one word that savoureth of captious carping Yet if there were is it all one to to carp at the choise of the text and to spend of his spene upon the text it self But not to stay vpon this any longer the Doctor telleth vs that though the quarrel pleased the refuter so well that he repeateth it againe page 3. yet without cause for that seing the expositioÌ„ of the allegorie is not doubtful but confessed on both sides that as by 7. starres are meant the 7. angels so by the angels the Bps. of the Churches who seeth not that this assertioÌ„ the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn as it were vpon a rock But 1. lett him certify us 1. touching the exposition of the allegorie in his text and that if it be nothing doubtfull but confessed or agreed on on both sides why he doth in the 2. pag. of his sermon prepose this as a doubtfull point needfull to be examined viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the angels of the Churches The D. coÌ„tâ—adicteth himself 2. Wherefore he tendered this for his first reason of examining the doubt because to vse his owne words def pag. 29. when the Holy-ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels this interpretation it selfes allegoricall and therefore needeth some exposition And. 3. Wherefore in the very next words of his defence he mâ—ncioneth 3. different opinions touching the persons or functions ment by the Angels viz. whether all Ministers in generall the Presidentes of the presbyteries or diocesan Bishops 2. Moreover can he without blushing saye that it is confessed on The Doct. speaketh vntruely both sides that by the 7. starrs are ment the 7. Angels Was it not flâ—ttly denied Not without reason or shewe of reason at leaste doth not he himself afterwards cap. 2. sectioÌ„ 3. spend paynes in opening the doubt and proving that the angels were just 7. and no more 3. Lastly if this be all that he can rightly and strongly build upon the Apostle in the words of his text viz. that the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good his refuter hath good cause even still to affirm that this text neither was nor is any firme ground for him on which to set up such a mansion for his Diocesans as he assayed Who therefore seeth not that it is not the refuter with the text but the Doctor that quarrelleth with the Refuter in this pointe without a cause Especially seing when he coÌ„meth to that 3. page where he sayth the quarrell is repeated he doth wittingly both coÌ„ceâ—â— vnder an 〈◊〉 and overpasse without any answer that which is 〈◊〉 â—aâ—momâ—nt to justify his Refuter in this point For the Doct. 〈◊〉 â—noâ—lâ—dge a truth to lye in one of these assertions of of the Refuter to witt that eyther there is some other portion of scripture whâ—â—n that which he pretendeth to be here layd downe vnder a vâ—â—le is 〈◊〉 vnfâ—â—ed â—â—d delivered or that there is no such place to be sound 〈◊〉 the scripture Now let him make the best choise he can and which of them soever he choose the same shall make â—ood the refuters quarrell as the Doctor calleth it I meane the consequence of his reasoning in that place For 1. if he shall affirme that there iâ— some other text that plainely vnfoldeth the pointes here sayd downe vnder the vaâ—â—e of an allegorie then in reason should his censure be approved which saith it had bene fitter both in divinity and good discretion for him to have chosen some other more cleare portion of scripture then this which is allegoricall 2. If he shall grant as I think he will not that there is no such place to be found in all the scripture it will also inevitablie followe that the Refuters sentence was right when he sayd this text cannot be deemed a fitt Iudge to decide so great a controversy But it was one of his pointes of wisdome to passe by this dilemma Sect. 5. ad cap. 2. pa. 30. defen or two forked argument he thought it enough to repeate in that 30. page his former answere that the meaninge of the allegory is on all sides agreed on and to add this silly inference that since we doe confesse the Angels to be the Bishops of the Churches therefore by our confession the text was as fittly chosen as if it had bin sayd the 7. Starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches See see how faine he would if he could The D. beggeth of us what he dareth not give himself wringe from us an acknowledgement of that which himself well advised I suppose dareth not affirme namely that an allegoricall texte is as fittly chosen to prove any conclusion as another which vnfoldeth the same more plainely But it shall not be amisse to lett him see the strength of his consequence by another of like force Our adversaries the D. I meane the men of his side doe affirme and teach that the Angels were diocesan Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers and that the 7. Churches which they governed were properly Dioceses Therefore in their opinion the text was as fittly chosen as if it had bin said the 7. Starres are the diocesan Bishops who having a superiority in degree over other Ministers did oversee the 7. dioceses or diocesan Churches in Asia 2. As for the replie which he ascribeth to his Refuter viz. that though it be granted that the Angels are Bishops yet not such Bishops as The D. vntruely fathereth on the Refut what he said not the D. speaketh of if it had bin as truly his as it is vntruly fathered on him yet he giveth him no cause to answere as he doth viz. then the vnfittnes of the text belike is not because it is allegorical but because in his conceite it is impertinent He should rather have inferred thus Then I see the text is vnfitt in a double respect in parte because it is allegoricall and cheefly because though the meaning of the allegory be thus farr agreed on that it is confessed the Angels were Bishops yet it is a great controversy whether they were such Bishops as the Bishops of our Church are But the D. giveth litle hope that he will of his owne accord confesse so much this belike shal be answered with another inferred vpon a more sure ground It is certeine the consent of Interpreters being so farr divided as he acknowledgeth pag. 7. touching the nature of the function of these Angels can give his text no fitnes to conclude his purpose Belike therefore the fitnes that the Doctor imagineth to be in it is because in his owne conceit it is pertinent induced therevnto perhaps by the judgement of some fewe that are parties in the cause But his conceit though supported with the approbation of some that favour the Hierarchy is too light to be layd in the ballance against the judgment of all those Protestant wryters
writinge but by tradition It is strange a matter of such consequence for the well-orderinge of all Churches to the worlds ende should be committed to such an happ-hazzard 2. And how hath the Church informed the Doctor of their vnderstandinge hath he received it also by tradition or from the writinges of the The D. first reasoÌ„ confuted by himself Lords worthies in all ages Why doth he not either quote us their bookes wherein they affirme it or give us the catalogue of such as have from hand to hand conveied it to him Till he hath given satisfaction in these particulars let him not thinke but his reader will deeme his first reason to be a speach voyde of reason yea a moÌ„strous vntruth confuted by himself as shall well appeare in the examination of his reasons followinge His second reason he laieth downe thus saying Secondly because that division of Churches which was 300. or 400. yeares after Christe with their limits and circuites was ordinarily the same which had bene from the beginning as before hath bene testified by divers auncient Councels Ordinarily and from the beginning So he saith in deed But 1. doth any Councell that he hath alleadged pag. 22. 37. or elswhere testify the circuites of the Churches to have bene from the beginning of their planting by the Apostles the same that they were in their owne times Is not all the question in those Councells of Country parishes or such partes of any Country as neither desyred to have a Bishop or were challenged of diverse Bishops The beginning therefore whereof they speake must be taken for the time of erecting Churches in Country villages and subordinating them to the Bishop of the City adjoyninge Neyther yet doe they ascribe this to any ordinance or intention of the Apostles or first founders of the Church in the Citie but to ancient custome as the words of the Ephesin Councell shew which he hath set downe Can. 2. pag. 37. ratified by ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons falsly called Canons of the Apostles 2. But why saith he the circuites were ordinarily the same Meaneth he it was no coÌ„mon use to alter them Or that it was against order and vnlawfull It cannot be the later since he confesseth pag. 23. that if there were cause sc for the greatnes of the Charge and nomber of people c. the circuites of Dioceses were lessened newe Bishoprickes erected Beholde then howe worthily the D. reasoneth The division of Churches with their circuites remayned till 400. yeares after Christe the same which it had bene from the beginning of erecting Churches in the remote parts of any Diocese and subordinatinge them to the Bishops of the Cities adjoyninge vnlesse the greatnes of the charge required the circuite to be lessened a new Bishoprick to be established Ergo it was the intention of the Apostles that the Churches which they planted should have the same Circuite before the division of parishes that they had after May not the contrary with much more probability be thus argued When the charge of an whole diocese after the distribution of parishes grewe over greate for one Bishop the nomber of people in some partes desyred to have a newe Bishop the Circuites of Churches or Dioceses were altered Ergo it was never intended by the Apostles or at least the Fathers of those times were ignorant of any such intention that the Circuite of every Church should alwayes continue the same aswell when all in City and Country were converted as when there were but a fewe But let us heare his third reason Thirdly saith he because it is confessed by Beza and testified by D. Reynoldes and others that the distribution of the Church did usuâ—llâ— fellowe the division of the CoÌ„mon wealth in so much that those Countries that were subjected to the Civill jurisdiction â—xercised in any City were also subject ordinarily to the ecâ—lesiasticall c. Is not the Doctors plenty think ye turned into mere penury when the testimony of ancient Fathers and Councells faylinge him he is gladd to seeke releife at their handes whose judgement otherwyse ordinarily and usually he rejecteth And yet alas for pity they whome he meaneth cannot yeeld him any comfort For what say they Forsooth that in the distribution of dioceses provinces and patriarchall preheminences the state ecclesiasticall followed the civill And when did the Church take up this Course Doe they say that the Apostles began it or intended any such matter No it was thought a convenient course by the Byshops after the Apostles daies for the better managing of church-Church-causes in their Synods and Meetings that as for civill justice so also for ecclesiasticall affaires recourse should be had to the Cityes and Shire-townes Neyther was this order vniversall or perpetuall as the Doctor himself acknowledgeth in Pergamus and Thyatira pag. 63. yea he affirmeth that by ancient custome the whole nation of Scythians having many Cities townes and Castles made but one Diocese and that the Churches throughout a large Province were but part of one Paraecia or diocese as may be sene pag. 10. 40. of this his defense Wherefore this reason of his doth also coÌ„fure and not confirme his fantasticall conceite of the Apostles intention And it argueth he spake directly against the light of his conscience when he sayd that the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood as he doth the intention of the Apostles and the first founders of the apostolike Churches Wherefore since he hath no better ground for his bolde affirmation that the circuite of each Church in the intention of the Apostles or first founders was the same before the division of parishes that it was after we may well take his conclusion which he inferreth thereupon to be layd in the sand of his owne vaine immagination viz. that though those Churches had not bin divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene dioceses But now to returne to the point froÌ„ which he hath longe wandred Sect. 11. ad sect 6. page 50. at his pleasure to little purpose he addeth that at the time of writing the Revelation it is more then probable that they conteyned diverse congregations If it be more then probable then I hope his argumentes whereon he buildeth are more then probabilities even firme and invincible demonstrations But if there be not so much as a shadowe of probabilitie in any thinge he hath alleadged no man can justly blame his Refuter if he say It is more then probable the Doctor is deceived and seeketh to deceive with his vaine braggs of proving what he avoucheth Let vs therefore examine his best probabilities The first is That when Paul had continued but two yeares at Ephesus the holy Ghost testifieth Act. 19. 10. that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare the word of the Lord. And having both placed many Presbyters amongst them and continued with theÌ„ for the space
rather then to set out and to laye hold vpon a slender advantage rather Sect. 1 ad D. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect 2. Ref. pag. then to leave his diocesan Lords no footing in his text If an eminent superioritie cannot be gathered from the name of an Angel yet such a presidency as is given to one above others in every well-ordered society shall suffice to convey a diocesan Byshopprick to these Angels And if bâ—tter evidence fayle the confession of the Presbyterians shall serve to give them a Presidencie And though comonly he refuse the syllogismes which his Refuter reduceth into forme yet finding one handsomly framed to his hand though himself intended as he saith no such argument he is wel pleased to make use of it and to stand forth in defense of every parte of it The syllogisme runneth thus The Presidents of the Presbyters were Diocesan Bishops The Angels of the 7. Churches were presidents of the presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were Diocesan Bishops Concerning the Assumption it hath bene already shewed upon what reasons we hold it questionable whether these Angels were 7. onely persons of cheefe place in these Churches But here because the D. grounded himself upon the confession of the Presbyterians his refuter answered him by a distinction of a two fold Presbyterie mentioned in their writings the one a Presbyterie of governing Elders assisting the Pastor of each congregation th' other a Presbyterie of Ministers set over diverse churches Now because the former could yeeld the Doctor no colour of help to coÌ„vey a Diocesan Bishoprick to these angels he had expressly meÌ„tioned the later in the last wordes of the point before handled serm pag. 21. his Refuter signified his dissent from him in the assumption if his meaning were to give those angels a Presidencie over a colledge of Ministers assigned to sundry particular congregations And this he added that he knewe none that did confâ—sse the angels of the 7. Churches to be some of those Presidents Now the Doctor taking those testimonies of Calvin and Beza whom he hath often vâ—lified in other parts of his defense for plentifull proofe of his assumption he referreth us to that he hath alleaged out of their writings lib. 1. cap. 2. sect whether if we goe we shall finde just nothing to the purpose For Mr Calvin hath not one word touching those Angels Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 1. 2. And since he there expressly affirmeth that the presidencie which one Minister in caâ—h citie called a Bishop had over other Ministers his colleagues was brought in by humane consent and for the necessity of the times there is no likelihood that he held those angels in S. Iohns time to Humano consensit pro tempoâ—â—â— necessitate be Presidents of such a Presbyterie Yea his words doe shâ—w◠〈◊〉 1. that he speaketh of that forme of government which took place under the. Bishops that flourished after the Apostles and before the papacâ—e was discovered And though Mr Bâ—za doe affirme the Angel of the Church at Ephesus and so the rest each of them in his place to be the President of the Presbyterie there Annotat. in Apoc. 2. 1. yet hath he nothing neither there nor de Minist grad pag. 160. that can be drawen to shew that he estemed the Presbyteries or College of each Angel to be all of them Ministers of the word and Pastors of severall Churches But what need words be multiplied in so plaine a case Affirmeth he not himselfe serm pag. 22. that the parishes were not yet distinguished nor Ministers assigned to their severall Cures And must he not then vnderstand those Presbyrerians with whome he pretendeth to have agrement to speak of such a Presbyterie as had the charge of one onely Church not yet divided into severall titles Howsoever then he make a shew of justifying his assumption against the Refuters denyal thereof yet The D. subscribeth to his Ref. and proveth what was not gainesayd indeed he subscribeth vnto it and indeavoureth to prove it in a sense which now was not coÌ„tradicted for it is no disadvantage to us in the mayn question to give way to the assumption in such a sense as Mr. Beza avoucheth it since such a presidency as he alloweth to those Angels can never conclude them to be diocesan Byshops such as ours To come therefore to the proposition because the Refuter rejected it as false I will make good his censure both by removing Sect. 2. the D defence thereof by proposing some other just exceptions against it And 1. he cannot prove every president of a Presbytery in the Apostles times to be a Byshop much lesse a diocesaÌ„ Byshop in the usual construction of the word opposed to other Ministerial functions For if some Presbyteries were a company of Apostles Apostolicall men who were more then Byshops as he acknowledgeth serm pag. 38. and def lib. 3. pag. 81. needs must their president be more then a Byshop And who doubteth but that as Iames the Apostle was president not onely of the Synode Act. 15. but also of the standing Presbyterie Act. 21. 18 And Timothe an Evangelist president among the Presbyters at Ephesus for the time of his staye there by S. Paules appointment 1. Tim. 1. 3. so also every Apostle and Evangelist in the absence of the Apostles was the president of any Church where they made their residence though but for a short continuance Thus was Paul the president of that Presbyterie which imposed hands on Timothe 2. Tim. 1. 6. cum 1. Tim. 4. 14. of the Ephesian Presbyterie during his aboade amongst them Act. 20. 17. 31. And the like presidence even at Ephesus S. Iohn reteined doubtlesse when after his exile returning thither ibi denuò sedem ac donâ—icilium rerum suarum collocavit as Eusebius reporteth eccles Hist lib. 3. chap. 15. For it were absurd either to seclude him from all consultation with the clergie of that Church or to make him inferior vnto any of them And since the D. acknowledgeth that so longe as there remained any Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical meÌ„ they were the governors of the Churches lib. 4. pag. 72. we have reason to thinke that he cannot without contradiction affirme in generall of all the presidents that moderated the first Presbyteriâ—s that they were properly Byshops for he accounteth none of the Apostles to be properly Byshops lib. 4. pag. 57. and he subscribeth serm pag 86. to the saying of Tertullian de prescrip adv haereâ— that in the Apostolick Churches they re first Byshop had for their founder and Antecessor one of the Apostles or Apostolik men Now if all the presidents of Presbyteries were not properly Byshops how could they all be diocesan Byshops yea such as our Diocesans are 2. Certeinly the verie name of a president that had a Presbyterie adjoyned to him for the managinge of Church causes doth strongly argue the forme of Church-government then to
answer is frivolous or a begging of the question of the question if he speake of such a judiciall licencing or silencing as Byshops in these daies exercise over other Ministers in their diocese But he will both prove that these false Teachers were subject to the censure of the Angels or Byshops remove that which his Refuter objecteth to the contrary The later he attempteth in this manner If they were not Presbyters he should say parts of the Presbyterie of that Church because they called themselues Apostles belike they were better men Is it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Byshop bycause he imagineth these who were subject to their censure were better men Is this the Refuters imagination or is not rather the D. conclusioÌ„ grounded vpon his own The D. cannot uphold his cause but by vntruthes imagination Why then may I not returne him his own wordes p. 124 Is the D. coÌ„science no better then stil to father vpoÌ„ the Ref vntruthes for his own advantage bewrayeth he not thereby what a cause he mainteineth that cannot be vpheld but by forgeries The Refuter to make good his deniall of that which the D. presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning vz. that the false Apostles were Presbyters and parts of the Angels Presbyterie affirmed that it was against sense to imagine that any such would assume to themselves the name and preheminence of Apostles and that any mans reason would rather give him that they were persons that came froÌ„ some other place Add hervnto that if they had been of the Ephesian clergie and so knowne to the whole Church to have imbraced an ordinarie calling and settled charge amongst them how should they with any colour perswade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ Doubtlesse the very consideration of the knowne difference betwixt the extraordinary Ministery of the Apostles and the ordinary function of Presbyters might have been sufficient without any further search to discover their lying forgerie which being knowne to have place among the latter should usurpe the name authoritie of the former But the text sayth Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be lyars by the wise and diligent care of the angel who examined or tried them it is therefore more probable that they were rather of the nomber of those wandring Prophets which as greivous wolves from without entred in to devoure then of those perverse teachers which springing up among them did drawe disciples after them See Aretius Beza and Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 2. And touching the false Prophetesse â—e zabell seing she is expresly said to be a woman though good Interpreters doe gather from hence that woemen were suffred to teach publikly in that Church see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20. yet were it too grosse to imagine that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers or to the charge of Presbyters And though it should be graunted that they were men not woemen which are deciphered by the name of that woman Iezabell yet the very name argueth theire greatnes theire prevayling by their subtile perswasions no lesse then Iezabel did by her coÌ„manding power to drawe many vn to their wicked wayes And the title of a Prophetesse importeth yâ— they boasted of an iÌ„mediate calling of extraordinary revelatioÌ„s Neyther doth the Doctor contradict this onely he saith If they The D. trifleth were not presbyters belike they were better men A frivolous speach and an unlikely consequence For what likelihood is there that they were better men seing some of them were found to be lyars in saying they were Apostles Or how doth the deniall of this that they were parts of the standing Presbyterie argue that they were no Presbyters at all But say they were of an higher calling to wit Evangelists or fellowe-helpers sometimes to the Apostles yet now Apostates from the faith as was Demas and some other what will this advantage the D. cause For sooth because himselfe imagineth that these who were better men were subject to the Bishops censure therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to his censure To come then at lengthe to that which he first proposed the reason I meane which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles Iezabel the false Prophetesse were subject to the Angels of the Churches wherein they usurped authoritie to teach he sayth If they were not subiect to them why is the one commended for exercising authoritie over them and the other reproved for suffring them For answere it shall suffice to ask why he assumeth for an apparant truth Yet the â—â—beggeth that which is rather apparantly false viz. that the Angell of Ephesus is commended for exercising authoritie over the false Apostles And why he pre supposeth in the coÌ„sequence of his reasoning that which he cannot justifie to wit that the false prophetesse of Thyatira was subject to the Angels censure because he is reproved for suffring her And thus wear lead as it were by the haÌ„d to see the falshood of the proposition of the arg before by himself coÌ„trived For a corrective power over Ministers cannot be firmely concluded eyther from the coÌ„mendation of the one that examined them which falsly called themselves Apostles or from the reproofe of the other that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people For put the case the D. were an Archdeaâ—on or which would please him better a Diocesan Lord that in the some parishes vnder his government corrupt teachers should â—ind free accesse to the pulpit but in other places by the carefull enquirie of the Ministers and Church-wardens finding what they are they should be restreyned me thinks in this case he should highely coÌ„mend the honest care of the one and sharply reprove the carlesse negligence of the other yet if a man should froÌ„ his coÌ„mendation or reproofe inferre that the persons so commended or reproved had the power of correcting and silencing Ministers I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicitie of such a disputer then vouchsafe him a direct answer See the loosenes of the D. reasoning But to leave suppositions and to let him see the loosenes of his reasoning by a more direct answer it is cleare that the Spirit of God doth no lesse commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Pauls doctrine Act. 17. 11. then he doth the Angel of Ephesus for examining them that falsely assumed the name of Apostles Wil the D. therefore acknowledge that they had a corrective power over that holy Apostle And who knoweth not that it is required of every private Christian to have their senses exercised in the word to discerne betweene good evill Heb. 5. 14. to trie the spirits of their teachers whether they be of God or not 1. Ioh. 4. 1. to bewarre of false Prophets and seducers Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4. to trie all
