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
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
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
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
done least his Cataplasmes prove such sophismes too many vvhereof the reader may meet vvith in his defense as vvil make the soare vvorse rather then better and him to loose more peace at home then gaine victorie abroade Seventhly all his former proceedings notvvithstanding it is a vvonder to see vvith vvhat strange boldnes boasts of victorie he marcheth on from the beginning to the end Verily such as if all his proofes vvere such '' anantirretas demonstrationes omni exceptione majores evident demoÌ„strations as are above all exception admitting no contradiction such Achillean arguments and forcible †ischuroi logoi meden diakrinomenâ—â— reasons as are not to be resisted or doubted of and as he hath great store of them even huper ek perissou more then enough so if wee may beleeve him there is no one of them which is not of the nature of the Popes senteÌ„ce penitus definitiva absolutely definitive not liable to exception or appeale Wherefore he is ready †Tous anti â—gontas elegchein sharply to censure all gainsayers hovv learned iudicious orthodoxal divines soever and to charge them that doe heterodidaskalein teach othervvise vvith misinterpreting both of scriptures and fathers yea vvith other crimes little better then blasphemy Wherein though it vvere no great presumptioÌ„ for him to take liberty so to abuse his refuter considering the base conceite he hath of him yet seing he hath acknovvledged others vvhome he hath shutt up under the same sentences to be both learned and orthodoxall divines and are such indeed as both he and all men ought to reverence he ought certeynly to have dealt * Cum bonis bene aagier oportet â—Tully Phil. 3. cur eos quos omnes venerari debemus solus oppugnas better with them the heathen â—being Iudge But let not the Doctor think so to carry the matter away I hope the wise and judicious reader studious of the truth wil be able to discerne '' Aug. ad Petil l. 2. c. 10. non solum inani sonitu sed in capite vestro crâ—puerint that his blowne sentences with so many vaine â—racks are broken upon his owne head and that this lofty lifting up of his head in a cause that liveth so much upon begging and by shifts is both unworthy a man of his note and such as vvill †Evagrius deinon estâ— mega pâ—ronein mikrâ— prattoâ—tâ— never bring grace to him It vvould in all likelihood have argued him to be fuller of good proof if he had in more humility hung dovvn his head like an â—are of good corne then to stand so bolt upright as he doth Eightly concerning the course taken in this replie be the Reader advertised 1. that therin nothing is dealt vvith but the Doctors text and other places of scripture produced excepting such vvriters as are alleaged for interpretation of them and the clearing of the Refuter from the slanders layd upon him for misalleadging them And the reason is both because the scriptures onely can and are alone sufficient to decide the maine controversy concerning the right of the episcopall function and also for that the Doctor rejecteth all nevve vvriters as parties and incoÌ„petent for the same cause for vvhich the refuter might asvvel reject the old were they as they are not such Bishops and of his side as he pretendeth 2. The D. is not followed stepp by stepp in his ovvne order throughout his vvhole book but that vvhich lieth straggling here there is dravvne togither into one tracte asvvell concerning his text as the rest of the scriptures alleadged by him 3. neither are the 5. pointes of his sermon handled in the same order for the first of them concerning the Eldership is put off to the last place it being proved to perteyn nothing to the maine question 4. The vvhole is divided into three partes in the first vvhereof are 3. bookes the first concerning the Refuters preface the 2. concerning the fitnes of the Doctors choise of his text the division analysis thereof togither vvith the state of the question c. the 3. concerning the true and genuine sense of his text and whatsoever he speaketh of it In the 2. part first all other scriptures alleadged by him for proof of the question are dealt with and then the Refuter is cleared of falsifying and misapplying many testimonies of humane writers wherewith the Doctor often chargeth him by occasion whereof it is made manifest that many of the D. Fathers were neyther such Bishops nor yet of the D. opinion concerning the pointe in question as he affirmeth In the third part is handled that first point of his concerning the Eldershippe Lastly to end with a suite or two 1. Let me intreat M. D that ne pulchrum sibi ducat esse Davum in hac fabula imò unguem in vlcere ecclesiae the which if I may not obteyne but upon his third thoughts he remaine the man that he professeth to be in his second and that I have to doe with the * Tully Phil. 2. Non est mihi cum eo hoste certamen cuÌ„ quo aliqua pacis condicio esse possit Orators adversarie one that will receive no condition of peace but upon yeelding him the cause against truth I desire him that leaving all by-matters and amending such faults as he is justly taxed with in this reply he would follow the truth in love vvithout gall and bitternes as he tendreth peace at home and desireth to bring this controversie to an happy and speedy issue 2. As for the reader I praâ—e him that looking rather into the matter then enquiring after the authour he would not like the schollers of Pithagoras builde aforehand on the opinion of the teacher whether the D. or Refuter but †Amb. de fide lib. 1. c. 7. Imperiti legunt totum ut intelligant reade all seriously studie ponder and examine all that both parties have sayd in the whole carriage of this busynes then judge as God shall give vnderstanding remembring what folly and shame it is for any as Salomon saith ‡ Prov. â—8 13. to answer or give sentence of â— matter before he heare it wherein I perswade my selfe too many have much fayled aswel in praejudging the author of the answer as the matter or cause in question THE FIRST PART THE FIRST BOOKE concerning the Refut Preface Chap. 1. Wherein the reason moving the Refuter to answer the D. sermon is made good and the Ref freed from diverse vntruthes charged upon him by the D. Sect. 1. p. 1. THe way of some is perverted and strange but of the pureman his work is right sayth Salomon Prov. 21. 8. Now which part of the proverb belongeth to the Refuter in his preface and which to the Doctor in his answer to it let the indifferent reader secundum allegata et probata judge in the feare of God and spare not And first as the Refuters eye
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.
