not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against some other assertion of his you deny the principall conclusion I might proceed therefore to rowse him up with the sweet sound of his owne bâ—lls pag. 47. and ring this peale into his cares Is not the deniall of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded c but I spare him the rest of his speach and return to the matter His argument is no other then such as he before objected pag. 73. and 76. and is already answered cap. 3. sâ—ct 10. and 15. to this purpose viz. that the refuter in affirming parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times cannot contradict his owne assertion which mainteyneth the Apostolike Churches to be parishes because in his understanding every particular congregation is a parish And if it be not so also in the Doctors perswasion why doth he so often use the wordes indiffâ—rently viz. severall parishes or congregations for one and the same thing Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togiâ—her in this very argument of his to contradict his conclusion and so to justify our owne I tender him for reqâ—itall this that followeth If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles tâ—me then the Churches oâ— Corinth Ephâ—sus c. Were in that age each of them but onâ— onely congrâ—gation or parish But that â—ssumpâ—ion â—s by the D. maintâ—yned to be true pag. 69. and 73 let him therefore disclaime that AssumptioÌ„ or give way to this conclusion Therefore the Churches of Coriâ—th Ephesus c were each of them in the Apostlâ—s â—imâ—s but one onâ—ly congregation or parish and not many But let us heare what it is that withholdeth his aâ—sent from the Antecedent or assumption of the Refuters bâ—forâ— set downe Though I deny not saiâ—h he bâ—t â—hat â—t the first and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect 3. pa. â—04 time of the Apostle Pâ—ul the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a pâ—pulous congregation yet â— cannot yeild to all his proofes Even so but why doth he not answere directly to the point by approving or contrarying that which is sayd of those three churches Corinth Ephesus and Antioche If it be false in his pâ—rswasion what maketh him affrayd or abâ—sht to dâ—scover the falshood thereof if true why doth he not plainly acknowledge it
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
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
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
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
Bishops and he saith Def. lib. 4. p. 49. that it was not explayned onely but also proved by shewing the time c. Wherefore he doth his refuter the greater wrong to call him a notorious caviller to say he gave sufficient proofe of a bad conscience pag. 64. and 65. because he complayned that in all this section there was nothing to prove the point before mencioned For had he intended that his discourse touching the time should serve either for a bare explanation of his former assertion or for the affoiling of such a doubt as he now proposeth he was able enough to have expressed his meaning in plaine termes and therefore not having so done he giveth us cause to think either that he had no such meaninge or that he purposely concealed it that he might here as he doth in sundry other partes of his sermon pick a quarrell with his Refuter for mistaking his Analysis But since the Doctor will needes for the better recovering of his spirits change the tenour of his reasoning and make answer rather to our objection then goe on with the proofe of his owne position I wil first set downe the objection in form then weigh the validity of his answere Whatsoever function or government is not mencioned in the Apostolicall Writings the same was not ordeyned by the Apostles neyther is it of divine institution But the function or government of diocesan Byshops such as ours is not mencioned in the Apostalicall writinges Ergo the function and government of diocesan Bishops was not ordeyned of the Apostles neither is it of divine institution His answere tendeth wholly to infringe the Assumption by declaring Sect. â—â— as himself speaketh that Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches Apoc. 1. 2. 3. sometimes their Rulers Heb. 13. 17. sometimes their Apostles as Phil. 2. 25. Wherefore if he cannot make it appear that Diocesan Bishops such as ours were pointed at vnder the names which he alleadgeth then his whol discourse spent this way is altogither idle and impertinent And if the spirit of God hath given these names to such Bishops is it not an oversight in the Do. to allow as he doth in his sermon of the dignitie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. all the same names save onely the name of Apostles A contradiction to all Ministers To clear himself from this contradiction he saith his former sermon is of Ministers in generall including Bishops and diverse thinges there spoken of Ministers in generall doe principally belonge to Byshops He addeth all Pastors are Rulers or Rectors of their severall flockes but the Byshopes are Rulers both of them and their flockes And all Ministers are Angels but the Byshop alone is the Angel of each Church or diocese Behold here a plaine confession that in his former sermon he giveth to Ministers in general the names and titles there mencioned among which are these that they are called egoumenoi Rulers Angels of the Churches How then excuseth he his restreyning of these titles here to diocesan Byshops such as ours Forsooth Byshops are included and diverse things spoken of Ministers in generall doe principally belong to Byshops Be it so in his vnderstanding but can he perswade himself that his bare affirmation will perswade the conscience of an indifferent reader to interteine the opinion no no we have learned from his owne inditing lib. 1. p. 200. how to frame him an answer If diocesan Byshops such as ours were first proved by other arguments to be of divine institution the best argument that could be raised out of these places were from the Genus to the species affirmative as if he should say The Scriptures speak of Church-Angels and Rulers which were Ministers of the word Ergo of diocesan ruling Byshops But seing they never were nor ever will be proved by other arguments the reason taken from those places is from the Genus to a fancied and platonicall Idea or poeticall species and that affirmatively If we should say it were a bird therefore a swan it were but a simple argument But if thus it is a bird therfore a black swan it were too ridiculous yet such is the argumeÌ„t of this disputer For if he should say The Holy Ghost in these 3. scriptures Apoc. 1. 20. Heb. 13. 17. Phil. 2. 25. speaketh of ministers which dispensed the word and sacraments therefore of Bishops which had prehemineÌ„ce over other ministers it were a weak argument but when he inferreth therefore of diocesan Bishops such as ours which were more rare then black swann it is very ridiculous But to discend vnto the particulars it is already shewed how Sect. 3. much he deceiveth himselfe his reader in fancying the function of Bishops such as ours to be described in his text under the name of the angels of the 7. Churches And all may see how guilty he is of a plaine contradiction in restrayning now unto Bishops alone A plaine contradiction in the Doct. the same title which in his other sermon he extended to all Ministers viz. to be called not onely Angels but also angels of the churches The same contradiction he incurreth if he will appropriate vnto Bishops those wordes Heb. 13. 17. obey your rulers seing he applyed them in his former sermon unto all Ministers To say as now he doth that all Pastors are Rulers of their severall flocks but the Bishops are Rulers both of them and their flocks doth rather weaken theÌ„ strengthen his present purpose For what one word in all the circumstances of that text can lead any man to think that the Apostle doth there bind the Pastors of several flocks to yeeld obedience unto a Diocesan Bishop set over them Doth not the contrary rather appeare very clearely But I will let him see his errour not in my owne words but in the words of one of our learnedest Bishops from whom the Doctor received so good satisfaction the Bishop of Winchester in his confutation of the Seminaries pa. 164. 165. in quarto printed at Oxford First touching the translation of the word egoumenois he sayth it signifieth leaders as well as rulers and in this place standeth rather for Leaders then Rulers but S. Paul using the same word in this very chapter ver 7. remember the Leaders addeth beholding the end of their conversation imitate their faith that is follow their stepps If we must mark and IÌ„mitate them theÌ„ surely must they be Leaders to direct us and not Rulers to Master vs. Secondly he sayth that by tois egoumenois whether it be leaders or Rulers are meant all christian and godly preachers and that this is S. Pauls owne construction Remember your Leaders which have spoken to you the word of God we be not bound to their fancies or pleasure but onely to the word of truth proceding out of their mouths c. But the D. to justifie his vnderstaÌ„ding of this text saith that in
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
to cure when he thus reasoneth Those two that accōpanied Titus were sent by Paul who had vndertaken to procure some releif for the poore brethrē in Iudea Ergo they were not sent by the Churches whose contribution they carried He falsly conceiveth that Paul was as high-minded as some Bishops now are who scorn to associate any others with them in the choise of such as they send abroad For we learn from Pauls owne mouth that he was of an other mind he saith expressly that one of those two whom he sent was chosen by the Churches to be his fellow-traveiler to convey their benevolence 2. Cor. 8. 19. and his foredealing with the Corinthes sheweth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he meant not to send any other with theire contribution then such as they should choose and approve by letters The Refuters first reason being thus recovered out of the Doct. handes and mainteyned against all his exceptions his interpretation Sect. 9 ad sect 14. pa. 69. will stand firme enough as having both the circumstances of the text it self and the use of the like phrase also here to justifie it although his 2. reason should be found too weake Notwithstanding I doubt not but to make it good if the Refuter may have that favour which reason alloweth to every one I meane to interprete his owne meaning so as the wordes may well beare without wresting or contradiction to any parte of his writing The reason is this Is standeth not so well with the propertie of the word apostolos which signifieth a Messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to Whome as his from whom he is sent Against this the Doctor directly opposeth not for though he say that in the Scripture the word is used with reference aswell to the parties to whome as to the partie from whom the Apostle is sent yet the truth thereof argueth not the Refuters assertion to be false For he shall bewray his own ignorance or want of judgment if he presse this for a good cōsequence The word is used with reference aswell to the one as to the other Therefore both phrases of speach doe equally and alike agree with the proper signification of the word For if both phrases have a like agremēt with the proper signisicatiō of the word then in both the word may be with a like fitnes translated Messenger but that were absurd for though wee may fitly lay of Paul or any other called the Apostle of Christ 1. Cor. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 1. 1. Iude verse 17. that he was the Messenger or Embassadour of Christ yet were it a very improper and unfitting phrase of speach to say of Paul that he vvas the Messenger or Embassadour of Gentiles when he intitleth himselfe ethnoon apostolos the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. To speak properly he was not their Apostle but Christs vocatus a Christo principaliter vt esset Doctor gentium as Piscator observeth upon those words and himself sheweth 1. Tim. 2. 2. 7 2. Tim. 1. 11. Where it is sayd that unto Paul was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision Gal. 2. 7. May we with as good regard to the proper sense of the word evaggelion gospell call his gospell the uncircumcised Iewes gospel as we may call it Gods gospel from those words Rom. 1. 1. where he saith he was separated to preach the gospel of God It is cleare that in these places Rom. 11. 13. and Gal. 2. 7. as also in the verse following where Peter is sayd to have the Apostleship of the circumcision the genetive case must be interpreted eyther by the dative as in the first I am the Apostle of the Gentiles that is to or for the Gentiles as he sayth 1. Cor 9. 2. if I be not an Apostle allois unto others yet doubtlesse I am humin to you or else by an equivalent phrase as the Apostle interpreteth himself Gal. 2 8. 9. Q. d. to me was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision to Peter the gospel or Apostleship of the circumcision that is to say to me was cōmitted the dispensation of the gospell cis ta ethne vnto or towards the Gentiles and to Peter the like dispensation or Apostleship eis ten peritomen towards the circumcision What cause then hath the Doctor to insult over the Refuter saying that whiles he goeth about to discover his ignorance as if he knew not the signification of the word apostolos as well as he he bewrayeth his owne For wherein bewrayeth he is own ignorance Perhaps in saying that among all the titles that Paul taketh to himselfe to magnify his office he never calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle taking the word in his proper signification of a Messenger or Imbassadour For the Doct. himself confesseth that when the Apostle calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. he useth the word with reference unto the parties to whom he was sent which argueth the Apostles meaning to be this not that he was their Messenger but that he was Christs Imbassadour sent to them If he shall yet urge that those words may warrant him to say that Paul was their Apostle I graunt it but withall he must knowe that in so saying the word Apostle doth not now signify a Messenger but a Teacher or Minister of the word holding that peculiar function which the 12 Apostles enjoyed If the Doctor know not this it is grosse ignorance in him if knowing it he shall yet indeavour to justify his cēsure given forth against the Refut it wil be enough in the judgement of the indifferent reader I doubt not to prove himself to be but a wrangler Having sayd enough in defence of the Refuter for both his reasons Sect. 10. ad pag. 70. we are now to take notice how that which the Doct. addeth to vnderpropp his owne Assertion is too feeble to stay it up from falling Even as saith he Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all Ministers sent of God but used with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the. 7. Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same Churches so Apostoli absolutely used is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall Rom. 16. 7. though kat hexochen given to Paul Barnabas Acts. 14. 14. and the 12. Apostles but used with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops Here the Doctor deserveth to be answered with his owne words viz. that while he goeth about to discover his Refuters ignorance as though