by them Ergo none other forme of Church-government save that which the Apostles ordeyned is lawfull and good The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same and it is justified by these Apostolicall precepts 1. Thes 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. 3. Ioh. 11. which allowe the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing and deny them the use of nothing but what is evill The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctors allowance of the Presbyterian discipline when he affirmeth it serm pag. 95. 97. to be good as silver and next to the best though he deny it to be of Apostolicall institution And the later assumption is the conclusion of his answere before set downe wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the coÌ„clusions of these arguments how soever the former conclusion is contradictory to the assumption of the later and the later conclusion directly contradicteth the assumption of the former argument Thus the reader may see that whiles the Doctor laboureth to A dubble contradiction in the Doctor winde out of one contradiction he sticketh fast insnared in two for fayling Neither let him think here to evade as before by saying that he affirmed not simple the presbyterian discipline to be good but only then when the episcopall government cannot be had for Mr. Doctor were simple if he could perswade himself that so slight an answere might free the reformed Churches that want Byshops from the obloquies of caviling papistes which he professeth to be his charitable intent in pleading so as he did for them and their discipline And since silver is simply good and at all times good though inferior in goodnes to golde he dealt deceitfully not simply or syncerely with his reader in comparing these 2 kindes of governments for their goodnes vnto silver and golde if he meant not to allowe the presbyterian government any other or larger goodnes then for those times or places where the episcopall regiment cannot be had But to look back once againe to the Doctors answere before set downe what if I should contradict his assumption and make use of his proposition to cut in sunder the windepipe of his conclusion in this manner ' Where that government which the Apostles ordeyned cannot be had there some other government might be admitted But whiles the Apostles lived in some Churches that government which they ordeyned could not be had Ergo whiles they lived in some Churches an other forme of government might be admitted The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his owne Th'assumption is fitted indeed to contradict his in the sense that he imbraceth vnderstanding by the government ordeyned by the Apostles the government by Byshops so that whereas he saith it might be had whiles the Apostles lived I on the contratie affirme that in some Churches at that time it could not be had And this I suppose will be made good by his owne words elswhere serm p. 69. The D. contradicteth himself Def. lib. 4. pag. 62. when he alledgeth the want of sit choise for one reason why all other Churches besides that of Ierusalem wanted Bishops for many yeares in the life tyme of the Apostles For how could Bishops be had to governe every Church when there was not sit choise of persons fit for that function The same reason is more plainly delivered by others that plead the same cause Bishop Barloe serm on Acts. 20. 28. fol. 6. saith that after the conversion of many people even in setled Churches the Apostles hasted not to place a Bishop because a presbyter fu to be made a Bishop is hardly found which the Doctor also acknowledgeth serm pag. 54. where he saith If a worthy Minister be amonge men as one of a 1000 as Elihu spukith Iob. 33. 23 vndoubtedly a worthy Byshop is as one of a millioÌ„ verie hardly therefore will he escape the bryars of another palpable contradiction And it will be no lesse hard to avoyde the stroak of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ which if he cannot turne aside then his propositioÌ„ now in question will lie in the dust overthrowne not by anie of our weapons but by the turninge of those upon him which he put into our hands As for the Arguments which he addeth to put new life and strength into his proposition though just exception may be taken against them for there is oddes betwixt the use of government not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches and the reteyning of it in all Churches or the altering of that government which they had once established yet will I not prosecure such advantages seing we are no lesse perswaded then he that there is a manifest truth in it The assumption followeth which hath two parts the one that Sect. 3. ad sect 2. c. p 38-44 the government by Bishops such as ours are was used even in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them both paâ—ts he indeavoreth to prove first by scripture then by other evidence His scripture proof for the former is nothing else then a naked repetition of the explication of his text scz that the 7. angels were the Bishops of the. 7. churches and for the substance of their calling like to ours which as he saith he hath proved for I may as confidently avouch we have disproved But for the proofe of the later besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint Iohn or rather by our Saviour Christ he alleageth section 6. Epaphroditus the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians commended by Saint Paul as his funergos kai sustratiotes copartner both in his function affliction the Philippians commanded to have in honor such Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem approved of all Acts. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 19. Archippus the Bishop of Colossa in respect of his function approved of Paul Colos 4. 17. And Antipas who had been Bishop of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost Apoc. 2. 13. His argument standeth thus In the Apostles times Epaphroditus was the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians Iames the just the Bishop of jerusalem Archippus the Bishop of Colossa and Antipas the Bishop of Pergamus But Epaphroditus was commended of Saine Paulas his Copartner infunction and affliction Iames the juste generally approved Archippus in respect of his function approved by Saint Paul and Antipas commended by the Holy Ghost Ergo the function and government of Bishops was approved and not contradicted by the Apostles Here the Proposition if vnderstood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours is altogither false and the D. doth but begg the question in taking for granted what he should have The Doct. beggeth proved if he could But if it be vnderstood of such Bishops as the scriptures testify to have bin in the Apostles times seing they were no Lordly governors but Pastors or Bishops in another function eyther higher as was Iames the Apostle or inferior as Pastors of one
who is your Teacher he doth affirm that Epaphroditus is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians vers 25. because he was their Byshop or Pastor In like manner touching Ambrose how loosely dooth he reason Ambrose saith that the Apostles mencioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephe. 4. 11. were Bishops Ergo in saying that Epaphroditus was by the Apostle made their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. he meaneth that he was affixed and limited to the Episcopall charge of that Church in like sort as the later Bishops were and for that cause called their Apostle Nay rather it followeth from Ambrose his wordes that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinitie with the Apostleship I meane in this that he had onely a temporarie overfight of that Church as the Apostle himself had before during the time of his aboade there And this hath confirmation from the wordes that follow which the Doctor was wise enough to conceale his whole speach is this Erat enim corum Apostolus ab Apostclo factus dum illum in exhortationerie eorum mittebat ad eos quia vir bonus erat desiderabatur a plebe Where note he was desyred of the people not because he was their Pastor but because he was a good man and was now sent vnto them by the Apostle and so made their Apostle for their present instruction or exhortation not to take perpetuall charge of them for as afterwardes he saith in vers 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss he was necessary for many other Churches as one that yeilded solisium er auxilium both comfort help to the Apostle By all which it appeareth that in Ambrose his judgment Epaphroditus by his ministeriall function was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop There remaineth Theodoret whose wordes make the fairest shewe for him yet are they not so full as he pretēdeth for that which he saith in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed c. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist seing they had a temporary charge of some one or moe Churches committed to them Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properlie episcopall and such as now is controverted Yea the Doctor himself doth so vnderstand Theodoret when he faith in 1. Tim. 3. that those who now are called Bishops were at the first called Apostles and that thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the philippians c. For he gathereth from Theodorets testimony conferred with some wordes of Ierom Def. lib. 4. pag. 72. that the first Bishops so reputed were Apostles and Apostolike men that is Evangelists and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remained none were chosen our of the Presbyters to the office of a Bishop whence it followeth that Epaphroditus in Theodorets judgment is called an Apostle not because he was a Bishop but for that he was an Apostolicall man or Evangelist Wherefore it is but a vayn bragge of Mr. D. 1. to conclude as he doth pag 67. that all the Authors which he cited give testimony with his exposition And 2. to ask with what face his Refut could deny it For although he hath face enough to affirme whatever may seem to advantage his cause and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed yet the truth will discover it selfe to them that with an upright eye search after it to their shame that seek to deface it Now whereas he addeth that his authors before mencioned Sect. 7. ad sect 13. p. 68. doe all goe against the interpretation of the word Apostolos which his Refuter bringeth he saith no more but what his Refuter had before acknowledged His Authors were produced not to confute his Refurer before he sawe his answer but to justify his owne collectiō from the words of the Apostle which since he cannot effect he shal doe best not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions especially seing in such a case as this when Interpreters doe varie about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture the judgment of the indifferent Reader must be swayed neyther by the number yeares or learning of the parties but by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they doe best accordeth with the circumstances of the text it selfe and with the use of the word or phrase in other places Wherefore the Refuter though he mencion the names of some which imbrace his interpretation yet grounded himselfe rather upon the probability of reason then the creditt of their testimony Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himselfe to reject so lightly as he doth the judgment of Mr. Beza and Piscator in saying they are asmuch parties in this cause as the refuter himselfe For if it be true he hath wronged Beza in affirming that in the question of Diocesan Churches and Bishops he goeth with him and against his Refuter Lib. 1. pag. 48. and Lib. 2. pag. 140. Lib. 3. pag. 11. and that he is so farr from condemning the A contradiction government of Bishops reteyned in other reformed Churches that he wished withall his hart that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva the episcopall government had bin reteyned for so he sayth Lib 4. pag. 161. 166. but it is no strange thing to the observant reader to find the Doctor very often in this contradicting fault amongst others Let us see what he answereth to the reasons that were delivered to prove the Refuters construction the more likely viz. that Epaphroditus is called their Apostle or rather Messenger because he was sent by the Philippians in their stead to minister unto the Apostle Paul The first reason hath two braunches 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. doe shewe how he ministred unto him 2. the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthes benevolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuitie frō the Philippiās to Paul c. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians 2. but he saith it is vnlikely that eyther he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard And why unlikely is not that interpretation mostly likely which best agreeth both with the parts of the same scripture and with the vse of the word or phrase in other places And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct Let them be compared together and sentence given with the truth First touching Epaphroditus that he was their Imbassadour or Messenger to the Apostle Paul the evidence alleadged by the Refuter from the same verse and cap. 1. 18. is so pregnant that the Doct. cannot deny it yea he
in this sort If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certeyne place then neither had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certeyne place Ergo neyther had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem The Doctors answer is that he hath shewed sufficient reason why he should not graunt the consequence in setting downe the difference between Iames and the rest of the Apostles But are the differences such as he can and will mainteyne that they necessarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop and the rest nor otherwise they neyther are nor can be a sufficient reason of his deniall of the cosequence Let us therfore peruse them First he saith that Iames herein differeth from the rest that to him at the first the Church of Ierusalem was assigned I answer that an assignement to the oversight of one Church maketh not a Bishop unlesse he be also confined unto it alone and that for perpetuitie But the Doctor can never prove that Iames was so coÌ„fined to the charge of the Church of Ierusalem Moreover we have better evidence for Pauls assignement to the Church of Corinth Act. 18. 9. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9. 2. 2. Cor. 10. 13. then can be alleadged for Iames his assignemeÌ„t to Ierusalem And if we may beleeve the D. he telleth us pag. 52. that at what time Iames was assigned to Ierusalem the rest were assigned also to their circuite one to one part and an other to an other This first difference therefore is eyther none at all or not such as can give the function of a Bishop to the one and deny it to all the rest Secondly the Doctor addeth that Iames did not traveile as the rest from one country to an other being not confined to one province But it is shewed in the former section that Iames was neyther confined to Ierusalem nor debarred from traveil abroad and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth will confine some others to certeine countryes as Thomas to Parthia Andrewe to Scythia and Iohn to Asia no lesse then Iames to Ierusalem And let me aske him what proofe he can make worthy of credit that Matthew Matthias and Iames that was martyred at Ierusalem Act. 12. 2. spent their daies in traveil froÌ„ one country to an other And if Iames be to reckoned a Bishop because he rested at Ierusalem when others traveiled from place to place why he should deny the rest to be also properly Bishops when they took up some speciall place to rest in as he sayth Iohn did at Ephesus c. specially seing the fathers intitle them Bishops of those places where they rested Thirdly an other difference he noteth scz that wheras the other Apostles having planted Churches when they sawe their time coÌ„mitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames coÌ„mitted the Church of Ierusalem to no other But can he tell us to what Bishops the Churches of Iconium Lystra Derbe Antioch in Pisidia and sundry others planted by Paul were coÌ„mitted For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches which being planted by him received no other Bishop to governe them if this reason proveth Iames to be the Bishop of Ierusalem The consequence therefore of the argument abovesayd is nothing weakned by the differences which the Doctor putteth betwene Iames and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth Notwithstanding that the reader may see how grossely he erreth in combyning these two functions of an Apostle a Bishop in one person I will here propose some of the reasons which D. Sutlif a zealous mainteyner of the episcopall governmeÌ„t hath pressed against Peters supposed Bishoprick at Rome De pont lib. 2. cap. 10. The Apostles saith he and Pastors or Bishops properly so called are â—o distinguished that an Apostle is one thing and a Pastor or Bishop is another Sect. 6. He hath given us as saith Paul Ephes 4. 11. some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers What can be spoken more cleerely he hath given some Apostles others Pastors and Teachers quosdam dedit Apostolos alios autem Pastores et Doctores Wherefore as he concludeth concerning Peter so doe I concerning Iames if Iames were an Apostle he could not be a Bishop Pastor to speak properly vnlesse we will confound both the gifts of Christ and membra dividentia the members of the division set down by the Apostle 2. The Apostles had this priviledge that they were called sent by Chrst iÌ„mediately Mark 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops it is farre otherwise they were not called iÌ„mediately of God but by men Paul prescribeth lawes vnto Timothâ— what manner of men were to be chosen Bishops warneth him to lay no hands suddenly upon any man 1. Tim. 3. 2. and 5. 21. Seing therefore Iames was by Christ alone not by men called chosen and ordeyned wheÌ„ce could he have a Bishoprick given him As for those Fathers which say that Iames was by his fellow-Apostles ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem we have already Cap. sect 22. heard Doctor Sutliffs answer this onely now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop seing he saith that Iames receyved the episcopall power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo as is also before shewed cap. 5. sect 13. 14. 3. The office of Bishops is farre inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it for the Apostles ordeyned Bishops heard their causes c. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonicall scriptures and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into al truth Iohn 14. 26. 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative for there were none more greivous schismes raised in the Church neyther any more foul heresyes sprang from any then froÌ„ Bishops Wherefore seing Iames was an Apostle quid opus erat ut quasi capite diminutus ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem velut Patritius ad plebem transiret I might adde his 4. and 9. arguments but because they come nere to things already urged I passe them over onely that it may appeare he putteth no difference betwene Peter and Iames in the limitation of their ministrie as the D. doth I will close up all with that which he hath elswhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec Iohannem nec Iacobum Apostoluns propriâ— dicimus fuisse Episcopum rationeÌ„que hanc reddidimus quia Apostolici officij â—ines nullâ— eranâ— Episcopi aut em suas habuere certas dioceses et provincias Yea saith he we say not that the Apostle Iohn or Iames was a Bishop properly we have rendred this reason for it that there were no bounds or limitts of the Apostolicall function whereas Bishops had their certeine diocesâ—s and provinces Which reason seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at as being vnable to answer it I hope the
too weak to upholde it so it will soone appeare that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings so an abasement and not a preferment to him For what is it It is not saith he a clipping of his wings more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutuall consent every mans province as it were or Circuite and charge was assigned to him As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned to clipp the wings of all the rest for company to testify one vntruthby another For as he cannot prove so I have disproved cap. 5. sect 11. his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his severall Province or circuite by mutuall consent And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them why should he deny them to be properly Bishops every one of them in his circuit or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their authority and so a clipping of their wings to be confined within one province or to one nation when as by their Apostolicall function they had authority to preach and to execute all ministeriall duties in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come ye◠of all the rest Iames his share must needs be by farr the least if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle or at least a Titular Apostle onely for as he saith of titular Bishops lib. 3. pag. 130. that they were such as had the bare name but not the authority of a Bishop so he must also affirme of Iames that he was but a titular Apostle seing th' authority of an Apostle which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shal be offred and in planting Churches where none were c. is denied unto Iames if his whole authoritie be confined to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem which was already founded to his hand And if it were a punishment to Meletius and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour to haue his whole authority confined to one Church as other Bishops although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle As for the next point viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect 9. pag 62. Doct. Refuter pag. 134. for o yeares even till his dying day to omit what is already sayd cap. 5. sect 10. 25. for the contrary we are now to examine whether the cause of his stay there was as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church in the function of a Bishop The reason of his continuance there saith the refuter was not so much the ruling of the Christians that were converted which might have bene otherwise performed as the converting of multitudes both of Iewes and of other nations that vsually flocked thither which was a work of the Apostolicall function Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth that it is nothing to the purpose to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed But he is to be advertised that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there then he shall shew himself verie voide of reason to make the government of that Church eyther the onely or the principall cause of his so long remayning in that place And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight then that the Refuter mencioneth it is but a wrangling part in him to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion in this case Neyther is it any thing to the purpose to urge him to shew that the church of Ierusalem was otherwise governed vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts And where he sayth There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles c. eyther he doth but trifle or which is worse dissembleth his owne knowledge for if by a Pastor he meane a Diocesan Bishop he knoweth very well that it is not onely doubted of but flatly denyed that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles But if he take the word at large for every or any one that feedeth whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinarie calling of Presbyters Act. 20. 28. then he sheweth himselfe a meer trifler since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant that Iames was in this large constructiō of the word their Pastor by a temporary assignment and that besides him they had other Pastors even so many as there were presbyters in that Church But when he saith there is no doubt to be made but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth of his staying there 30. yeares was the same with the cause of the stay of Simon and the rest of his successors till their death he doth too apparantly begg the question For the cause which the Refuter propounded and the Doctor contradicted not ceased before Simons election to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem for his election was not till Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore there was no such recourse eyther of Iewes or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time or his successors as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection for the generality of them took place after that desolation made by Titus his army there was not the like need now as before for one of the Apostles there to reside to labour the cōversion of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place There remaineth one speach of the Doctor which in the Refuters Sect. 10. ad sect 8. pag 61. apprehension bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up as was shewed by this argumēt That charge saith the Doctor sermon pag. 68 which the Apostles had in cōmon whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames 〈◊〉 particular But that saith the Refuter p. 134. was not the charge of Bishops but of Apostles Ergo neyther was the charge which Iames had the charge of a Bishop but of an Apostle Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense The proposition is his owne he loveth his credit and he will not recall it what then Doth he contradict the assumption and say that the Apostles whiles they governed joyntly the Church of Ierusalem had the charge not of Apostles but of Bishops in the very function of Diocesan Bishops such as
certeine place the other is ordinarie tyed to one certeine place Ergo the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors cannot be conjoyned at once in one person without confounding the functiōs which in their first institution were distinguished And by this it may be seene that the Doctors comparison halteth when he would perswade that Timothy and Titus might be Bishops although they were Evangelists like as the Apostles Matthew and Iohn were also Evangelists for that Evangelistship given to Matthew Iohn by that name of Evangelists is farre differing from the Evangelisticall function of Timothy and Titus neyther is there such an opposition betweene their Evangelist-ship and the Apostleship as there is betwene that Evangelistical function which he giveth to Timothy Titus their episcopall office For Matthew and Iohn ceased not to be Apostles when they became Evangelists but concerning Timothy and Titus he plainely affirmeth that they laid aside their former office when they vndertook the later For he saith pag. 95. that after they were placed Bishops they traveiled not up and downe as in former times but ordinarily remeyned with their flocks To come then to the latter braunch of the Refuters argument Sect. 3. ad sect 12. p. 95. which affirmeth that they were deprived of an higher calling thrust into a lower if they ceased to be Evangelists when they were made Bishops the truth of it dependeth upon this assertion that the Evangelists were in degree of ministery superior to all ordinary Pastors or Bishops which is so generally acknowledged for a truth that the Reader may well admire at the Doctors boldnes that shameth not to set an Evangelist in equall ranck with presbyters and so in his apprehension in a degree below his Bishops For herein he swarveth not onely from the cōmon Tenent of the best in other reformed churches see Calvin in Ephes 4. 11. Beza de grad minist pag. 133. 134. which give to all the extraordinary functions of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists a preheminent degree above all the ordinary offices of Pastors or Bishops but also from such as have pleaded the same cause before him D. Dove Def. of Church-government pag. 17. lin 18. and perpet gover pag. 50. 51. And therefore as the D. will have Iames to remeine an Apostle though he were Bishop of Ierusalem so will Bishop Bilsō have Timothy and Titus to be both Evangelists and Bishops perpet gover pag. 233. 234. But to leave the mencion of men however famous for learning and esteemed in the Church can we have any better line whereby to measure out the preheminence of each ministeriall function then that priority of place order wherein the Apostles hath set them Ephes 4 11. from hence therefore I thus argue All the ordinary functions of ministery comprised vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers are in degree inferior to the extraordinary functions of Apostles Prophets Evangelists as the order of their standing Ephes 4. 11. sheweth But the function of Bishops which the Doct. ascribeth to Timothy and Titus is an ordinary function of ministery such as himself comprizeth vnder the name of Pastors pag. 95. Ergo it is also inferior in degree to the extraordinary functiō of Evangelists aswell as to Apostles Prophets Now to reduce to this argument the Doctors discourse pag. 94. and 95 the summe is this First he maketh 4. sorts of Evangelists viz such as taught the Gospell by writing as the 4. Evangelists Math. Mark Luke and Iohn 2. any one that doth Evangelize or preach the Gospell 3. the. 72. disciples imediately called of Christ and sent by him to preach the gospel of which number was Philip Act. 21. 8. 4. Some others assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their traveiles and assistants in the Ministery and of this sort were Timothy and Titus whiles they accompanied Paul in his traveiles and were not assigned to any certeyne place Secondly to apply this distribution unto the Apostles meaning Ephes 4. 11. he acknowledgeth no other there comprized under the name of Evangelists then the 4. Evangelists so called kat hexochen and perhaps the 72 doubtfully he speaketh of them pag. 95. as being loath it seemeth to acknowledge that they had any preheminence above his diocesan Bishops because the Fathers say of them as he observeth pag. 94. that they also had but the degree of the presbyterie And therefore I guesse he will award the stroke of the former argument by this distinctiō thus viz. that the ordinary functions of ministery comprized vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers are not inferior in degree to the later sort of Evangelists which attended on the Apostles but onely to the 4. Evangelists and perhaps to the. 72. because these onely and not the other are meant by the name of Evangelists in that place And to joine issue with the Doctor I affirme the contrary viz. Section 〈◊〉 that by Evangelists in Ephes 4. 11. we are to vnderstand all those and those onely which in an extraordinary function distinct from the Apostles and Prophets traveiled too and fro preaching the Gospell whether they were imediately called of Christ as Philip is supposed to be or were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions and assistants as Timothy Titus Mark and many others And first to prove that which he denyeth viz. that the later sort of Evangelists are comprized vnder that name in Ephes 4. 11. aswell as the former for brevity sake in stead of larger syllogismes I tender to him and to the judicious Reader these several arguments nakedly propounded 1. the D. confesseth that vnder the name of Evangelists specially taken the later sort in which number Timothy and Titus were are no lesse comprized then the former because this was cōmon to them all that they went up and downe preaching the Gospell not being affixed to any certeine place It seemeth therefore he was not well advised when he admitted the one sort and denied the other to be understood by the word Ephes 4. 11. unlesse he could yeeld as he cannot some sufficient reason for the difference he putteth betweene them 2. Againe he confesseth that the later sort were in an extraordinary function Either therefore he must deny all extraordinarie functions of ministerie to be comprized Ephes 4. 11. or he must referre one sort of Evangelists to an other name as of Apostles Prophets or Pastors c. both which are absurd and I doubt not but to make good the censure if the Doctor require it Now whereas he referreth the word Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. principally to those 4. that wrote the gospels this is not easily proved to accord with the meaning of the Apostle seing that work of penning the Evangelicall history maketh them not to stand in a differing function of Ministerie frō all others For the Ministeries there mencioned are all distinct functions of preachers And if the writing of Christs historie made a different function why should