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
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
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
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌ„t of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ was coÌ„mitted but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time as himself testifyeth wryting upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doct that the Archbishop in his defence of that his answere page 161. vpon his second thoughts three times confesseth asmuch almost in the same words I confesse sayth he that there was Seniors and I alleadged Ambrose partly for that purpose and partly to shewe that both their names and offices were exstinguished before his time And knoweth not the Doctor also that he spendeth two pages at the least 656. 658 to shewe the inconveniences that would as he conceiveth folowe vpon the reteyning of that government vnder ChristiaÌ„ Princes especially in the Church of England Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church doth he not in his answere to the AdmonitioÌ„ page 162 affirme that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same that it cannot be governed in tyme of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution c. Doth he not in his defence page 658. 660. spend a whole Chapter tending as the title sheweth to prove that there is no one certeyne kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed After which discourse knitteth he not vp the matter with these 3. knotts 1. that it is well knowne how the manner and forme of government used in the Apostles times and expressed in the scriptures neyther is now nor can nor ought to be observed eyther touching the persons or the functions 2. that it is playne that any one certayne forme or kind of government perpetually to be observed is no where in scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof left to the Christian Magistrate c. 3. that wee must admitt another forme nowe of governing the Church then was in the Apostles times or els we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all authority in ecclesiasticall matters Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authoritie doth he not acknowledge page 680. all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise be it civil or ecclesiasticall to be then executed in the Queens Maiesties name and right and to come from her as supreme Governour And speaking page 747 of the Colledge of Presbyters which Ierom calleth Senatum ecclesiae togither with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies saith he not that that kinde of government which those Churches Cathedral he meaneth had it transferred to the civil Magistrate to whom it is due and to such as by him are appointedâ— If the Doct. hath read him he knoweth all this to be true Thus much breifly for the testimony and judgment of that Archbishop the which how farre it differeth from the Doctors sermon whatsoever he sayth now by exchange in his defence and whether it casteth not the governmeÌ„t by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times let the reader comparatis comparandis judge Come we now to Bishop Iewels judgement set downe at large in his defence of the Apologie out of which the Doctor saith that Confession of the English Church was collected whose testimony I might well coÌ„mend in regard the booke out of which it is taken is commanded to be in all our Churches but that the Doctor wil againe as before cry a mountaine banck but I will barely lay it downe and let it commend it self First concerning the power of the keies he hath in his apolog chap. 7. divis 5. these words Seing one manner of word is given to all and one onely keâ—e belongeth to all we say speaking in the name of the Church of England there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerninge openninge and shutting And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Preist or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth he saith parte 2. page 140. that as a Iudge togither with the Elders of the congregation he hath authority both to condemne and to absolve And page 152. that in the primitive Church eyther the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation had authoritie herein and that the direction and judgment rested evermore in the Preest And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use yet he shewing out of Beatus Rhenanus howe they were vsed in old time saith That the excoÌ„municated person when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Preists as vnto the mouthes of the Church and opened to them the whole burthen of his hart by whom he was brought into the congregation to make open confession and satisfaction which done duely and humbly he was restored againe openly into the Church by laying on of the handes of the priests and Elders Againe concerning the authoritie of Bishops over other Ministers cap. 3. divis 5. page 109. he mainteyneth the testimony which in his Apologie he had alleadged out of Ierom ad Evagriu making all Bishops to be of like preheminence and preisthood against the cavills of Harding as the refuter will I doubt not against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith What S. Ierom meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth thâ—â— Ierom seemeth to match all Bishops together as if they were all equally the Apostles successors And he thmketh not any Bishop to be lesse then other for that he is poorer or greater then other for that he is richer For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium a poore towne equall with the Bishop of Rome And further he thinketh that a Bishop is no better then any Preist save that he hath authority to order Ministers Againe pag. 111. that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops they had it by agreement and custome but neyther by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods word And to shewe that it was not his judgment alone he produceth Ierom and Austin Ierom upon Titus 1. sayinge Lett Bishops vnderstand that they are above the Preists rather of custome then of any truth or right of Christes institution And that they ought to rule the Church altogither And that a Preist and a Bishop are all one c. Austin epist 19. saying The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Preist not by the authority of the scriptures saith Bishop Iewel in a perenthesis but after the names of honour which by the custome of the Church have now obteyned Againe chap. 9. divis 1. pag. 198. What ment Mr. Harding saith he here to come in with the difference betwixt Preists and Bishops thinketh he that Preists and Bishops holde onely by tradition or is it so horrible an heresy as he