he knew not the signification and use of the words aggâ—los and Apostolos he bewrayeth his owne and that in diverse The Doct. discovereth his owne errors while he offereth to shew his ref ignorance particulars For to let passe now the repetition of any thing formerly spoken for the use of this phrase the angels of the Churches he had need to have a very favourable interpreter that shal excuse him of errour in saying the word Angels absolutely spoken as a title given to all Ministers sent of God for not to heap up places where it is put for the celestiall Angels I have before shewed that it is referred to messengers sent of men laÌ„ 2. 25. 2. And surely that text of RoÌ„ 16. 7. which saith that Andronicus and Funia were men of note among the Apostles cannot prove what he affirmeth viz. that besides Paul and Barnabas and the 12. Apostles there were sundry other Embassadours sent from God with authoritie Apostolicall 3. Neyther can he make good generally his last assertiÌ„on that the word Apostle used with reference to particular churches signifieth their Bishops For besides the places before questioned phil 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8. 23. it is apparently used with such reference 1. Cor. 9. 2. when S. Paul who was no Bishop over any particular church or Churches saith If I be not Apostle unto others yet doublesse I am unto you 4. As for the conclusion which he inferreth viz. that in the Scriptures the word Apostolos is not used to signifie Messengers sent from men nether is it to be translated otherwyse then Apostle I have already shewed sect 5. how much he wrongeth our owne Church governours besides many other worthy and sound divines who have taken the word for any messenger from men and so translated it Phil. 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8 23. Iohn 13. 16. And 2ly I have sufficieeÌ„tly discovered the falshood of his conclusion having mainteyned against all his exceptions the Refuters construction of the 2. former places and the reasons which he propounded in that behalfe Neyther is it hard to remove that which he objecteth touching the later all that he saith is this though our Saviour do seeme to speak indefinitely Iohn 13. 16. of the Apostle he should say any Messenger and him and that sendeth him yet it is evident that he meaneth himself who sent and the Apostles who were sent Doth he seeme onely to speak indefinitely And is it evident that he meaneth himselfe onely c What seeming reason or evident demonstration hath the Doctor to justifye this since he hath none it might be a sufficient answere to tell him eadem facilitate rejicuur quâ—asseritur the Refuter maie as easily deny it as he affirme it But for the Readers satisfaction this I adde The coherence of the text both here and elswhere where the like speach is used as Cap. 15. 20. Math. 10 24. clearly sheweth that Christ intendeth to teach his Apostles that they ought to imitate him in subjecting themselves both to beare the like afflictions which is the scope of the other 2. places and to performe the like services which he aymeth at in this place vnto another To effect this his purpose he argueth a genere in this manner no servant disciple or messenger is greater then his L. and Mr. or him that sent him But ye are my servantes disciples messengers and I am that Lord Mr. and he that sendeth you in Embassage Ergo you are not greater then I and consequently you ought to subject your selves both to doe and suffer what ye have seene in me I could alledge Interpreters old and new that thus understand the words of Christ in the generall and largest sense but it shal not be needful to them that consider how absurd it is to restreine so generall a sentence vnto one onely particular For if I may use the Doct. words Lib. 1. pag. 226. who shal dare to doe this without very good warrant The Doct. conclusion being thus removed out of the way I here again inferre as the Ref. did once before that he is deceived seeketh to deceive by the equivocation of the word apostolos which sometimes in a coÌ„mon and generall sense is given to any one that is sent as a messenger though usually ascribed to those that were imployed as were the 12. Apostles in an high extraordinary Embassage from Christ In the next place Mr. D. labour is to remove this objection that though it should be admitted that he was a Bishop yet it followeth not Sect. 11. ad sect 15. pa. 70. 71. that he was a diâ—cesan Bishop like to ours in the substance of his office therefore be dâ—ceyveth his reader with the like equivocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his owne confession was coÌ„mon to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons ans p. 136. This is saith the Doct. as if he should have said I grant that which here you prove but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were dioceses the Bishops diocesan c I proved before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or proving it that I presupposed it as sufficiently proved before Wherevnto I cannot make him a better answer then to returne him his own a litle before spoken to the Ref. with a litle change This is written as the most of his 4 volumes to bleare the eies of the simple For I cannot think that the D. which vndertooke this course was so void of judgment as here he would shewe himself to be if he wrote syncerely What is the point I pray you which here he had in hand was it not to prove that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops doth not the title upoÌ„ the head of every page of this chapter shew it what Bishops did they ordeyne in his vnderstanding were they parish Bishops or temporary overseers as were the Evangelists can he justify the caling of our Bishops to be of divine or Apostolicall institution vnlesse he prove that the Bishops or Pastors to whom the Apostles committed the care of particular Churches were like to ours for the substance of their office And to discend more particularly to the question which himselfe affirmeth to be debated in all this discourse pag. 65. viz. whether Bishops be mentioned in the scriptures vnder this name the Apostles of the Churches is it not to be vnderstood of such Bishops as ours are If he doe neyther prove this nor intend it but presuppose it or rather take it for granted without proofe and if he prove no more in this discourse touching Epaphroditus The Doct. trifleth deceiveth shifteth poorely then that which this objection admitteth to wit that he was a Bishop in the generall construction of the word doth he not shew himselfe to be a trifling deceiver and what else doth he but bleare the eyes of the simple when he saith it is
sufficiently proved before But this is the poore shift to pay him once again with his owne pag. 71. which the Doct. usually flieth unto WheÌ„ he hath nothing to justify his assertioÌ„s he perswadeth himself such is his judgment that in the question of Dioceses and diocesan Bishops he hath the upper-hand because he hath proved that there were such Bishops and Churches in the 2. or 3. age after the Apostles and therefore when he is foyled in any of his reasons that should prove the calling of such Bishops to be of divine institution he flieth to this as his refuge I have already proved the Churches to be Dioceses and the Bishops Diocesan and therefore if you grant that the function of Bishops was instituted of God and that Bishops were ordeyned or approved of the Apostles then you graunt asmuch as I intend to prove This then being his best defence the reader may see the Doctors sinceritie and that he was not wronged by his Refuter when he told him that he deceiveth his reader by an equivocation in the word Bishop But in deed he much wrongeth his refuter and all them whom he calleth his consorts when for a requitall he saith that they doe deceive their readers in that they would perswade them that because the name Episcopus Presbyter were confounded therefore also the offices were confounded For where doth the refuter or his consorts thus argue The objection which he before took notice of and pretendeth in all this discourse to remove is as himself setteth it down pag. 65. that the name Episcopus in the Apostolicall writings is given to Presbyters and that Bishops such as ours are not mentioned in the scriptures For answere whereunto he said then and now repeateth it againe that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who afterwards and now are called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches This he first indeavoured to prove by that instance of Epa. phroditus Phil. 2. 25 but his fayling therein is sufficiently discovered now once againe he attempteth it let us attend whether his successe be any better For saith he as I sayd in the sermon whiles the episcopall power was in Sect. 12. ad sect 16. pa. 71. 72. the Apostles and Apostolike men those who had that power were called the Apostles And what then Will he hence conclude that therefore Bishops such as afterwards and now have the name appropriated to them were then called Apostles doth it not rather follow much better on the contrary that in the Apostles times the name of Apostles was given to no other then to the Apostles themselves or Apostolike men which were as himselfe acknowledgeth pag 72 Evangelists hath not the Doct. then spun a saire threed to strangle his owne cause But since he pretendeth to repeat the words of his sermon why doth he curtoll them there he said pag 71 whiles the episcopall power was for the most parte in the Apostles Apostolike meÌ„ those who also had that power were called Apostles now he leaveth out these words for the most part and also May I intreat him plainely to informe us what moved him to make this change It seemeth he thought these words at the first needfull to be added as indeed they were to conclude his purpose for unlesse he can make it appeare that the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters which he calleth episcopall power was in some other besides the Apostles or Apostolike men of Evangelists and that those also were called Apostles or at least the Apostles of the Churches he cannot inferre his former Assertion to wit that those who are now called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches And now it seemeth he foresawe that the testimonies afterwards alleadged cannot prove any other then the very Apostles or Evangelists whom he calleth Apostolike men to beare the name of Apostles in the apostolicall writings though his witnesses speak what they can he make his best advantage of them 1. he saith that Ambrose by Apostles in some places of scripture as 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes 4. 11. understandeth Bishops but is the Doctor perswaded that the spirit of God understandeth such Bishops as are now questioned by the word Apostles in those places If not why leadeth he his reader into an errour and perswade him to beleeve The Doct. leadeth his reader into that error which him selfe dissaloweth that which himself dissalloweth If he be why urgeth he not those scriptures to prove the maine quaestion seeing none can be found more pregnant then these if that be their meaning to prove the doctrine of his sermon viz. that the function of Bishops such as ours is of divine institution And why doth he reach the contrary in saying as before pag. 70. that the word Apostoli absolutely used is a title of those which were sent of God with authority apostolicall Moreover can the Doctor be ignorant that Ambrose in Ephes 4. 11. doth also say that the Evangelists are Deacons and that Pastors are and may be Lectorâ— quilectionibus saginent populum audientem that Magistri so he translateth the word didascaâ—j Teachers exorâ—ista sunt quiain teclesiaipfi compeseunt et verberant inquietos If therfore the Doct. will have us to believe that Diocesan Bishops such as ours were mentioned in the Apostolicall writings under the name not of Bishops but of Apostles because Ambrose faith Apostoli episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops let him freely confesse that the functions of Lectors Exercists such as the Papists will haue to be sevarall orders of the Clergic were also established in the Apostles times mentioned in their writings though not under the same names yet under the names of Pastors and Teachers or Masters Ephes 4. 11. and that Ambrose testifieth the same in the words aaforegoing for if he shall refuse to subscribe to this later inference he must pardon vs this once for not imbracing the former 2. And seing he faith Cyprian speaketh to the like purpose lib. 3. epist 9. Apostoles ideft episcopos Prapositos Dominus elegin The L. chose Apostles that is Bishops Let me againe demaund of Mr Doct. whether he be perswaded that the Apostles whom our Lord did choose and who after our Saviours ascension chose Deacons as Cyprian in the same place testifieth were Diocesan Bishops such as ours If not howe will Cyprians wordes further his purpose which is to prove that in the Apostolicall writings such Bishops are called Apostles If he be why is he ashamed especially seing he hath Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 226. alleadging both Cyprian Ambrose Bishop Barlow serm in Act 20. 28. fol. 17 urging Cyprian for that purpose to inrowle the 12. Apostles among other Bishops which he affirmeth to be ordeyned of God in his last argument hereafter following Cap. 6 Nay why affirmeth he the contrary in this 3. chapt viz. that some of the Apostles were not properly Bishops Yea he there
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
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith īmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the mother-Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childrē to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
Ierome and to make him the more gracious with the Disciplinarians he saith it is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost they rely in this cause the like words he hath p. 61 following and lib. 3. pag. 45. and 58 but this is I say not almost but altogither a malicious slander For he is not ignorant that his refuter every where calleth for proofes from the scripture as others have done before him that his testimonie is then onely regarded of them when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth But it well appeareth by his citing Ierome so oft in his sermon 40. times at least well nigh twice as oft as he alleadgeth any other that he relyeth very much on his authoritie To him here he addeth Eusebius Epiphanius some others whose testimonie in his conceit should suffice to perswade for such a matter as this now in question But his Refuters exception is just such a ioynt act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church as the ordeyning of Iames to the episcopall charge of Ierusalem how should it be proved but by the scripture and who could better testify it then the Evangelist Luke who wrote the historie of their actes If then he hath not recorded it it is a strong presumption he was never Bishop there The Doct. replyeth saying as though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers such as he of best credit reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the actes As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses I overpass that consideration to sect 15. c. I am here to advertise the Reader the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought to releeve the weaknes of his argument For unlesse he can make sure and certein Proof of this among other partes of his induction that S. Iames was ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem how shall he justify his conclusion before set down to wit that the episcopal function is without quaestion of apostolicall institution And howe shall certeine and sure proofe of Iames his ordination to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem be made from such witnesses as the Doctor hath produced Are not the canonicall writings of the newe testament penned partly by the Apostles and partly by Evangelists which were their companions best able to testify what function Iames and other faithfull servants of Christ did beare and exercise in the Churches that injoyed their presence We find many things recorded by Luke concerning the Ministerie of Paul and Barnabas Philip and others by whose labours the kingdome of Christ was inlarged Acts 9. 15. 27. 13. 2. 3. 14. 14. 15. 22. 31. 8. 5. 40. 21. 8. Neyther are the scriptures silent touching Iames and his imployment at Ierusalem Act. 1. 13. 15. 13. 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9. 2. 9 why then should this ordinatiō of Iames to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church be wholly buried in silence if it had bene the joynt-act of the Apostles before their dispersion and an act of that moment wherein they gave the first president of a new function of greatest use highest place for all churches in succeeding ages Was it not as worthy more necessarie to be recorded then the first institution of the Deacons office Act. 6. 2. 6 Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption that Iames never had any such ordination seing there are no footsteps of it in the Apostolical writings and seing the Doctors defense is so slight as it is mark it I pray first he asketh whether the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Acts a frivolous question No man denyeth that as Christ did many things which are not written Ioh. 20. 30. 21. 25 so also did his Apostles but will he argue thus They did something not recorded in the scriptures Ergo they did this now in question How doth the Doct. forget himselfe thus to open so wide a dore unto the Papists to bring in all their superstitions under the name of vnwritten traditions Can he give us any one instance of an Apostolicall ordināce or of any Apostolike actiō of like momēt and necessarie use for all Churches that is not mentioned in their writings neyther can be proved otherwise then by the stories and writings of the Fathers And this may serve for answere also unto his second question whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers c. reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the acts In some matters of fact credit is not to be denied to their report as that Iames the Iust was martyred at Ierusalem and that Mark the Evangelist preached the gospel at Aleandria but there are many matters of fact testified by many ancients and those of the best credit as the D. speaketh which notwithstāding many worthy mē nothing inferior to the Doctor esteem worthy of no credit I wil instance only in Peters Bishoprick first at Antioch then at Rome which is contended for not onely by Papists but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacie let the testimonies be wel weighed which are brought for the maintenance of Peters episcopall chaire in both Churches Rome especially even by Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 227. 262. and 264 and they wil be found to be neyther in number nor in credit inferiour to those that the D. alleadgeth for Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalē yet as many other men of singular learning pietie doe deny credit to their report so the Doctor also as one nothing moved eyther with the authoritie of those fathers or with the judgement of his great Mr that gave him so good satisfaction in the studying of this controversy utterly secludeth the Apostle Peter from the office of a Bishop in any of those Churches as we may see serm pag. 81. 82. and in the 7. section of cap. 3. def If the Doctor shall say he hath reason to beleeve the testimony Sect. 5. of the Fathers for the one and to denie credit vnto them in the other know he that we haue reason also to withdrawe approbation from this which he alloweth But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question Although saith he the acte of making Iames Bishop be not set downe in the Actes yet the stori◠so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem Acts. 15. 21. of his assistance of presbyters of his presidencie in that Councill where Peter and Paul were present that it may appear their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there To the same purpose afterwards sect 9. pag. 61 he saith That the same scriptures togither with Gal. 1. 2. doe shew Iames his continuance as Ierusalē as the Superintendent of that Church not for a short time but for
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.