before shewed in answ to cap. 6. lib. 2. pag. 105. 106. that the Church of Antioch in the Apostles times was but one ordinary congregation assembled in one place Thus much for Evodius It followeth now of Liuus concerning Sect. 3. whom the Doctor telleth us serm pag. 82. that Peter and Paul being at Rome and there continuing somewhat above two yeares about the yeare of our Lord 56. ordeyned him Bishop of Rome who continued Bishop there â—0 yeares before the death of Paul 12. yeares â—fter and for proofe thereof citeth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Euseb lib. 3. ca. 13. 16 In his Margin he saith that Peter came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Nero to oppugne Symon Magus and Paul shortly after from whence after 2. yeares they both departed To begin with this last can the Doctor be ignorant that Eusebius and Hierom two of his best witnesses for the antiquitie of the episcopall function doe referre Peters oppugning Symon Magus at Rome to the 2. yeare of Claudius or can it be unknowne to him that many of our divines of great reading and sound judgement doe contradict both branches of his assertion and shewe from the sacred scriptures that Peter was not at Rome neyther at the time of Pauls first coÌ„ming thither nor yet in the time of his two yeares imprisonment there I forbeare to lay downe the particulars which are urged to this purpose the Doct. may peruse at his leysure what is written by D. Reynoldes in his Conf. with Hart the place before noted And Doctor Whitak de pont Rom. pag. 353 -359 Catal. test verit col 61. last edition and confute their reasons if he can He shall surely therein gratify the Romanists for Bellarmin convinced with the arguments on our side alleadged confesseth that Peter was not then at Rome when Paul came thither and from thence wrote so many epistles as those to the Colos Ephes Galat. Philip. and others which make no mencioÌ„ of Peter Now if Peter were not at Rome in those two years of Pauls remayning prisoner there how could he joine with Paul at that time in ordeyning Linus to the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome Add herevnto those perswasions which induce us to think that he had no such function at that time with Pauls allowance For why should he forget his paines or deny him that honor which he affoardeth to others that were his felow-workmen in the Ministery of the Gospell to make mencion of his name and labours at least in some one of those many epistles that he wrote from Rome in the time of his aboad there yea had he bin the Bishop of Rome when the Apostle Paul sent so many epistles from thence to other Churches would not he rather have made choise of him to joine hands with him in the Inscriptions of the epistles to the Philip and ColossiaÌ„s then of Timothy who in the D. opinion was eyther yet standing in the degree of a presbyter or if a Bishop the Bishop of Ephesus in another country In deed his name is remembred among other that sent salutations to Timothy 2. Tim. 4. 21. but since it is without any note of preheminence eyther in office or labours it argueth strongly that Paul was ignorant of any such episcopall charge or superiority as the D. alloweth him 10. yeares before Pauls death As for the ancient Fathers and Historiographers Eusebius the Sect. 4. D. best witnes for computation of times expresly saith lib. 3. ca. 2. Linus obteyned the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome after the Martyrdome of Peter and Paul which cutteth off the first ten yeares which the Doctor giveth him in the government of that Church But Damasus whose report the D. imbraceth as if it were an oracle serm pag. 23. affirmeth in pontificali de Petro that Linus ended his race in the Consulship of Capito Rufus which was more then one yeare before the death of Peter and Paul as D. Whitakers sheweth de pont Rom pag. 343. Wherevnto Iunius also assenteth Animadvers in Bellar. cont 3. lib. 2. ca. 5. not 15 and 18. I forbeare to prosecute that variety of opinions in all writers old and new touching the first Bishop of Rome and the order of their succession some giving to Clemens the first place some confounding Cletus and Anacletus some severing them and some conjoyning Linus and Cletus togither in the episcopall charge as doth Rufinus prefat recognit Clement But since there is such disagreement and the same so great that it perplexeth the learnedest favourites of the Romish succession it may give us just cause to affirme that their testimonie can yeeld no certaine proofe of any one whether Linus Clemens or any other that by the Apostles appointm t had the singular and setled preheminence of a Bishop in the Church of Rome It followeth concerning Mark the Evangelist whom the Doctor Sect. 5. affirmeth to be the first Bishop at Alexandria by the appointment of Peter and that testified as he saith by Nicephorus Gregorie Eusebius Hierom and Dorotheus In deed Nicephorus is worthy to be the foreman of the Doctors Iurie in this question for who fitter to cast a cloak of truth upon a fable then one known to be the author-of many fables Of S. Mark many things are repeated in the scriptures that will hardly be brought to accord with his supposed Bishoprick at Alexandria or with that which the Doctor affirmeth of him to wit that he was Peters disciple and his perpetuall follower For to overpasse his first attendance on Paul and Barnabas Act. 12 25. 13. 4. 5. 13 and on Barnabas when he was parted from Paul Act. 15. 37. 39. he was with Paul at Rome as one of his work-fellowes unto Gods kingdome Coloss 4. 10. 11. Philem. vers 24. and departed thence to visite the Saints at Colosse and in other Churches adjoyning Col. 4. 10. and he was with Timothy or neer to him when Paul wrote his last ep to him 2. Tim. 4. 11. But to overthrow his Bishoprick the very name of an Evangelist which the Doctors best witnesses with one consent allow him is sufficient seing we have before proved that an Evangelist could not assume the office of a Diocesan Bishop Neyther can the Do take that exception against Mark which he doth against Timothy Titus scz that be was but in the degree of a Presbyter seing he granteth him to be one of those that are kat hexochen called Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. cap. 4. sect 12. pag. 95. Moreover that which Eusebius and Ierom doe report of his writing his gospell at Rome according to that which Peter had there preached and of his carying it into Egypt and preaching it in Alexandria see Euseb lib. 2. cap. 14. 15. Hieron catal in Marco this I say is contradicted by Irenaeus more ancient then both for he lib. 3. ca. 1. testifieth that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter Paul And this testimony
opinion which is so unlike to mine nothing hindreth but my arguments may be good though theirs be naught For those argumēts which demonstratively prove the episcopall function to be of Apostolical institution doe not straitewayes prove it to be divini juris Wherefore my opinion being so farr different from the popish conceite who seeth not that the judgement of our divines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposue to mine for though they hold not the episcopal function to be injoyned jure divino as being perpetually necessary yet what man of sound learning doth or dare deny that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles Thus we see how the D. hath ledd us along But notwithstanding the confidence of his speach observe wee the extreame povertie of his cause is he not neere driven think ye when to prove his great difference betwene his opinion and the Papists he is fayne to flye to the refuters acknowledgment of it in that 90. page where with the same breath he challengeth him to be contrary to himselfe seeminge at least to vnsay that in one place which he had sayd in another Doth he not remember that he hath often charged his refuter to affirme throughout his answere that he holdeth the episcopal function to be iure divino and to imply a perpetuall necessity thereof how then doth the refuters acknowledgement prove that the popish opinion is farre different from his Doth it not rather prove that in this very point wherein he layeth the mayne difference he he is fully knitt vnto them although forgetting himselfe as many Papists also do in their discourses he contradicteth at one time what he maynteyneth at an other But to let the world see how he jumpeth wth the Papists in this matter I wil relate his opiniō not in his ref words but in his owne The functiō authority saith he serm p. 79 which Tim. and T it had at Ephesus and in Crete cōsisting specially in the power of ordinatiō jurisdictiō was not to end with their persōs but to be cōtinued in their successors as being ordinary perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the Churches For if whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy and Titus furnished with episcopal power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours Loe here his owne wordes now who seeth not that they closely implye that which he saith the Papists doe more impudently The D. closely implieth what the Papists impudently affirme affirme viz that where Bishops are not to ordeyne there can be no Ministers or Preists and consequently no Church Yet there is a freind of the Do. who pleadinge the same cause blusheth not among other propositions delivered to disgace the Presbyterian discipline and the mainteyners thereof to affirme in playne termes that all Ministers created and made by the newe Presbyterie are mere laye-persons and cannot lawfully eyther preach Gods word or administer the sacraments so saith Tho Bell in his regiment of the Church page 136 and then addeth this is already proved and a little afer concludeth with Ieroms wordes often objected by the Papists against the Protestants ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem where there it no Preist or Minister there can be no Church But to returne to the D. seing all the reason he here bringeth to mainteyne his accusation is from the difference of opinion betwixt the Papists and him concerning the authority of Bishops it being made evident that there is no such difference as he pretendeth it will necessarily followe that this second vntruth how notorious soever here charged upon his refuter must be discharged upon himselfe For it is a truth so The 2. vntruth which the D. chargeth upon the Ref. returneth to himself evident as the D. cannot deny it that the judgement of our divines is wholly opposite to his in that they hold the calling of L. Bishops to be neyther divini nor apostolici juris neither as the Papists nor as the D. holdeth them if he did as he sayth so farre differ from them And putt case the difference betwixt the Papists and him were such as he saith yet what is that to the point in question I meane to prove the refuters assertiō to be a notorious vntruth nothing at all The D. in deed his opinion being so different as he fayth from the popish conceit asketh who it is that seeth not that the judgement of our divines opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to his and I may ask him what meant he to ask that question Maye not the D yea doth he not agree with the Papists in affirminge the episcopal function to be divini juris thereby intending that it is a divine and not an humane ordinance though he should differ from them in the point of the perpetual and immutable necessity of the function And may not our worthy writers of whome the Refuter speaketh yea can the Doctor shewe that they doe not contradict the papists aswell in the former point as in the later Will he say and can he prove that they determine such Bishops onely as have such a calling as the papists mainteyne to be jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely doe they not generally conclude and determine the matter of all Bishops whatsoever that are superior to other Ministers or can they holde which the Ref. saith they doe and the D. doth not denie that the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano onely and yet hold it an apostolicall ordinance also or can they hold that so farre forth as there is a perpetuall necessity thereof it is onely jure humano and that so farre forth as it is not perpetuall but so as the Church may be a church without it it is an apostolicall and a divine ordinance Or doe our writers therefore determine against the papists that the government aforesaid is onely jure humano because they defend it to be perpetually necessary Or doe they determine onely against those reasons of the papists by which they prove this government to be perpetually necessary Will the D. affirme this Is not the contrary to all this most evident to them that read their writings Doe they not plainly and directly without any relation to this or that conceite conclude against all those reasons which papists bring that the goverment of Bishops over other Ministers is not an ordinance divine or apostolicall but humane onely directly contrary to the D. conclusion lett his reasons be what they be may And it were worth the knowinge what reasons those are that demonstratively prove as he saith the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution yet prove it not to be divini juris and of perpetuall necessitie as also what worthy
meere cavill joyned with an evident vntruth The D. jâ—ineth a cavill and an vntruth togither to say as the D. doth that the proposition sett downe by the Refuter is not his but stretched beyonde not onely his meaninge but also his wordes 4. But it was the D. cunninge to take advantage of the word seeminge here vsed but elsewhere omitted so to perswade if he could that his Resuter had no colour from his wordes to coclude that he did sett vp but onely that he did seeme to sett vp absolute poplinges for which cause also in meeting with the places where the Refuter reneweth this objection which yet is no oftener then his owne wordes gave occasion by his renewinge of his calumniation against the favourites of the government by presbyters he sendeth back his reader to this place saying that thâ—se objections though repeated in other wordes answering to his owne termes are answered before and that to their shame see lib. 1. pa. 194. lib. 3. pag. 142. But will he nill he we have gained the propositio so that if his answere to the assumptio be not the better the shame will light vpon his owne pate To come therefore to the assumption First lett it be remembred Sect. 8. that the Refuter propounded it not as his owne assertion which he ment to prove by the constitution of our Churches or the practise of our Bishops but as a pointe which the D. vndertaketh to prove in his sermon 2. He is likewise to be so vnderstood as ofte as he objecteth against our Bishops that having sole and supreme authority they rule as Popes or Popelinge wherefore the assumption which the D. rejecteth as false and foolish or frivolous is this in effecte That all diocesan Bishops have or ought to have in the D. opinion not onely supreme but also sâ—le-authority in matters ecclesiasticall within their diocesse Or thus The D. giveth and alloweth to diâ—cesan Bishops such supreme and sole authority c. Wherefore to make way for the proofe of this Assumption the Refuter first layde downe the state of the question into which the Doctor is nowe entred viz. whither the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops and then addeth that where they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subuct to the congregation so farr off are they from giving sole and supreme authoritie to the Pastors alone c. Mr Doct. taketh all from them all and putteth the reâ—â—â— into the bandes of his Diocesans alone c. From which words to conclude the former assumption and in the contriving of the argument to keep as neere as may be to the tenour of the syllogisme proposed by the Doctor to himself to confute thus I argue Whosoever giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from their several Pastors with their Elders and Parishes Therefore the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth downe sect 11. pag. 43. and adjoyne such an assumption as best fitteth with it And I nothing doubt but the Refuter will easily be discharged from all the untruthes the Doctor chargeth upon him and it be made to appeare that the Doct. himself is the man that climbeth that ladder of vntruthes to put his The D. not the Ref. climbeth the ladder of vntruthes Bishops out of that seate of papacie wherein by his owne rules they were quietly seated And first I will confirme the partes of this argument then blowe awaye the smoke of those untruthes which rose from out of the Doctor as sparkes flye vpward The proposition I thus prove Whosoever giveth vnto one Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese such a power of government as would be found both supreme and sole if it were invested wholly in the person of any one pastor for the government of one parishe he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and Parishes is such a power as would be found to be both supreme and sole authority in causes ecelâ—sticall if it were wholly invested into the person of any one Pastor for the government of one Parishe Therefore whosoever giveth vnto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth vnto the diocesan Bishop alone for his diocese both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is cleare enough of it self and the assumption is drawne from the D. words both in his sermon and this defense of it when he saith againe and againe that the authority which he denieth vnto parishes with their Pastors and Elders in this controversy is an immediate and independent or supreme authority sufficient for ecclesiasticall government And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoyned to him Wherefore if it can be proved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical goverment which he denieth vnto Pastors with their parishes and Elders it will inevitably folow that he alloweth vnto every diocesaÌ„ Bishop supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall To proceed therefore to the proofe of this pointe which is the assumption of the first prosyllogisme thus I argue In debating this question whither the Churches are to be governed severally by Pastors and Elders in every parishe or by Bishops sett over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese whosoever impugneth the former and mainteineth the later he giveth vnto every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denâ—eth to the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But in debating the question before mentioned the D. impugneth the former branch of the question and maintaineth the later Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denied vnto the severall pastors with their Elders and parishes Here the Assumption is in it self evident if the question debated be such as is before noted which none of his freinds need to doubt of since the D. himself excepteth not against it but intreateth the reader to take notice of the state of the question for future use pag. 41. and when he repeateth it cap. 3. pag. 61. he acknowledgeth it to be rightly sett downe in respect of the partes of the disfunction Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyllogisme standeth firme For
alone in his Diocese and so be guiltlesse of the vntruth he chargeth on the Refuter he must both affirme and prove that the Archdeacons and Deanes rurall and cathedrall togither with the Chauncelors and officialls which now rule vnder the Bishop and the Archbishop with his courts which are above him be of divine institution or at least were in vse in the time of the Apostles and so derived to succeeding ages And yet if he could and should performo this hereafter it shall nothing weaken the Refuters assertion who examining the tenor of his sermon and finding therein no intimation eyther of any assistants to restreyne his Diocesan Bishop or any superior court to rule over him did therefore truely Sect. 10. ad Section 11. page 43. Two other vntruths charged on the Ref. by the D. returne back into his owne bosome affirme that the Doctor put the reynes of the government coÌ„troverted into the hands of his Diocesan alone As for those two vntruthes which he sought and professeth to finde in the proposition they doe even as the former two returne home into his owne bosome For since he cannot deny but that the power which he taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes is in his opinion a supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall and such as wil be both supreme and sole in the Pastor yea more then Popelike if they had not a consistorie of elders joyned to him it is no vntruth to affirme but an vntruth to deny that he giveth both sole and supreme authoritie to the Diocesan Bishop whosoever he be that giveth to him alone that power of government which the Doctor taketh from every several Pastor with the Elders and people of every parish For whereas he objecteth that because he acknowledgeth a superior authoritie both in the Archbishop and his courts and in the provinciall Synods c. it is apparant that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that he giveth the whole authoritye ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected is before answered and here altogither impertinent because to wâ—â—ken the refuters proposition he must shewe that he giveth not supreme and sole authoritie to the Bishop in his Diocese although he give to him alone all the power that he taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But whereas he falleth backe to the assumption againe addeth touching his refuters speach in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that it is the supreme and lowdest lye and maketh the Assumption of his cheefâ—syllogisme evidently false it is a supreme and lowd lye in the Doctor if The D. maketh a loud lye I may returne him his owne words 1. to reckon this for one vntruth implied in the proposition when himselfe acknowledgeth it to be the assumptioÌ„ of his cheife syllogisme 2. to deny it for what could be spoken with a supremer lowder crye by him then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical and that not in this defense onely but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon where he offreth to prove it by divers testimonies To what end else citeth he pag. 30. Ignatius ad Smyrn and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens shewing that all must be subject to the Bishop who holdeth and menageth the whole power authority over all yea such a power as admitteth no partner much lesse a superior Yea what else meaneth his conclusion pag. 52. where he saith thus you haue heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are having a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop let the reader especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next chapter judge As yet therefore neyther the lowest nor the lowdest lies which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter doe belong to him they must goe home and rest with their owne Father for ought is yet done As for all that which followeth pag. 44. 45. eyther to Sect. 11. ad pag. 44. 45. sect 12. 46. 47. Def. free himselfe from giving popelike authoritie to Bishops or to prove his accusation against the Presbyterians that they make the Pastor of every parish a petty pope Well may it argue his wps good affection to the one and evill will which never said well to the other but it can neyther cleare him nor condemne them in his conscience who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides For neyther is the Doctors cause releived by that subjection which he affirmeth and the Refuter acknowledgeth of our Diocesan Bishops to their Archbishops c Neyther is their cause made the worse by the height or impudencie of that ecclesiasticall authoritie which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish For the question is not as the Doctor shifteth The Doct. shifteth the questioÌ„ it Whether by our Church constitutions Dioccsan Bishops doe lie subject to any higher authoritie or whether men may appeale from them c. but whether the Doctor doth not indeavour in his sermon to convey vnto every Bishop in his Diocese as his right by divine institution an authoritie and power of government in causes ecclesiasticall no lesse sole and supreme then the power which every Pastor should haue in his parish by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them if he had no consistorie of Elders to assist and restreine him And towching the parishbishop the question is this whether he should be or at least seeme to be an absolute Popeling as having sole and supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoyned vnto him If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slaundering and syllogistically conclude eyther from his owne sermon the Negative in the former question or from their writings whom he impugneth the assirmative in the later he shall I doubt not have good and honest audience In the meane time seing he hath not as yet affirmed much lesse proved that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolicall institution subject to the jurisdiction eyther of the Archbishop or of the provinciall synode it may suffice to close vp the former questio with his owne words p. 43. What hath he gained by all his owne triumphing outcries but the manifestation of his owne manifest vntruthes And for the later question since it is evident by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy that they doe subject their Pastor aswel as the meanest of the people togither with the whole congregatio to the Kinges authority to all his Majesties civill officers ecclesiasticall lawes and seing also it appeareth not onely by the same Tract art 26. but also by
assumption and conclusion on this manner If the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops then not by such presbyteries as they stand for But they were governed by diocesan Bishops Ergo not by such presbyteries as they stand for The proposition of this argument is absolutely necessary for such presbyters and such diocesan Bishops as ours are cannot stand togither And if the Assumption be denied he is already provided of a disiunctive argumentation sufficient to confirm it So that he may daunce as in deed he doth lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. the round The Doct. daunceth the round betwene these two and need not seek any newe prosylloâ—isme to conclude that which is to be proved But 2. what meaneth the D. to take that for graunted which his refuter flatly denieth Doth he not plainely tell him answer pag. 10. that though at were so as he supposeth that there were no other Elders in the primitive Church bâ—t Ministers of the word yet that it would not follâ—w that the Bishops were Diâ—osan because a Presbyterie of Ministers such as the D. himselfe coâ—fsseth The D. taketh for graunted that which is flatly denied were then in use might be ioyned with the Bishop in the government of the Church and that the whole congregation might have as great an hand in the government as he for so some of our opposites do graunt it had some times and therefore the sole government of Diocesan Bishops may well fâ—ll though there were no sole governing elders to over turne them It is therefore plaine that the Refuter disclaymeth this dâ—siunctive proposition as not necessarily true and that the Doctor wittingly how wittily soever concealeth from his reader both that division which is among the favourites of the Hyerarchie some acknowledging the state of the Church in the Apostles times for the outward forme and government thereof to be popular as Archbishop Whitgift in defence of his answer pag. 180-182 which the Doctor esteemeth pag. 41. a Brownistâ—call and Anabaptisticall dotage and The D. coÌ„tradâ—cteth his owne doctrine that contradiction which is found in his own writing since he now putteth the reynes of Church-government into the hands of the Bishop to rule as ours doe without the advise of the presbyters whereaâ— he formerly acknowledged sâ—rm pag. 1â— that in the primitive Church the Bishop vsed the advise of certeyne â—raâ—e Ministers and in Church causâ—s did nothing almost without them A thing now growne altogither out of vse and in the opinion of â—ome whose judgemeÌ„t ought to sway much with the Doctor that kâ—nâ—e of government which the aunciâ—nt Presbyteries and their Bishops exerâ—ised is now transferred to the Mâ—gistrate to whome it is due aâ—d to such as by him are appointed sâ—e D. Whitgifts defense pag. 747 Howsoever therefore it may be granted that in the question delivered by the Doctor the disiunct on which his proposit on expresseth is impliâ—d yet it followeth not â—ay it is an apparaâ—t vntruth to affirm hâ—t the disâ—unction is on both sides presupposed necessarie which the Doctor must confesâ—e vnlesse to use his owne words he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logick seing his disjunction and question doth not sufficiently enumerate their opinions which have debated this question in generall viz. what the forme of government was which was first practized in the most ancient and Apostolik Churches So that if I would treade in the D. stepps I might justly repay him with some such marginall notes as pag 47. 53. without cause he hath sett down to disgrace his Refuter to witt that the D. and his Consorts at this Day doe pleade against the discipline which Arch-Bishop Whitgift other learned Protestants yea the most ancient freinds of the Hierarchy acknowledged to be practised in the apostolike Churches and that the Doctor mistaking the question and craftily concealing the division that is among them of his owne side is bold to affirme that to be graunted which he knoweth to be denied 3. I know that for his defence he saith that his Refuter acknowledgeth the question to be such as he proposeth but he doth both the Refuter and the reader the more wronge in so saying In deed when the Refuter intended to shewe that our diocesan Bishops maye be proved absolute popelings by the same reason that the D. urgeth to cast that name on the parishe Bishops for which they whom the D. calleth a new secte doe as he saith stryve he then affirmed that the question betwixt the Doctor and them not betwene the D. and us for those words the D. hath evilly put in to make his owne cause good was this whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors The Doct. chaungeth the Refutâ— words and Elders or by diocesan Bishops But how doth it followe that he acknowledgeth the first of his two questions before mencioned to be rightly and fully delivered in respect of the parts of the disiunction He that hath but half an eye may see the inconsequence of his reasoning specially seing the question expressed by the refuter hath more reference to the second quaestion de iure then to the first de facto Moreover hath the Doctor forgotten that at his first meeting with this question he enterteyned it so well that pag. 41. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe he intreated the reader to store it up for future use Shall I therfore now inferr that he contradicteth himself in saying that his assertion is falsified in the later part of the question 4. But what need so many words to thewe the weaknes of the Doctors disiunctive argumentation or to prove that there is not any presupposed truth in his disiunctive proposition I hope he wil graunt for he is a Doctor and cannot lightly so farr forget his logick rules but he must knowe that the question which he debateth in the first part of his sermon must holde proportion with that assertion which is to be concluded from the 4. first points of his five seing the first part of his sermon is comprehended in them Now the assertion which is to be proved by these 4. pointes is eyther this which his disiunctive argument concludeth viz. that the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops or rather that which before he set downe pag. 58. for the assumption of his first syllogisme viz. that Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But which soever of these two he chooseth certeine it is his question Sect. 4. wil not yeeld him any such disiunctive proposition as he now draweth from this which he tendreth For his quaestion must be a single one and not compounded of two members viz eyther this whether the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or no or rather this whether Diocesan Bishops be vnderstood by the angels or no And this last coÌ„meth somewhat neare the mark though it misse of the right tenour of wordes which it ought to have kept viz. whether Bishops