maketh it to saye that by the scriptures of God a Bishop and a Preist are all one or knoweth he how farr and vnto whom he reacheth the name of an heretike verely Chrisostom saith * in 1. Tim. Hom. 11. ad Evagrium quaest vet et novi testā q. 101 de dignitat sacerdotali Betwene a Bishop and a preist in a manner there is no difference S. Ierom saith somewhat in rougher sort I here saie there is one become so peevishe that he setteth Deacons before Preists that is to saie before Bishops whereas the Apostles plainely teacheth us that Preists and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is a Bishop but the first Preist that is to say the highest Preist So saith Saint Ambrose there is but one consecration of Preist and Bishop for both of them are Preists but the Bishop is the first All these and other mo◠holy Fathers togither with Saint Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardinges advise musts be holden for Haeretikes And in his reply to him article 4. page 309. having shewed what primacie or headship Ierom gave to Peter viz that to avoid confusion which lightly happeneth in all companies where no order is Christ appointed Peter for that he was the eldest man to speake and deale for the rest as cheefe and heade of all his brethren he addeth these wordes which order also was afterwards vniversally taken throughout the world that in every congregation of Preists one should have a special preheminence above others and be called Episcopus Bishop This was thought a good politick way to avoid conteution in the Church By all which it appeareth that this worthy IEWELL was perswaded 1. That the preheminence of Bishops above other Ministers was first brought in by humane policie and not by any divine ordinance in the holy scriptures 2. that the preheminence of Bishops in the first originall and establishment thereof was onely a preheminence such as Peter had above the rest of his fellow Apostles which was at the most of order onely and not of any superiour cōmanding power jurisdictiō And 3. that in the primitive Ch other Elders besides Ministers of the word had an hand in the governmēt of the Church Thus we see the judgement of these two Bishops cited by Sect. 4. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. the Refuter nowe let the reader judge whether he hath uttered a notorious vntruth in saying the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops or rather whether the Doctor hath not malliciously The D. slandereth malliciously slaundered him in so charging him I saye malicious and if his conscience be spurred the quaestion from the abundance whereof his pen wrote it will subscribe to it For knewe he not all this to be true in the Bishops bookes quoted by the Refuter in his Margin Yea are not divers partes of these testimonies expressed in the Refuters answere page 34. and 124 Did he not reade them there And hath he not slipped them over with such a slubber that if he be not farre spent he cannot laye them and his answere to them togither without the blushredd-colour Well but the Doctor is none of them that will be madd without reason he therefore giveth vs a reason why he doth not credite his Refuter For sayth he the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the articles and confession of our Church Which reason is without reason and argueth the man not so wel advised as he mought be when he appealeth to the cōfession of our Church collected out of the Apologie thereof written as himselfe sayth by Bishop Iewel from the Apologie it selfe and Authors owne exposition and defence of it Is it likely think ye that other men should vnderstand him better then himselfe doth eyther in the Apologie or defence of it especially being authorized to write it by our Church and it allowed yea cōmanded to be in all our Churches But let vs examine his allegations apart The first is the booke of Articles and what doth that The 36. article thereof approveth saith he the booke of consecrating Bishops Preists and Deacons And what then that booke saith he in the Preface thereof saith that from the Apostles times there have bene those orders of Ministers Bishops Preists and Deacons in Christs Church and that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church Is not this a sweet proof mark it well The articles approve the booke and the preface of that booke saith that those three orders have bene in the Church from the Apostles times c. Therefore the booke of articles and consequently the doctrine of the church of England approveth the function of Bishops and their superiority above Preists to be of divine ordinance As if 1. what soever is sayd in the preface before the booke which in all likelihood was done by one or two onely and not by so generall a consent as the booke it selfe must needs be allowed for the currant doctrine of the Church of England in that age because the 36. article in our booke of articles doth for some purpose approve the booke of consecrating Bishops c. as conteyning in it all things necessary to such consecration But 2. doth that preface say that those 3. orders were in the Apostles times no but from the Apostles times exclusively which words do◠not prove they were in the Apostles times but the contrary as the refuter hath shewed out of Chamier de Pontif Oecum in his answere page 87. in the like phrase of Ierom to Evagrius saying that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas c. one of the Presbyters were chosen from amongst the rest set over the rest c. But 3. it seemeth they meant otherwise by the last clause which the D. citeth that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church But the reader must know that that sentence is none of theirs nor to be found in that preface it hath pleased the D. ex abundanti to add that clause of his owne head and cleane contrary to their meaning that made that book at least for as we have heard cap. 3 before going they held the superiority of Bishops The D. addeth one sentence to his testimony and detracteth another from it to be a politick devise of man and not the ordinance of God Let us goe forwards with the Doct he addeth that the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by Gods word Here 1. I charge the D as before with the adding of one sentence so here with the detracting of another whiles he deceitfully cōcealeth part of the words For the booke requireth the Bishop to correct and punish c. according to such authority as he hath by Gods word and the ordinance of this realme which later clause of the lawes of this realme they would never have added had they thought that the power
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