Iames we account these particulars 1. that the Iewes had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations 2. that the church of Ierusalem was in some respect as is before shewed sect 3. the Mother-church of Christendome 3. that Iames was an Apostle principally to the Iewes 4. and that among the Iewes those of Ierusalem and the country round about did more specially belong vnto his oversight whiles Peter and Iohn who were also Apostles for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9. were imployed in other places 5. lastly that during his presidency in the Councell Acts 15. he was superiour in order but not in degree vnto the rest of the Apostles But among things more doubtfull besides the question it selfe of Iames his election or assignement to the function of a Bishop at Ierusalem I reckon these positions 1. that a presidencie in honour or preheminence in order such as he speaketh of is intimated by S. Paul in setting Iames before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him in respect of his episcopall charge at Ierusalem 3. and that in the same respect he had the presidencie in the councell Act. 15. 4. that he was alwayes after the time of his supposed election to his Bishoprick superiour in order to the rest of the Apostles when and whiles they remayned at Ierusalem 5. that this continuance of that superioritie in him appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this superiority or precedence did growe from the prerogatives which that Church and people had above others To these particulars if the Doctor will have us to give our free assent he must first inform us by what authoritie or consequence of reason he is ledd to apprehend a truth in every of them and remove the probabilities which doe incline our judgments to the contrary For touching Gal. 2. are not the wordes of the Apostle ver 7. Sect. 7. 8. affirming that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Peter much more plaine for his preheminence above Iames and Iohn in the Apostleship of the Iewes then the naming of Iames before them vers 9. can be for his primacie above all his fellowe-Apostles Is it not then much more frivolous and ridiculous in the Doctor to extract for Iames a preheminence in honour above Peter and the rest of the Apostles from that slender prioritie which Paul giveth him in naming him first then it is in Bellarmine to ascribe vnto Peter a preheminent dignitie above the rest because he is usually named in the first place Why therfore should not that did up the Doctors mouth that hath dammed up Bellarmines Sidrac inter adolescentes qui in ignem coniecti sunt primus numeratur neque tamen Sidrac socijs suis prefuit Sutclif de Pont. lib. 2. p. 105. Quando multi nominantur necesse est aliquem primum nominari c. Gravissime Erasmus Annot. in Math. 10. ex ordine recensionis non efficaciter intelligitur quis cui sit preferendus Whit. de pont p. 27. l. Adde we harevnto that which is of all observed in their answere to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not alwayes kept Peter which is first placed Mat. 10. 2. Marc. 3. 16. Luc. 16. 14. Act. 1. 13. is set in the last place 1. Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. 9. 5. And Iames here first named being one of the Lords brethren cōmeth after the greater part of the Apostles 1. Cor. 9. 5. when he saith the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord Cephas Levissimum igitur argumentum hoc ordinis est as Mr Whit. saith pag. 274. 2. And if no preheminence can soundly be conveyed to Iames from this precedence in nomination is not the D. strangely deluded when he taketh it for a sure truth that the Apostle intended by naming him in the first place to teach us not onely that he had a prerogative of honor above the rest of the Apostles but also that the same did arise from his episcopall charge at Ierusalem for is there any one word in the whole epistle that giveth the least intimation of any such difference betweene him Peter Iohn as the Doctor fancieth when he maketh him properly a Bishop for some and them Apostles for others of the circumcision Doth it not rather appeare by the right hands of fellowship c. mencioned verse 9. that Imaes exercised among the Iewes the same and no other Ministery that Peter and Iohn did and that they joyntly were Apostles for the Iewes like as Paul and Barnabas were for the Gentiles 3. And here by the way observe that this distribution of persons or places where these were after this agreement to exercise their Apostolicall function bred no inequalitie or disparitie betwixt them in precedence or honour For if the ancient prerogatives of the Iewes gave any preferment to their Apostles above those by whom God wrought among the Gentiles as the Do. supposeth then Paul was in this respect inferiour to the other but the whole scope of his reasoning tendeth to mainteyne the contrarie viz. that as elswhere he faith he was meden busterekenai in nothing inferiour to the very cheife Apostles 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the Iewes in generall gave not to Peter who had the Apostleship of the circumcision any preheminence above Paul the Apostle Teacher of the Gentiles how should Peter become inferior unto Iames by reason of any preheminence which the Church at Ierusalem might challenge above other Christian Churches Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge Iames his presidencie Sect. 8. to be probably gathered from the text because he concludeth the disputation adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assemblie vers 19. 20. 28. 29. so I can by no meanes allowe this presidencie to growe unto him as his right in regard of his episcopall charge in that Church much lesse can we take the presidencie for a sufficient proofe of his Bishoprick there although the Doctor should tell us tentimes that it proveth it For what strings can knit the joyntes of this argument togither Iames was president or Moderator in the Synode at Ierusalem Act. 15. Therfore he was the Bishop of that Church Was S. Paul the Bishop of Ephesus because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Actes 20. 28. pag. 2. he fate as president in the Convocation when the Clergie of Ephesus were by his call come togither Or was Peter Iames his predecessor in the Bishoprick of Ierusalem because he was president in the choise of Matthias to succeed in the roome of Iudas Act. 1. 15 Surgit Petrus non Iacobus vt is cui presidentia discipulorum cōmissa erat Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes c. Whit. de pout pag. 288. 2. But to come to that which he saith doth appeare Act. 15. viz. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior in order to the
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
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
power of the truth seing the answer which he hath framed to oppugne it is not onely evill and absurd but though perhaps against his will and meaning giveth way unto it for from his owne graunt I thus argue to infringe that assertion which he laboureth to confirme 1. Whosoever is ordeyned the Bishop of any Church he receiveth the power of Episcopall order from the handes that ordeyne him But Iames received not the power of episcopall order from the handes of the Apostles Ergo neither was he ordeyned by them the Bishop of any Church 2. Againe Whosoever by his designement to the charge of any Church receiveth onely the power of jurisdiction to execute there that power of order which was before invested in his person he receiveth no new function by that designment But Iames the Apostle by his designement to the charge of the Church at Ierusalem received in the Doctors opinion onely the power of jurisdiction to execute that power of order which before was invested in his person Therefore he received no new function by that designement And consequently he was not ordeyned to the function of a Bishop in that Church To these arguments grounded on his owne answere I add this that followeth which the Doctor was willing not to see in the Refuters answere 3. Whosoever by Christs ordination received all Ministerial power with ample authority to execute the same inall places wheresoever he became he neyther did nor could receive any new power eyther of order or jurisdictioÌ„ by a designement to the oversight or care of any particular Church But Iames the Apostle by Christs ordination received all Ministeriall power with ample authoritie to execute the same in all places whereever he became Ergo he neyther did nor could receive any new power eyther of order or jurisdiction by his designment to the oversight care of a particular Church such as the Church of Ierusalem Thus leaving the Doctor to his best thoughts for his rejoynder in this behalf let us proceed to the next exception Chapt. 6. Answering the Fathers alleadged by the Doctor for Iames his Bishopprick Def. lib. 4. Chapt. sect 4. pag. 52. THe next exception concerneth the age or antiquitie of those Sect. 1. ad sect 4. pa. 52. sect 2. pag. 55. Fathers upon whose testimoney the Doctor buildeth his faith for Iames his ordination to the office of a Bishop in the Church of Ierusalem The Refuter finding the ancientest of his witnesses to be Eusebius about the yeare 320. c. demaundeth answer p. whither he had none of the Apostles Disciples which lived then to testifye his ordination the Doctor stoppeth his mouth with an other question what one of them whose writings are extant he could have alleadged whom he would not reject as counterfeit which is a plaine confession that in deed he hath none that is worth the mentioning For though he tell us that Clement the Disciple of the Apostles doth call Iames the Bishop of Bishops governing the Holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem yet as if his conscience tould him that his epistle was but a counterfeit he addeth But suppose that none of the Disciples of the Apostles in those fewe writings of theirs which be extant had given testimoney to this matter were not the testimony of Egesippus and Clement who both lived in the very next age to the Apostles sufficient No verily their credit is too weake as shal be seen sect 17. to overweigh the presumptions before alleadged to shewe that Iames received no such ordination from the Apostles as the Doct. standeth for It is therefore but his vaine bragge easier to be rejected then justifyed to say as he doth It is not to be doubted but that Iames his being Bishop of Ierusalem was a thing as notorious and as certeynly known among Christians in those times as there is no doubt made among us now that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterburie in K. H. the 8. his time For is it not rather much to be doubted of seing that among all the writings that are extant of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian and sundry others in the first 300. yeares the Doctor cannot find any one testimonie fit for his purpose Rem adeo illustrem nullum habere autorem sui seculi aut secundi c. portento simile est Sic Chamierus de Simone De Oecum pont lib. 3. pag. 456. sic ego de Iacobo As for that counterfeyt Clement before named he rather confuteth then confirmeth the Doctors assertion For I may say of the Doctor as he doth of the Pope how he can digest that lofty title Bishop of Bishops which Clement giveth unto Iames I knowe not For doth not this title usually ascribed to him as the Doctor acknowledgeth as strongly argue him to be an universall Pope as the mention of his governing the Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem can conclude him to be their Diocesan Bishop And since he is sayd to govern not onely sanctum Hebraeorum ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed et omnes ecclesias quae vbique Dei providentia fundaâ—â— sunt if prejudice had not forestalled the Doctors heart he would never haue forbidden his Refuter as he doth pag. 55. to collect from thence that he was no otherwise Bishop of Ierusalem that is not in any other function then over all other Churches For doth not the D. measure the meaning of this phrase by the line and levell of that large jurisdiction which had no being in any Bishop for many hundred yeres after the Apostles when he saith that the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople though called vniversal Patriarch yet was the Diocesan Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople alone and that the Pope himselfe though he clume to be vniversall Bishop yet is specially Bishop of Rome Yet as if he were hired to wrest this testimony out of their handes that bend it against the Popes supremacie he telleth us that in an edition of that epistle of Clement published by Sichardus at Basil anno 1526 he readeth thus Sed et omnibus ceclesijs which signifyeth that Clemens directed his epistle not to Iames onely but also to all Churches But this is to corrupt the text by a false finger for the former reading doth best agree with the title before given to Iames Bishop of Bishops And if Clement had meant to joyne any others with Iames in the inscription of his epistle he would in all likelihood haue said sed et omnibus episcopis per omnes ecclesias c. so joyning to him the Bishops of other Churches rather then the Churches themselves In the next place because the Doctors witnesses are all of them Sect. 2. ad sect 4. pag 13. such as lived in the 4. or 5. age after Christ his Refuter put him in minde of Bishop Andrewes wordes who in the like case saith serm pag 34. preached at Hampton court 1606. They wrote things they sawe not and so framed matters according to their owne conceits and many times
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
cap. 17. sect 2. pag. 316. D. Reynolds Conf. cap. 5. divis 3. p. 224. doe acknowledge to be in part grounded upon an excellencie above the rest in vertue and grace For Augustin de Bapt. cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 1. saith his primacie was conspicuous and preheminent with excellent grace And Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 13. calleth him reliquorum omnium Apostolorum propter virtutis amplitudinem facile principem Wherfore if the Doctors meaning be to equall Iames every wayes with his fellow-Apostles in all spirituall grace that adorneth the function of a Minister of Christ he must be beholding to his Reader to take it upon his owne word for it will be hard to make good proofe of it But if he limit the equalitie he speaketh of to the power of the Apostolike function which is all the equality that he can with reason maintein he shall shew himselfe too absurd to avouch that onely for kindred sake vnto Christ he was worthy to be preferred before the rest or that the Apostles were bound to be lead by this respect in the distribution of ecclesiasticall honours This is in deed carnall divinity and such as argreeth not with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Mat. 12. 48. 50. Iam. 2. 1. Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 16. and 12. 5. It might be asked if in respect of love and reverence to Christ the founder of the Church at Ierusalem it were necessarie to preferre one of his kindred to the Bishoprick thereof before the rest that were otherwise equall whether the like respect ought not to haue place in the choise of such as were to succeed any of the Apostles in the Churches which were founded by them and in such as are at this day to succeed men of special reputation in any Church whatsoever For S. Paul testifieth of Andronicus and Iunia Rō 16. 7. that they were his kinsmen and fellow-prisoners which giveth them a singular note of preheminence above many others they were episemoi en tois apostolois famous or of speciall note among the Apostles and before him in Christ Yet we never reade that they were preferred to a Bishoprick in any of the Churches which were many that Paul had founded Is it not a shrewd presumption that he was ignorant of any such president since he had no care to walk by the same rule Againe may I ask M. Doctor why Iames was not aswell before his election to his Bishoprick as after for the same reason honoured by his fellow-Apostles with that precedēce which they gave him when they made him a Bishop To conclude if any such primacie of honour above the rest of the Apostles accompanied Iames his ordination to that supposed Bishoprick why should it not by cōmon consent be rather cast upon one of those whom Christ preferred before the rest for were not all his disciples bound to give most honour to them whom he most honoured If then Peter Iohn and Iames the brother of Iohn were by Christ preferred in honour before his Iames though for his pietie surnamed the Iust was it not an injurie I say not to them but even to Christ their Mr in controwling that order of preheminēce which he had set among his Apostles to give one of their inferiors a place of dignitie above them Wherfore as the Refuter wronged not Clemens or Egesippus in charging the speach of the one to be vnsavourie and the respect alleadged by the other to be carnall so it is no injurie to Eusebius who buildeth vpon their reportes to say he was too credulous in interteyning for truth upon their words that which upō due examination appeareth unworthy of any credit And the same is the fault of the rest which in later time without any further search gave credit vnto their testimony Which sottish imitation as one Mr. Bell calleth it epist before his tryall of new religion pag. 1. Survey of popery part-3 cap. 7. pag. 342. if it were the cause of many errors even in matters of doctrine as is for instance shewed in the errour of the Chiliasts I see no reasō to the cōtrarie why it might not also be a cause of many errors in matters of fact or historie Yet the Refuter did and so doe I still so farre tender their estimation that wee withdraw not any assent from their report but when there is better warrant eyther of scripture or sound reason leading another way Now whereas the Refuter saith that Iames neyther was properlie Sect. 6. ad sect 5. Bishop of Ierusalem nor might be because he continued in his Apostleship a distinct office from it The D. to make him odious with his Reader replieth that he giveth all his witnesses the lie But though he be a Doctor he useth a false finger to justify his suggestiō thrusting out the word properly which the Refuter inserted pag. 132. of his answ and charging him to say plainly that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalē not could be It is plaine and the Doctor acknowledgeth it that the Refuter here denieth vnto Iames he doth it not so much of himselfe as from the mouth of some late writers of worthy account D. Whitakers D. Reynoldes Bishop Iewell and others In charging him therefore to give his witnesses the lie what else doth he but through his sides wound their credit seing the fault if any ligteth on their heads But the truth is neyther he nor they doe oppose the former denaill to the testimonie of the fathers but to their assertion which from the name of a Bishop given to Iames or Peter in the writings of the Fathers doe inferre that Iames or Peter were properly Bishops For the Refuter in his wordes imediately before going saith that the Fathers might will call Iames by the name of a Bishop which then was of greatest dignitie seing it is certeyne he had though an higher yet the same place in Ierusalem that afterwards Bishops claimed and possessed in other Churches And elsewhere answere pag. 143. he explaineth his judgment more plainely in the words of Doctor Whitakers de pont pag. 303. who saith that when the Fathers call Iames or Peter a Bishop they take not the name of Bishop properly but call them Bishops of those Churches in which they aboad somewhat long c. I now adde the words of D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart Cap. 4. divis 2. because the Doctor to finding the place quoted thought his name was used onely for a shewe concerning Iames he saith that he which maketh him a Bishop of one citie whom Christ made an Apostle to all the nations of the earth bringeth him out of the hall as they say into the kitchin And in answer to Chrysostome alleadged by Stapleton and Hart as he is by the D. to confirme his supposed Bishoprick he addeth It seemeth he spake it vpon the word of Clemens apud Euseb lib. 2. cap. 1. And when Hart sayth he should not help him with such shifts against the
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
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