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌ„try had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌ„s and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâ—iculars which he hearâ— assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâ—mens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâ—le before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌ„meth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â—2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ— And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ— I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ„ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌ„try then such as were already brought to
such an office as the Apostle vnderstandeth by the word Byshop in his writings And though the assumption be true rightly vnderstood yet is it false in the D. vnderstanding both words appropriated to one that is principally interressed above other Ministers of the word that are his helps and assistants in the feeding and oversight of any particular congregation Wherefore however the Doct. indeavoureth to wring out of his Refuters answere 2. conclusions directly as he saith contradictorie to some other his assertions yet as he hath not effected his purpose so hath he discovered falshood and deceit in his owne reasoning Sect. 6. And thus at length are we come to his first question wherein he would knowe of his Refuter 1. what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall sense in vnderstanding by the Angel in each inscription more thâ—n one And secondly where the Holy Ghost speaketh but as of one how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more then one There were of the Iewes who having seen many great signes wrought by Christ yet as if he had never yeelded any signe at all saide vnto him we would see a signe of thee Math. 12. 38. and 16. 1. and what signe shewest thou Iohn 6. 30 And the D. is not vnlike them herein Could he be ignorant that his Refuter answ pag. 3. yeelded reasons why he interpreteth the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle not literally for one person but by a syneâ—doche for the whole companie of Angels in each Church Yea though he twise taketh notice of his reasoning this way pag. 31. 33. he hath not once put one finger towards the removing of that which is objected in this behalfe Wherefore there is reason to demaund of him 1. with what face he dareth suggest so false a conceit into the mynde of his readers viz. that the Refuter hath either no reason at all or at least no good reason to vnderstand by the Angel in the inscription of each epistle more Angels then one And 2. why he should so stiffly urge the literall sense when he hath not answered that which is urged to infringe it Notwithstanding to move him once againe to enter into the consideratioÌ„ of this point I here tender him one of the Refuters reasons in forme of argument thus If there were more then 7. Angels in the 7. Churches then the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle must not be taken literally for one onely person but synecdochically for more then one But the first is true as that place of the Act. 20. 17. 28. concerning the Church of Ephesus sheweth for there it appeareth how there were more Angels or Bishops then one in the Church at Ephesus and therefore more the 7. in then 7. Churches Therfore the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle must not be taken literally for one onely person but synecdochically for more then one And seing the D. here reasoneth with his Refuter for the superiority of Bishops froÌ„ the name Angel as Hart doth w th D Reinolds for the sovereigntie of the Pope or of one Preist from the name Priest it shall not be amisse to fit him with the same answer that D. Reinolds gave Hart. Not so saith D. R. p. 252. The name of Preist in Deut. 18. 3. this law signifieth the Preists c. The law giving sentence against him that disobeieth the Pieist meaneth the Preists according to a kind of speach wherin the whole iâ— noted by the part And giving the reason why he so interpreted the singular by the plural he saith It is cleare by reason that the punishment of the transgressor hath relation to the lawe and the lawe willeth Deut. 17. 9. men to goe to the Preists If D. R. for that cause had reason to forsake the grammaticall sense why not the Ref. here seing the scripture sendeth us to diverse Byshops in one Church Act. 20. 17. 28. But to proceede in the refutation of his assertion or aunswere before expressed since it is graunted there were more Angels or Byshops then one in each of those 7. Churches the reader is to be advertized that now the controversie is come to this issue whether the singularity of the word Angel be a reason of more weight to carrie it to one onely person then the plurality of Angels in each Church is to interprete it by a synecdoche for the whole company The D. affirmeth the former and to countenance his cause putteth this difference betwene the name of an Angel or Byshop in generall and the Angel of this or that Church that where there are many Ministers in one Ch. though every one be an Angel yet one onely that hath prehemeneÌ„ce above the rest is to be honored with the name of the Angel of that Church On the coÌ„trary I affirme the later therfore wil vndertake to prove that where there are many Ministers or Angels such as he acknowledgeth to be in everie of the 7. Churches they have everie of them in regard of their function equall right to be called the Angel of that Church and thus 〈◊〉 reason If all the Angels or Ministers in each Church had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they administred then this title the Angel of the Church ought to be vnderstood synecdochically for the whole company and not literally for one onely But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption is thus proved All Gods messengers sent to oversee and â—â—ed his flock have equall right to be called the Angels of that Church wherein they minister All the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches were Gods messengers sent to oversee and feed his flocke Therefore all the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they minister The proposition is the D. owne assertion serm of the digni of the Ministers pag. 61. The assumption is his owne also in the next section pag. 34. The conclusion therefore I hope will passe for currant Moreover it is no lesse absurd to say that this or that Minister is an Angel or Byshop but not the Angel of the Church which he overseeth then to saye he is an Elder or Minister but not an Elder or Minister of the Church c. 2. yea to yeeld the name of an Angel simplie or the Angel of the Lord to agree fittlie to everie Minister of the word yet to restraine this title the Angel of the Church to one that hath a preheminence above other Ministers is to deceive himselfe and others by a mistaking of the cause why the Ministers represented by the Starres are called the Angels of their Churches rather then the L. Angels for the onely true cause is to distinguish them from the heavenly Angels who are more usually called the Angels of the Lord. 3. And if these 2. titles be coÌ„pared
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
that which he seemeth to applaud in Zanchy on Ephes 4. 11. pag. 95 viz. that the former sort of Evangelists and the Prophets also did governe the Churches nowe one then an other For how should Churches be governed by them if they had not the like power and authoritie for government that Timothy and Titus had From the Doctors reasoning in defense of his owne assertion Sect. 7. ad pag. 96. let us passe to the answer yeelded by him to his Refut who argued in this manner Timothy and Titus were to exercise their Evangelisticall function in those places For Paul biddeth Timothy after he had bin at Ephesus to do the worke of an Evangelist Ergo they receyved no new authority at their placing there which they had not before neyther laid they aside but reteyned still their Evangelisticall function The Doctor denyeth the Antecedent and contradicteth the proofe thereof Whereas Paul willeth Timothy to doe the work of an Evangelist what is thee saith he but evaggelizesthai to preach the Gospell diligently c. the word Evangelist being there taken in the generall sense Here we are put to prove that the name of an Evangelist is here taken not in a generall sense but in a more speciall for the function of an Evangelist which may appeare by these circumstances 1. First the very phrase it selfe to doe the work of an Evangelist cannot in reason be cōstrued otherwise then q. d. to doe the work which an Evangelist is bound vnto by his particular function like as in the like phrase the work of an Apostle the signes of an Apostle the commandement of the Apostles and the foundation of the Apostles 1. Cor. 1. 9. 2. Cor. 12. 12. 2. Pet. 3. 2. Ephes 2. 20. the name of an Apostle is specially taken for the office of Apostleship 2. It is the Apostles purpose see Mr. Calvin upon the place by the honorable mencion of his office to provoke him to use the greater diligence therein thereby to gaine the greater reverence among those that should behold his zeale and faithfulnes in his calling But the speciall function of an Evangelist serveth better then the generall name of a preacher of the Gospel both to animate him vnto watchfulnes and to procure him authority amongst those with whom he conversed 3. Moreover since it is knowne and confessed that he was once an Evangelist if either he had ceased so to be or if he had borne at this time a more honorable office as the Doctor supposeth in all likelihood the Apostle would have givē him some other title least others should be led into an error by this name 4. Lastly if we looke to the use of the word evaggelistes in other places we shal find it no where carried in the Apostolicall writings to a generall signification as the Doctor fancieth but rather is appropriated to that extraordinary function of Evangelists which then was knowne by that name as Act. 21. 8. Eph. 4. 11. Wherefore since it is a firme vndoubted axiome in divinity that we are to receive that interpretation of any word or phrase which best accordeth with the scope of the place it selfe and the use of the like in other places I will hold it for a truth not to be gainsayd that the word Evangelist ought here to be takē not in the generall sense but for the speciall function of an Evangelist knowne by that name We now come to Zuinglius his testimonie alleadged by the D. Sect. 8. ad pag. 97. to prove that their being Evangelists did not hinder them frō being Bishops His case is very desperate it seemeth since he is drivē to crave releefe of one so well knowne to be a professed enemie to to the Lordly jurisdiction of Diocesan and Provincial Prelates But what Zuinglius forsooth that Philip the Evangelist who had bene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea and Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and divers of the Apostles when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certayne Churches Which saith the D may be much more verified of the Evangelists In deed if this last glose had bene Zuinglius his words his evidence had bene farre sitter for his purpose then it is and yet would it haue done him no service till he had proved that Timothy and Titus had given over their Evangelisticall traveiles which he will never be able to effect while he breatheth But now all that Zuinglius speaketh for him is such as if he rightly conceive his meaning he will be very loth I suppose to subscribe unto For he is so farre from affirming as the Doctor intimateth to his reader that Philip after his Deaconship was first an Evangelist and after that became the Bishop of Caesarea that he rather citeth those words of Luke Act. 21. 8. where he is called an Evangelist to prove him to be a Bishop for these are his wordes De ecclesiastica sive ratione et officio cōcionandi fol. 48. Quo in loco illud nobis primo notandum est Philippum hunc Caesariensis ecclesiae Evangelistam episcopum vel pastorem fuisse c. In which place that is first of us to be noted that this Philip the Evangelist of the Church of Samaria was Bishop or Pastor c. whereby it appeareth as also by the words afeerwards remembred by the Doctor constat iuxta Pauli sententiam idem esse episcopi et Evangelistae officium and by many other speaches in that treatise that he confoundeth the names of Evangelistes Prophets Pastors in one office But let us see how the D. removeth the Refuters answere First he saith that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of histories other ancient writers who take not the name of Bishop properly when they give it to Iames or any other Apostle as Doct. Whitak hath rightly observed The Doct. reasoneth from that which is no cause c. deceitfully de pontif rom pag. 303 the Doctor replyeth 〈◊〉 that if Zuinglius spake according to the phrase of histories c. then and therefore he spake according to the truth from whence I inferre that if Zuinglius have spoken the truth in this matter then the Doctor is in an errour and reasoneth deceitfully a non causa pro causa For whereas he would perswade that Iames was properly a Bishop because the Fathers so intititle him Zuinglius saith expresly of Iames Hunc Hieron et omnes simul vetusti patres Hierosol episcopum nominant non aliam ab causam quam quod in ea urbe sedem fixam posuisset Ierom and with him all the ancient farhers call him Bishop of Ierusalem for no other cause but for that he had made his fixed aboad in that citie 2. The Doctor asketh Although it be true that the Apostles could not properly be called Bishops what is that to Timothy and Titus whom he hath proved to have bene particularly assigned to the Ch of Ephesus Creet where
Creta hath as yet received no firme support no not from humane evidence much lesse from the holy scriptures Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius Linus Mark Simeon others whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient Sect. 1. ad sect 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops which if we should wholly overpasse in silence we should neyther wrong him nor the cause seing the records of men subject to error drincking in many errors through oversight or want of judgment cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand as hath bin often observed But because he glorieth though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence we will enter into a neerer search after the truth make no doubt but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader both the falshood of some of his records and his false or deceitful handling of the rest And first he beginneth with Antioche vvhich as he saith serm pag. 81. had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno 45 and Hist lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat ad Antioche I ansvver there are many parts of S. Lukes sacred â—â—ory that vvith hold us from acknovvledging any such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ and yet there is no mencion of Evodius much lesse of his Bishoprick After the death of Herod vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho and. 45. of Christ as Euseb accounteth in Chron. an 45. Paul and Barnabas returned froÌ„ Ierusalem to Antioch Acts. 12. 23. 25 at which time there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there by whose imposition of hands Paul Barnabas were seperated to the work wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there And if Peter had gone after his imprisonment to Antioch there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch they gathered the Church togither and rehearsed all that God had done by them there aboade a long time with the disciples cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there grew that dissention about circumcision which occasioned that meeting at Ierusalem to end the question Cap. 15. 1. 2. c. where was Evodius all this while was he a non-resident from his charge had he bin the Bishop of Antioch and there resident how is it that we heare nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne and of their relating to him as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ierusalem Cap. 21. 18. 19. the successe of their traveiles why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy eyther with or against Paul and Barnabas why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes then their Bishop for which part soever he tooke it was necessary for the Churches instruction in all succeeding ages that as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. 3. so he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth after the the Synode was ended Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche aâ—d letters were written not to the Bishop but to the brethren of the Gentiles and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled who rejoyced for the consolation Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time so did Paul Barnabas till they were so styrred that they parted companies vers 32. 35. 39. 40 but before Paul and Barnabas were divided Peter coÌ„ming thither was withstood by Paul to his face for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius worthy the name or place of a Bishop indovved vvith such a singularity of povver and honor above all other Teachers though of an higher degree then Presbyters as loÌ„g as they are vvithin his Diocese If vve may beleeve the Doct pag. 136. lib. 3. ought not he to have interposed his episcopall authority in coÌ„manding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles and in appeasing those contentions vvhich arose betvveene Paul and Peter and betvveene Barnabas and Paul vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction Surely vvhat ever the D. conceiveth of these matters who can perswade themselves that S. Luke and S. Paul would have buried in silence the name office and indeavours of Evodius if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul to the Bishoprick of Antioch As for Eusebius his Cronicle it doth too much discredit it selfe Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case for it saith that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius which was the. 39. of Christ placed his chaiâ—e at Antioch and there sate 25. yeares and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius he removed to Rome and there sat also 25. yeares Because both these computations cannot stand togither the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error and reduced to 7. yeares but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius cannot accord with S. Lukes storie for his continuance in Iudea and his imprisonment by Herod not long before the death of Herod see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis 3. and D. Whit. de pont Rom. quest 3. pag 346. 347. 2. that Peters removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius contradicteth the D. assertion scz that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45 which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius by Eusebius his owne account Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point avouched by Eusebius and Ignatius to wit that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius For a parish-Bishoprick that is the function of a Bishop set over one particular coÌ„gregatioÌ„ is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles but that function of a Diocesan Bishop which the Doct. contendeth for is denyed and worthyly seing it is
Therefore the government of Archbishops L. bishops Archdeacons Chancelors yet in their severall functions is justly termed Antichristian The D. foreseing as it seemeth that such a conclusion as this might be inferred from his owne words to prevent any further inconvenience if his Refuter or any other should froÌ„ thence collect that he mainteyneth the popish or antichristian prelacie as well as our owne in asmuch as the government and function of our Prelates is in substance and essentiall workes of office the same with theirs saith that Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope and dependance on him as members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the heade Where the reader must againe be advertised that the D. wandreth from the question at The Docwandreth from the question at his pleasure his pleasure for the point now controverted betwene him and his Ref. is not what transgression doth make the Romishe Bishops and Archbishops antichristian properly or improperly but whether their callings and functions which other reformed Churches have refused as better beseeminge the degenerate Synagogues of Antichrist then the orthodoxall Churches of Christ be not justified by the Drs. discourse aswell as the offices and functions of our owne Prelates The negative in this questioÌ„ he should have strongly fortified but he rather justifieth his Ref. assertion in profering them a full discharge from all steine of Antichristianity if they will renounce their subordination to the Pope and acknowledgement of him for their head But seing he professeth lib. 3. pag. 154. never to give over the maintenaÌ„ce of his cause at his better leysure I will expect from him a direct answere to this reply I have already proved from his owne assertion that their government is justly termed Antichristian But their jurisdiction extended over the Churches of an whole Diocese or Province is a principall and essentiall part of their government why then should not their jurisdiction so largely extended be justly termed Antichristian Againe wherein soever they give best and greatest assistance vnto the Pope in his vniversall government therein they are rightly reputed antichristian this I trust the D. will acknowledge without any further proofe neyther will he I hope putt us to the paines to prove what all the world discerneth to be true viz. that in the large extent of their jurisdictions they give best and greatest assistance vnto the Pope in his vniversall government wherefore I will once rest perswaded that he will subscribe to this conclusion that in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction they are justly reputed Antichristian And so I will enter vpon the best defence he hath to wipe away all note of Antichristianity from our owne Bishops Having restreyned as before we heard that Antichristianity Section 6. which cleaveth to Romish Prelacie vnto their subordination to the Pope c. he addeth this consequence Therefore they are no more Antichristian then their parish-Preists and aswell might the Refut call the Pastors of Parishes amongst us Antichristian because the Popish Parish Preists are Antichristian as our Bishops Antichristian because the Popish Bishops The Doct. trifleth in figâ—ting with his owne shadow are such When will the D. cease to play the trifler in fighting against his owne shadowe Where doth the Refut saie that our Bishops are Antichristian because the Popish are such Or which of his Opposites did ever argue to such a purpose Nay hath his Ref. in any part of his answere once termed our Bishops Antichristian Yet if he had sayd that the Popish be and ours are alike Antichristian in regard of their functions as being in substance one and the same however they differ in subordination to the Pope he is wiset I trowe then to be so farre misledd by the Doctor as to say that our parish pastors and their parish preists are alike antichristian For their Preisthood in regard of the very essence and forme of their office is a sacrificing preisthood as the Doct. acknowledgeth and the proctors of poperie doe more clearely teach RheÌ„ annot in Acts 14. 23. Bellarm. lib. de sac ord cap. 9. But the office of our parish pastors though corruptly termed Preists hath nothing to doe with sacrificing and therefore it is not the same office but of a diverse forme ordeyned as the Doctor rightly affirmeth to preach the word and to administer the sacrameÌ„ts Now there is no such essentiall differeÌ„ce in the very function it self which our Bishops and the popish doe holde and execute Wherefore though it be an absolute inconsequence to inferre that our parish pastors are Antichristian because the popish parish preists are such in as much as the functions are differing yet when the functions of our Bishops and theirs are called into question if the later be granted Antichristian the same must be confessed also of the former vnlesse it can be clearely shewed that the functions doe differ essentially one from another 2. And if his meaning be thus to plead in behalfe of our Bishops viz that they cannot be Antichristian because the popish Bishops are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope c. I have already shewed the error of this argument in proving that their very jurisdictioÌ„ government is Antichristian Onely here agayne let the reader remember how the D. justifieth his Ref in that speach wch he indevoureth to wipe away viz. that he vpholdeth the Popish Hierarchy aswell as our owne 3. In that which followeth he assayeth to shewe that the function of Bishops was not first instituted by the Bishops of Rome therefore cannot be Antichristian The function of Bishops saith he is not more nor yet so much to be ascribed to the institution of the Bishop of Rome as that of parish Ministers For Bishops as we shall shewe were ordeyned by the Apostles and sett over Dioceses but the parishes were first distinguished in the Westerne Churches and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome whose example other Churches did imitate as divers authors report Is not the Doctor strangely bewitched with the love of his reverend Fathers and their functions that to The D. to free the episcopall function from being reputed Antichristian exposeth his owne calling to that disgrace sett them free from all feare of beinge any longer reputed Antichristian or of the Popes institutioÌ„ he will expose his owne calling and function to the same disgrace But if that be true which diverse authors report as Platina in vita Euarist Polidor Virgil de invent rer lib. 4. cap. 9. and others that Euaristus did onely divide titles in the City of Rome vnto Presbyters and that Dyonisius gave them Churches or Churchyardes and distributed abroad aswell Dioceses to Bishops as Parishes to Presbyters