conclusion that there is but one small agreement with the Romane Church concerninge the superioritie of Bishops over praesbyters out of which the Ref. would builde a totall consent and conformitie to their Antichristian government may it not be wondered at 1. That he can find but one agreement betwene the Protestant and the Popish government Are there not the same degrees Primates Archbishops Suffraganes Archdeacons Deanes c. Are there not the same seats of dignitie The same authoritie and government The same lawes and procedings The same inferior Officers The same rites and ceremonies The same change of names The same civill jurisdiction and titles The same pomp and glorie in the world setting aside the truth of doctrine and subordination to the Pope non ovum ovo similius 2. That because the Refuter said the doctrine of his sermon tended to the vpholding of the popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparator he chargeth him to build a totall consent and conformity as if it may not tend to the vpholdinge of the Hierarchy though with some differences Chap. 6. Concerning the hurt like to come by the D. sermon to the scandalizing of Protestants Sect. 1. reâ— pag. 6. 7 8 def of the D. pag. 14. 15. 16. The Refuter shewing how many were like to be scandalized by the Doctors sermon viz. some being to farre in love with their owne ease were likely to imbrace it without examination others whose hartes were upright before God would be made doubtfull disquieted c. The D. answereth for the most parte by calumniation and sarcasme from which I briefly pass wishing the reader 1. to consider whither many have not bin brought to stagger and doubt in religion as upon the sight of that strife and pleading for the Hierarchy and ceremonies with such arguments as will serve for the whole dose and recipe of verie many if not all the rable of Romish ceremonies so upon the readinge of such sound doctrine as the D. here layeth downe against all sound writers for the justifying as from the words of God all degres of Ministery in the Church the Popes and Cardinals onely excepted and foreprized I will not answere his sarcasme with Bishop Iewels speach against Hardinge and the like popish proctors The peace which they would have is onely the rest of idle bellies But I wish the D. to knowe that we hate division and schisme and are the sonnes of peace desyring peace with all men asmuch as is possible wil stande with holynes And I say to him and the rest of his fellowes as the Apostle did of his Accusers you are not able to prove those things which for profitt advantage or preferment or of anger and in heate of contention which worketh not the righteousnes of God you speak and wryte and suggeste against us Facile est maledictum ex trivio arripere et in optimum quemque jacere but si accusasse sufficiet nemo erit innocens I doubt not the reader wil remember that aliud est madedicere aliud accusare c. and that the D. hath used many calumnniations more fitt to be spitt at then spoken to As for his conclusion following after them that his Ref. resolution in answering his sermon though guilded over with glorious words was naught els but to publishe and disperse a mallicious diffamatorie libell and so after the manner of other malefactors The Doct. calumniareth to hide his heade I must touch vpon it alittle and wishe it be considered whether he sheweth not himself as full of splene and spite as he is empty of good reason First he therefore calleth it a libell because the Author putt not his name to it Wherein as he jumpeth with the Papists so he is answered already in the answers to them I passe over Bristowes challenge mencioned by Doctor Reynoldes in his preface to the Vniversity of Oxford vpon his Theses of the Holy scriptures and Church where Bristowe required the Author to putt his name to it c. Bellarmine excepting and objecting certeine treatises and resolutions of Iohn Gerson translated for that the translator putt not to his name saith against him that the saying of Christ is verified Iohn 3. qui male agit odit lucem and crieth that he was ashamed to make his name knowne as the Doctor doth against his Refuter charging him as a malefactor to hide his head But Pryar Paulus in his Apologie shall serve the Doctors turne aswell as Bellarmins who answereth page 3. I see no reason sayth he why of necessity he was to putt to his name vnlesse it be taken from a rule that every translator is to doe the like we rather blame them that think to winne themselves creditt by making praeface or Table c. Diverse workes extant of the Greek Fathers translated into Latin carry not the names of the translator c. Christ approved not the advice of his kinsfolkes transi hince et vade in ludaeam but answered as in many cases his servants may answere and the Refuter at this time Tempus meum c. my time is not yet Surely saith he page 4. the glorious lustre of the authors titles is net a matter of such prejudice as should over throw the cause of him that proposeth it with out manifesting his name according to the course holden in the councell of the Areopagites Hardinge also calleth the Apologie which Bishop Iewell wrote amongest other reproachfull termes a famous libell and a slanderous writt because it was printed without priviledge and no mans name sett to it c. To whom Bishop Iewell giveth an answere Defenc. part 1. cap. 4. divis 2 that will sitt as close to the Doctors backe as the coate that is made for it Must it need followe sayth he that all bookes not subscribed with the authors names are libells To beginne with the scriptures saith he who wrote the bookes of Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Denteronomy Ioshua Iudges Kinges Chronicles Iob c. What name hath the Epistle to the Hebrewes puit to it c. And so reckoning up diverse other parts of the scriptures with the Apostles Creed and other wrytings of men that subscribed not their names to them asketh him whether he would make his brethren beleeve that all these be but libels slaunderous writts c. and so concludeth that it is neyther necessary nor commonly not to doe it c. as the reader may see at large Secondly whereas the Doct. calleth the Refuters answere a maâ—â—ious diâ—â—amatory libell I apeale to the reader to determine 1. whether it be not a malicious slaunder of him so to call it and what honesty there is in him seing as I suppose there can no one sentence be produced thereout deserving that censure much lesse the whole booke 2. Whether in what measure soever the refuter be guiltie of that crime the Doct. hath any reason to argue him of it it being apparant to any that will compare the refut