too weak to upholde it so it will soone appeare that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings so an abasement and not a preferment to him For what is it It is not saith he a clipping of his wings more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutuall consent every mans province as it were or Circuite and charge was assigned to him As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned to clipp the wings of all the rest for company to testify one vntruthby another For as he cannot prove so I have disproved cap. 5. sect 11. his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his severall Province or circuite by mutuall consent And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them why should he deny them to be properly Bishops every one of them in his circuit or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their authority and so a clipping of their wings to be confined within one province or to one nation when as by their Apostolicall function they had authority to preach and to execute all ministeriall duties in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come ye◠of all the rest Iames his share must needs be by farr the least if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle or at least a Titular Apostle onely for as he saith of titular Bishops lib. 3. pag. 130. that they were such as had the bare name but not the authority of a Bishop so he must also affirme of Iames that he was but a titular Apostle seing th' authority of an Apostle which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shal be offred and in planting Churches where none were c. is denied unto Iames if his whole authoritie be confined to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem which was already founded to his hand And if it were a punishment to Meletius and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour to haue his whole authority confined to one Church as other Bishops although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle As for the next point viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect 9. pag 62. Doct. Refuter pag. 134. for o yeares even till his dying day to omit what is already sayd cap. 5. sect 10. 25. for the contrary we are now to examine whether the cause of his stay there was as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church in the function of a Bishop The reason of his continuance there saith the refuter was not so much the ruling of the Christians that were converted which might have bene otherwise performed as the converting of multitudes both of Iewes and of other nations that vsually flocked thither which was a work of the Apostolicall function Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth that it is nothing to the purpose to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed But he is to be advertised that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there then he shall shew himself verie voide of reason to make the government of that Church eyther the onely or the principall cause of his so long remayning in that place And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight then that the Refuter mencioneth it is but a wrangling part in him to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion in this case Neyther is it any thing to the purpose to urge him to shew that the church of Ierusalem was otherwise governed vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts And where he sayth There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles c. eyther he doth but trifle or which is worse dissembleth his owne knowledge for if by a Pastor he meane a Diocesan Bishop he knoweth very well that it is not onely doubted of but flatly denyed that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles But if he take the word at large for every or any one that feedeth whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinarie calling of Presbyters Act. 20. 28. then he sheweth himselfe a meer trifler since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant that Iames was in this large constructiō of the word their Pastor by a temporary assignment and that besides him they had other Pastors even so many as there were presbyters in that Church But when he saith there is no doubt to be made but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth of his staying there 30. yeares was the same with the cause of the stay of Simon and the rest of his successors till their death he doth too apparantly begg the question For the cause which the Refuter propounded and the Doctor contradicted not ceased before Simons election to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem for his election was not till Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore there was no such recourse eyther of Iewes or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time or his successors as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection for the generality of them took place after that desolation made by Titus his army there was not the like need now as before for one of the Apostles there to reside to labour the cōversion of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place There remaineth one speach of the Doctor which in the Refuters Sect. 10. ad sect 8. pag 61. apprehension bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up as was shewed by this argumēt That charge saith the Doctor sermon pag. 68 which the Apostles had in cōmon whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames 〈◊〉 particular But that saith the Refuter p. 134. was not the charge of Bishops but of Apostles Ergo neyther was the charge which Iames had the charge of a Bishop but of an Apostle Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense The proposition is his owne he loveth his credit and he will not recall it what then Doth he contradict the assumption and say that the Apostles whiles they governed joyntly the Church of Ierusalem had the charge not of Apostles but of Bishops in the very function of Diocesan Bishops such as
he supposeth Iames and his successors to be no for then he should throttle his owne answer to Doct. Whitakers first argument pag. 57. where he flatly denieth any of the Apostles Iames excepted to be properly Bishops And by his distinctioÌ„ of the times both here and page 52 he playnly signifyeth that the indefinite commission of the Apostles to goe into all the world received no limitation till by the Holy Ghosts direction they dispersed themselves some into one part of the world and some into an other What then When plaine dealing will not help an aequivocating answer must serve the turne As though saith he the charge of the Apostles is not by the Holy Ghost called episcope Act. 1. 20. that is Bishoprick And as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes As though say I the holy Ghost doth not use the word episcope when he so entileth the charge function of the Apostles Act. 1. 20. in a larger sense for an vniversall and unlimited Bishoprick then the word episcope episcopoâ— is taken eyther in other parts of the apostolical writings as 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. when it is applyed to such as had the standing charge of one Church or in the Doctors understanding when the name of Bishop or Bishoprick is given to Iames and his successors And as though Iames did not receive a great change in regard of his charge and function when being at the first an Apostle absolutely he was made the Bishop of one particular Church by his assignement to Ierusalem As though also the Doctor did not at unawares justify his refuters assumption in graunting that Iames before his assignmeÌ„t to the particular charge of IerusaleÌ„ was an Apostle absolutely For if he were absolutely an Apostle whiles he ruled the Church of Ierusalem in coÌ„mon with the rest of the Apostles then they also in that time were absolutely Apostles and consequently their charge there was not the charge of Diocesan Bishops but of Apostles as the Refuter affirmeth Wherefore unlesse he will recall that which as yet he standeth forth to mainteyne viz. that the charge which Iames had in particular for the government of the Church at Ierusalem was the same and no other then that the Apostles before had in coÌ„mon he must bear the losse of all his laboâ—r in pleading for Iames his Bishoprick for it will followe necessarily upon the premisses of the argument before set downe that Iames his charge at Ierusalem was the charge not of a diocesan Bishop but of an Apostle And thus much shall suffice concerning Iames let us now heare what the D. can say for the Bishopricks of Tim Titus Chap. 8. Answering the first 8. Sections of the Doctors 4. chap. lib. 4. and shewing that Timothy and Titus were not ordeyned Bishops as the Doctor supposeth FRom Ierusalem the Doctor traveileth to Ephesus and to Creet Sect. 1 ad sect 1. pag. 74. of the Doct. in hope to shewe the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops And that first out of the scriptures for so he promiseth pag. 72. of his sermon And to make it good he saith That it is apparant by the epistles of S. Paul to Timothy and Titus that he had ordeyned Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creete the epistles themselves being the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function For as the Apostles had coÌ„mitted unto them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination and iurisdiction which in the epistles is preâ—upposed so doth he by those epistles informe them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function first in respect of ordination as Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 2. 22 and secondly in regard of iurisdiction as 1. Tim. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 19. 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Titus 1. 10. 11. and 3. 9. These are his wordes and the very pith of his arguments Where first let the reader observe that he bindeth himselfe to mainteyne this assertion viz. that it is apparant by the epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit. that he had ordeyned the one Bishop of Ephesus and the other Bishop of Creete Which if he had as soundly confirmed as he did confidently vndertake actum esset de certamine the controversy had soone bin ended But how should this be made apparant by S. Pauls epistles when he neither doth nor can produce from thence any one word that soundeth that way Yea it repenteth him as it seemeth that he had said It is apparant by his epistles for in his defence to prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus Creet he maketh this his first reason pag. 74. because in his epistles written to them it is presupposed that they were by him ordeyned Bishops of those Churches and the Antecedent he proveth pag. 75. by this argument because it is presupposed in the epistles that the Apostle had committed to them episcopall authority both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Whereas if he had stuck close to the wordes of his sermon in dissolving as now he will needes his first sentence into a two fold reason he should have argued thus It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that the Apostle had coÌ„mitted episcopall authoritie to them both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction c. Ergo it is apparant by those epistles that he had ordeyned them Bishops But though he sawe it he was ashamed to be seene to The Doct. reasoneth loosely changeth his termes and argumentes and then taxeth his Refuter for not answering his argument argue thus loosely and as we have often done so againe must wee give him leave to change at his pleasure not onely his termes or phrases but also his very arguments But when he taketh this liberty he wrongeth his Refuter against all equitie to taxe him as he doth both here and hereafter pag. 78. lin 16. for not answering his argument For who can answer an objection before he heare it And who that considereth the tenour of his first sentence before set downe would haue dreamed a twofold reason to be infolded therein Nay who would not have judged as the Refuter did that the later clause had bene a confirmation of the former But to take his arguments as he hath nowe tendred them when he saith It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul had ordeyned theÌ„ Bishops of Ephesus and Creete if his meaning be that their ordination to the episcopall charge of those Churches is presupposed by the Apostle in his epistles written to them I utterly reject his assertion as a false presupposall or rather forgerie of his owne which hath no warrant from any line or letter in those epistles And to his proofe thereof viz. because it is presupposed in those epistles that the Apostle
had coÌ„mitted to them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches I answer that he mingleth and that deceiptfully truth and falshood togither For thought it be true that the epistles doe presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction coÌ„mitted to them yet is it false and he but beggeth the question in assuming it for truth that the authority of ordeyning and censuring is an authoritie episcopall that is proper to Bishops onely and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction was given them eyther then and not before when they were appointed to stay in those places or there and no where else to be exercised by them A bare deniall of these particulars falsly presupposed by the Doctor is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Pauls epistles that they are by him presupposed in them His second argument in his owne Analysis is the same which Sect. 2. ad pag. 75. sect 2. p. 75 76. 57. his Refuter tooke to be the first and it standeth thus If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Tim. and Tit. were Bishops But the Antecedent is true Therefore the Consequent To discover the weaknes of the consequence or proposition the Doct. was told answ pag. 137. that the consequent dependeth not upon the Antecedent but with this supposition which is false that the Apostle by describing in these epistles the rules to be observed in ordination and jurisdiction intended to informe Tim. Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops how to carry themselves in those matters And if the Doct. had bin as willing to apprehend his right meaning as to pick occasioÌ„ of quarreling without any just cause given he might have discerned that the supposition whereof he speaketh is not of the naturall hypothesis of the proposiâ—ion impugned but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption as is necessary to be supplyed if he will have the proposition or consequence to passe vncontrouled Wherefore as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref Alas good man you know not what the supposition of an hypotheticall proposition 〈◊〉 so had he weighed his owne rules lib. 2. cap. 3. sect 3. for the fynding out of that hypothesis which in a coÌ„nexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogisme perhaps he mought have perceived the weaknes of his consequence which he would seeme not to see For the true hypothesis which is implyed in this connexive argument and must be supplyed to make it a perfect simple syllogisme can be none other then this They must needs be Bishops and ordeyned to that function to whom such epistles are directed as are patternes and presidents of the episcopall functioÌ„ c. Or more generally thus Every persoÌ„ to whom an epistle or speach The Doct. discerning the weaknes of his arguments exchangeth it is directed which conteyneth the patterne or precedeÌ„t of any function or directions how to exercise it is vndoubtedly invested in the same function And why now I pray you good Mr. Doct. may not this proposition be denyed or doubted of I will spaâ—e labour in refuting it for I suppose your self perceived the weaknes of it and therefore gave us the exchaunge of an other argument though you pretend another cause of the exchange And since you will not argue with T. C. to whose answerthe Ref directly pointed as with the finger but are willing to let him rest in peace neyther will I argue against Doctor Whitgift but affoard him the like kindeness Onely whereas you aske the Refuter how he could be so ignorant or without judgment as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop conteyned in those epistles did meane onely that description of a Bishop which is set downe 1. Tim. 3 to requite your kindnes I demaund how you could be so ignorant or void of judgment as to think that when Doctor whitgift said that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim declareth him to be a Bishop seing therein is conteyned the office and duty of a Bishop diverse precepts peculiar to that function he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop that Ministery which is comon to all Ministers for so you seeme to interprete his wordes when you affirme pag. 76. this to be his meaning that directions were given to Timothy throughout the epistles for the discharge of his office eyther in respect of the Ministery coÌ„mon to all Ministers or of his episcopall function cheifly in regard of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ And herein you tender his credit lesS then you would seeme when you make him to argue in this fashion The epistles written to Timothy doe give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function Ergo they doe declare that he was a Bishop for this were to make him guilty of your owne fault in begging of the question The Doct. beggeth the question as you doe when you add to your assumption or Antecedent that supposition before examined for if that be as you say it is the playne meaning of the assumption then your second argument beggeth the question in pittifull manner thus The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim and Tit was to informe them as Bishops how to exercise their episcopall functioÌ„ Ergo those epistles shew that they were Bishops No merveil therefore if the Doctor were desirous to cover the beggery of his reasoning with the Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. 78. sect 3. shredds of a new shaped syllogisme which disputeth thus Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ doth plâ—inly describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of Bishops he presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creete But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus describing unto them their office and authorittie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet c. doth plainely describe the office and prescribe the dutie of Bishops Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Into this new frame he casteth his argument as he pretendeth because the Refuter had confounded himself with his owne hypotheticall proposition but the reader is rather to judge that a false supposall of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze that he hath confounded himselfe in his owne The D. coÌ„foundeth himselfe in his owne reasoning reasoning For where he should according to his own project sect 1. of
this chapter haue given us a second reason for his first conclusion scz that Timothy and Titus were ordeyned Bishops by S. Paul he now tendreth us a second prosyllogisme to confirme the antecedent of his first argument But to let him goe free with this fault I will answer this argument as it standeth first to the proposition which although it never sawe the Sun before his defence came abroad he taketh for graunted because T C and his Refuter have assailed it in vaine So he flattereth himself in his owne conceite but all in vaine For a meaner Scholler then T. C. or his Refuter eyther may easily discerne the inconsequence of his proposition although he may seme to have fortified the presupposall which he concludeth with a double bulwark both of describing the authority and of prescribing the duty of Bishops For S. Paul in his speach to the Elders of Ephesus Acts. 20. 18. c. describing his owne office and authority as he was the Superintendent of that church president of the presbyterie there plainely describeth the office and authority of all Superintendents or presidents in particular churches consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed by all such as should succeed in the like office till the comming of Christ Notwithstanding it were absurd froÌ„ hence to inferre that the Apostles speach there presupposeth his ordination to the office of a superintendent or President of the Presbytery in that Church of Ephesus wherefore neyther doth it follow that the Apostle in his epistles to Tim Titus presupposeth their ordination to the office of Bishops in the churches of Ephesus and Creete though it should be graunted that in describing their authority as they were governours of those churches and in prescribing their duty such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christs comming he both described the office and prescribed the duty of Bishops But this which he assumeth for a truth I reject as an assertioÌ„ no lesse voyd of truth then the main coÌ„clusion now in question for it is grounded upoÌ„ this false suppositioÌ„ that none other then diocesaÌ„ Bishops had in those times or could have by succession the government of particular Churches Now let us heare what he can say in defence thereof The Assumption I prove saith he by those particulars wherein the episcopall Sect. 4. ad sect 3. pa. 78. authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of iurisdiction they being the censures of other Ministers doctrine 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. 3. 9. Iudges oâ— their person and conversation 1. Tim. 5. 19. 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofes he answereth nothing Answered nothing no merveile if he had no answere to these proofes as they are now fitted to the assumption of his new shapen argument if this be his meaning his best friends I think wil scarce coÌ„mend his honesty or discretion But if his meaning be that these proofes before layd downe in his sermon received no answer at all dooth he not too much forget himself since he taketh notice in the next page following of this reason yeelded for the denyall of his assumption viz. that those instructions comprised in the places alleadged were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops but particularly to them as Evangelists and in generall to the Presbyters c. But since this answere is in his eyes no answer at all let us trie whether it may not be sayd with more truth that his proofes whereof he boasteth are no clear proofes eyther of the principall points before denied or of those which he now assumeth He knoweth full well that his refuter flatly denieth that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assumption both before and now to wit that S. Paul had any intention to informe Timothy and Titus as Bishops or any other Diocesan Bishops by them how to demeane themselves in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction hath he any argument to prove this or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mencioned At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumptioÌ„ why are not the proofs thereof if he have any contrived into form of arguments are his syllogismes so soon at an end Me thinks he should not expect any help in this case from his refuter whom he judgeth to be but a very bungler in the art of Syllogising Yet if it must needs be done to his hands I will doe my best to give it the best coate I can and that is this Whosoever describing vnto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christs coÌ„ming doth describe their office prescribe their duties in those particulars wherein episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth he doth in so describing prescribing plainly describe the office and prescribe the duty of Bishops But S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus describing their office authoritie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christs comming describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth For he describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in the power of ordination and jurisdiction as the places before quoted doe shewe And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth Therefore S. Paul in so describing the authoritie and prescribing the duty of Timothy and Titus doth plainely describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of Bishops Behold here good Reader how the Doctor after many windings in and out is retired back to that which he assumed as you may see sect 1. for the proofe of his first argument viz. that episcopall authoritie standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdiction This was then taken for graunted and so inforced to prove that Timothy Titus their ordination to the function of Bishops was presupposed by S. Paul in his epistles to them in as much as they had that authoritie coÌ„mitted to them Here it is againe produced to justify the same coÌ„clusion because if episcopal authority coÌ„sist in those particulars theÌ„ S. Pauls describbing of their authority and prescribbing of their duty in the same particulars argueth the authority duty of Bishops to be describbed in those epistles c. So to make a shew of some variety of arguments one assertioÌ„ must come twice upon the stage for one purpose that with an impudent The Doct. beggeth stoutly face to begge rather then with â—ound reason from Gods word to coÌ„firme what is well known to be one of the main points controverted For his adding the authority of Gregorie Nazianzen Chrysostome