answere thereunto is easy For putt case those cheife treatises which he read and from whence he received satisfaction be without sound proofe as in deed they are may he not have the pith and substance of them all and yet all he hath be without ptoofe 2. He telleth vs that it is not possible that all which he and all the rest can say can be comprised in so short a sermoÌ„ And I beleeve it For by this his defence it appeareth that he himself can saie a great deale more then can be comprized in so short a sermon for besides all that he hath spoken pertinent to the purpose though nothing to prove the point in question I dare be bolde to affirme there are a century of vntruthes sarcasmes slanders and many things of like sort But all this while how proveth he that double contradiction he spake of Nay where doth the Ref. saye as the D. insinuateth that all that he and the men of his side can saie is comprised in his sermon That which the Ref. saith is possible enough to witt that the pith and substance of all how much soevet it be that he and all of his side can say in this controversy to any purpose may be comprized in as short a sermon as his which filleth vp an 100. pages and was not onely preached before that most honorable auditorie as he faith but also vpoÌ„ second thoughts and mature deliberation enlarged and published to the world Thus we see how well he hath proved both the vnreasonablenes of the Ref. motion and the contradictions charged vpon the reason thereof As for his good admonitions in his epilogue and elsewhere how ever delivered by him not without mixture of gall wormewood we have so learned to make use and profit of the wordes of our enemies as we willingly imbrace them ¶ Thus much in reply to that which the Doctor hath answered Sect. 5. D. page 20. 21. 2â— concerninge the Refuters preface he should nowe have defended his owne praeface against the answere to it but that he vtterly refuseth because 1. it is a mere libell consisting of notorious cavillations mallicious calumniations and personall invectives 2. there is no material thing in it which is not fully answered in the defence of his sermon 3. the defence of his sermon it selfe being growne to so great a volume he should greatly wrong both himself and his reader in answering it 4. his refuter beinge in the darke and he in the light it is a verye vnequall combate c. And therefore in steade of answeringe he falleth to advisinge as we shall see when I have given answere to these severall pointes Lett the reader concerninge the first judge whether the Dâ—s owne wordes may not be banded backe agayne and charged more justly vpon his preface theÌ„ vpon the answere to it But albeit both that his preface and this whole defence are in the highest degree guiltie of those 3. notorious evils charged vpon the Refu answere yet I will spare him therein and onely demaund whether it standeth with any equitie for him at his pleasure to smite as with his tongue yea utter in printe wordes more sharp then swordes and not forus once to oppose a sheild of juste defence to beare of his blowes for him as Tullie saith venenata tela jacere but not for us medicinam facere As if Caius Fimbria were revived who when Orar. pro Râ—scio Amerino he had not as he desited slaine Q. Scevola accused him in judgment quod non totum telum corpore recepisset that he had not suffred the whole weapon wherewith he was smitten to enter his body To the second I answer that the reason were good yf what he saith were true but the reader comparinge them togither will finde no one materiall thing eyther fully or once in part answered in the defence of his sermoÌ„ how ever here and there he shall meete with revylinge and reproachfull speaches cast vpon the Ref. for it As for the third I will not deny but his defence is growne to a great volume in deed and so great that he should not onely have wronged himself and his reader by making it greater as he sayth but that he hath wronged them both and his Ref too in making it so greate as it is considering it is growne to that greatnes as by many notorious vntruthes so also by those three imputations falsly charged vpon his Ref And I wish he had regarded more seriously what he had committed to the Presse for the judgment of the present age and all posterity and that he had not so much yeilded to his inordinate affection and corruption as to make his volume swell with such bitter speaches so full of choler vnpleasant flowers of his rethorick not respecting what became him that commendeth mildenes to others proposeth for that purpose the very example of our Lord and Mr. Christ If he had defended truth as truth requireth to be defended he would never have presented that plesant spectacle he speaketh of to the coÌ„mon adversary If in any sort bitternes hath bin vsed in our defense by any who have bin strangely dealt with through which perhaps some have vttered some distempered speach the D I doubt not hath paid them all home their owne againe with large interest and measure even full running over as one that counted it whatsoever he professeth to the coÌ„trary a disparagement to be overcome in such a contention Lastly touching the fourth where he casteth them into the dark that doe not putt their names to their writings c. What argueth that speach of his besides the wrong offred to the pen-men of the sciptures and other good men many moâ— as is before sayd but extreame dealing of the Bishops towards us why else should we not dare to be seene in a cause so clearely taught in the word of God and so famously professed and practised by so many even the best reformed Churches in the world As for the refuter he is asmuch in the light as the Doctor and as wel knowne to be the Refuter as the D. is to be the defender Let his Lordbishops lay by their imprisonment and other extreame dealings and cease to be Iudges in their owne cause and that without baile or mainprize or benefitt of appeale inforcing us to indure their sentences and the D. shall soone see his adversarie in the face Till then the reader will both judge his request vnreasonable seing manifest experience witnesseth that the mildest men for bookes written without bitternes have drunk deep of the Bishops cupp mixt with the spice of their imprisonments degradations and such like and also deeme him a man of no great valour for counting that combate vnequall when he figheth with an Adversary that is not shutt vp in prison and hath not his weapons blunted or rather taken from him by that meanes Thus much breifly to his reasons pretended for not replying to the
himselfe and his family to the publike Ministerie of those whom he hath chosen to dispense the word and sacraments to him and to them he is a member of a true visible Church or if you will of one certaine parish that is to say of one particular congregation of Christians assembled togither in one place for the solemne and publique service of God 2. If the Doctor be of a contrary opinion then he reasoneth absurdly from his owne false imagination that the King is further then any Bishop from being a member of one onely parish to cōclude that they which deny the Bishop to be a member of a true Church may aswel or rather must needs be so conceited of the K. With much more probabilitie we may return this conclusion into The D. cōcludeth against himself and bringeth his slander upon his own head his owne bosome that seing he is perswaded the K. cannot be a member of any one parish because he is the governour of all the Churches within his dominiōs he must for the same cause deny him to be a member of any one Diocesan or provinciall I may adde Nationall Church within his dominions And hence it will followe that in his conceite the King is not a member of any one certeine visible Church for by one visible Church the D. meaneth the christian people of one diocese or province or at the moste of one nation For the christian people lyving vnder diverse lawes as the people of England and Scotland doe are diverse nations and so diverse visible Churches if we may beleeve his owne wordes lib. 3. p. 51. 52. Wherefore the vnpartiall reader may easily see that this odious crime of denying the King to be a member of a true visible Church falsly and spitefully ascribed to them against whom he dealeth doth truely and justly light vpon himself As for the question which he moveth whither they holde the King and his houshold to be a true Church That so he may be thought to be a member of a true Church though the Q. be needlesse and sufficiently answered already yet know he againe and againe that they hold the Kinge and his familye to be a true visible Church not onely a member of a true Church and the King in regard of his regall office a most noble member excelling all other though the Doct. seemeth to be otherwise perswaded not onely of the King as is before shewed but perhaps also of his familey because it is not as other parishes are a subordinate member of any one diocese nor constantly subjected to the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop His last reason why we may not with the like reason acknowledge the Bishop and his family to be an entire Church he should say but he saith familie by themselves I will answere when I finde him better disposed to receive it then he was when to the ende of his question he added It is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and judicious In the meane time lett him bethink himself what to answere to these questions 1. Whether every Bishop or any one of them doth alike subject himself as the King doth to the pastorall authority of any one or moe that doo ordinarily distribute the word and sacramentes to his whole familye 2. Whither any Bishop residinge with his familye in another diocese as the Arch Bishops alwaise doe and some others for the most parte doe he and his familey be as other parishes are subject to his jurisdiction in whose diocese they are 3. And if the Bishop be the pastor of his familey and his chapleines assistants to him for the pastorall oversight therof whether we may not affirme their families to be so many Presidents of parishes governed by a parish pres bytery In 3. sections following the Doctor bestirreth himself to recover Sect. 7. ad sect 9. Def. pag. 40. his credit with his Diocesan Bishops who by a reasō grounded on his owne words were proved by the Refuter page 6. to be absolute Popelings The reason was layd downe to him in this forme They who have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings All Diocesan Bishops have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall Therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings The Doct. scorning that this should be called his reason sayth That there is nothing in it his but the propositiō which also is stretched beyond not onely his meaning but his wordes His wordes are these serm pag. 4. least they might seeme to sett up an absolute popeling in every parish who should have not only supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall they adioyne unto him that is to their Pastor a consistorie of lay or governing elders Out of these words saith the Def pag. 40. I deny not but this proposition may be framed They who give to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall doe seeme to sett vp an absolute popeling And why not or better that proposition which his Refuter urgeth In deed if he had sayd They seeme to sett vp an absolute popelinge in giving to their parishe Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authority c his proposition had more naturally flowed frō his words then now it doth but since he saith an absolute popeling which should have both supreme sole authoritie c. he very clearely describeth in these last words of having such an authoritie as he speaketh of what he meant by an absolute popeling namely such a Pastor or Bishop as hath not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical Wherefore he may aswell deny it to be day-light at high-noone as deny that the Refuter rightly drewe his proposition from his wordes before expressed 2. Moreover put case a man should contradict the proposition which himself acknowledgeth to agree with his words and meaning must he not be inforced for the proofe thereof to assume some such assertion as that is which the Refuter propoundeth viz. that he is an absolute popeling who hath in any parish or diocese supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall 3. Yea doth he not elswhere in his sermon pag. 17. 51. with out any seeming affirme in plaine termes that the parish Bishop or Pastor of every parish must rule as a Pope vnlesse he be assisted with a presbyterie or subjected to the diocesan Bishops authority Yea that it is to sett vp a Pope in every parish if the Pastors doe rule alone neyther subject to the Bishop nor restreyned by Assistantes In like manner in this defence lib. 1. cap. 8. pa. 194. saith he not that their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme ecclesiasticall officers would be he saith not might seeme to be but would be absolute popelinges if presbyteries were not adjoyned vnto them because they shall have not onely supreme but also sole authority It is therefore a
in this question to use his owne words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61. he must confesse vnlesse he will confesse himself to be ignorant in logicke that this disjunction is implyed The Churches of Christe are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parishe or by one Bishop set over an whole diocese And this disjunction as it is ex hypothesi necessarie it being agreed vpon on both sides that either the one or the other forme of goverment is to be imbraced and that one and but one of these assertions is true or false so it doth necessarily import both that they which affirme the former doo give vnto every parishe Church and her presbytery for the government of it self the same power which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops And that they which pleade for the government of Bishops doe allowe vnto every Bishop in his diocese the same power and authority which they denie to the severall parishes and their presbyteries For as it were a foolish question if both partes of the disjunction were true soo it were no lesse foolish if both partes were vntrue or false as it must be if that power of government be not lawfull for the one which is denied vnto the other Now to come to the vntruthes which the D. chargeth vpon his Sect. 9. ad Sect. 10. pag. 41. 42. Refuter he findeth in his assumption these two 1. that all authority is by the Drs. taken from the Pastors Elders and people in every parishe 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone To prove the first an vntruth he first granteth one parte of it true saying the Elders in deed I reject as a new devise 2. As for the parishioners though for our credit sake as he saith he leaveth out that dotage of their cheife authoritie as if we held it and so maketh vs beholding to him for leaving that out which wee never put in for where did he ever read that we give them the chiefe authority in government in them he acknowledgeth some authoritie in chusing or consinting to the choise of some Church officers And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes he leaveth them that Pastorall power which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of Parishes to witt their power of order as they are all Ministers and a power of spiritual or inward iurisdiction to rule their flock after a private manner and as it were in the Court of conscience The Elders indeed have little cause to thanke him but see how much the people and their Pastors are beholding to him he is content the people shall have some authority he had once sayde to choose but that was too much and therefore recallinge it he sayth to consent to the choise of some Church officers but they must stand to his curtesy hereafter to vnderstand at his pleasure who are those some Church-officers to whose choise they have authoritie to consent and who are those other some to whose choise they have no authoritie so much as to asâ—ent whether by the former he meane their Pastors and perhaps the Church-wardens and Parish clerks and by the later the Bishops Deanes Prebends Archdeacons c. yea or no. In like manner he alloweth to the Pastors of parishes a pastorall power both of order and jurisdiction but their Pastorall authority is not in foro externo but in fore consâ—ientiae and whatsoever it be it is delegated and coÌ„mitted to them by the Bishops serm pag. 45. to whom the care of the whole Church beloÌ„geth so that the authority is not theirs they are but as servaÌ„ts to the Bps so rule under theÌ„ as they are rued by theÌ„ as at large he assayeth to prove serm p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea in this defence p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastorall power onely which ever was granted vnto them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of severall Presbyters to them as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolicall but rather of humane papall institution Thus we see how deeply indebted the Pastors and people are to the Doctor for his allowance towards them 2. But how will these parts of power or authority thus allowed them by the D. prove an vntruth in the Refuter when he said that the question being as he said whether the Church should be governed by Pastors and Elders with the people or by Diocesan Bishops the Doctor taketh all from them all c. Must not that all which is said to be taken away be limitted to the question before proposed q. d. all that power of government which is controverted whether it belongeth to the Pastors with the elders people of every parish or to the Bishop in his whole Diocese all this I say the Doctor taketh from the Pastors Elders people and putteth the same not all simply into the hands of his Diocesan Bishop alone And in this sense which is the true sense though the Doct. shifteth out of it the refuters words are true as before is shewed The Doct. shifteth the sense Neyther can the Doctor without shame deny it seing that externall power of government which standeth cheefly in ordeyning censuring and absolving c. is the thing controverted in the quaestion before expressed which the Doctor holdeth to be the Diocesan Bishops right and unlawfully given to the parish-Bishop his Elders Wherefore the first vntruth falleth back upon the Doctors owne head when he falsly sayth that his Refuter affirmeth of him that he taketh all manner of authoritie from the Pastors Elders people And so also doth that second vntruth inasmuch as himself well vnderstandeth and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. vntruthes but they both fall back vpon his owne heade meaning in the proposition set downe page 41. to be of giving to the Bishop that power which is taken from the severall Pastors c. and not all power simply As for that he objecteth to prove that he giveth not all authority to the Bishop alone because others are in the ecclesiasticall government ioyned with him some vnder him as Deanes Archdeacons c. some above him as Archbishops and provinciall Synodes c. It shal be answered cap. 4. sect 8. where it is nothing to the purpose but an other shift from the question which is not defactâ— and of the time present viz what order of government now standeth in our Churches by our present lawes and constitutions but de â—â—re what forme of Church-government ought to be or at least lawfully The D. shifteth the question may be as being of divine or Apostolicall institution Or if dâ— facto yet it is for the time past for the first 200. yeares after Christ as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugne serm pag. 4. doe declare Wherefore if the Doctor will discharge himselfe from giving all the power of government in question to one Bishop
or by the nature of their office might not continue longer And the Doctor might aswel say that these two worthies doâ— make the office of the Pastor which is perpetual aÌ„nual for the case may so fall out that it may doth last but a yeare with some such is their demeanour therein And to conclude the very lawes of Geneva which conteyne the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying pag. 9. That in the end of the yeare the Elders shal be presented to the Seniory to know if they be worthy to continue in their office or to be discharged because it is not expedient that they be changed without a cause shal be Iudge However it be it resteth still an untruth vpon the Doctors owne head neither shall he ever be able to remove it in that he faith They hold the Presbyters of those Churches mentioned in his text which were not Ministers to be annuall or lay-Presbyters Asmuch may be sayd concerning the third point viz. that they The Doct. standeth out in an untruth make those angels nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries then which the Doctor saith nothing is more plaine I say nothing is lesse plaine or true then that it is plaine they say so For 1. neyther Calvin nor Beza nor T. C. nor the Author of the ecclesiasticall discipline do confound those ancient Bishops the D. speaketh of with these Angels as he doth He produceth them all 4. as if he would strike it dead and they all agree in one yet never The Doct. 4. authors agree in one but never a one with him some of them against him a one with him Three of them speake neyther of these angels nor of the times wherein they lived but of other persons times very sweetly therefore doth the D. from them conclude for these Angels and their times Beza in deed Annot in Apoc. 2. 1. speaketh of these Angels but it is cleare he maketh them such Proestoâ—es praesidents of the assemblies to moderate the meetinges of the rest of the Ministers as that also they were Ministers of particular Churches or congregations with whom the rest of the Ministers were equall in authority after the end of that assemblie over which they were for order sake chosen sett yea he directly disclaymeth both in that Annotation and in his answere to Saravia those presidents or Bishops which were nothing else but presidentes of such Assemblies having no particular Churches vpon which they did reside and over which they watched not togither with the rest of the Ministers of equall authority with them 2. It is also evident by the writings both of Calvin and Beza for as for the other noted in his Margine I know not to what ende he should send the reader to them vnlesse for his discredit in quoting them idlely Instit lib. 4. ca. 4. sec 3. and De gradib Minist ca. 22. pa. 133. that even those ancient Bishops which lived after the time of these Angels for of them onely they speak which moderated the assemblies of the reste of the Pastors and presbyters in any Towne or Citie were themselves by their office Pastors et suae pareciae preerant and governed their owne parishe yea they laboured no lesse much more rather then other presbyters in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments ill favouredly therefore doth the D. conclude from them for the Apostles times But to help at a dead lifte and to colour the falsehood which he could The D. to colour his vntruth foysteth in a sentence which yet doth him no good not but see of that his assertion he now in this defence foysteth in these words in respect of their superiority and telleth us that they make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority onely presidents of the presbyteries And so reasoneth very profoundly in this manner They make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority above other presbyters onely praesidents of the presbyters Ergo they make those Angels nothing else but presidentes or moderaters of the assemblies As if a man mought by rules of logick conclude Mr. Downam to be nothing else but a Doctor in divinitie because by degres in schooles he is a D. in divinity though he be also Pastor of great Which is his best stile if he were so well advised as to take his degree of honor from the word of God c. As for the fourth since the Ref. acknowledgeth answer pag. 7. Sect. 13. ad sect 17. p. 52. 53. that those wise and learned divines doe judge that their presidencie in classicall or Synodall meetings was but of a short continuance as occasion required the D. might have spared his labour in proving this point If he would directly have contradicted him he should have proved from their writings that they are of opinion that the president might not by the nature of his office continue longer then for a weâ—ke or a moneth this was it which the Refuter denied but herein he justifieth him rather For in the very places quoted by him pag. 141. 153. though Beza saith that the presidentes of the presbyters were at first by course of short continuance yet he affirmeth that that order was not essentiall or immutable but accidentall and variable and that it was afterwards thought fit to settle it constantly vpon one But whereas the D. lib. 2. pa. 141. telleth us that as there cannot be one instance given but that alwaise the president of the presbyterie in the primitive Church was perpetuall so it was in Calvins time and Beza misliketh it not but sometimes wisheth it were restored what else doth he but justifie his Refuter in that The D. justifieth his Refuter in that where in he would coÌ„demn him must take home his 4. untruthes wherein he would condemne him Wherefore let the D. be intreated to take these 4. vntruthes to himself again their own home where for ought I know they were bredd and borne and there let them rest till he can bring which wil be ad graecas calendas a better discharge from their writings to justify those particulars Now touching those calumniations of vnmannerly ignorance cuÌ„â—ing rudenes wrangling c. which he objected against his Refuter I overpasse them as vnworthy any answere it was the best he could doe to outface and salve his credit but ill will it doe it with them that are wise judicious But whereas he twice affirmeth pag. 47 53. that the Refuter craftily concealeth or cunningly seeketh to conceale the division which is among our selves it is a slaunder not of ignorance The D. wittingly slandereth but against his owne knowledge for he could not but see that he sayd pag. 5. of his answere that all men are not resolved of the truth of every of them yet the division is not so great as he would perswade the world nether are the pointes so newe or so generally contradicted
meant by angels in his text were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as are our Bishops at this day And thus we may see what moved the Doctor to change his first question and how litle he gaineth thereby seing he cannot compasse his desire of dravving the first point of his five to conclude that assertion to which he referred the first part of his sermon Wherefore seing his disiunctive argumentation will not serve his turne and he will yet once againe for it seemeth he is vnweaâ—iable attempt the effecting of his purpose let me advise him to peruse his owne advise given to his Refuter lib. 2. 44. namely to set downe his Enthymem and to supply thereto that proposition which is implied in the consequence so to make vp a perfect syllogisme His Enthymem is this In the primitive Church there were no other presbyters but Ministers Therefore the primitive Church was governed by diâ—cesan Bishops such as ours are Here now the Doctor is wise enough to perceive that the propositioÌ„ implied in the consequence of his Enthimem and therefore needfull to be supplied is this viz. whatsoever church hath in it none other Presbyters but Ministers the same is governed by such Diocesan Bishops as ours are but his wisdome foresaw that if he brought this propositioÌ„ into the sunne to be looked on his Refuter yea I may say the simplest of his readers would easely have discerned that it needeth no lesse proofe then the conclusion it self or the assumption which he would so faine reduce to his purpose Yea as the falseshood of it was discovered aforehand by the Refuter and that vpon good and sufficient reason which the Doctor baulked as he passed by so it may evidently be convinced from his owne wordes aswell in his sermon pag. 69. 70. as in this defense lib. 4. pag. 36. where he confesseth that 〈◊〉 the apostles dayes all the Churches which they planted that at Ierusalem onely excepted wanted Bishops and yet had each of them a coÌ„pany of Presbyters which as Pastors fedd them in coÌ„mon and laboured the conversion of others Onely when they were to leave the Churches altogither by death or final departure into other places c. then they ordeyned them Bishops and not before and this saith he is that which Ierom cap. 1. ad Tiium affirmeth that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed over them were governed by the coÌ„mon counsell of Presbyters Wherefore the injoying of a Presbytery coÌ„sisting of Ministers onely doth not necessarily argue that the Church which hath such a Presbyterie is governed by a Diocesan Bishop as the Doctor without truth or reason taketh it for graunted even at their handes who with good reason flatly denied it Wherefore I hope he will at length acknowledge his passage concerning governing elders to be altogither impertinent for to pay him with his owne coyne pag. 60. coÌ„mon sense requireth that what he seeth impertinent he should acknowledge so to be charitie would though selfe-love would not that if he discerned not the untruth and inconsequence of his reasoning he should rather have suspected his owne analysis to be forced then have blamed his Refuter for his owne want of judgement Wherefore not following him any longer in his outwandrings it is high time that we come to examine his other question de iure Section 5. which standeth on two feet as the former on this manner whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as he holdeth or must be governed by their Presbyteries as they affirme The deceites couched in this question as it is proposed are in part touched before sect 1. and shall more fully be deciphered hereafter wee are now to see how well it suteth with the later part of his sermon and the defense thereof where he saith pag. 60. it is handled By the later part of his sermon he meaneth the last of his 5. points which affirmeth the function of Bishops he meaneth such as ours are to be of apostolicall and divine institution In the handling whereof there is nothing to be found against the presbyteriaÌ„ government save one onely naked syllogisme serm pag. 60. which concludeth the government of the Churches by a paritie of ministers and assistance of lay Elders in every parish not to be of apostolical institution because it was no where in vse in the first 300. yeares after the Apostles And now in his defense lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. he giveth no other proofe to justify the assumption which the Refuter denied but this that it is proved in the former syllogâ—sme set to justify the government by Diocesan Bishops For if saith he the government by Diâ—cesan Bishops was generally and perpetually received in those 300 yeares it is manifest that this government which they speake of was not in use Here therefore he like as he did before taketh one part of The D. againe taketh one part of the question to prove the other the question to prove the other Shall I againe answere him in his owne wordes This doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause Verely he had litle reason to tel us that he hath handled this question in the later part of his sermon viz. whether the Church must be governed by these Presbyteries vnlesse he had more orderly disputed against the assertion of his Opposite Yea if he had as largely reasoned against their Presbyteries as he hath for Diocesan Bps yet the question is not directly fitted to the points which he concludeth since he insisteth wholly upon the triall of this issue whether of those two governments which he or his opposites do commend be of apostolicall and divine institution And though he joyne togither apostolicall divine both in the first propounding and also in the winding up of this point serm pag. 7. 54. yet when he addresseth him self to the confirmation thereof pag. 55. he chiefly aimeth at this to prove the function of Bishops to be of divine institution and taketh apostol call iâ—stitution for his Medius terminus to conclude by consequence that it is a divine ordinance Wherefore it is evident that the maine argument of his whole sermon is the proofe of this assertition that the function of Bishops such as ours are for the substance of theâ—â— calling is a divine ordinaunce for this he pretendeth to drawe from his text in as much as the name of Starres and Angels is there given to such Bishops And to this he reduceth all the arguments layd downe by him in the handlinge of his fift position which he calleth the later part of his sermon and from this he inferreth those three vses which he would have us all to make conscience of viz. To acknowledge their function to be the ordinance of God and in that regard both to reverence their persons and to obey their authority as we are exhorted Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17.