not And as for that other vntruth which M. Doctor is pleased to call an error where he saith they were called angels in respect of their generall calling of the Ministery it shall rest sub judice vndecided for a while till a fitter occasion calleth for the examination of it In the 5. next sections viz. 13-17 there are many words Sect. 12. ad sect 13. 14. 15. 16. Def. from page 47. to 52. D. spent to litle purpose the Doctors cheife drift is to cleare himself of some vntruthes which the Refuter chargeth vpon him in his affirmation that the wise and learned disciplinarians doe grant 1. that the Bishops which in his text are called Angels were Bishops of whole cities and the countreies adioyning that is to say Dioceses 2. That the Presbyters which were no Ministers were lay and annuall 3. That these angels were nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries 4. That their presidentship was onely for a week or a month and that by course as being comon to them in their turnes Now the Doctor to manifest the truth to be of his side in all these points appealeth to the writings of Calvin and Beza And touching the first the sheweth from their words that in the primitive Church Bishops had the oversight of Dioceses and therefore in some places where their circuit was very large they had vnder them such as were called Chorepiscopi countrey-Bishops he might have added Lectores Acoluthes c. that they had also above them Metropolitanes as we may see in the places whereunto he sendeth vs. Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. section 2. and 4. Beza de Minist grad cap. 24. pag. 167. c. But how doth this prove that which he was to prove that the The D. freeth not himself fro the untruthes charged upon him Bishops which in his text are called angels were Bishops of Dioceses or set over whole cities and the countryes adjoyning Doth it not prove as strongly that these angels had both country-Bishops diverse other inferior degrees of clergie-men vnder them and Metropolitans above them Which if the Doct. should affirme his best freinds would see very evidently that he abuseth these grave and The Doct. changeth the quest concealeth that which would covince him of 2. evils learned divines most grossely to make them the authors of those vntruthes which himself broached and will not recall His hope was it seemeth to blinde his readers eyes by a crafty changing of the question as almost every where he doth and concealing that which serveth to convince him both of mainteyning an vntruth and abusing their testimonies to mainteyne it For it is manifest that they both do speak neyther of these Angels nor of the Apostles times but of that forme of government which by humane ordinance tooke place after their daies wherein the ordinances of Christe and his Apostles which should have bin kept inviolable according to 1. Tim. 6. 14. began to be violated and so on to the time of the Papacie Let the D. read againe the title of that 4. cap. with the 1. 2. sections therof togither with that 24. chap. of M. Beza pag. 165. 166. c. and though he be a partie yet I will at this tyme make him judge how substancially he hath proved the first pointe Nether are the Testimonies alledged for the 2. point so direct or The D. testimonies prove not the point fit for his purpose as he would perswade for where he should prove that they teach that those ancient governinge Elders which they hold were parâ—s of the presbyterie in the Apostolike Churches are laie and annuall he sheweth out of Beza in his former book pag. 60. cap. 11. that at Geneva there are yearely either new chosen or the old confirmed And out of Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 3. sect 8. and Beza againe cap. 11. pa. 64. and de presb and excom pag. 105. that they are or must be chosen out of the laiety The reasons why they are there annuall doe clearely shew Beza dicto libro pag. 68. that it is a matter of conveniencie in regard of persons place time and sondry other circumstances so estemed and not a thing necessarie And though they account them not of the Ministery because they are not chosen and ordeyned to the Ministery of the word and sacraments yet is their office merely ecclesiasticall not civil because of the choise and ordination by the publike prayers of the Church And therefore if the word laiety or laie-persons be opposed to such as are persons ecclesiasticall they cannot properly be sayd to remaine laye during their office Neyther doth Calvin any where say that being chosen out of the laiâ—y they still remaine lay Nay his very phrase chosen from among the laitie sheweth that after the choise during the time of their office they are not of the laiety But the D. saith that being chosen they doe not become to be of the Clergie therefore Mr Calvin must needs meane they still continue to be of the laiety But when by the Clergie Mr Calvin meaneth as he saith vsitato nomine all such as exercised any publik Ministery in the Church all being so called from the Doctor to the dore-keeper what can he else meane but that they by that election being called to beare publick office of government with the pastors became thereby to be of the clergie that is as the generall definition of the word clergie sheweth ecclesiasticall persons In deed he calleth them â—ie because they be not of the Clergie in the stricter sense viz Ministers of the Sacra functio jurisdictionis word and sacraments but yet he calleth their function an ecclesiasticall order and sacred function As idly and evilly alleadged is Mr Bezaes testimoney for as litle Bezaes testimonie is both idly and evilly alleadged by the D. doth it speak to the purpose he may doâ— wel to look vpoÌ„ his book againe see whether it be Beza that calleth them annuall in the title of that chapter it may be the title itself will prove none of Bezaes but Saraviaes his adversaries who by that term in the title seeketh to disgrace that function which I the rather beleeve because where they are sayd in that title to be such as are ad docendum inâ—pti Beza disclaymeth it and saith they must in some sort and measure be ad docendum apti and that it is a fault if others be chosen and chargeth Saravia to do litle better then calumniate in so terming them And that however new may be chosen at the yeres end yet that temâ—re nec ipsi sâ—se deponunt nec deponuntur yea rather summo studio retinentur qui fidem suaÌ„ et diligentiam in suo praesbyteratu probarunt And that whereas by the order of the consistory a time is prescribed whether annum vel longius it is done in discretion for diverse causes set down by him not for that eyther they did not
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
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
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