Sect. 5. ad sect 4. pag 78. 79. Oecumenius and Gregorie who testify as he saith that the episles teach Bishops how to behave themselves in the church of God is a secret confession that he knoweth not how to cōclude from Saint Pauls owne words that which he vndertooke to make apparant by his epistles to Timothy Titus But because the Doctor will needs fitt to this last assumption the proofe thereof that answere which was given to another I wil first reduce it to the parts of his reasoning then peruse the forces which he bendeth against it Whereas therefore he saith that episcopall authoritie cheefly consisteth in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction which Timothy and Titus had in charge if by episcopall authoritie he meane that which Bishops haue now gotten into their hands and appropriated to themselves then the proposition is false and the falsehood thereof made plaine by that supposed case of a Democracie in time changed into an Aristocracy and afterward into a Monarchie layd downe by the Doctor in his Refuters wordes pag. 79. but if he understand by episcopall authoritie that which in the Apostles times and with their allowance was seated in the function of diocesan Bishops then the assumption and the proofe thereof is contradicted by the Refuter when he saith that the directions given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction apperteyned not to diocesan Bishops for the Apostle dreamed of no such sovereigntie but in particular unto Timothy and Titus by an higher power as Evangelists in generall to all the presbyters as having the charge of those affaires in their severall congregations in the Churches right to administer them To impugn this answer first he laboureth by two argumēts to prove that Timothy and Titus did not perform those things by an higher power viz. 1. because they were to be done by a power which was to continue in the Church untill the end 2. because the power whereby Bishops doe the things that Timothy and Titus had in cōmission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue to the end But if the Doctor had observed his Refuters meaning who by an higher power understandeth that power of office which was invested in the persons of Timothy Titus for being Evangelists he might perhaps have perceived the deceit that lieth in his own reasoning For although the power of ordeyning and censuring considered simply and in generall as the Refuter speaketh be such as was to continue in the presbyters though now by Bishops appropriated to themselves as he also granteth yet this hindreth not but that as the Apostles so Timothy Titus being Evangelists did performe those works by an higher power that is a power seated in an higher office But if his meaning be that Timothy and Titus did those things by vertue of an office that was to continue and that the power of doing those works is derived to Bishops by apostolicall allowance what else doth he but continue his old trade of begging 2. In like manner he deceiveth himselfe and his Reader when he fastneth a contradiction on his Refuter in saying the Apostles dreamed not of any such sovereigntie as now is in Bishops above Presbyters when he had before sayd that Timothy and Titus did the same things by an higher power to wit of their Evangelisticall function which Bishops have now appropriated to themselves 3. And he argueth too loosely when to prove a falshood in the refuters assertion viz. that those instructions were given to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists he sayth they were given them as they were particularly assigned governours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete For it was not repugnant but very agreable to the office of Evangelists to be assigned vnto the government of particular Churches at the pleasure of the Apostles on whom they attended 4. In deed if the Doctor could give us any one sentence in those epistles to Timothy Titus shewing the charge of those affaires to belong properly to Diocesan Bishops I would freely confesse the Refuter had erred in denying it and affirming the charge thereof to belong in generall unto the presbyters but though wee haue wayted all this while for the demonstration of this point frō the Apostles writings yet we heare no newes of any argument that clearely deduceth this conclusion from any word or phrase which Paul useth in his epistles onely he sayth he hath sufficiently proved this point before lib. 3. Wherefore that the reader may see how worthily he disputeth there in defense of his Diocesan Lords I will pray leave to lay downe in open viewe what he here referreth us unto In his third book cap. 3. sect 1. he giveth a threefold superiority Section 6. unto Bishops over other Ministers viz. singularitie of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction all which he groundeth upon Tit. 1. 5. And because his Refuter had denied Titus to be a Bishop he referreth his Reader there for the proofe thereof to that which was to followe lib. 4. cap. 4. which we haue now to examine In the meane time he desireth him to take it for granted In like manner towards the end of that book cap. 5. sect 18. he argueth that Bishops had corrective power over the presbyters because Timothy and Titus had such power over the presbyters of Ephesus and Creete as he proveth if we may beleeve him by most evident testimonyes out of Pauls epistles Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 1. 3. 4. 19-22 And unto his Refuters answere viz. that Tim. and Titus were not Bishops and that he should never prove they were he returneth this reply I desire the Reader to suspend his iudgement till he come to the proofes on both sides if he shall not find my proffes saith he for their being Bishops better then his to the contrary let him beleeve me in nothing Lo◠here his wordes and how confidently he relieth aforehand upon his proofes which he meant to produce for this assertion that Timothy and Titus were Bishops Notwithstanding when he cōmeth to make this apparant that by the scriptures yea by S. Pauls epistles written unto them the maine issue of his whole reasoning cōmeth at last to this effect Episcopall authoritie consisteth chiefly in the power of ordination and jurisdiction But the authoritie which Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet principally consisted in the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ergo their authoritie was episcopall And consequently they were Bishops Here now if the proposition be doubted of or denied wee are sent back to this former disputation where he begged that this cōclusion might be taken for granted Is there any likelihood think you that we shall ever find a good end put to this controversy whē Sect. 7. ad sect 5. 6. p. 80. 81. we must dance the round after the Doctors pipe in this fashion But leaving the Doctor
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 this day in the managing of Church-causes And by that which hath bene now sayd concerning Timothy Titus the same may be affirmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus Creet But he asketh whether Paul did not coÌ„mitt the ordination of Ministers unto Titus without mentioning eyther of Presbyterie or people And we may ask him what mention he findeth there of prayers or hands-imposition which ought to concurre with ordination if he can include them as being vnderstood in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5 wee have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters and the peoples approbation in the words following hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee Quis enim credat Paulum c. who may beleeve Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in vse Muscul loc coÌ„ de elect Minist Againe he asketh or rather argueth in this manner Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed onely to Titus for Creete and to Timothy for Ephesus and doth not this evidently shewe that howsoever they might use eyther the presence or consent of the people or the counsell advise of the presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in coÌ„mon-wealths yet the sway of ecclesiasticall government was in them If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason theÌ„ the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular termes vnto Peter onely both his whol speach concerning the keies of his kingdome and the power thereof Math. 16. and that precept of feeding his sheep and lambes and of confirming his brethren Ioh. 21. 15. 17. Luk. 22. 32. Wherefore however Peter might use the help The Doct. reasoneth well for Rome and assistance of his fellow-Apostles in all those workes and the presence or consent of the people in the administratioÌ„ of the keies yet the cheef power and sway of all was in him alone Good newes for Rome if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument but the truth is such singular speaches directed to one onely doe not argue in that one any such preheminent power as the Romanists and Prelatists doe from thence gather So that since the Doct. can not prove that Timothy and Titus had any such singular and sole power in Church-government as the Doctor judgeth to be due unto Bishops it is plaine that he buildeth upon a vayne and false presupposall when he saith it is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that they had episcopall authoritie and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops in the exercise of their function But for the proofe of this he hath another argument in store thus framed Those things which were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone Sect. 10. ad sect 7. pag 83. as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end were written to informe diocesan Bishops But those epistles were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end Therefore they were written to informe diocesan Bishops Vnto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinctioÌ„ thus that it is true if vnderstood of successors in authority or power of performing the same works but false if meant of succession in the same office The Doct. therefore first indeavoureth to prove what his Refuter denyeth and yet in the winding up of all would perswade his reader that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption But he is to be advertized that vnlesse he make good what his Refuter denyeth he cannot conclude what he vndertaketh For whether we look to his former assertion which he saith is here againe proved himselfe doth thus explaine it sect 3. in the beginning that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus S. Paul intended to informe them as Diocesan Bishops and in them all other Diocesans or whether wee look to the nearest scoape of his wordes in his sermon pag. 74. it is evident he there intendeth to prove that which he supposed would be answered to his former objection viz. that the things spoken to Timothy and Titus were spoken to them as extraordinarie persons whose authority he should have sayd office should die with them which cannot be removed vnlesse he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinarie function wherein their successors should enjoy the same authoritie to the worlds end Neyther is this to deny his conclusion as he falsely affirmeth but to contradict his assuÌ„ption in that sense which is necessarie to make it good because otherwise he argueth not ad idem Let us therefore see how well his proofes are fitted to the assumption I prove it saith he first by testimonie both of Paul and of Ambrose and after by reason And first by S. Pauls testimonie that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the coÌ„mandements and directions which he gave him should be kept inviolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus 1. Tim. 6. 14. Ergo they were to be performed by such as should have the like authority and the same office to the end The consequence of this Enthymeme dependeth upon this proposition That the commaundements and directions given in charge unto Timothy could not be kept inviolable unto the end without a succession of such as should have not only the like authoritie but also the same office untill the end of the world The which is â—latly denyed and cannot be fortifyed by that which followeth scz that those commandements could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end seing the meÌ„bers of his disiunction are insufficient when he taketh it for graunted that those coÌ„maundements must be performed eyther in Timothees own person or in such as succeeded him in the same function for the Doctor cannot be ignorant that the coÌ„mandement which Christ gave to his Apostles Math. 28. 19 20. for preaching and baptizing was to be kept inviolable unto the coÌ„ming of Christ neyther could it be peformed by the Apostles alway in their own persons or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolike function It is performed as all the world knoweth by successors in a different functioÌ„ which haue authoritie to doe the same works though neither in the same office nor yet with that ample coÌ„mission for the extent of their jurisdiction In like manner the Refuter saith that the coÌ„maundements given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction were continued in the Church by presbyters which succeeded them though in a differing office according to that ordinary course which God had appointed for his Church Thus much for S. Paul whom the Doctor now leaveth and craveth help of Mr. Calvin T. C. and others to conclude his purpose Sect. 11. ad sect 7. pag 83. 84. scz that the
commandements given to Timothy were to be performed by such as succeeded him in the same office Mr Calvin saith he vnderstandeth in the name of the cōmandement those things whereof he had hitherto discoursed concerning the office of Timothy And doe not we also understand the things or works given in charge under the name of the commandement Neyther deny we that those things belonged to the office or ministery of Timothy Yet we refuse that succession in the same ministeriall function which the Doct. would wring if he could tell how out of Pauls charge to performe the things so cōmanded untill Christs second cōming 2. True it is that T. C. and others finding among other precepts in Pauls epistles to Timothy this that the governing Elders are to be honoured as well as the Teachers doe from thence conclude the continuance of both functions and why should they not since the continuance of Bishops and Deacons is of all interpreters rightly gathered frō the rules that are layd down concerning their functions 1. Tim. 3. the former being no less ordinary and perpetually necessary then the later Yet the continuance of Timothy his office cannot be concluded vpon the same ground till it may appeare that his function was also perpetuall and not extraordinary 3. As for the testimony of Ambrose it nothing helpeth the Doctor except it be to shewe how grosly he plaieth the Sophister in thus arguing S. Paul in his words 1. Tim. 6. 14. hath regard unto Timothees successors that they after his example might continue the wel ordering of the Church So saith S. Ambrose Ergo in his understanding saith the Doct. he meant such as succeeded Timothy in the same office As though the Fathers did confound the offices of Apostles Evangelists with those Pastors Bishops which succeeded them in the rule and government of the Churches because they say the later were successors to the former 4. His reason followeth now to be examined Whatsoever authority is perpetually necessary and such as without which the Church neyther can be governed nor yet continued the same is not peculier to extraordinary persons or to die with them but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in their successors But the authority committed to Timothy and Titus was perpetually necessary and such as without which the Church neyther can be governed as without jurisdiction nor continued as without ordination Therefore the authority committed to them was not peculiar to them as extraordinary persons but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those that succeeded them Wherevnto I answer as before if he speak of successiō at large in authority onely he wandreth from the question If of succession in the same office I disclaime the later braunch of the proposition for all men knowe by the perpetuity of Pastorall authority by which the word and sacraments are still continued in the Church whereas the dispensation of these holy things was first committed by Christ to the Apostles Math. 28. 19. 20. that the perpetuall necessity of an authority to performe this or that ministeriall work doth not necessarily require any to succeed in the same function that first enjoyed that authority And this is so evident a truth that rather then the Doctor will contradict it he will become non-suite in this point and perswade his Reader if he can that succession in authority onely which was never denyed is sufficient for his purpose the contrary whereof is before sufficiently made manifest To follow him therfore in the defence of his propositiō he saith Sect. 12. ad sect 8. pag 85. it is grounded on this hypothesis that diocesan Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus and therefore reasoneth thus If the successors of Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successors were written to informe diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothy Titus were diocesan Bishops Therefore those things that were written to informe their successors were written to informe diocesan Bishops Here the Doctor is againe to be advertised that the true hypothesis of the former proposition is this that diocesan Bishops not onely de facto were but also de jure ought to have been successors vnto Timothy Titus in the exercise of their authority therefore the consequence of the later proposition which mencioneth their succession de facto onely is too weake for vnless it were certeine that S. Paul intended that diocesan Bishops should succeede them his writing of purpose to direct their successors cannot argue that he meant by them to informe diocesan Bishops It had bin fit therefore the Doctor had shewed from some wordes of the Apostle in these epistles or from some other Scriptures that the Apostle aymed at the successiō of such Bishops but this was too hard a task for him and therefore he perswadeth his reader that their succession de jure cannot be denied if their succession de facto be proved Which he indeavoreth by two arguments First by this disiunction Either diocesan Bishops were their successors or the presbyteries or the whole congregation But neyther the presbyteries nor the whole congregation Ergo diocesan Bishops As for the last member of this disiunction it is absurdly added by the Doctor howsoever he would seem to haue done it to please his Ref for although he say that the right was in the church yet he giveth the execution to the presbytery of each congregatiō neyther yet is he so to be vnderstood as if he denied a preheminence for order sake vnto some one to be the mouth of the rest in executing that which was by the whole presbytery decreed Which preheminence as it did by right belonge to Timothy Titus in regarde of their Evangelisticall function during their stay in those places so it was devolved after their departure to him that was primus presbyter or proestoos president of the presbyters that is to say in each congregation to the Pastor and in a Synode or assembly of the Pastors and presbyters of many Churches to that one which with the consent choyse of his brethren moderated the action If therefore he speak of successors vnto Timothy Titus in that speciall presidencie which they held at Ephesus and in Creete his disiunction is to be disclaimed as insufficient because it wanteth the mētion of such a president as we give to each presbyterie and Synode His second argument followeth in this forme Those who succeeded Timothy and Titus in the government of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothy Titus in the government of those Churches Therefore they viz. Diocesan Bishops were their successors Well may you see the Doct. would faine be thought to be rich The Doct. is poore proveth idem pe◠idem when in deed he is poore For is this argument any better then a beggerly proving of the point denyed by the self
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