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
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
in this case As touching the first saith he I have often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be But why doth he wonder where there is no cause of wonder Let him surcease his wondring The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter till he shewe both where his brethren have so argued and why such an argument will not hold And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause to wonder at his proceeding that wandreth from his purpose or rather justifyeth his Refut in that which he vndertook to disprove For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge that which now is closely implied sc that the ancient Churches remeyned for a time vndivided 3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words we may wonder what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided to those which at the first were not The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth pag. 69. The later appeareth by this that his best reason to prove that each Church had froÌ„ the beginning the circuite of the citie country adjoyned is the practise of succeeding ages p. 49. 55. which after division of parishes combined them in one body vnder one Bishop As for his questions following though I see not how they will serve his purpose yet will I breefly touch vpon them and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere 1. would they have saith he the Church of a City country belonging to it to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place I answere so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation I hold it best they continue vndivided as the first Apostolike Churches did but when the people of any City and Country are so increased that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place 2. Then tell me saith he whether we that doe and of necessity must consist of diverse congregations are to followe the example of any ancient Church as it was before it was divided or as it was after it was divided I affirme that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied the practise of the Apostles the ancient Apostolike Churches is to be imitated of us in giving to those new erected assemblies both the name and forme or constitution of Churches and the like power for government which those apostolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion in any one branch thereof 3. He addeth They will say perhaps that eche congregation after the division was as that one before nothing lesse let them prove that and I will yeeld in the whole cause We say it in deed and will not shrinke from affirminge that in the Apostles tymes wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country which at first made one Church were distributed into diverse there eche congregatioÌ„ was in forme or constitution like to that one before and if it be not so why doth he not disprove it Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent giving his reader just occasion to thinke that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe As for the ages following in Constantines time or there aboutes when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoyninge to it their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questioÌ„ of divine institution eyther for the constitution of Church-assemblies or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels c. before cited as he saith can convince or perswade the conscience of his opposites to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance But to what purpose doth he trifâ—le time in these By-questioÌ„s which make him forget what he promised to prove viz. that every of those 7. Churches was divided into severall ordinary assemblies Yet in one point more we must followe him sc when he indeavoreth to shew that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand if he had added this clause that they were Dioceses such as ours are but he foresawe that this addition would have quite marred his market notwithstanding attendance shal be given to that he hath delivered in defense of the point which he mainteyneth It wil be said saith he that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuite of the Church in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the division of parishes as after Here for the better apprehending of his meaning if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same I suppose he would send us to those words which he hath within a few line after viz. that the circuit of every Church even from the beginning aswelas after the multiplying of perishes included not onely the citie but thâ— countrye thereto belonging And if this be his meaning as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant then behold how he is The D. mustâ— gg still inforced principium petere when from hence he inferreth the coÌ„clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following 50. sc that though the 7. Churches had not bâ—ne divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses And because he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref I wil assay to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme and if he can beâ—ter the argument let him take his owne away Every Church whose circuite in the intention of the Apostle or first founder â—f it was the same as including not onely the citie but the country thereto belongiâ—g aswell befâ—re the division â—f Parishes as after every such Church I saw was a Diocese from the beginning though not divided then into several Câ—ngregations But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches in the intention of the Apostles or their first founders herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning though not yet divided into many severall congregations Now let
the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllogisme with the maine argument which himself contrived and is before set downe sect 5. and if they can finde any such materiall difference in the medius terminus and the premisâ—es as may give the D. a discharge froÌ„ begging the questioÌ„ let them shew it Meane while I doubt not but every unpartiall reader will perceive his povertie in this dispute especially seing he supporteth the Assumption of his principall argument with the same answere pag. â—4 For who that denieth any of the Apostolike Churches to comprehend the whole citie and country adjoyning as Dioceses in succeeding ages did will beleeve that the circuite of those Churches was the same when there were but fewe that it was when many yea all were Christians and who that denieth as the Refuter doth the circuite of a citie and country adjoyning to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese vnlesse it be divided into many congregations will not take him for a very trifler which to make good the contrary shall yeeld him none other argument then this that a Church not yet divided into severall assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese If the founder thereof did intend that her circuite should include citie and country as a divided Diocese doth Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and Both premisses of the Doctor argument are vnsound downeright answere to his argument last contrived I at once reject both the promisses as erroneous and unsound First touching the proposition since the Doctor placeth the very essence and life if I may so speak of a Diocesan Church in her circuite including both citie and countrye adjoyning so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable as it doth with the Refuter who accounteth such a circuite the materiall cause onely estemeth the very forme that giveth being vnto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies as meÌ„bers of one body a meane logician may see that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding he should have yeelded us some one or other Medius terminus which might have served to prove that such a circuite maketh a Diocesan body although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof But nowe in arguing as he doth that the ancient Churches though yet vndivided were Dioceses because their founders intended that their circuite should extend over citie and countrie as the later Diocesan Churches did the errour of his reasoning is no lesse grosse and absurd then if he had said Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally Therefore they were Dioceses properly or The D. reasoning is grosse and absurd actually For all men knowe that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese as he saith all the first Apostolicall Churches were the same is actually and in very deed a Diocese and therefore hath actually and in deed the circuit of a Diocese but if it have the circuit of a Diocâ—se onely in the intention of the founder and not actually it is impossible it should be a dioceâ—e actually or properly but intentionally onely especially in their opinion who place as the D. doth the very forme and being of a diocesan Church in the circuite of her jurisdiction conteyninge both City and Country adjoyning Let the D. here call to minde what he sayd pag. 18. of his sermon mainteineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the cheife Cities of any nation they intended the conversion of the whole nation and that when having by Gods blessing converted some they placed presbyters in any of those cheife Cities their intent and hope was by their ministery to converte aswell in the Countries adjoyning as in the City so many as did belong vnto God He addeth in his defence that they whose ministery was intended for the conversion of the City and Country he should have-sayd of the whole nation to their care or charge the people of that City and Country or nation belonged both for the first convertinge of them and for the government of them being converted Whence it is also that he saith lib. 4. pag. 131. that it was from the beginninge intended that the Bishop of the mother City should be the cheif in the Province notwithstanding he constantly holdeth lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 21. lib. 4. pag. 7. 31. that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over Mother Cities were at the first actually but Bishops of their owne Dioceses not actually Metropolitanes vntill diverse Churches being constituted and Bishops ordeyned in the severall Dioceses of the province there was a consociation and subordination of them vnto one cheefe primate Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intendinge the conversion of the whole nation and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops as the light of the Gospell should spread it self into the severall Dioceses if this intention I say cannot perswade the Doctor to take the firste Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches or Metropolitan Bishops Surely then he might think us very Idâ—otes if we should take his bare word wheÌ„ he disagreeth with himselfe for a fit proofe to perswade us that the like intention of erecting a Church in any citie or Diocese vnder an hope of subjecting the people thereof to the obedience of the gospel can make that Church actually or properly a Diocese till there be distribution of particular assemblies subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Church and ministery first erected in the citie Secondly to come to the Assumption if there be any truth in it his Refuter may make more advantage by it to conclude those Sect. 9. Churches not to be Dioceses properly or actually For No Church whose circuite includeth the citie wherein it is seated the Country adioyning onely in the intention of the first founder but not actually or in execution is a Diocese actually and properly if therefore the 7. Churches were Churches whose circuit included the cities wherein thâ—y were seated and tho countryes adioyning onely in the intention of the first founders but not actually or in execution Then it followeth that The 7. Churches were not Dioceses actually or properly The Proposition is grounded upon that difference which the Doctor himselfe putteth betwixt the actuall being of Metropolitane Bishops or Churches and the intention of those that first foâ—nded Churches in Mother-cities And the Assumption is in effect the Doctors owne assertion as he explaineth himselfe pag. 69. 73. 128 for in the last place quoted he saith expresly that the Counâ—ries subject to the civill jurisdiction of any citie were actually under the Bishops charge after theire conversion and intentionally before wherefore without contradiction to himselfe he cannot rejecte the conclusion So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches shall holde proportion with the groundes of his disputation he must The Doct. in his next must
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâ—d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ— instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ„ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌ„mendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌ„mended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌ„mendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌ„tioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ„ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to â—â—vill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌ„dly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâ—es of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
one thing as Apoc. 14. 6. 9. three rancks of Ministers succeeding one another and concurring in one course of doctrine The 7. Kings and the two Kings above mentioned Apoc. 17. Dan. 11. were so many orders or states of government The parties refusing the marriage feast were so many companies agreing in one excuse c. In like manner if the Refuter shall say that those 7 monades of Angels reckoned up Apoc. 2. 3. were so many societies of Ministers conjoyned in one charge of one Church the D. may see his interpretation is backed by many like speeches in script where one monade or vnitie is put for many linked togithe in one societie Passe we now on to his 3. argument from which we might well Sect. 4. passe seing it might have bin better spared then ill spent it being nothing but a new repetition of what he urged before to prove the assumption of his second onely he hath here set in forme of reasoning the strength of that which was in substance of matter there delivered when he â—ayth The inscriptions of the 7. epistles written to the Angels doe shâ—w that they were 7. singular persons But least he should judge better of it then there is cause I will not refuse to examine it and this it is To whome the epistles were written they were just 7. for they were written singulâ— singulâ—s thâ— first to the first c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches the 7. epistles were written Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were juste 7. Once againe I must demaund whaâ— he meaneth by just 7 If 7. singular persons onely the proposition is grosly false and that also which he addeth for the proofe thereof for those epistles were not written singulae singulis personis each to one onely person but rather singulae singulis socâ—itaâ—ibuâ— each epistle to that societie of Angels or Byshops which attended on the Church in that citie mentioned in the inscription and not to them alone but also to the whole Ch. as is manifest by Apoc. 1. 11. and consequently in regard of that communion which all Churches have one with another to the rest of the Churches yea to every one that hath an eare to heare as the conclusion of each epistle sheweth chap. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29. and chap 3. 6. 13. 22. As for the testimony of Arethas Ambrose they nothing help to conclude his purpose scz that the Angels in his text were onely 7. persons For as we need not deny the Angels to whoÌ„ the epistles were written to be as Arethas saith iust of the same nuÌ„ber with the Churches so we may graunt with Ambrose that these 7. Angels were the 7. â—â—lers of the 7. Ch. And yet it followeth not that by the Angels mentioned in the D. text are ment onely 7. overseing Angels other Angels or Minist excluded as shal be shewed hereafter in answ to his next sectioÌ„ the testimony of fathers and new writers also they are moâ— that are with us then with him in this point namely that by the Angel of the Church in each inscription is to be understood more then one Minister or Church-ruler Mr. Fox in his meditations on the Revelation pag. 7. 9. 17. gathering and conferring togither the opinion of all interpreters that he could meet with sayth they all consented in this that vnder the person of an Angel the Pasâ—oâ— and Ministers of the Churches were vnderstood let the reader see what he sayth there concerning Augustin Primasius Hayâ—o Beda Richard Thomas and others I will also here shewe what some of them saye Augustin epist 132. sayth thus Siâ— enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Qâ—od si deAngelo superiorem Câ—lorum et non dâ— prâ—positis ecclesiae vellet intelligi noÌ„ consequenter diceret habeo adversuÌ„ te c. whereby he plainely sheweth that though he spake afterwards but as of one yet he vnderstood it of more then one as his 2. homely upon the Apocalyps sheweth Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae habeo adversum te dicit prepositis ecclesiarum That he sayth to the Angel of Thyatira I have somewhat agaynst the he sayth it to the rulers of the Churches And though Byshop Bilson alledgeth him to prove the contrary in the self same epistle the words following Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae the ruler of the Church is praised vnder the name of an Angel yet have we reasâ— to think he ment not to appropriate to one onely person eyther the title of prepositus ecclesiae or the praise there spoken of seing in the selfe same epistle compared with his 2. homely before named he includeth both the company of Presbyters the whole Church and it is easy to shew out of other his writings that by prepositus ecclesie ruler of the Church he vnderstaÌ„deth all them that had authoritie to preach the worde and to rebuke men of sinne c see his Tract on Iohn 46. and de civitate dei lib. 1. cap. 9. and Mr. Fox his meditations in Apoc ex August in Apoc. Hom. 2. Interdum Angelorum nomine ecclesias catholicas voluit intelligi neque enim soli opinor minîstri sed et universitas totius ecclesiae vocatur ad poenitentiam I could add to him Chrisostom in cap. 2. ad Tim. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. 10. Ierom on the same place and Phil. 1. 1. Gregory in his moral on Iob. lib. 11. cap. 3. Beda in Luk. lib. 2. cap. 7. Rupertus Tincinens lib. 1. in Apoc. c. 3. Albin lib. 1. in Ioh. 1. Aretius in Apoc 3. 1. Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Angelos ecclesiasticaruÌ„ in dextra sua habet Christus hoc est pastores omnes et episcopos seu verbi Ministros potestate sua regit c. And that it was not his meaning by the Apostles meaning of the word Angel in the singular nomber in each inscription as the D. would have it to vnderstand one onely cheife Pastor or Byshop over the rest but all the Ministers of each Church vnder that name may appeaâ—e by that he sayth that the 5. epistle was written vnto the Pastors of the Church which was at Sardis in cap 3. 1. againe in cap. 2. 1. verisilmile est c. It is very like that not some one of the ecclesiastical governors is noted here in the places following but the whole succession of the Byshops c. To passe by our owne writers Mr. Fox Mr. Perkins Mr. Brightman and others I will onely note what D. Fulâ—e saith in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1. 20. S. Iohn saith he by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should weare on their heads myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols But them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Againe they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers unto the Churches But to shut up with the D.
have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy such as other reformed Churches have restored then with a Monarchy which our diocesans holde The D. argumeÌ„t therefore may be thus retorted against him The Presidents of the auncient Apostolâ—k Presbyteries were no diocesan Byshops such as ours The Angels of the 7. Churches were the presidents of such Presbyteries Therefore they were no diocesan Byshops such as ours Or thus Diocesan Byshops such as ours are not presidents of such presbyteries as â—he ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaeÌ„ts of such Presbyteries Therfore they were no diocesan Byshops The assumption of both is the same that the D. maketh use of for a contrary conclusion The proposition of the former if it be denied wil be thus confirmed Diocesan Byshops such as ours doe governe monarchically by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbyterie as the ancient aposâ—olike Churches enjoyed But the presidents of those ancient Presbyteries did not governe monarchically or by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of theire Presbytery Those presidents therefore were no diocesan Bps such as ours Both parts of this argument are acknowledged by the D. for the assumption appeareth by that which he affirmeth in particular of Iames his presidencie lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all Byshops in former ages sâ—rm pag. 15. and dâ—f lib. 1. pag. 191. where he saith that in Churches causes nothing almost was done without the advice of the Presbyters and that their was great necessitie that the Byshop should use their advice and counsell because otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a lawe c. And touching the proposition as he intimateth serm pag. 97. and def lib. 4. pag. 102. the government of our Byshops to be monarchicall so he confesseth that Byshops now have not that assistance of Presbyters which the ancient Byshops had lib. 1. pag. 190. And this confirmeth also the truth of that other proposition of the later argument For if diocesan Byshops such as ours have not any such Presbyterie associated to them for advice and assistance in government then they are not presidents of such Presbyteries as the ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the former is an apparant truth and confâ—ssed by him serm pag. 16. 17. def lib. 1. pag. 190. where he saith that the assistance of those Seniours that directed the ancient Byshops is long since growne out of use Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedrall Churches be a resemblaÌ„ce of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189. since they have another president then called Archi-presbyter now Deane how can the Byshops of our daâ—es be their presidents vnlesse he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads But let us see the D. owne defence of his proposition before contradicted If sayth he the Refuter wil be pleased to take notice of that Sect. 3. which he hath elsewhere proved that there was but one Presbytery for an whole diocese the proposition wil be manifest vz. that the presidents of the Presbyters provided for whole dioceses whoÌ„ the Fathers call Byshops were diocesan Byshops The argument is thus digested by himselfe in a connexive sylogisme pag. 122. If the Presbyteries were aloâ—ted to whole diocesâ—s and not to severall parishes theÌ„ the Bps. who were presideÌ„ts of those Presbyteries were not parâ—â—â—onal but D. But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption whose proofe is laide downe viz. chap. 4. I reserve to be handled hereafter now I refuse his conclusions for the weaknes that I find in the proposition if he speak as he ought of diocesan Byshops such as ours for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesaÌ„ as he supposeth the Apostolick Presbyteries were viz. to worke out their conversion cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church therefore cannot argue their president to be properly a diocesan Byshop Nay rather if it may appeare that the flock already converted was but one onely congregation of christians howsoever the Presbytery might be set to indeavour the conversioÌ„ of the rest of the diocese yet to speak properly there was a parishonall Byshop and not a diocesaÌ„ because the flock or congregatioÌ„ already converted was more like to a parish then to a diocese Yea say he coulde prove that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses that is for many particular congregations in each diocesâ— why might not their president be a parishionall Byshop in regard of his particular Church which he fedde with the word and Sacraments although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes For it is cleare that Mr. Beza of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Byshops he boasteth lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127. doth hold it as necessary that the president of the pastors of a diocese should have as the rest his particular parish to attende vpon as it is esteemed fit that a provinciall Byshop should be more specially interessed in the oversight of one diocese De Minist grad cap. 20. pag. 123. and cap. 4. pag 168. And such were in deed the first diocesan Byshops after parishes were multiplyed and Presbyters assigned to them the pastorall charge of the mother-Church the cheife Presbyter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to theÌ„ Neyther might he remove his seate from it to any other Church though within his own Diocese Concil Carthag 5. can 5. 3. If the D. shall here tell us as he doth lib. 2. p. 117. that the cathedrall Churches which were the Bishops seas Mother churches to the whole Diocese were never Parishes nor the meetings there parishionall but panigyricall it wil be but a frivolous exception in this place for there will still remayne a difference of that moment betwixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries our diocesans that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops of that kind that ours are For besides the forenoted disagrement that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling as they were by the D. owne confession the truth therevnto inforcing him lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158. to preach the word to administer the â—acraments in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick By this time therefore I hope the reader may see that although we should graunt the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses yet that will not warrant him to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops such as ours and consequently though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries he cannot necessarily inferre that they were diocesan Byshops like
termes Spirituall and temporall then the difference must be this that Bishops have besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies common to them with the Lords temporall an ecclesiasticall Lordship or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall However it be since he denyeth them to be civill Lords and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them in regarde of the same government which is implied vnder the name of the angels of the Churches he should in reason derive the Lordship of Byshops rather from Christs Lordship which is spirituall then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil For if that be true which he conceiveth Byshops have no more affinitie with noble personages in the name of Lords then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors Both may be called Pastors of the people as he saith serm of the dig of Min. pag. 53. but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies the Ministers of their soules In like manner our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes but the one are civill Lords the other not so but spiritual Wherefore as he affirmeth serm pag. 62. Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors because as he is the Pastor of our soules so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes but of their souls so he maketh or at least might from the like ground affirme Bishops to have the name of Lordes coÌ„mon to them with Christ seing as he is a spirituall Lord so are they also Lords spirituall and not civill Wherefore if wee may measure the greatnes or smallnes of that honour which any titles convey vnto Ministers by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons with whom they in those titles are compared then have wee good warrant to conclude the honour included in the name of Lordes attributed unto Bishops to be by so much greater then that which is implied in the other title of the Churches Angels by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels But no staied building standeth upon so â—andy a foundation for as men shall please to vary the things with which they may by any title compare the Ministers of Christ so theire honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure and that vnder one and the same title For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers Ephes 4. 11. with Christ the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 4. Heb. 13. 20. then is it a name of farr greater honor then the name of Angels or Angels of the Churches but it is by many degrees more base if it be referred to the shepheards that watch attend on their flocks in the feilds from whence in truth it was at the first derived Wherefore it must be confessed that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed Sect. 4. scz that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord being coÌ„mon to Bishops with Lords temporall to be a title of lesse honour then the name of the angels of the Churches that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels We may with much more probabilitie affirme that by how much it is a greater honour to have a Lord-like government in any Church then to have a tutorship or Guardianship therein by so much the name of Lorde given to Bishops in respect of their government is a title of greater honour theÌ„ the other which expresseth their Guardianship which in some respect is allowed to the Churchwardens of every parishe For why should we not measure the height of that honour which titles doe imply rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the names import then by the condition of the persons or things with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled To end this dispute let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor for whereas nowe he graunteth the name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire government and authoritie a little after pag. 153. he denieththe title to be given them with relation but as a simple title with honour revereÌ„ce For how can it be a simple title of honour used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them if it be given them in respect of their government And thus much for answer to the argument drawen from the name of Angels in his text to justifie those honourable titles of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops like to ours There remayneth some what alleadged by the D. to shew that â—â—e 7. angels were Byshops for the substance of their calling like to ours as yet vnanswered but it is from humane and not divine evidence He promiseth indeed serm pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence that the government by Byshops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them His scripture proofe is nothing but this The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse and for the substance of their calling like to ours as I sayth he have proved Which proofes because his Refuter had removed before he came to that part of the sermon he therefore tolde him that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion but what was already answered now the D. telleth us that this is vntrue For saith he I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Byshops That they were Byshops why that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed he should therefore say and make his saying good that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours but so to affirme were to avouch an vntruth wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing but what was before answered Which wrong is the greater because he could not but see by his Refuters words following answ pag. 128. that in so saying he had an â—ie to the D. proofes from scripture which was the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wel againe be once tolde that â—ayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna
suspence till he hath made good proofe of this assertion I seare it will wearie the dearest of his friends to wait for the proof thereof All that he hath yet found worth the mencioning is that the Evangelist reporteth Act. 19. 6. 7. viz. that Paul having found at Ephefus certeine Disciples about 12. in number that had been partakers of Iohns Baptisme by imposing hands on them gave them the guifts of the Holy Ghost so that they spake with tongues and prophesied From hence he gathereth 1. that these persons were at that time enabled by the giftes of the spirit for the worke of the Ministerie 2. Yea ordeyned Presbyters appointed to take the charge of that Church 3. That they did equall the number of all that were besides converted 4. And consequently that sometimes in Churches newly constituted the number of people converted was not much greater then the number of Presbyters placed among them for this he affirmed once before Cap. 1. pag. 6. The first of these may be doubted of we consider how generally the gifts of the holy Ghost were at other times beslowed Act. 8. 12-17 10. 44. 46. But I will not contend about this point The second is more unlikely then the first and the third more absurd then the second and therefore the last which floweth from these hath nothing to releive it for as there is not a syllable in the text to uphold eyther the one or the other so it suteth not with the Apostles wisdome so farre to exceed here the proportio which he held in other places betweene the number of the Presbyters and the state of the Churches to which they were assigned as himself confesseth in this 67. page lin 10. 2. Moreover it was the usuall course of the Apostles in all places where they came to plant the gospell first to continue their own preaching for the gathering of a competent number to the faith then to give them Presbyters to feed those whom they had converted as the Doctor also acknowledgeth in the first of his two arguments pag. 65. It were absurd therefore to imagine that he should now take a preposterous and contrarie order at his first coming to Ephesus to ordeyne them 12. Ministers and himselfe to stay there 3. yeares after to labour their conversion by his owne preaching 3. Again we may truely say of preaching Presbyters that which he saith of Bishops serm pag. 65. there was not that use of them among a people which was to be converted before they needed to be fedd and governed especially while the Apostles was present and had the assistance of Evangelists to labour their conversion with him Act. 19. 22. 4. Were the Refuter as full of questions as the Doctor he might ask him how 12. Presbyters could have that honourable stipend which in justice is due to the for their work fake as himself understandeth the Apostle 1. Tim. 5. 17. see lib. 1. p. 127. if the number of converts that were bound to mainteyn the were but so many persons or thereabouts 5. And if he shall ask to what use their guift of prophesy was imployed if they were not Presbyters affixed to the care of that flock he may take answer from these scriptures Act. 2. 17. 11. 27. 13. 1. 15 31. 1. Cor. 14 29. 31. 1. Tim 4. 14. which shewe that all prophesying was not inclosed within th breist of his preaching presbyters But I have sayd enough to shewe that we deny not without cause out assent to his idle fancie of a number of Presbyters given to some Churches by farre too many for the number of persons already converted Wherefore till he hath yeelded better proofes for this supposall it cannot conclude his purpose viz. that the Apostles intended the conversion of citie and countrey adjoyning by the Ministerie of those Presbyters which he ordeyned in any citie that had enterteyned the faith The 2. last questions before delivered intimate this opinion selted in the Doctor that if the Presoyters ordeyned in cities by the Sect. 9. Apostles were not appointed to labour the conversion of the rest yea if they did not indeavor it then there was no meanes to effect their coversion Hereto if the Assumption be addeth But there was a meanes appointed for their conversion and it was in time effected Then this coclusion will follow Therefore they were appointed to labour their conversion and as their office did binde them so they did indeavor it But the proposition is false and discovereth an high presumption in the Doctor that dareth limit the wisdome work of God unto one onely meanes that such as he fancieth to himselfe without any warrant yea against the clear light of the word For was not the conversion of Infidels unto the faith the principall work of the extraordinarie function of Apostles and of Evangelists that accompanied and assisted them in their traveiles 2. And when the Apostles themselves left any Churches to the care of Presbyters ordeyned by them did they not use the labour of their fellowe helpers to finish the work which they had begun 3. And why doth Mr Doctor take no notice of the meanes mentioned by the Refuter to wit the private labours both of the pres-byters of every well affected Christian striving to winne others unto the faith and the publick exhortations and instructions directed by the Ministers to those heathen that had accesse to the church-assemblies seing the scripture acknowledgeth that even by these helps the work of the Lord in the gathering togither of his Saincts hath bene very much furthered Rom. 16. 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15. 16. 4. 3. Iam. 5. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 14. 24. 25. 4. But though the Doctor make light account of these helps yet the Apostles were not ignorant that his hand was not shortned who had given them good as of his blessing upon such weak meanes so also of his working out the calling and salvation of such as belonged to his kingdome by many other wayes Act. 8. 4. 5. 26. 40. 9. 38. 10. 3. 5. 11. 19. 21. Isa 2. 3. Zach. 8. 23. Ioh. 1. 41. 45. 4. 29. 39. 12. 20. 21. Apoc. 3. 9. And therefore we have no cause to think that any feare of wanting fit meanes for the conversion of Gods elect that yet were drowned in paganisme should carrie them to comit this work vnto those Presbyters whom they ordeyned for the feeding of the flock already converted So much to the 7. questions there remayneth 3. more to make Sect. 10. ad pag. 67. 68. up the compleat number of 10 which though they be nothing to the present busynes yet may not be overpassed least he crow over his Refuter without cause Were all these Presbyters saith he Pastors property of that one flock or was there but one properly the Pastor or Bishop the rest being his Assistants 2. when more were converted then could well assemble in one ordinarie
us to acknowledge that all the people which in an whole citie countrie belonged to God as being ordeyned to life and in time to be converted were to be reckoned one parish For it is flatly denyed that they did before their conversion belong vnto any parish or visible Church at all And it is a blind fancie in the Doctor to think that because they belonged to God in his election therefore they belonged to the Citie-church for how should they be members of any visible Church or congregation which yet were drowned in atheisme and insidelitie yet as if he had sufficiently fortified the proposition or consequence of his owne argument he leaveth it indeavoreth to take from his Refuter the ground where on he standeth in contradicting his conclusion for he seemeth to grant that at the first all the Christians in the Citie and Countrie being assembled togither could make but a small congregation but he demandeth how they could be of one parish before there was any parish at all doe you not see the Doctor is wise enough to make his bargaine well for his own advantage when he hath a foole in hand that will give him all that he asketh for in effect he saith grant me The Doct. beggeth but thus much that there was not any parish at all in the Apostles times and then I can justify my deniall of your consequence when you thus reason that all the Christians in one citie the countrie adjoyning at the first were but as one parish because they were but a small congregation when they were all gathered togither His last refuge is to tell us he hath before proved that the circuite of the Church and of the Bishop or Presbyteries charge was the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were converted but this discovereth the nakednes of his cause that inforceth him to lay hold on so bare a covering as I have shewed this to be in the answer to his third Chapter and 6. section We have seen how weak his staies are whereon his proposition Sect. 3. leaneth but for his assuption he provideth much more weakely It is that saith he which the Refuter himselfe boldeth But this defense say I is such as the Doctor himselfe contradicteth pag 74. The Doct. coÌ„tradicteth himself and proveth to be a soule vntruth delivered not of ignorance but against the light of his owne conscience For there he acknowledgeth that in his assumptioÌ„ the Refuter findeth one error repeated which was before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination chargeth also the maine points in it to be altogither void of truth But let us heare what it is which he saith his Refuter holdeth Forsooth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostlestimes Wel but can he froÌ„ hence conclude that his Refuter joyneth with him in his whole assumption Nay rather we may see a threefold trick A 3. folde tricke of cunning in the D. of cunning in the Doctor namely in changing the first braunch of his assumption in justifying it by his Refuters allowance and in concealing the other parts of his assumption 1. he changeth the first braunch because he could neyther challenge any allowance of it from his Refuter nor yet yeild any sufficient reasoÌ„ to justify it against him in that sense that he taketh parishes in this controversy For he knoweth that his Opposites define a parish to be a particular ordinarie or set congregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God see pag. 4. of his sermoÌ„ And that his Refuter holdeth the ancient Churches to be parishes because although their multitude were great in some places yet each of them was one distinct assemblie guided in ecclesiasticall matters by their owne Presbyters see answer pag. 58. and this Defense lib. 2. p. 74. Wherefore to say that there were no such parishes distinguished in the Apostles times is all one as to deny that in their times there were any distinct congregations or assemblies which ordinarilie if they were not by sufficient causes hindred for this exception himself taketh notice of Def. pag. 83. assembled togither in one place to the solemne service of God c. he thought it wisdome therefore to let goe this point and to tender another in stead thereof which might passe without controlment viz. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into severall parishes But this argueth against rather then for the D forseing Churches which are not divided into severall parishes or titles and cures for these are one and the same in the Doctors phrase of speaking doe make but one ordinary congregation of Christians they must needs be parishes to the Refuters vnderstanding yea to the Doct. also as he delivereth the state of the questioÌ„ serm pag. 4. 2. But why doth he relie for the proofe of his owne assertion upon his Refuters approbation Is it not because in his owne judgment there is no generall truth in it which may appeare by his own exception for in excepting the church of AlexaÌ„dria he much weakeneth not onely his assuptioÌ„ but his whole argument For if his study for this defense hath brought him to know what he knew not when he made the sermon as he acknowledgeth pa. 93. to wit that parishes were distinguished in Alexandria long before Euaristus his dayes whom he supposed to have been the first author of that ordinance why may not his traveile for the next bring him to find out some better evidence then he hath yet atteined to for the like distribution made in some other Churches yea he hath already told us pag 50. that it is more then probable that the 7. Churches of Asia at the time of writing the Revelation conteyned diverse congregations see for this point also sect 14. And among other reasons to make good that probability he observeth that besides the Churches and Presbyters that Paul Petâ—r had setled in Asia S. Iohn also preached the gospell in those parts for many yeares ordeyned Bishops and Presbyters where need was But if there be any truth in that which his argument presupposeth to wit that in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appoiÌ„red to parishes because there was not in any church many parishesin their daies why then should there not be some probability sufficient atleast to weaken the consequence of his argument in the contrary assertion viz. that some Presbyteries might be appointed unto Parishes seing some Churches as that of Alexandria for certaintie and those 7 in Asia in very great probabilitie were even in the Apostles times distinguished into several parishes 3. As for the rest of the branches of his Assumption when he should make proofe of them he wholly silenceth them not of ignorance or forgetfulnes but of purpose because he found it easier to wrangle with his Refuter
Dioceses But however the D. may at his pleasure wholly leave out the age following or wander for his proofes beyond that coÌ„passe to Constantines daies and the ages following his time yet his Refuter must be bound to the stake precisely to conclude that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times but also in the age following Parishes properly not Diocesâ—s Yea even then when he discerneth pag. 100 that two rancks of Instances are produced to prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth the former taken out of the scriptures the later out of the fathers he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200 years A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude then by direct answer to infringe that which is objected But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall of multiplying of parishes in cities of combyning many congregations in one diocesan body I will therefore with the Doct. leave first take a view of that which is objected answered touching the state of the Churches which were of greatest note in the Apostles times To begin then with the objection which himself propoundeth Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem pag 79. his purpose was to contradict not the maine question though he so affirmed but the conclusion of his 2. last argumeÌ„ts which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64. And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question to make it more strong for his advantage I will apply it to the point whereat he aymeth with a supply onely of those words which are by him suppressed yet necessarie to be added The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles togither with the presideÌ„ts of the Presbyteries were assigned each of them but to one particular ordiâ—â—try congregation assembling togither in one place Therefore they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese To the consequent I add these words but for a parish to make the contradiction the more full because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses And for the same cause I also add to the Anâ—ecedent these words ordâ—yned by the Apostles The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place is a parish and not a diocese Therefore what is provided but for one such congregation the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese This latter connexion cannot be impugned The consequent or conclusion is the proposition which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthymem The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their assertion against whom he disputeth serm pag. 4. and in affirming here def pag. 79. that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof Onely he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition when he saith that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations For saith he iâ— proposition have no better hypotheses to support it I may deny it seing I have proved before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes But I answere that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth I need not seek any new propp to uphold it it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter sect 9. where he may if he shut not his eyes see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning that the Apostolike Churches before the division of parishes in the city Country annexed could not any otherwise be properly dioceses then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man before his body have the distinct members so that to returne him his owne phrase the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned viz. that the presbyteries and their presidents ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned each of them but to one particular ordinarie congregation assebling togither in one place the Doctor hath no cause to blame us though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument which he framed for us for I suppose none of our side were so foolish as to deliver for the proof thereof that assertion which he tendreth to us to wit that in the first 200. yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one such congregation Wherefore till he produce his Authour from whom he received this argument I will pray leave to think he forged it for his owne advantage that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much to wit that all the members of those Churches wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place Against which proposition rightly vnderstood of the time when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination I find no just exception taken eyther in his sermoÌ„ or this defense seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes to the age following whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his mayne conclusion Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was at the time of giving presbyteries to them if we say they exceeded not one congregation is it not a frivolous cavill to answere that they farre exceeded the proportion of one congregation in the next age following and the later part thereof It is apparant therefore that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares in the age following the Apostles were inserted into this question by the Doctor both here and afterwards pa. 100 onely to give him some colour of a just exception against his Refuters reasoning and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times to the ages following But let us see how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect 4. 2d 79. 80. selfe in this Enthymem In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled
in one place Therefore both the presbyterie and the president thereof were assigned but to one congregation First he denieth the consequence vpon this ground that the Presbyters were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the countries adjoyning and in both aswell to labour the conversion of the rest as to take charge of them that were already converted Which being nothing but a repetition of that he before affirmed nakedly and without any proofe his refuter thought it enough to tell him that in asmuch as he hath before shewed his answere to be false the consequence will remain good notwithstanding And since he now boasteth that he hath proved his Refuters affertioÌ„ opposed against his answere viz. that it was no part of the presbyters proper dutie to labour the conversion of the unconverted throughout the citie and country adjoyning to be an indigested fancie of shallow if not giddâ—â— beades thaâ— see no further then their nose-end if the reader please to look back to that alreadie layd downe cap. 2. of this reply sect 7. 8. c. he â—lay perceive that the Doctor is very nose wise and his Phan tasia being bewitched with the sweet smell of the prelacie hath fathered on the Apostles such an intent in the placing of Presbyters in cities as never was discovered eyther to his care by any ancient tradition or to his eye in any monuments of antiquitie Wherfore his censure passed against his Refuter more properly belongeth to himselfe viz. that he slubbereth over the proofe of his owne arguments as having a better faculty in denying consequences then in proving any of the premisses whereon his cause relieth yet as if his dreames were Oracles he saith and indeed onely saith it for proofe he can yeild none that the ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles instent as he expoundeth it He addeth when all both in citie and countrie were converted to the profession of the faith which could scarcesly be verified of any citie country for 300 yeares after the Apostles began to place Presbyters in Cities I meane till constantines daies as the Doctor observeth pag 54 they acknowledged the generally care and inspection over them all to belong to that one Bishop of the citie and themselves to be part of that Church and therefore concludeth that the consequence of the former Enthymem will never be made good But the Reader may see how the D. is deceived in imagining that the former consequence is beaten downe by the strength of this last if he will take notice of that which he now assumeth contrived for his best advantage to conclude his purpose in forme of argument to this effect All that acknowledged themselves after their conversion to be part of the City Church and so belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that citie they all I say were a part of that Church from the beginning orat least a part of the charge of the Bishop and Presbytery first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that city But all the Inhabitants of the City Country after their coÌ„versioÌ„ to the faith acknowledged themselves to be part of the City Church and to belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that City Ergo all the Inhabitants of citie and countrie were a part of that Church from the beginning or at least a part of the charge of the bishop and Presbyterie first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that citie And consequently though it should be granted that in the first 200 yeares all the ChristiaÌ„s of any one great citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place yet it followeth not that the Presbyterie president thereof were assigned but to one congregation If he can make any better use of his assumption for any other conclusion that may be more for his advantage good leave have he to follow his owne way meane while I deny the proposition wherein as we take it the strength of his reasoning lieth wish him to behold the weaknes thereof in this argument following All that acknowledged themselwes after their conversion to be partes of any citie Church c. were from the beginning partes of that Church c. But all the people which inhabited the severall dioceses of any province as soon as they were converted to the faith notwithstaÌ„ding they enjoyed their own Bishops to governe them yet they acknowledged themselves to be parts of the metropolitane Church seated in that cheife citie the Bishop therof to be their primate or head All the people therefore which inhabited the severall dioceses of any Province were from the beginning parts of the Metropolitane Church or at least parts of the charge of the Bishop and Presbyterie seated in the mother citie And consequently the Churches and Bishops of Mother cities were in their first foundation properly provinciall and not diocesan onely The assumption of this Syllogisme is the same with that which the D. avoucheth lib. 2. p. 113. lin 25. 29. But the conclusion with the coÌ„sequent annexed crosseth that which he affirmeth pag. 20. 1. 3. and 21. 1. 1 which contradiction if he will avoid he must disclaime the proposition so acknowledge that he trusted to a broken reed when he perswaded his owne heart that the subjection which the inhabitants of an whole diocese yeilded in the 4. age after Christ to the citie-Church and the Bishop thereof could argue invinciblie that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 300 yeares before were provided aswell for the vncoÌ„verted as for those already brought to the faith As for the Antecedent of the former Enthymem which he rejecteth Sect. 5. ad pag. 81. with much disdeine but with little shew of reason to him that weigheth the matter because it belongeth to another question as is before noted I referre the handling of it to another place for the present it shall suffice to discharge the Refuter from those calumniations which the D. throweth on him for exchanging it with this Assertion All the Christians in any great citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place I mislike not saith the Doctor his addition of the townes about so he wil be pleased not to forget to take them into the defense of his Antecedent If he wil be pleased say I to take the Antecedent so and in such sense as it is tendred to him let him never think his Refuter will shrink from the defense thereof But the Doctor is timorous and feareth to be circumvented with the inclosure of that parenthesis unlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes and therefore he would faine have it to be removed or rather the word although to be set in stead of unlesse where we may see the old proverb verefied in him give him an inche and he will
hath his Refuter sayed that those Churches of Corinth Ephesus c. were parishes before the division of parishes or why doth he father on him such a senslesse assertion as this is For in his owne understanding it is all one as if a man should say that those Churches were parishes before they were any parishes at all as appeareth by his descanting upon this point pag. 69. and 70. But let us see how the Doctor fortifyeth each part of his argumentation First touching his assumption to prove that those churches were not such as were the parishes that followed the division he urgeth 3. differences betwixt the one and the other 1. parishes after their division had not a Bishop and a Presbyterie as those Churches had but onely one preshyter assigned to them 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a Superintendent as was the Bishop of those Churches over other Pastors 3. neither was any of them intended as each of those Churches was to be a Mother-church These differences being nakedly affirmed The Doct. argueth like a Sophister may with a bare deniall be repelled but the answere at this time shal be rather this that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter For say that he could as he cannot mainteyne these differences those Churches might be yea were notwithstanding such churches as the parishes were after the division that is alike in the point which himselfe taketh notice of pag. 4. of his sermon as the substanciall point of the agreement intended the former being aswell as the later each of them one ordinary congregation assembled in one place But if his meaning be that they were not such in all points we may well demurre upon the matter till the question be debated which belongeth to another tract what manner of parishes they were which received their originall from the division of one citie Church into many parish-assemblies In the meane time to come to the consequence of his proposition whereas he saith it may not be denied specially by them that would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches I wil be so bolde as utterly to contradict this speach and say the contrary to it that it may very well be denyed even by such as would have the parishes so framed For in as much as they desire not the abolishing of parishes but the reducing of them to the patterne of the first churches it is evident that they in their judgment hold two kindes of parishes the one differing from the other agreeing with the forme and constitution of the first Churches And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defense of that conclusion which the Doctors argument throweth upon his Refuter he must needs distinguish in some respect or other betwixt the parishes that had their being before and those that began after that division of parishes whereof he speaketh and therefore must of necessitie contradict the Doctors consequence say that the first Churches which were parishes in asmuch as they were but one congregation before that division of parishes which followed when those Churches by reason of their multitude hugely increased were parted into more particular congregations were not in all points such Churches as the later parishes were Thus is the stroake of his first reason warded let me come now Sect. â— to encounter with the second If saith he that assumption was false which denied Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But the Refuter sayd before that that assumption had no truth in it here also must I adde the conclusion Ergo those Churches were not onely many congregations but also many parishes Vnderstand this to be meant of each Church severally q. d. Ergo each of them was not one onely congregation or parish but many And marke what followeth These two just exceptions saith he I have against his consequence So you may discerne how just cause he giveth me to take up against him his owne fashion of reply pag. 72. Good Sir what is this to the Refuters consequence Where doth he say that each of these Churches was but one congregation and not many and where that each was but one parish Is not the former his Antecedent or assumption and the later the consequent or conclusion Therefore to use his owne words pag. 73. when you would seeme to deny the consequence you do not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against some other assertion of his you deny the principall conclusion I might proceed therefore to rowse him up with the sweet sound of his owne bâ—lls pag. 47. and ring this peale into his cares Is not the deniall of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded c but I spare him the rest of his speach and return to the matter His argument is no other then such as he before objected pag. 73. and 76. and is already answered cap. 3. sâ—ct 10. and 15. to this purpose viz. that the refuter in affirming parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times cannot contradict his owne assertion which mainteyneth the Apostolike Churches to be parishes because in his understanding every particular congregation is a parish And if it be not so also in the Doctors perswasion why doth he so often use the wordes indiffâ—rently viz. severall parishes or congregations for one and the same thing Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togiâ—her in this very argument of his to contradict his conclusion and so to justify our owne I tender him for reqâ—itall this that followeth If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles tâ—me then the Churches oâ— Corinth Ephâ—sus c. Were in that age each of them but onâ— onely congrâ—gation or parish But that â—ssumpâ—ion â—s by the D. maintâ—yned to be true pag. 69. and 73 let him therefore disclaime that AssumptioÌ„ or give way to this conclusion Therefore the Churches of Coriâ—th Ephesus c were each of them in the Apostlâ—s â—imâ—s but one onâ—ly congregation or parish and not many But let us heare what it is that withholdeth his aâ—sent from the Antecedent or assumption of the Refuters bâ—forâ— set downe Though I deny not saiâ—h he bâ—t â—hat â—t the first and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect 3. pa. â—04 time of the Apostle Pâ—ul the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a pâ—pulous congregation yet â— cannot yeild to all his proofes Even so but why doth he not answere directly to the point by approving or contrarying that which is sayd of those three churches Corinth Ephesus and Antioche If it be false in his pâ—rswasion what maketh him affrayd or abâ—sht to dâ—scover the falshood thereof if true why doth he not plainly acknowledge it