an appearance of learning antiquity truth with it that not onely to himselfe through too much love of his owne but to diverse others also it seemeth not subject vnto any replie or refutation so that this attempt of his adversaries in gainsaying and that so confidently fully and roundly without any fear fainting or staggering will doubtless be censured before it be pondered But if such thoughts can be brought to endure but the calling back a while to the reexamining of the groundes they are built on the hollowness of them will soone bewray it self For be it graunted that sound learning and good conscience is this mans praise and priviledge above the most of his fellow-champions though this defense doth so beare it selfe on the former that it giveth small proof of the later yet that doth not free him from dangerous deceit and errour especially in quaestions of this nature which have on the one side so much to sway with beside the cause and on the other nothing but naked despised truth Neyther can it be thought that impartiall desire and search of truth did so take up his minde in all this enterprize as that blinding praejudice had no place in it Let the wise consider give sentence whether he that was the sonne of a Bishop the servant or Chaplain of a Bishop and that none of the best the favourite also of a third Bishop whose consecration he desired to grace one that sought needily to raise himself in Bishops favour whether such a man I say be likely to preach and write in these causes even to the overflowing of passion with a minde so cleare and free from prejudice It is the most charitable excuse that can probablie be affoarded to diverse of this guise that such beames as those are doe lie in their eyes which hinder their sight where the light is cleare Nay most of our climers doe look so strangely upon these questions as if their eyes stood cleane awry Platerus reporteth of a Germane soldjer that being shott in the face he had his eye so turned and his nose so peirsed that alwayes after his eye could see nothing but thorough the passages of his nose Iust such a shot have these men received frō the world all that they see is thorough their nose and except they can smell some profit or preferment by the way their eyes will not serve them to discerne of any thing I affirme not this of Doct. Downame though he among other alehouse jests which he rudely breakes upon his adversarie doth tell him of seeing to his nose end yet he hath also plainely bewrayed that he looked through a false glasse of his owne imagination when viewing the scriptures he spied such a Church Bishop in them as in his book he tels us of The Phylosophers wright of certain colours which they call intentionall because they are not such in deed as they seeme to be as when thorough a glasse that is red or greene the bodies adjoyning doe appear so also Such a glasse it was without doubt that made this man to think that he saw an intentionall Church and an intentionall Bishop that vvere diocesan and provinciall such as the Popish and English are intentionally as he saith though not really and truely The Popish Doctors make too too much of intention in giving of orders other sacraments yet that is an intention answerable to the words pronounced But now we are told of an intention that the state of all Churches dependeth upon which was not expressed by any words but so farre fecht and hardly gathered that it giveth suspition of such a trick as once was taught Themistocles by a man of Lacedemonia that because he might not take the tables away wherein a law was engraven he would therfore turn them upside-downe which was as good as to take them quite away for when the institution of a Church and Bishop which is found in the scriptures may not be wholly removed the next course is to give it a turne by carying the intention to a contrary point To such strange shiftes they must needs be driven which will stretch the scriptures as shomakers do◠leather with their teeth that they may bring them to agree with humane inventions The vnlikelinesse of this devised intention will easily appeare to any but him which hath been so accustomed to cathedrall churches that every thing sounds in his head to the tune of the organs that he hath heard there The papist he telleth us just as the organs goe at Rome Boz de jur nat div eccl pot l. 1. c. 18. that the extent of a Byshops jurisdiction is not any wayes limited but by the Popes appointment his power of it selfe indifferently reaching over all the world Our prelatists they would perswade us to the tune of Canterbury that neyther Church nor Byshop hath his bounds determined by the Pope nor yet by Christ in the scriptures but left to the pleasure of Princes for to be cast in one mowld with the civill state Now the plaine Christian finding nothing but humane uncerteinties in eyther of these devises he contenteth himselfe with plaine song knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such societies as may assemble togither for the worship of God and that unto such he hath given their peculiar Pastors he I say in his simplicity calleth these assemblies the churches of Christ and these pastors his Bishops as for other intentions extentions and circumscriptions which come from men he dares not receive them for fear they should lead him from that certainty he findeth in Christs institution and leave him floating amōg mens presumptions Besides it must needs seeme strange to a serious well-meaning Christian when it shall be told him as these Cathedrall men will have it that his pastor whom he dependeth upon at home hath not the charge of his sowl committed unto him from Christ who appointed no Bishops nor Presbyters but Diocesan that the L. Bishop vvhom he never savv is properly his pastor the parish minister being but the Bishops curate or vice-gerent and therefore standing no further bound then as the Bishop appointeth so that by his permission he may be a non-resident or residing there he may onely read divine service so the crosse surplus be not neglected or howsoever he makes his agreement Will not this seeme uncouth to simple men who have alwaies been told of a straighter bond to tie their ministers unto dutie especially when they shall hear on the other side their ovvn dutie so strictly urged of keeping to their minister though he be but a reader of paying al tithes to him even by Gods appointment though he never appointed him to whom they are payd certainly if Apparitors and Sumners brought not more terrible argumentes from the carnall courts then D. Downame hath from holy scripture to prove perswade these paradoxes with there must a new generatiō arise that knew not the