the Bishopriks of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 11. and 12. pag. 93-97 THe second objection lieth thus Timothy and Titus were Evangelists Sect. 1. ad sect 11. pag â—3 Ergo they were not ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus and Creete This consequence the Doctor denied because their being Evangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certeine Churches and furnished with episcopall power they became Bishops And to remove this answere the Refuter proveth first that their being Evangelists did hinder their assigning to certein churches without which they could not be Bishops 2. That when they were left at Ephesus and in Creete they received no such new authoritie as he calleth episcopall neyther needed any such furnishing as he supposeth The first is proved not by 2. reasons as the Doctor imagineth but by one disiunctive argument in this maÌ„ner What could not be done without eyther confounding the offices which God had distinguished Ephes 4. 11. or depriving Timothy and Titus of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower that the Apostle Paul neyther would nor could doe But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists could not be done without eyther confounding the offices which God hath distinguished Ephes 4. 11. or depriving them of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower Ergo the making of Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists was a thing which the Apostle neyther could nor would doe The assumption is very scornfully rejected by the Doctor because in his imagination the partes thereof are nice points which none of the fathers did ever understand but his triumph is vaine and vnseasonable whiles we are in examining by the verdict of the scriptures or by reason grounded thereon what to determine of this controversy Wherefore to passe by this answerlesse answer I will indeavour to draw the reader to the consideration of that I haue to alleadge in defense of our assumption as followeth To conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops Pastors in one person at one time is to confound the offices which are distinguished Ephes 4. 11. And to take from an Evangelist his evangelisticall function when he is invested into the office of a Bishop or Pastor assigned to the charge of one certein Church is to deprive him of an higher and to thrust him into a lower calling But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists could not be done without eyther conioyning both offices in one person or taking their first office from them when the later is given to them Ergo neyther can it be done without eyther confounding the offices which are distinguished Ephes 4. 11 or depriving them of the higher function to thrust them into a lower Here the proposition is impugned in both the branches therof first therefore for the former thus I argue It is apparant by the very text Ephes 4. 11. and by other scriptures that the severall functions of Ministery there mencioned were by Christ distributed to severall persons not coÌ„mitted two or moe of them to one man at once Ergo to conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops in one person at one time is to confound the offices which by God are distinguished For the manifestation of the antecedent first let the text be weighed Ephes 4. 11. 12. he gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers He saith not he gave some to be Pastors onely and some to be Evangelistes and Pastors or that some were Apostles onely and some Apostles and Evangelists but as before he gave some to be Apostles and some to be Evangelists c. thereby signifying that such as had the calling of Apostles had not also the office of Evangelists Neyther did the Evangelists holde therewithall the office of Pastors 2. This is further confirmed by the similitude which the Apostle vseth 1. Cor. 12. 14 28. of many members in one body which haue not all one and the same but each of them his severall office The eye is not an eare neither doth it serve the body in the office of hearing or smelling c. in like manner all are not Apostles nor all Prophets c. but God hath ordeyned some to one office and some to another as first Apostles secondly Prophets c. 3. And of this distinction we haue examples For touching the extraordinarie Ministers of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists we finde them distributed to severall persons Luk. 16. 13. Act. 1. 26. and cap. 11. 27. 28. and 21. 8. And for ordinarie functions there were at Ierusalem Deacons and Elders Act. 6. 3. 6. 11. 31. at Philippi Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. but of two or moe offices combined in one person at once there cannot be yeelded any one cleare example in holy scripture All that the Doct. objecteth to infringe this is of small moment viz. that as Apostles might be Evangelists as we see in Mathew Sect. 2. Iohn so Evangelists might be Bishops as we se in Mark. pag. 95 For the name of EvaÌ„gelist by ancient or later writers given to Matthew and Iohn because they wrote those histories which are kat hexochen called Evangelia Gospells proveth not that they had that functioÌ„ of Evangelists which is distinguished from the Apostles Ephes 4. 11. The scripture is best expounded by the scripture therefore we must by Evangelists there vnderstand such as have the name given them in other partes of the new testament as Acts. 21. 8. and 2. Tim. 4. 5. And as for Mark we know him to be an EvaÌ„gelist not onely because he wrote one of the 4. Gospells but rather because he was as Timothy a companion and fellow helper to the Apostles but his Bishoprick we disclaime no lesse then Timothees and for the same reason because he was an Evangelist by his particular function neither can the Doct. herein contradict us without contradiction aswell to himself as to the truth For he coÌ„fesseth as the truth in deed is that the word Evangelist specially taken signifieth the extraordinary fuÌ„ctioÌ„ of those in the primitive Church which went up down preaching the Gospell not being affixed to any certeine place And particularly of Timothy Titus he saith they were Evangelists whiles they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his traveiles were not assigned to any certeine place From hence therefore I thus frame a 2. argument to prove that the combyning of the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors in one person at once is a confounding of offices which by their first institution were distinguished Whatsoever offices are severed by properties of an opposite nature they cannot at once be conjoyned in one person without confounding the functioÌ„s which by their first institution were distinguished But the function of Evangelists Bishops are severed by properties of an opposite nature for the one is extraordinary and not bound to any
certeine place the other is ordinarie tyed to one certeine place Ergo the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors cannot be conjoyned at once in one person without confounding the functiōs which in their first institution were distinguished And by this it may be seene that the Doctors comparison halteth when he would perswade that Timothy and Titus might be Bishops although they were Evangelists like as the Apostles Matthew and Iohn were also Evangelists for that Evangelistship given to Matthew Iohn by that name of Evangelists is farre differing from the Evangelisticall function of Timothy and Titus neyther is there such an opposition betweene their Evangelist-ship and the Apostleship as there is betwene that Evangelistical function which he giveth to Timothy Titus their episcopall office For Matthew and Iohn ceased not to be Apostles when they became Evangelists but concerning Timothy and Titus he plainely affirmeth that they laid aside their former office when they vndertook the later For he saith pag. 95. that after they were placed Bishops they traveiled not up and downe as in former times but ordinarily remeyned with their flocks To come then to the latter braunch of the Refuters argument Sect. 3. ad sect 12. p. 95. which affirmeth that they were deprived of an higher calling thrust into a lower if they ceased to be Evangelists when they were made Bishops the truth of it dependeth upon this assertion that the Evangelists were in degree of ministery superior to all ordinary Pastors or Bishops which is so generally acknowledged for a truth that the Reader may well admire at the Doctors boldnes that shameth not to set an Evangelist in equall ranck with presbyters and so in his apprehension in a degree below his Bishops For herein he swarveth not onely from the cōmon Tenent of the best in other reformed churches see Calvin in Ephes 4. 11. Beza de grad minist pag. 133. 134. which give to all the extraordinary functions of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists a preheminent degree above all the ordinary offices of Pastors or Bishops but also from such as have pleaded the same cause before him D. Dove Def. of Church-government pag. 17. lin 18. and perpet gover pag. 50. 51. And therefore as the D. will have Iames to remeine an Apostle though he were Bishop of Ierusalem so will Bishop Bilsō have Timothy and Titus to be both Evangelists and Bishops perpet gover pag. 233. 234. But to leave the mencion of men however famous for learning and esteemed in the Church can we have any better line whereby to measure out the preheminence of each ministeriall function then that priority of place order wherein the Apostles hath set them Ephes 4 11. from hence therefore I thus argue All the ordinary functions of ministery comprised vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers are in degree inferior to the extraordinary functions of Apostles Prophets Evangelists as the order of their standing Ephes 4. 11. sheweth But the function of Bishops which the Doct. ascribeth to Timothy and Titus is an ordinary function of ministery such as himself comprizeth vnder the name of Pastors pag. 95. Ergo it is also inferior in degree to the extraordinary functiō of Evangelists aswell as to Apostles Prophets Now to reduce to this argument the Doctors discourse pag. 94. and 95 the summe is this First he maketh 4. sorts of Evangelists viz such as taught the Gospell by writing as the 4. Evangelists Math. Mark Luke and Iohn 2. any one that doth Evangelize or preach the Gospell 3. the. 72. disciples imediately called of Christ and sent by him to preach the gospel of which number was Philip Act. 21. 8. 4. Some others assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their traveiles and assistants in the Ministery and of this sort were Timothy and Titus whiles they accompanied Paul in his traveiles and were not assigned to any certeyne place Secondly to apply this distribution unto the Apostles meaning Ephes 4. 11. he acknowledgeth no other there comprized under the name of Evangelists then the 4. Evangelists so called kat hexochen and perhaps the 72 doubtfully he speaketh of them pag. 95. as being loath it seemeth to acknowledge that they had any preheminence above his diocesan Bishops because the Fathers say of them as he observeth pag. 94. that they also had but the degree of the presbyterie And therefore I guesse he will award the stroke of the former argument by this distinctiō thus viz. that the ordinary functions of ministery comprized vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers are not inferior in degree to the later sort of Evangelists which attended on the Apostles but onely to the 4. Evangelists and perhaps to the. 72. because these onely and not the other are meant by the name of Evangelists in that place And to joine issue with the Doctor I affirme the contrary viz. Section 〈◊〉 that by Evangelists in Ephes 4. 11. we are to vnderstand all those and those onely which in an extraordinary function distinct from the Apostles and Prophets traveiled too and fro preaching the Gospell whether they were imediately called of Christ as Philip is supposed to be or were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions and assistants as Timothy Titus Mark and many others And first to prove that which he denyeth viz. that the later sort of Evangelists are comprized vnder that name in Ephes 4. 11. aswell as the former for brevity sake in stead of larger syllogismes I tender to him and to the judicious Reader these several arguments nakedly propounded 1. the D. confesseth that vnder the name of Evangelists specially taken the later sort in which number Timothy and Titus were are no lesse comprized then the former because this was cōmon to them all that they went up and downe preaching the Gospell not being affixed to any certeine place It seemeth therefore he was not well advised when he admitted the one sort and denied the other to be understood by the word Ephes 4. 11. unlesse he could yeeld as he cannot some sufficient reason for the difference he putteth betweene them 2. Againe he confesseth that the later sort were in an extraordinary function Either therefore he must deny all extraordinarie functions of ministerie to be comprized Ephes 4. 11. or he must referre one sort of Evangelists to an other name as of Apostles Prophets or Pastors c. both which are absurd and I doubt not but to make good the censure if the Doctor require it Now whereas he referreth the word Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. principally to those 4. that wrote the gospels this is not easily proved to accord with the meaning of the Apostle seing that work of penning the Evangelicall history maketh them not to stand in a differing function of Ministerie frō all others For the Ministeries there mencioned are all distinct functions of preachers And if the writing of Christs historie made a different function why should
also they lived dyed I answer hath he not by as good proofs shewed Iames his assignement to the Church of Ierusalem and his living and dying there If then all this notwithstanding it be true that Iames was not properly a Bishop doth he not reason loosely when from such assignement of Timothy and Titus he concludeth them to be properly Bishops The refuters second answere is that it is manifest by Zuinglius his writings he neyther thought they were nor any other might be a diocesan Bishop Whereto the Doctor replyeth belike he spake otherwise then he thought and then addeth an other testimony of Zuinglius which saith that Timothy was a Bishop and that the office of an Evangelist and of a Bishop is all one where behold with what conscience the Doctor wresteth the words of his owne witnesse froÌ„ their meaning for there is nothing more evident to them that peruse Zuinglius his writings then this that with him every preacher of the gospell at this day hath as good right to the name of an Evangelist and of a Bishop as to the title of a presbyter or pastor vocat ad se Paulus Act. 20. presbyterâ—s i. episcopos Evangelistas vel ecclesiae ministros lib. de ecclesia fol. 48. And Tom. 1. fol. 115. in his parenesis to the cities of Helvetia affirmeth that the Bishop spokeÌ„ of 1. Tim. 3. was any Pastor or Minister of the Church Quo in loco saith he discimus omnes ecclesiarum ministros episcopos esse et dici eiusdem sententia assertorum habemus Hieromimum and fol. 117. having cited Tit. 1. 5. 7. to the same purpose he addeth Evidenter demonstrat bis locus c. this place evidently sheweth that a Bishop is no other then a Minister of the Church whom wee use to call parochum a parish preist or Minister But that the Reader may see how much Zuinglius misliked the large jurisdiction singular preheminence of Bishops at this day in use and that he was too great a favourite of the parish discipline to be wrested by the Doctor in defense of the monarchicall or rather in his judgment Tyranicall government of diocesan Bishops I praye the reader to have patience till we come to the first of the Doctors 3. arguments handled in the third part of this reply Chap. 11. Conteyning an answer to another of the the D. Arguments concerning the Bishopricks of Timothy and Titus handled sect 13-16 from pag. 98. to 104. FRom these two objections in the pursute whereof the Doctor Sect. 1. ad sect 13. pag. 98. fedd himselfe with a vaine hope to gaine some advantage he now returneth to give a fresh onset on his Adversary in this manner The supposed Evangelisticall function of Timothy Titus was to ende with their persons and admitted no succession as being both extraordinary temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and of Creet consisting specially in the power of ordination jurisdiction was not to ende with their parsons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothy Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Evangelisticall This argument layd downe serm pag. 79. his Refuter tooke to be opposed against the Antecedent of that objection which affirmeth Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists and who would not have so judged seing the conclusion denyeth their function authority to be Evangelisticall But he saith that the introduction premised before this argument hereof we may conclude thus sheweth that he intended not to deny or disprove that Antecedent but to bring a new supply of argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus Creet Which difference I referre wholly to the judgment of the indifferent reader not doubting but he will discharge the Refuter from all blame eyther of willfull or of negligent mistaking And whereas he flatly denieth that he doth deny they were Evangelists that he may not hide himselfe under a cloud I desire him plainely to answere us whither they remayned Evangelists after that calling which he supposeth they had to be Bishops If yea why doth he insinuate the contrary pag. 95. lin 24. c. when to justify this that they were not Evangelists but Pastors and Bps he saith that after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet they traveiled not vp and downe as in former tymes when they accompanied the Apostles but ordinarily remayned with their flocks If no why maketh he his Reader beleeve that in the conclusion of his argumeÌ„t above mencioned he neyther doth nor did intend to deny that they were Evangelists But as often before so here againe we must and will follow him in his owne way when he saith his purpose was from the former conclusion thus to argue The function and authority which Timothy and Titus exercised in Ephesus and Creet was eyther extraordinary and Evangelisticall as the disciplinarians teach or else ordinary and episcopall as the prelatists affirme But it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall Therefore ordinary and episcopall Here the assumption is the conclusion of the former argument and the proposition he taketh for granted as if it fully delivered the points of difference betweene us and him with his Associates in the cause he pleadeth Wherefore we must take leave to lay downe our owne opinion more clearely which is this in few words First we distinguish function from authority both which the Doct. coÌ„foundeth for though we affirme their function there exercised to be Evangelisticall and therefore extraordinary yet we doe not so avouch of their whole authority nor yet of that authority or power of ordination jurisdiction whereof he speaketh in the assumptioÌ„ of his former argument as the Doct. may perceive by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 84. Againe we distinguish betwixt authority simply considered and in generall to performe the works of preaching and ordeyning c. And that particular or personall authority which for the exercise of these works was invested in their persons and gave them allowance in all places where they came to exercise the works of their calling And therefore though we grant as before is noted the authority it selfe in abstracto simply considered to be ordinarily and perpetually necessary yet we affirme their personall authority to be Evangelisticall because all the authority they had did flow from their Evangelisticall function For like as the Apostles preached and baptized by the authority of their Apostleship so did Timothy Titus both Preach and impose hands c. by vertue of their Evangelistship So then to make answer first to the D. disjunctive argument 1. as touching the function which Timothy Titus exercised in Ephesus and Creet we affirme it to be extraordinary and Evangelisticall and therefore in that respect utterly reject his Assumption 2. touching their authoritie consisting as