with his owne interpretation p. 106. of this book where he taketh it for that vniversall congregation of Gods elect which is spoken of Ephes 1. 22. and 5. 25. 6. As for those places which he saith doe definitely signify a Church congregated into a Synode or Congregation though by the line which is drawne in his table they seeme to belong to the Church of a nation yet I guesse they should have bene referred rather to the Church of a citie or country adjoyning And if so then although he leave it doubtfull whether it were a set or vncerteyne congregation yet he plainely acknowledgeth that by these places Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 14. 23. is meant the Church of a citie and country adjoyning gathered into one congregation and then he forgetteth himselfe in construing those words otherwise pag. 104. 105. following Yea though a contradiction in the Doct. he should now carrie those places as the line draweth them to the Churches of an whole nation yet can he not escape the blame of an apparant contradiction in his understanding of Act. 14. 27 both places of his book compared besides a grosse oversight in making the Church spoken of Act. 11. 26. 1. Cor. 11. 18. c. to be farre more large then the church mentioned 1. Cor. 1. 2. Act. 13. 1. And 7. touching the places which he taketh to signifie indefinitely any company of Christians c. it is strange he should not see as definite a limitation of the place and nation or province in Act. 9. 31. 15. 41. 1. Thes 2. 14. as there is in the places forealleaged for the Churches of a nation Rom. 16. 4. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. And no lesse strange that he which could discerne a church definitely deciphered Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 14. 19. 34. 2. Cor. 8. 23. 1. Tim. 5. 16. 3. Ioh. 6. should not discerne asmuch in Act. 15. 3. 4. 18. 22. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 1. Tim. 3. 5. 3. Ioh. 9. 10. And 8. lastly since he referreth the word Churches Apoc. 2. 7. to the same signification that he given unto it ca. 1 4 11 20. viz. definitely to the church of a citie and countrie adjoyning how is it that so soon after he understandeth the same the like Apoc. 2. 7. 17. 23 29. c. indefinitely of any company a contradiction in the Doct. of Christians not defining the place or societie whether of nation or citie c And yet as if he had a dispensation to define what the Holy Ghost hath not defined hereafter he will tell us pag. 57. that by Churches in the conclusion of each epistle Apoc. 2. 7. 17. c. we may very well understand the particular Churches which were under the charge of every angell to whom the epistles are directed Thus much to his significations of the word Church froÌ„ which Sect. 2. to the Doct. 3. sect pag 6. 6. being so manifold as he saith he proceedeth to shew what is truely properly a Church upon earth And first he saith that by warrant of the word every company of men professing the faith of Christ is both truely a church also a true church But it is more then he can prove as shall appeare in the examination of some particulars following He addeth that as the whole company of the faithfull upon earth is the true Church and spouse of Christ so also the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any nation or part of the world is to be termed by the name of a Church The former I may grant him but touching the later I must ask what he meaneth by this phrase is to be termed doth it imply a necessity or onely a liberty and conveniency If the first what reason hath he to debarre us from reteyning the phrase of speach which himselfe confesseth in the former page to be usuall in the new Testament namely to call the Christians of an whole nation Churches in the plurall number If the later whence hath he his warrant since he hath not in all his table any one place which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to the faithfull of an whole nation save onely that of Act. 7. 38. which is spoken of the Iewish people whiles they were one congregation not yet divided into severall Synagogues or Church-assemblies vnder the guidance of Moses and Aaron in the wildernes But he argueth a pâ—ri in this manner The whole people of the Iewes profissing the true religioÌ„ were one Church though conteyning very many particular coÌ„gregations or Synagogues which were also so many Churches Even so the whole people of The D. reasoneth inconsequeÌ„tly from the Church of the Lewes to the Churches of the gentiles England professing through Gods mercie the true Catholike and Apostolike faith is to be called the Church of England The consequence hereof might be denied for why should the forme and constitution of the Iewish Church vnder the law be a more fit patterne for us to follow then that form of Church-constitution which was established vnder the Gospell for the Christians of all nations both Iewes Grecians Is there not more strength in this coÌ„sequence The Christians of an whole nation are every where in the new Testament called Churches no where by the name of a Church in the singular number as Churches of Asia Macedonia Galatia Iudea Galile and Samaria 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Thes 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Ergo the Christians which at this day professe the faith of Christ in England are rather to be termed the Churches then the Church of England especially seing the number of Churches or congregations is farre greater in all likelihood then the number of families was in any one nation in the Apostles times Notwithstanding if the Doctor can as he assaieth paralell the people of England with the Iewish nation in that which properly made theÌ„ as some think one church he might take more libertie to include them al vnder the name of the church of England To effect this vnto that which some alleadge viz. that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high-Preist who was a figure and therefore ceased the Doctor frameth a double answer 1. It is evident saith he that it was one Church because it was one people or coÌ„mon wealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high-Preist and after there were through corruption more then one 2. Neyther was the high-Preist a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence and government over the Preists people but in respect of his sacrifice intercession for the whole people c. To the first I reply as followeth 1. It is evident that the Christian Iewes in Iudea were one people or coÌ„moÌ„ wealth ruled by the same lawes
for Doctor to winde out of the bryars of a coÌ„tradiction if his speaches be well compared Neyther can he so easily as he supposeth remove that disadvantage Sect. 15. which his Refuter presseth upon him in this argument following If the word ecclesia there vsed to signify that Church and all one with the word flock doe signify any other company of men then a particular congregation onely then is there no truth in the assumption that denieth parishes to be distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their severall cures But the first is true Therefore also the second Nay sayth the Doctor the contrary rather is to be inferred thus If the word Church did signify one congregation and was in every citie but one and if such was the flock which the Presbyters were appointed to attend then it followeth that the flock was not divided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to severall cures Loe here againe how the Doctor choppeth and changeth at his The Doct. â—hoppeth chageth pleasure that first branch of his assumption For whereas at the first it simply denied parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times now he maketh it to deny no other distinction of parishes then the division of one parish into many For as often before so now and againe must I ring it into his eares that when his Refuter holdeth in this question the Apostolike Churches to be parishes his meaning is as the Doctor knoweth very well that each of those Churches was but one particular congregation If then it be granted that the word ECCLESIA Church doth nor in the Apostolike writings signify any other outward coÌ„opany of men the such as were gathered into one particular assemblie it will follow that the visible Churches to which that word is referred in their writings must be acknowledged to be parishes and consequently there can be no truth in that assumptioÌ„ which denieth parishes to be distinguished and presbyters assigned to severall parishes But rather then the disgrace of any untruth shall lie upon the Doctors assumption he will reject the assumptioÌ„ of his Refuters argument which denieth the word ecclesia to signify any other outward company of men then a particular congregation onely For he telleth us he hath already sayd more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But for ought he hath alleadged from the scripture which is the onely guide of the conscience in questions of this nature more hath been sayd to confute his slender objections then upon his third thoughts he wil be able to produce for the fortifying of them And as for that he here addeth touching the word poimonion or poimne it discovereth his will to be more then his strength to confute any thing his refuter hath delivered First whereas he had sayd that the word to wit the English word flock for the gr word was not at all mencioned is ordinarily used of beasts fowles that heird and flock togither in one company the Doctor falsly chargeth him to have sayd that the word poimnion or poimne is so vsed and then in great modestie professeth it is beyond the compasse of his reading c which is but to fight with his owne shadowe for he should if with truth he could have sayd that he never read or heard the word flock applyed to fowles Secondly it is to no purpose to tell us that the flock of Christs sheep mencioned Luk. 12. 32 and Ioh. 10. 16. is not one onely particular congregation unlesse he could say and prove that the word in those places signifieth an outward company of men making one visible Church of larger extent to use his owne words pag. 75 then one onely assembly But himselfe acknowledgeth as the truth is that in Iohn 10. 16. the vniversall Church of Christ which comprehendeth the elect yet unconverted and therefore is invisible is vnderstood by that one flock whereof he is the great shepheard And that little flock to whom he speaketh Luc. 12. 32. feare not little flock c. is none other then that coÌ„pany of his disciples which then were his hearers and as a little flock or congregation cleaved to him as their Pastor and Teacher as appeareth by the text it selfe vers 1. 22. 32. 41. and besides the judgement of many worthy divines writing thereon the vse of the word to the same purpose elswhere as Math. 26. 31. Wherefore the Doctor hath nothing worth the objecting against that assertioÌ„ of his Refuter which affirmeth the flock and Church whereto the Presbyters were assigned Act. 20. 28. to be one onely particular congregation so that if he will stand as he seemeth to be willing to the judgement of the judicious Reader I make no doubt but he wil be found as his Refuter first tolde him to have dealt full weakly in a point of so great importance Chap. 4. Wherein is maintâ—yned their objection who affirme that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned to one onely congregation of Christians and therefore not to Dioceses properly but to Parishes Handled by the Doctor serm pag. 19. and Def. pag. 78. c. and Refuter pag. 60. c. IT pleased the Doctor to make answer to certeyn arguments objected Sect. 1. ad pag. 78. partly by himself and partly by his Refuter to prove that the visible Churches in the Apostles times were not Dioceses properly but Parishes they are now to be examined But first the conclusion it self is to be cleared from one quarrell made against it by the Doct. pag. 78. viz. that there must be added and in the age following because as he saith themselves include in their question 200 years The Reader therefore is to be advertized that himselfe layeth downe their assertion whom he contradicteth in these 3. members serm pag. 4 viz. 1. that properlie there is no visible church but a parish 2. nor lawfull Bishops but parishonall and 3. that for the space of 200 yeares after Christ there were no other but parish-Bishops And he which peruseth Mr. Iacobs booke intitled reasons c. proving a necessity of reforming our churches froÌ„ whence the D. draweth that extent of 200 yeares shall see that aswell concerning Churches as Bishops he distinctly handleth First what they are and ought to be by divine or Apostolicall ordinance and afterwards what their state and condition was for the first 200 yeares after Christ And although the Doctor in that conclusion which he tendreth to be proved serm pag. 17. mencioneth the age following the Apostles times yet he tieth not himselfe to that terme neyther in the arguments first proposed by him nor yet in this defense hitherto continued Nay his arguments doe bound themselves within the Apostles daies the later which generally concerne the ancient visible churches are directly bent against that first assertion of theirs which saith The visible Churches instituted by the Apostles were properly Parishes that is particular congregations not
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
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