argument to another in shewe is but to dazell the eyes of his reader that he might not discerne his grosse begging For in effect this is all he can say They were furnished with episcopall power therefore their authoritie was episcopall or S. Paul made them Bishops and therefore they were Bishops of his ordeyning As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. 16. viz whether it be perpetually necessary that the sway of the ecclesiasticall authoritie should be in one and what forme of Church-government is to be preferred as the best I forbeare to follow him in those digressions His resolution to the former being negative doth scarce accord with the conclusion of his last argument which affirmeth that such governors as were Timothy Titus in his opinion furnished with episcopall power are much more necessarie after the Apostles death then in their life time But his resolutioÌ„ to the later is grouÌ„ded on such a reason as wil put life againe into the same if there were an undoubted truth in it For could he prove the Monarchicall government of Bps to be of divine institutioÌ„ as he affirmeth it would follow not onely that it is the best forme of Church-government but also necessarily to be continued And as I nothing feare to graunt him that consequence so I knowe he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopall function He hath sought for it first in the Angels of the 7. chueches then in Pauls approbation of Archippus Epaphroditus he proceeded to Iames his presidence at Ierusalem now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordeyning Timothy Titus to the function of Bishops In all which disputations of his I have clearely shewed that the scriptures give him no colour for his assertion We are therefore now ready to listen to those testimonies of antiquity which if we might beleeve him with a generall coÌ„sent beare witnes to his assertion that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Creet Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquitie alleadged by the Doctor to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet FIrst he alleadgeth the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Sect. 1. ad sect 17. pa. 105. epistle to Titus of the second to Timothy wherein the one is sayd to have bin ordeyned the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans Being asked by his Refuter whether he thought them to be of the Canon or added by the Apostle he signifieth that he is not of that opinion Whence I inferre that their evidence can never justify his maine purpose which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution But he saith It is certeine they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter other disciplinarians would make them If it be certeine their antiquity is great their credit very good why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certeinty First for their antiquity they deserve not that preheminence which he giveth them to be heard before Eusebius the rest of the fathers which he alleadgeth for the authors of the most ancient Syriac and the old latin translations found no mencion of an episcopall ordination bestowed on Timothy Titus in the greek copies which they followed And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter imbraced doe fully accord in the subscriptioÌ„ of all the former epistles with those latter copies into which that clause of that Bishoprick was foisted in If therefore their credit have not some better support then their antiquity their evidence is little worth The Doct. greatest labour in defense of their credit is to remove out of the way his Refuters objection who saith The subscription set vnder the epistle to Titus affirming it to be written from Nicopolis is contrary to Pauls owne words Titus 3. 12. because of Paul had been at Nicopolis when he wrote after this charge given vnto Titus Indeavor to come to me to Nicopolis he would not have sayd â—kei gar kekâ—â—ka c. for there but rather entautha here I have determined to winter The Doctor paveth the way to his answer with this preface In deed saith he if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would have respected their censures but the Cavillations of the disciplinarians against them are to be rejected You may see how partiall the Doctor is who yet would seeme to hate partiallity and how little credit these subscriptions have with the D who therefore hath resolved to give them what grace he can because they are disciplinarians who have disgraced them The Rhemists may freely controull the subscriptions of sundry other epistles because they are not parties in this cause see their Argument on 1. Cor. 2. Cor. Gal. 1. and 2. Thess and 1. Tim. for the place whence the epistles were sent But Mr. Beza can have no indifferent hearing his reasons are but Cavillations But heare I pray how the Doctor confuteth him If you will saith he consider with me that Paul being as usually he was in peregrination Titus could not tell where he was Paul therefore being at Nicopolis wrote as any discreet maÌ„ would in the like case Come to me to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him Titus might have sayd where Paul as being vncerteine where Paul was whither himselfe was to goe It seemeth the Doctor eyther did not consider or would not take notice 1. that it was needlesse for Titus to be informed where Paul was at the writing of this epistle seing he was not to goe presently to him but to make himselfe ready to come upon a new message as these words declare when I shall send Artemas to thee or Tichicus be diligent to come to me 2. that Paul his being then in peregrination as the D. conceiveth doth very probably argue the contrarie to that which he collecteth to wit that as yet he was not come to Nicopolis were he resolved to spend the winter and to wait for Titus his coÌ„ming thither But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the coÌ„mon judgement of such as are discreet I very willingly submit the triall of this difference to the discreet reader which observeth in the writings and speaches of them that are discreet the different use of these adverbs hic illic here there whether it stand with discretion 1. for the K. Almner which followeth the court when he is at Greenewich to send for one of his followers with the like words When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee then come thou vnto me to Greenewich for there I meane to winter or rather thus for here I meane to winter 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters if
he say there I meane to winter to conclude for certeinty that his Mr. was at Greenewich when he wrote 3. And if he say here I meane to winter to send to his Mr. for new direction where to find him As for the testimony of Athanasius Oecumenius and others which following the error of him that first iÌ„magined Paul to be at Nicopolis when he wrote to Titus drunk it in without any further examination it cannot overweight the force of any just probability to the contrary for in questions of this nature yea of greater event often times the heedlesse receiving of that which some one or moe of the Ancients have imbraced hath bin the cause of many errors But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him then the authors of the Centuries he might well have spared the citing of them for they leave it doubtfull whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis In the next place he urgeth the generall consent of the ancient Sect. 2. ad sect 18. pag 107. c. Fathers as Eusebius Dyonisius Dorotheus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostome and others to the number of 16. which testify that Timothy and Titus were Bishops To all which he received a threefold answer Frst that the fathers in so calling them take not the name properlie for the functioÌ„ of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop but improperlie in a more generall signification like as they call some of the Apostles Bishops for the work and preheminence sake wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them This answere is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare deniall of that which they affirme wherefore it shall suffice to urge him vnto the proofe of the point denyed and by him wholly neglected scz that the Fathers did so term them properly as giving them the very function of Diocesan Bishops for which he pleadeth Secondly he was tolde their consent was not so generall as he would make us beleeve the truth of which answer is evident by this that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence we heare not the names of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian or any other that lived in the first 300. yeares For that counterfeyt that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita is demonstrated by many worthy divines D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis Areopag Perkins problem pag. 9. Scult Medull de Dyonis script pag. 484. to be such a novice that he was unknowne to Eusebius and Hierom or any other of the ancients before Gregorie the great Wherefore it will give the Doct. little reliefe to graunt him that in his time it was generally received that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus especially seing the Papists may also from his testimonie likewise conclude that in his time the Monkes were of great credit in the Church many of their ceremonies as annoyntings crossings Incense coÌ„secrations c. were in vse and that in his time it was generally coÌ„fessed that Bishops onely were allowed divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere Hierarch eccles Cap. 4. 5. And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius that he was so farre from esteeming Timothy as a Bishop that he rather maketh him a Deacon epist ad Trall the Doctor answereth by distinguishing the times that he was such an Evangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordeyned a Presbyter lastly a Bishop he explayneth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning whose purpose is nothing else but to shew what service Deacons doe owe to Bishops by comparison of that service which holy Steven did to blessed Iames Timotheus Linus unto Paul c. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the DeacoÌ„ and not vvith the Bishop as T. C. rightly observeth yet as he giveth not to Paul the function of a Bishop so neyther unto Timothy the office of a Deacon Nay rather he shadoweth out in Timothy the office of an Evangelist in that he maketh him an assistant unto Paul in his Apostleship As for that fancie vvhich the Doct. broacheth of Timothies serving first in the office of a Deacon then of a Presbyter lastly of a Bishop it is not for his credit to father it upon Ignatius or Ambrose It is true that Ambrose saith Timothy was ordeyned a presbyter and that he was a Bishop because he had no other presbyters before him yet affirmeth he withall that there is but vna ordinatio episcopi presbyteri that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter vterque enim Cacerdos est Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh confuteth that thrice ordination vvhereof the Doctor dreameth And if Ignatius had bene acquainted vvith Timothies ordinatioÌ„ to the Bishoprick of Ephesus doubtlesse in vvriting to the Ephesians he vvould not have associated him vvith the Apostle Paul as a joynte Teacher or Mr by vvhom they vvere instructed in the faith Vos ergo tâ—les estote a â—alibus magistris eruditi Paulo Christifere Timotheâ— fidelissimo He would rather haue distinguished their functions like as he doth the Pastorall charge of Evodius from the Apostolicall function of Peter and Paul who first planted the gospell at Antioch as his words alleadged by the Doctor serm pag. 82. ad Antioch shewe In vaine therefore braggeth he of a generall consent of the auncient fathers when of all that lived in the first 300. yeares there cannot any one be alleadged that giveth to Timothy and Titus the name of a Bishop much lesse the function of a diocesan Bishop Here perhaps the Doctor will againe put us in minde of Eusebius Sect. 3. who reporteth out of former histories that Timothy first had the Bishoprick of the Church of Ephesus Titus of the Churches in Creet And because this his report is the maine foundation whereon all the rest are grounded I will vouchsafe it this particular answer following It is worth the noting that what he speaketh he delivereth not as a certain truth grouÌ„ded on the holy scriptures but as a doubtfull report derived from other stories from whence no sure proofe can be drawne in divinitie as before hath bene observed But not to insist on this exception why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument Timothy obteyned first episcopen the oversight tes paroikias of the Church in Ephesus like as Titus had of all the Churches in Creet Ergo they had each of them the function of a Diocesan Bishop in those Churches For Timothyes charge being paroikia en ephesoo the parish in Ephesus was too narrow a compasse for a Diocese Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta an Iland that had an 100. cities and therefore called hekatompolis had too large a jurisdiction for one province Moreover since there are no records of like authoritie to shew that any one Bishop in the Apostles dayes enjoyed the like superintendencie
over all the Churches of any kingdome or countrie we have reason to think that Titus his cōmission was extraordinarie In deed Theodoret on 1. Tim. 3. and Chrysostom Hom. 10. on 2. Tim. doe give as large jurisdiction to Timothy as to Titus yea farre more large esteeming him to have the charge of all in Asia as Titus had in Creta But Chrysostome plainely signifyeth that this was extraordinary for of Titus he sheweth that how soever Paul cōmitted so great a charge to him because he was one of his companions a man of whose fidelitie he had good proofe in whom he put much confidence Hom. 1. in epist ad Tit. yet it was never his meaning that his burthen should lye by continuall succession on the shoulders of any one man Hom. 2. in Tit. 1. 5. Per civitates inquit neque enim voluit Insulam totam vni viro permitti sed unicuique propriam curam ac solicitudinem indici c. If then Titus his cōmission to Creta was but Temporarie when Eusebius giveth to Timothy at Ephesus the self-same Overseer-ship or Bishoprick if you will the self same I say or the like for his power and function with that which Titus had over all the Churches in Creta When also Chrysostome some others doe match them in extent of jurisdiction extraordinary doth not the Doctor argue loosely in drawing their testimony to justify that peculiar function of a diocesan Bishop which he giveth unto Timothy and Titus Especially seing it is evident by Eusebius his owne wordes lib. 3. cap. 31. 32. that he acknowledgeth the first and neerest successors of the Apostles among whom he reckoneth Timothy and Titus to be for the most part Evangelists and plainely distinguisheth them from others which were more properly Pastors or Bishops And we have before observed out of Dorotheus that Timothy had no setled continuance at Ephesus as Bishops have on that one Church whereto they are affixed Ambrose also maketh S. Paul a fellow Bishop with Timothy when on 1. Tim. 1. 3. he giveth this note Obsecrat episcopus coepiscopum suum And Hierome though he gave the name of a Bishop unto Titus allotteth to him the peregrination of an Evangelist in saying if the Catalogue of ecclesiasticall writers in his first tome be his that he preached the gospell aswell in the Ilands lying round about as in Creta it selfe and that the Apostle did therefore call him away from Creta quia eum haberet necessarium in evangelij ministerium because he was necessarie for him for the ministery of the gospell Hieron in Tit. 3. The Refuters third answer therefore viz. that the scripture calleth Sect. 4. ad pag. 120. Timothy an Evangelist even after he was sent to Ephesus 2. Tim. 4. 5. is so farre from being contradicted by the fathers that it receiveth approbation from some of those whom the Doctor would draw to his side And whereas he addeth that if they had generally affirmed him to be a Bishop properly it cannot be of force to teach us contrary to the scriptures to acknowledge his episcopall function he speaketh but the truth neyther can the Doctor for shame directly contradict him in so saying yet rather then he will faile to make a shewe of impugning this answere he perverteth it to an other purpose then was meant saying It is all one with the second objection already answered viz that the scripture calleth Timothy an Evangelist and therefore he was no Bishop but the best is if that had bene so I hope the objection is sufficiently mainteyned against the D. answer As for the newe writers whom he alleadgeth pag. 110. for a new supply to concurre with the Fathers for the justifying of that Bishoprick which he ascribeth to Timothy and Titus his friendes may wonder at his impudency that can doe this without blushing Mr Calvin he saith the authors of the Centuries doe affirm that Timothy was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesus he should have added with all proved that by the name of a Pastor they meane a Diocesan Bp such as ours But the cōtrary is manifest first by the cold allowance which the authors of the Centuries give to Timothyes Bishoprick Cent. 1. lib. 2. col 614. when they say they can finde no certeintie in any approved writer quomodo aut quamdiu after what manner and how long Ephesianae ecclesiae Doctor gubernator prefuerit he was teacher and governour of the Church of Ephesus But especially by that which Mr Calvin saith on 2. Tim. 4. 5. to prove that Paul there speaketh of the office of an Evangelist 1. that there was such a speciall function mentioned Ephes 4. 11. betweene the Apostles and Pastors that were the second helpers to the Apostles 2. that the Evangelists excelled the Pastors in degree and dignitie of office 3. that it is most probable Timothy was one of them and not of the Pastors 4. that Paull in the honourable mencion of that his office respected both his incouragement and the commendation of his authoritie to others As for that presidencie which D. Fulk giveth on Tit. 1. 5. to Timothy and Titus I most freely subscribe unto it and yet reject that episcopall superioritie which the Doctor taking part with the Rhemists in their Annotations contendeth for in them In like manner I say with Beza that Timothy was the proestoos but that a president of a presbytery is according to Bezaes language a Bishop that is to say a Diocesan Bishop such as ours as the Doct. would have the reader to conceive it is so foul an untruth that he cannot without check of conscience avouch it seing he cannot be ignorant that Beza every where disclaimeth that sole and singular preheminence which the Doctor with the Romanists ascribe to Timothy and Titus Yea he flatly impugneth Timothies Bishoprick and that in most plaine termes in his Annot. on 1. Tim. 3. voluit eum Paulus ferente necessitate Ephesi subsistere non vt illi ecclesiae tanquam episcopus addictus esset sed vt ecclesia constituta pseudapostolis occurrere◠vnde etiam postea revocatus est romam ab ipso Apostolo neque constat an Timotheus postea sit Ephesum reversus vt qui fuerit Evangelista c. Paul would have him necessity requiring it to be at Ephesus not to be fixed as the Bishop to that Church but that the Church being constitute he might meet with the false Apostles from whence also he was afterwardes called to Rome by the same Apostle neyther is it certaine whether Timothy afterwards returned to Ephesus as he that was an Evangelist c. Thus having discovered the Doct. deceitfull and dishonest dealing with his owne witnesses and his weak handling of the whole controversie I hope I may be bolde with the Readers consent to conclude that the Doctors assumption touching Tim and Titus viz. that they were ordeyned to the function of diocesan Bishops by S. Paul the one at Ephesus the other in
Creta hath as yet received no firme support no not from humane evidence much lesse from the holy scriptures Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius Linus Mark Simeon others whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient Sect. 1. ad sect 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops which if we should wholly overpasse in silence we should neyther wrong him nor the cause seing the records of men subject to error drincking in many errors through oversight or want of judgment cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand as hath bin often observed But because he glorieth though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence we will enter into a neerer search after the truth make no doubt but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader both the falshood of some of his records and his false or deceitful handling of the rest And first he beginneth with Antioche vvhich as he saith serm pag. 81. had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno 45 and Hist lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat ad Antioche I ansvver there are many parts of S. Lukes sacred â—â—ory that vvith hold us from acknovvledging any such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ and yet there is no mencion of Evodius much lesse of his Bishoprick After the death of Herod vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho and. 45. of Christ as Euseb accounteth in Chron. an 45. Paul and Barnabas returned froÌ„ Ierusalem to Antioch Acts. 12. 23. 25 at which time there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there by whose imposition of hands Paul Barnabas were seperated to the work wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there And if Peter had gone after his imprisonment to Antioch there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch they gathered the Church togither and rehearsed all that God had done by them there aboade a long time with the disciples cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there grew that dissention about circumcision which occasioned that meeting at Ierusalem to end the question Cap. 15. 1. 2. c. where was Evodius all this while was he a non-resident from his charge had he bin the Bishop of Antioch and there resident how is it that we heare nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne and of their relating to him as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ierusalem Cap. 21. 18. 19. the successe of their traveiles why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy eyther with or against Paul and Barnabas why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes then their Bishop for which part soever he tooke it was necessary for the Churches instruction in all succeeding ages that as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. 3. so he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth after the the Synode was ended Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche aâ—d letters were written not to the Bishop but to the brethren of the Gentiles and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled who rejoyced for the consolation Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time so did Paul Barnabas till they were so styrred that they parted companies vers 32. 35. 39. 40 but before Paul and Barnabas were divided Peter coÌ„ming thither was withstood by Paul to his face for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius worthy the name or place of a Bishop indovved vvith such a singularity of povver and honor above all other Teachers though of an higher degree then Presbyters as loÌ„g as they are vvithin his Diocese If vve may beleeve the Doct pag. 136. lib. 3. ought not he to have interposed his episcopall authority in coÌ„manding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles and in appeasing those contentions vvhich arose betvveene Paul and Peter and betvveene Barnabas and Paul vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction Surely vvhat ever the D. conceiveth of these matters who can perswade themselves that S. Luke and S. Paul would have buried in silence the name office and indeavours of Evodius if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul to the Bishoprick of Antioch As for Eusebius his Cronicle it doth too much discredit it selfe Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case for it saith that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius which was the. 39. of Christ placed his chaiâ—e at Antioch and there sate 25. yeares and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius he removed to Rome and there sat also 25. yeares Because both these computations cannot stand togither the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error and reduced to 7. yeares but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius cannot accord with S. Lukes storie for his continuance in Iudea and his imprisonment by Herod not long before the death of Herod see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis 3. and D. Whit. de pont Rom. quest 3. pag 346. 347. 2. that Peters removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius contradicteth the D. assertion scz that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45 which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius by Eusebius his owne account Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point avouched by Eusebius and Ignatius to wit that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius For a parish-Bishoprick that is the function of a Bishop set over one particular coÌ„gregatioÌ„ is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles but that function of a Diocesan Bishop which the Doct. contendeth for is denyed and worthyly seing it is
contradicteth also an other report of his witnesses Eusebius Ierom and Dorotheus viz. that Anianus succeeded Mark in the government of the Church at Alexandria in the 8. yeare of Nero as being then and there Martyred For the Doct. himself serm pag. 82. referreth the Martyrdome of Peter Paul to the very later end of Nero his reigne which was 4. or 5. yeares after Againe howsoever some doe give him the name of a Bishop yet nothing is sayd by any one that can conclude the function of a Bishop Sect. 6. as being affixed to the charge of one Church Yea rather they all give him not onely the name but also the right function of an Evangelist not onely in accompanying the Apostles but also in traveiling from place to place to plant and establish Churches And among the rest Nicephorus most fully justifyeth him to be a right Evangelist For lib. 2. cap. 43. he reporteth that Mark published the gospell not onely in Egypt but also in Libia and in all Barbaria also to them of Pentapolis and Cykue and that he there coÌ„stituted Churches and gave them Bishops c. But the Doctors oversight is most to be admired in his bringing of Eusebius to witnes The D. own witnes is against him his Bishoprik at Alexandria For the contrary appeareth by the order which he observeth in setting downe the number and names of such as he accounteth Bishops of that Church For in his account Anianus was the first and Abilinus the second lib. 2. ca. 24. 3. 12. and Cerdo the third which after Anianus the first Bishop governed that Church lib. 3. cap. 16. What can be more ful and plaine to shewe that in Eusebius his judgement Anianus and not Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria As for those words whereon the Doctor buildeth lib. 2. cap. 24. that Anianus first undertook the publik administration of the Church at Alexandria after Marke the Apostle and Evangelist If prejudice had not stood in his light and others in whose stepps he treadeth they might have seen their grosse mistaking of his meaning who distinguisheth him from his successors by the name of an Apostle and Evangelist For if Mark must needs be the first Bishop because Anianus first obteyned Bishoprick after him then let Peter be acknowledged the first Bishop also at Rome because at Antioche Ignatius was the second Bishop by succession after Peter Euseb lib 3 ca. 30. And at Rome Clemens after Peter governed that church Ieron lib. 1. cont Iovin Yea let not Iames any longer be reckoned the first Bishop of Ierusalem because he undertook the charge thereof after the Apostles or rather iÌ„mediately after Christs passion But if the Doctor can discerne as he doth serm pag. 82. and 83. that Eusebius excludeth Peter Paul from the place or function of a Bishop at Rome when he giveth the first place to Linus after them the second to Anacletus and so forwards doth he not wittingly wrong his witnesses and deceive his reader when he taketh their word for a certeine evidence that Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria in saying that Anianus did first obteyne the government after Mark. In the fourth place Simeon the sonne of Cleophas is by the Sect. 7. ad p. 112. 113. Doctor produced as ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem after Iames as Eusebius testifieth lib. 3. cap. 10. But it is little for the credit of the episcopall function that it is inforced to crave aide of such fabulous reportes as flying fame scattereth and he must pardon us this fault that we can hardly credit the tale for if the Apostles had thought it necessarie that each Church should be governed by a diocesan Bishop would they have suffered Ierusalem to have wanted one for 10. yeares togither after Iames his death For Iames lived not above 30. yeares after Christs passion as the Doctor acknowledgeth serm pag. 69. but the destruction of Ierusalem which happened before Simeons choyse as Eusebius saith fell out in the 40. yeare after Christs death Cent. lib. 2. col 664. was there now imediately after the cities destruction more need of a Bishop there then before and was the choyse of their Bishop a matter of that moment that all the Apostles and Disciples of Christ remayning alive must needes meet togither to make the election and must he needes be one of Christs kindred yet let it be granted since the Doctor will have it so that Simeon was the next vnto Iames in the government of the Church of Ierusalem as Eusebius affirmeth and be it granted also that Iohn ordeyned Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna and that he constituted Bishops in diverse other places and that the Apostles in every place committed the Church to Bishops and left them their successours as Irenâ—us and others testify how will the Doctor prove that all these were diocesan Bishops induced with a singular power of ordination and jurisdiction in many Churches or congregations which is as his Refuter saith the very soul of a diocesan Bishop The Doctor in his wisdome passeth by this point as if he had not seene it in his Refuters answer and falsely chargeth him to take exception against the assertion of the Fathers which affirme Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles Whereas it is evident that he denieth onely the Doctors inference that from the Fathers affirmation concludeth diocesan Bishops such as ours to be of Apostolicall institution This ariseth saith he from the mistaking of the word Bishop which in the first tymes signified no more then an ordinarie Pastor Wherefore since the Doctor doth nothing else but in an ydle florish repeat that which he had in effect before delivered viz. that the Apostles derived their authority aswell for government as for doctrine vnto Bishops we should but waste wordes and time in vaine if we should vouchsafe him any other answere then that already given and remaineth yet vntouched Chap. 14. Answering the D. 6. chapter and sheweth that he hath not any one argument or testimony to prove directly as he pretendeth that the episcopall function is of divine institution HAving answered all that the Doctor bringeth to prove by coÌ„sequence the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance because Sect. 1. ad sect 2. cap. 6. pag. 138. 140. it was of apostolicall institution we are now to goâ— on and examine what he can alleadge in the last place directly to prove that it is of divine institution But before he begin to enter into the lists he beggeth the change of the question propounding The D. beggeth the change of the questioÌ„ this for the conclusion which he intendeth to prove viz. that Bishops were ordeyned of God which change we can be content to allowe so that he will acknowledge his error in conceyving these latter proofes to be more direct then the former for he fetcheth a farre more large compasse by consequence to conclude his maine doctrine seing there is much
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
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
writers of our side against the papists there are that mainteyninge the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution doe yet deny it to be divini juris and perpetually necessary not that great Bell of whome we heard even nowe I am sure of For as for the D. silly distinctioÌ„ betwene apostolical instuutioÌ„ divine right whereby he putteth this difference betwixt his opinion the papists as he telleth not from whence it commeth so I see not whither it goeth except to give Romish licence to alter and change divine ordinances at humane pleasures But hereof more hereafter in a sitter place here enough is said for the Ref. defence against the D. second slander wherin he hath bewraied want both of judgment and honesty the one in devysing such silly shifts and thinking The D. bewraieth want of judgment honesty to escape froÌ„ the whole host of our worthy writers by putting on so poore a visard or peece of a garment that would scarce cover any part of him the other in labouring against the truth and his own conscience to perswade that none of our worthy Champions against the papists are in their judgment opposite to him in this question And this his fault is the greater because he laieth downe their judgement imperfectly and closely stealeth all reputation The D. wrongeth all our best divines of sound learninge both from them and all other that accorde in judgment with them The former appeareth in that he restreineth their deniall of the episcopall function to be divini juris vnto his owne sense as if thereby they ment nothing else then that their functioÌ„ is not perpetually necessarie whereas it is plaine they make it an humane and not a divine ordinance The later discovereth it self in that he asketh what man of sound learning doth or can deny but that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles For he cannot be ignorant that as our immediate forefathers before spoken of so also the greatest nomber of orthodoxall divines at this day do flatly deny that the superioritie of Bishops over other Ministers was ordeyned by the Apostles The second notorious vntruth being removed we are now to Sect. 2. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 8. 9. meete with the third which the D. casteth upon his Ref. because he sayd that his doctrine was contrariant to the lawes of our Land which make it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to our Bishops that ecclesiasticall power they now exercise over us and to take it from them as his pleasure the which his highness taketh to himselfe and giveth to all Kings where he professeth that God hâ—h left it to the liberty and free will of Princes to alter the Church-government at their pleasure These are the refuters wordes in deed and he sheweth from whence he collected them to witt from Sr Edw. Cook De jure regis ecclesiastico the Kings Majesties owne speach in his Preface before his premonition But how proveth the D. that the Refuter hath in these words vttered a notorious vntruth for that is the charge if many words will prove it he hath proved it in deed for he hath spent a page and halfe about it wherein is as much profoundnes as truth let vs give him the hearing at large Before he coÌ„meth to the restimonies quoted by the refuter he giveth us two distinctions one concerning the episcopal power the other concerning the exercise thereof first therefore of the first Touching their power he telleth us that it is either spirituall respecting the soul as to binde and loose the souls of men or corporall respecting the outward man as to binde and loose the bodies the former of which is derived to them from the Apostles the later committed to them by the King to whose crowne all commanding and compulsive power is annexed It is well he graunteth the civil power of Bishops to be jure humano his Majestie is much beholden to him But will he ever be able to prove trow we that the spirituall power of opening shutting binding and loosing which he saith was derived to the Bishops from the Apostles is by divine ordinance proper to them and not coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the gospell with them but that they by the word of God are excluded from it this he meaneth in and by those wordes or The Doct. beggeth the question else he speaketh idlye in so meaning who seeth not that he beggeth the mayne question and laboureth for that which by all the sweat of his browes he will never compasse Touching the exercise of their power to let passe his termes of babituall or potentiall right as fitter to choake then to nourish his distinction that though their power be derived to them from the Apostles as a divine ordinance yet where a Christian Prince is assisting and directinge them by his lawes they may not actually exercise their power but according to his lâ—â—es ecclesiasticall seemeth to me somewhat harsh 1. that God should give to Archbishops Bishops c. such a peerelesse power so The Doct. speaketh harshly with contradiction to himself absolute and large over millions of soules as he speaketh without certaine rules and directions for the exercising and managinge thereof but hath left it as a dead trunke or body to depend upon the ecclesiastical lawes of ChristiaÌ„ Princes which as a soule must give life and breath and motion thereunto Verely that power is not a peerelesse but a powerlesse power in deed 2. That that power which hath rule and direction enough from God for the exercise of it where no Christian ayding and directing Princes are should become powerlesse and livelesse by the aidance and advise of Christian Princes 3. That the Doctor dare be so bold as besides these two to imply for so he doth that Arch Bishops and Bishops with their adherence maie actually exercise their power supposed to be derived to them from the Apostles contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes in case they be not such as doe assiste and direct them But passe we on all this winde shaketh no corne nor maketh ought to prove the vntruth in question leave we therefore his distinctions come we to his answere to the ref first proof of his assertion He affirmeth that the authority which the reverend Iudge speaketh of in the place quoted is the authority of the high Commission which the Bishops exercise not as they are Bishops for that others who are no Bishops have the same but as they are the Kings commissioners ecclesiasticall then which The D. speaketh vntruly or deceiptfully what can be more untruly or deceytfully spoken Will he say that that reverend Iudge speaketh of the authority of the high CoÌ„mission onely knoweth he not that that whole booke tendeth to prove that both the function of Archbishops and L. Bishops the jurisdiction they exercised in England long before the high Commission was dreamt of was by froÌ„ the
now he would perswade As for the first 4. pointes how pertinent or impertinent they are shal be best perceived if we examine how he himself reduceth them Sect. 4. ad pag. 57. 58. to his purpose But let the reader be first advertised of the D. inconstancy in laying downe his owne project whereat he aymed in in his sermon For 1. when he promiseth serm page 2. in the handling of the wordes of his text to prove both what manner of persons are there ment by the Angels what is the qualitie of their function The D. is very incoÌ„stant in laying downe of his project who can with reason judge otherwise then that these 2. assertions there set downe to answere those two questions doe apperteine to the explication of his text Yet now in his defense he every where restreineth the explication of his text vnto the former assertion 2. And having first altered the later as he doth the former also as is before shewed he constantly commendeth it to us as the doctrine of his sermon whereas his owne wordes pag. 93. of the sâ—rm it self doe deliver his doctrine in termes so farr differing that he now maketh his old doctrine an argument to confirme the newe 3. Againe though he will at no hand consent to his Refuter platforme in casting both his assertions into one syllogisme as the premisses from which the lawfullnes of the function of our English prelaâ—es must be concluded yet it appeareth by his wordes pag. 2. 93. compared that at first he intended both his assertions should concurre to prove his doctrine for they both serve to the explication of his text as is before noted and his doctrine cannot possibly be concluded from either of them without the help of the other Yea he himselfe is inforced though he pretend the contrary to vse them both for the premisses which in his first syllogisme Defenc. pag. 58. doe conclude his newe doctrine The D. sermon the defense there of are at variance yea within 20. lines he disagreeth with himself 4. Lastly to these particulars wherein his sermon and the defence thereof are at variance add that disagreement which may be seeâ—e in these 2. pages 57. 58. within lesse then 20. lines distance For when he will have those 2. distinct partes which he saith were before propounded by him to be drawne into two disâ—inct syllogisms concluding the same question who would not expect that the conclusion of each syllogism should be a point differing from both his assertions before distinguished and that as the former assertion is the assumption of his first syllogism so the later also should be the assumption of the second But it is farr otherwise for the later of his two distinct partes or assertions mentioned in his defense is the conclusion of both his syllogismes and the assumption of his second syllogism is the last of his 5. pointes which by his first and truest reckoninge was the maine-doctrine of his sermon and therefore ought to have bin the finall conclusion vnto which the body of his sermon is to be reduced Wherefore it is not to be doubted but that when the D. hath advisedly considered of these things in his next defense he will be well content to give the later of his two syllogismes a faire bill of discharge rather then to mainteine it any longer in that service wherevnto he hath now assigned it As for his former syllogism though I altogither mislike it not if the assumption and conclusion be vnderstood of all kinde of diocesan Bishops for else though it conteineth the greater parte of his sermon yet doth it not so much as conclude the question because the calling of some kinde of diocesan Bishops maie be lawfull and good though not the calling of such a kinde as ours are whose defense the D. intendeth and if these wordes lawfull and good be so taken as he vnderstandeth them serm pag. 2. 54. 55. viz. for that which hath institution and approbation from God or is in his word approved as lawfull and good yet to avoid further quarrels about words I wish that his conclusion carry the very wordes of his doctrine or such as are apparantly equivalent vnto theÌ„ In which respect if I might be so bolde as to lende the D. advise in this matter I suppose his syllogism might very well stand in this forme The function of Bishops ment by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is of apostolicall or of divine institution or is approved in the holy Scripture as lawfull and good But the function of Bishops such as ours are for the substance of their callinge is the verie function of those Bishops which are ment by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. Therefore the function of Bishops such as ours are for the substance of their callinge is of apostolicall or divine institution or is approved in the holy Scriptures as lawfull and good Of this syllogism as the conclusion suteth well with the last of his 5. pointes which he calleth serm pag. 7. 55. 93. his doctrine so the premisses doe agree with those two assertions which conteine the explication of his text pag. 2. to wit the proposition with the second and the assumption with the first But let us now examine his first syllogism which he here delivereth thus The câ—lling of such as are ment by Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan Bishops are such as are here ment by Angels Therefore the calliâ—g of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good Concerning this syllogisme heare we what he saith The proposition saiâ—h he I took for graunted and therefore did not expresse it The â—ssumpâ—ion is the same with the former assertion and is proved by the 4. first pâ—iâ—tes The conclusion I expressed not being implyed in the collection of the doctâ—â—ne out of the text What shall I say vnto him Loath I am and yet I must say behold here as many vntruths as there are parts of the syllogisme 1. The proposition which he saith he did not expresse is in effect all one with the later of his 2. assertions serm The D. telleth 3. vntruthes in one syllogism pag. 2. for there is no other difference betwixt them then this that here their callinge is more at large affirmed to be lawfull good whereas there he speaketh within a narrower compasse that their function is in this text then handled approved as lawfull and commended as excellent Which difference with him is none at all therefore though now he hath forgotten it he acknowledgeth in this chap. sect 5. pag. 35. his second assertion to be this viz. that the calling of Bishops who are here ment by Angels is lawfull and good 2. As for his assumption which he saith is the same with the first assertioÌ„ it herein differreth from it that it setteth di cesan Bishops in stede of these wordes such Bishops as ours are for the substance of their callinge And whoso observeth that for the deciding of his first question which affirmeth