to be one particular congregation seing it were absurd to entitle any Church a particular coÌ„gregation which is knowne to consift of many particulars And for the same cause who can with reason judge otherwise then that D. Bilson also took the Church of Ephesus to be one congregatioÌ„ when he alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the Church in the new Testament is put for the congregation of the faithfull not for the Preists alone Wherefore whereas the D. in the conclusion renueth his challenge that our new writers are childishly alleadged what else doth he but shew himselfe to be set to outface all The which the more appeareth by that his taxe layd upon his Refuter for alleadging Mr Tindall which as he saith was not a childish mistakeing but a wilfull misalleadging of him in both places there being in the former no such thing and in the later a falsifying of the testimony and to aggrevate the offence chargeth it upon him as coÌ„mitted againe lib. 4. cap. 7. sect 9. But if any fault be here coÌ„mitted save the mistaking of pag. 135. for 133. it is in the Doctor who mought also have amended that mistaking seing he could not but see it when he patched up his owne allegation out of both those pages but it seemeth he had rather make two faults then mend one And that it may appeare how he falsely accuseth his Retuter let the reader consider that as the words set downe by him are not Mr Tindals words at large but a breife of them so they are a true breife of them For proofe whereof it is cleare 1. that he maketh Bishops Preists and Elders all one pag. 53. 54. 251. 345. 2. He saith that by their office they were alwayes abiding in one place to governe the Congregation there pag. 251. And 3. however the Doctor saith he maketh the word CONGREGATION as large as the word ECCLEST A CHURCH yet he maketh the word Church or Congregation whereof a Bishop Preist or Elder had the charge no larger then one particular coÌ„pany assembling in one place as appeareth both by his exposition of Math. 18. 17. pag. 345. and by his words at large which the D. could not but though he would not see when he overskipped them pag. 133. where speaking of the 2. officers ordeyned by the Apostles for the governing of the Church he saith The Apostles disguished no man but chose men annoyâ—ted with the same spirit viz. wherewith Christ annointed them one to preach the word whom We call after the Greek tongue a Bishop or Prust that is in English an overseer or an Elder how he was annointed thou readest 1. Tim. 3. c. This Overseer becanse he was taken from his own business labour to preach Gods word to the parish bath right by the autboritie of his office to challendge an honest living of the parish c. Likewise in every congregation chose they another after the same ensample as is to be seene Act. 6. whom after the grword we call Deason that is in English servant or Minister whose office was to help and assist the Preist to gather up his duty and to gather for the poore c. But of Mr Tindalls judgement and words we shall heare more at large when we come to that place where he saith his Refuter falsifyeth his testimony againe in the meane time let the reader judge with what face the Doctor so charged his Refuter Thus much shall suffice to shewe how the Doctor sought but startingholes in all his exceptions against the refuters testimonies For when he hath done wrangling with all his proofes he returneth to his deniall of the consequence pag. 111. viz. that though it were graunted that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of one ordinarie congregation yet it would not prove them to haue been parishes As if he could deny them to be each of them one parish that is one coÌ„-gregation yet graunt theÌ„ to be one onely ordinary congregatioÌ„ Having done with those 3. Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch Sect. 11. ad cap. 5. sect 8. pa. 89. we are to proceed to that which the D. answereth coÌ„cerning the Church of Ierusalem viz. to the assumption of that syllogisma which affirmeth Cap. 5. sect 8. pag. 89. the Christians of lerusalem to have coÌ„tinued one assembly meeting togither in one place during S. Lukes storie Act. 2. 1. 2. 6. 44. and 6. 2. and 15. 22. 25. and 21. 22. This saith the D is false because the Church of Ierusalem never was a parish so farre was it from continuing so still c. and the D. dwelleth wholly in a maner upoÌ„ this answer but the Reader is to be advertised that he doth but trifle quarrell with words rather then impugne the maine point of the argument for when the Refuter affirmeth that the Christians at lerusalem continued one parishonall assembly meeting togither in one place the later clase is the explication or rather confirmation of the former q. d. they continued one parish-assembly in asmuch as they met togither in one place Wherefore the principall question here for Ietusalem like as before for the 3. above named Churches is whether the Christians there might did meet togither in one place to this purpose those places out of the Acts are quoted and if the D. can make the contrary appeare his labour is well spent otherwise he doth but beat the aier It is not probable saith he that the Church of Ierusate afeer they came to the number of 5000. did ordinarily meet all in one place Belike he holdeth it probable that before they arose to that number they did ordinarily meet togither in one place so that when he striveth to wrest from his Refuter the places alleadged out of Act. 2. he doth here as before is observed sect 5. rather quarrell with his proofes then contradict the thing thence collected But let us take the particulars of the thing as they lye in order Wee read saith he of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Pauls crosse and at the Spâ—tle but their ordinary and as it were parishonall meetings were by companies in more private places It is true wee read of diverse meetings some in more private houses as Act. 2. 1. 2. 46. and 4. 31. 5. 42. and some in more publique places as the Temple Act. 2. 46. 5. 12. 42. but that one were Panegyricall and the other Parishonall whether simply or as it were I for my part never read authour that hath gone before the Doctor in this distinction neither doth he yeeld us any shredd of probabilitie to grace his apprehension The maine point now stood for viz. that the Christians at Ierusalem were but one ordinarie assembly gathered into one place is apparant enough by the scriptures before quoted though in the Doctors eyes they seeme to be
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
sufficiently proved before But this is the poore shift to pay him once again with his owne pag. 71. which the Doct. usually flieth unto WheÌ„ he hath nothing to justify his assertioÌ„s he perswadeth himself such is his judgment that in the question of Dioceses and diocesan Bishops he hath the upper-hand because he hath proved that there were such Bishops and Churches in the 2. or 3. age after the Apostles and therefore when he is foyled in any of his reasons that should prove the calling of such Bishops to be of divine institution he flieth to this as his refuge I have already proved the Churches to be Dioceses and the Bishops Diocesan and therefore if you grant that the function of Bishops was instituted of God and that Bishops were ordeyned or approved of the Apostles then you graunt asmuch as I intend to prove This then being his best defence the reader may see the Doctors sinceritie and that he was not wronged by his Refuter when he told him that he deceiveth his reader by an equivocation in the word Bishop But in deed he much wrongeth his refuter and all them whom he calleth his consorts when for a requitall he saith that they doe deceive their readers in that they would perswade them that because the name Episcopus Presbyter were confounded therefore also the offices were confounded For where doth the refuter or his consorts thus argue The objection which he before took notice of and pretendeth in all this discourse to remove is as himself setteth it down pag. 65. that the name Episcopus in the Apostolicall writings is given to Presbyters and that Bishops such as ours are not mentioned in the scriptures For answere whereunto he said then and now repeateth it againe that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who afterwards and now are called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches This he first indeavoured to prove by that instance of Epa. phroditus Phil. 2. 25 but his fayling therein is sufficiently discovered now once againe he attempteth it let us attend whether his successe be any better For saith he as I sayd in the sermon whiles the episcopall power was in Sect. 12. ad sect 16. pa. 71. 72. the Apostles and Apostolike men those who had that power were called the Apostles And what then Will he hence conclude that therefore Bishops such as afterwards and now have the name appropriated to them were then called Apostles doth it not rather follow much better on the contrary that in the Apostles times the name of Apostles was given to no other then to the Apostles themselves or Apostolike men which were as himselfe acknowledgeth pag 72 Evangelists hath not the Doct. then spun a saire threed to strangle his owne cause But since he pretendeth to repeat the words of his sermon why doth he curtoll them there he said pag 71 whiles the episcopall power was for the most parte in the Apostles Apostolike meÌ„ those who also had that power were called Apostles now he leaveth out these words for the most part and also May I intreat him plainely to informe us what moved him to make this change It seemeth he thought these words at the first needfull to be added as indeed they were to conclude his purpose for unlesse he can make it appeare that the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters which he calleth episcopall power was in some other besides the Apostles or Apostolike men of Evangelists and that those also were called Apostles or at least the Apostles of the Churches he cannot inferre his former Assertion to wit that those who are now called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches And now it seemeth he foresawe that the testimonies afterwards alleadged cannot prove any other then the very Apostles or Evangelists whom he calleth Apostolike men to beare the name of Apostles in the apostolicall writings though his witnesses speak what they can he make his best advantage of them 1. he saith that Ambrose by Apostles in some places of scripture as 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes 4. 11. understandeth Bishops but is the Doctor perswaded that the spirit of God understandeth such Bishops as are now questioned by the word Apostles in those places If not why leadeth he his reader into an errour and perswade him to beleeve The Doct. leadeth his reader into that error which him selfe dissaloweth that which himself dissalloweth If he be why urgeth he not those scriptures to prove the maine quaestion seeing none can be found more pregnant then these if that be their meaning to prove the doctrine of his sermon viz. that the function of Bishops such as ours is of divine institution And why doth he reach the contrary in saying as before pag. 70. that the word Apostoli absolutely used is a title of those which were sent of God with authority apostolicall Moreover can the Doctor be ignorant that Ambrose in Ephes 4. 11. doth also say that the Evangelists are Deacons and that Pastors are and may be Lectorâ— quilectionibus saginent populum audientem that Magistri so he translateth the word didascaâ—j Teachers exorâ—ista sunt quiain teclesiaipfi compeseunt et verberant inquietos If therfore the Doct. will have us to believe that Diocesan Bishops such as ours were mentioned in the Apostolicall writings under the name not of Bishops but of Apostles because Ambrose faith Apostoli episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops let him freely confesse that the functions of Lectors Exercists such as the Papists will haue to be sevarall orders of the Clergic were also established in the Apostles times mentioned in their writings though not under the same names yet under the names of Pastors and Teachers or Masters Ephes 4. 11. and that Ambrose testifieth the same in the words aaforegoing for if he shall refuse to subscribe to this later inference he must pardon vs this once for not imbracing the former 2. And seing he faith Cyprian speaketh to the like purpose lib. 3. epist 9. Apostoles ideft episcopos Prapositos Dominus elegin The L. chose Apostles that is Bishops Let me againe demaund of Mr Doct. whether he be perswaded that the Apostles whom our Lord did choose and who after our Saviours ascension chose Deacons as Cyprian in the same place testifieth were Diocesan Bishops such as ours If not howe will Cyprians wordes further his purpose which is to prove that in the Apostolicall writings such Bishops are called Apostles If he be why is he ashamed especially seing he hath Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 226. alleadging both Cyprian Ambrose Bishop Barlow serm in Act 20. 28. fol. 17 urging Cyprian for that purpose to inrowle the 12. Apostles among other Bishops which he affirmeth to be ordeyned of God in his last argument hereafter following Cap. 6 Nay why affirmeth he the contrary in this 3. chapt viz. that some of the Apostles were not properly Bishops Yea he there
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith īmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childrē to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
Doct. will not doe him that favour to oppose himself therein to D. Sutliffe specially seing he hath already yeelded thus farre pag. 58. that if any be not perswaded of this point he will be content to suppose that Iames was not a Bishop of Ierusalem Notwithstanding as if the whole cause in a manner wholly relied Sect. 7. ad sect 8. pag 58. 59. upon this instance of Iames he indeavoreth by it to confute the learâ—eder sort of disciplinarians who holde that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree nor yet for termes of life and therefore if we may believe him deny that Iames was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at Ierusalem or President of the presâ—yterie otherwise then in his course not for any contynuance Of these conceites he maketh Mr. Beza the Author and because the Refuter â—ould him that he wronged Beza seing there is not a sillable nor a letter at all of him in the place he quoteth he saith all this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margent c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23 which if it be not againe miscarried by his printer seemeth to be foysted in I know not how For in the same Chap. and pag. Impress Anno. 1592. by Ioh. le Preux there are no such words as he alleadgeth But say that Beza in some later edition which I have not yet mett with hath such a saying viz. that though Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour eyther to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers what hindreth but that the Refuters answer might stand to wit that by his Bishopprick or presidencie he was not superiour to any degree but in order onely for when he compareth togither the differing functions of Apostles Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise an imparitie and difference betwene them not in order onely but also in degree and power In istis functionibus ex Apost Eph. 4. 11. â—â—tearepetitis inter se computatis non simplicem tantum ordinem sed etiam gradum agnosco cap. 1. pag. 5. To which purpose also he speaketh cap. 3. pag. 20. cap. 9. pag. 53. But to let the Doctor see how much he wrongeth him these wordes are fittest pag. 9. Apostolatus functionâ— fuisse illos 12. propria non tantum ordinis sed etiam potestatis eminnetia pralatos absit ut inficiemur ut mer am calumniam esse omnes intelligant quum nobis hoc mendacium tribuunt In which he calleth it no better then a calumniation to charge him as the Doctor doth And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza that Bishops were in degree superiour to other Ministers why putteth he not his hand to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza to shew the contrary Quantâ— majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare sive fundamentum illarum ponere quam superstruere et structas regere tanto magis istum gradum vtgere inter ipsos Apostolos oportuit 2. Et si tum esset ut nonnulli contendunt velut ipsa natura precipiente in omni sacro caetâ— gradus iste ad servandum inter collegas consensum necessarius saltem quam diu simul Hierosolymis congregatâ— fuerunt Apostoli nempe saltem ad illam dispersionem quae Stephani mortem est consecuta Act. 8. 1. vâ—um quempiam jam tum supra suos co apostolos extitisse oportuisset Wherevnto I will add the assumption and so inferre the conclusion But among the Apostles there was no superioritie in degree 2. neyther was it necessarie for the preserving of vnitie and consent among them that one should hold such a superiority above his fellow-Apostles whiles they remained at Ierusalem before the scattering that followed the death of Steven Wherefore it is not likely that among the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches there was any one superior in degree to the rest 2. neither can it be necessarie as some suppose even by the light of nature that in every sacred societie for the preservation of consent among colleagues one should have such a superiority in degree among the rest But to leave Mr. Beza let us see how the Doctor can make good Section 8. his purpose from this instance of Iames vz. that Bishops were superiour in degree to other Ministers and had a singular preheminence over them for term of life Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appeare for he is much deceived if he think to gaine his cause by such a sophism as this Iames was superiour to the presbyters of Ierusalem in degree and held a superiority over them during life But Iames was a Bishop Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles tymes superiour vnto presbyters in degree and that for terme of life For though we should graunt the assumption which is before disproved the argument is no better then if a man should argue in this manner Iames Mountague to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon is superior in degree of Ministerie to al the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells But Iames Mountague is the Deane of the K. Maiesties Chappel Ergo the Deanes of the K. Maiesties chappell are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministery I doubt not but the Doctor can well discerne in this latter a double deceipt because it inferreth a generall conclusion from premisses that are but particular assigneth a false cause of that superioritie above other presbyters And if he winketh not hard he may well see the same defaults are to be found in his reasoning For besides the generality of his coÌ„clusion there is an evident mistaking of the cause both of that superioritie in degree which Iames had above the Presbyters of Ierusalem and of his continuance in and about Ierusalem to his dying day To begin with the former whereas he should shewe that his Bishoprick gave him a superioritie in degree above the Presbyters of that Church it is apparant he hath no other Medius terminus to prove it then this that he was an Apostle and his honour degree by his Bishoprick not impaired so that in effect he reasoneth thus Iames being an Apostle and a Bishop was superiour in degree to the Presbyters of Ierusalem Ergo all other Bishops not being Aposteles as he was have the same superioritie above other Presbyters The Doct. proofe therefore which he presupposeth to be plaine and pregnant for his purpose is a plain inconsequence which with all his skill he can never justify Neyther can he easily mainteyne that which he assumeth for a truth viz. that Iames his honor degree by his Bishoprick was not impayred for as is already shewed cap. 6. sect 1. the authority of Clemens is
to the readers sentence therein let us proceed to that example or supposall before mencioned the rather for that he most proudly insulteth over his Refuter as if he were a Brownist or Anabaptist or had broached sundry schismaticall novelties as I am not ashamed once againe to lay downe his wordes to the readers viewe so I doubt not but to cleare him from those â—oul imputations Suppose saith he a Democracy where the common wealth is governed by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing admitting ordering and consuring of officers and directing them how to behave themselves in their offices What if this government fall into the handes of the nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some one mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole-governour still observing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be sayd that those lawes were the very patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall and Monarchicall government whereby the first maker of those lawes would inform in the one the nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the severall Churches or congregatioÌ„s which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church-busines in processe of time it came to be restreyned to the Clergie onely the Bishop and his presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things growe worâ—â— and worse the Bishop like a Monarch gâ—â—t the reignes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of ordiâ—aâ—im and iurisdiction remeine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and precedents eyther of the second or third kinde of government neyther were they given to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie togither These are the Refuters words now the Doct. having first solaced himselfe in an idle repetition of the particulars interlaced with scornfull gibes to shewe the unlearneder sorte the trim Idea as he pleaseth to speake of that discipline which the Refuter and his fellow challengers have forged he coÌ„meth at his leasure very gravely to refute his supposed novelties one after an other in this order First it is here presupposed saith he that every Church indued with power of ecclesiâ—sticall government was a parish c. which dotage I have before refuted Shall I say that we have before proved his assertion that the first Churches were properly dioceses to be a meere dotage I will rather say he might well have spared the mencioÌ„ of this controversy seing the Refuter doth not once mencion the word parish or parishonall The second supposed novelty he maketh this that the foruse of Church government at first was democraticall or popular the chief authority being in the people which by the Presbyterie did ordeine and censure all Church-officers His Refuters wordes are these The administration of Church-matters was first in the severall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyters had the managing of all Church-busynes And againe the right was in the Church and the execution in the Presbytery But doth the Doctor speak as he thinketh when he calleth this schismaticall novelty and for this esteemeth his Refuter a Brownist or Anabaptist Knoweth he whome he woundeth in thus censuring him his opinion hath he never observed in his reading the Centuries cent 2. Col. 134. this saying Si quis probatos authores huius sâ—â—uli perspiciat videbit formaÌ„gâ—bernationis propemoduÌ„ democratias similem fuisse Singulae enim ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum dei pure decendi sacramenta administrandi absolvendiet excommunicandi haereticos scelerátos ministros eligendi ordinandi justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi c. The same wordes are recorded also in Catalogo test verit lib. 2. Col. 108. but more directly to purpose speaketh D. Whitgist in his defense pag. 180. In the Apostles times the state of the Church was popular And pag. 182 I therefore call it popular saith he because the Church it self that is the whole multitude had interest almost in everything Shall he be now with the Doctor a Brownist or Anabaptist for so saying And why shall not Thomas Bell a professed enemie to all Brownists and wholly devoted to the Prelates service be taxed of schismaticall novelty for teaching as he doth that excoÌ„munication precisely and cheefly perteyneth to the Church and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons fit for that purpose and chosen for that ende this he saith and this he proveth by Christes wordes Math. 18. 17. 18. dic ecclesiae tell the Church c. that is to say in his vnderstanding vnto the whole congregation see his regiment of the Church cap. 12. sect 4. If his credit be little worth which the Doctor yet me thinks he should be ashamed to justify the Rhemists and Bellarmin against Doctor Fulk and Doct. Willet who affirme that the right and power of the keies and so of excommunication belongeth vnto the Church and the Pastors prelates exercise it as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church see Doctor Fulk answ to the Rhem on 1. Cor. 5. sect and D. Willet Synops cont 5. quest 4. part 2. But Mr. Beza if you will beleeve the Doct. making mencioÌ„ of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular government giveth him this stile Democraticus quidem fanaticus De Minist gradibus cap. 23. pag. 155. But Mr Bezaes wordes in that place doe shewe that he giveth that stile to Morellius for no other cause then this that he presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order which for election of Church-officers is religiously and prudently observed in the citie of Geneva Which is such as well accordeth with the Refuters doctrine for it alloweth the Church to be electionum sacrarum conscia et approbatrix to take notice and give approbation howsoever a prerogative is given to the Pastors Magistrates to goe before the people in the choise 2. Notwithstanding the Doctor asketh if it be not a phrensy to urge the peoples supremacie in Church government and whether there be any shewe in scripture or in reason that the sheep should rule their shepheard or the flock their Pastor Say as much should be graunted as his questions imply must he not first prove that his Refuter giveth supremacie of rule unto the sheep or people over their Pastor before he can conclude him to be ledde by a fanaticall spirit against scripture reason But is there not want of judgement rather in the Doctor that imagineth the Pastor to be ruled by the sheep or people when the Church which is the whole body hath the managing of all Church-affaires by her Presbyters which are the principall members Doth not Cyprian that holy Martyr say lib. 1. epist 4.
plebs ipsa maximè habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere And how oft doth Austin say that Peter signified the Church and bare the person of the Church when Christ sayd unto him Tibi dabo claves c. Mat. 16. August tract 50. 124. in Iohan. Item in Psal 108 de agonia Christi cap. 30. And Gerson Trilog 8. quest Claves inquit datae sunt ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo On which words the Bishop of Chichester in his answer to Tortus pag. 65. giveth this note Cum vnum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio omnes enim idem sentiunt But to passe by many others the wordes of Ferus in Act. 11 are worthy of the Doctors observation Peter the Apostle chief of the Apostles is constreyned to give an account to the Church neyther doth he disdeyne it because he knew himselfe to be not a Lord but a Minister of the Church The Church is the spouse of Christ and Lady of the house Peter a servant and Minister Wherfore the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also reject and depose them if they be not fit And in giving this preheminence to the Church above Peter doth he speak against the scripture or against reason Doth not S. Paul acknowledge the same touching himselfe and his fellow Apostles 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancie if not frenzie to urge as the Doctor doth lib. 3. passim the superioritie of one Bishop in an whole Diocese or Province above all the Presbyters and people thereof Notwithstanding as the Refuter doth no where say so neither can it be gathered frō his words that the form of Church-governmēt was at the first or now ought to be wholly democraticall or popular the Doctor is not ignorāt as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. 3. that his Ref pleadeth for the Aristocraticall forme of government as that which in his opiniō ought to be established in the severall Churches Neyther doth he therein crosse himselfe or any of his fellowes that favour the parish discipline for they all as I am perswaded doe hold the ecclesiasticall government to be a mixt forme compounded of all three states as many worthy divines doe confidently mainteyne P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. see his Com. plac clas 4. sect 9. Baros de polit civ ecclesiastica lib. 2. pag. 42. 43. D. Whitak de Roman pontif pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ who is the head not onely of the whole Church in generall but also of every particular visible Church Ephes 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27 the Church may be truely reputed a Kingdome or Monarchy so it hath some resemblance unto a Monarchy in regard of that preheminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers But because no one Pastor or Bishop hath power to governe or determine causes ecclesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure but ex consilio compresbyterorum by the Counsell of his fellow-Elders the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy And in asmuch as the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment it agreeth in part with a Democracie notwithstāding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry sommer in a dripping Section 8. yeare when he supposeth in his third fancie that we hold the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. Titus to have bin provided for such a popular state wherein the people doe rule their leaders They were provided for a mixt state wherein many presbyters vnder the guidance of one Pastor or president doe administer execute all matters with the peoples consent approbation And in the affirmation as we have the assent of the most and the best divines of later times Calvin on Titus 1. 5. Beza on Tim. Cap. 5. 19. 22. and Tit. 3. 10. and sundry others so we have the Apostles owne warrāt in the close of his epistles with these words grace be with you or with you all 2. Tim. 22. Tit. 3. 15. for by this it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of cōmon use not onely for other Ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Moreover since the Apostle chargeth Titus to observe in the ordination of Elders that order which he had before enjoyned him Tit. 1. 5. whence can we better derive that order then from his owne practise and his fellow-Apostles who used aswell in ordination as in other Church-affaires both the advice and help of other Ministers and the approbation of the people as appeareth by these scriptures Acts. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 2. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 6. 22. 23. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. 2. Cor. 2. 10. The Doctor therefore is misledd by his owne conceit when he imagineth that the Apostles wordes unto Timothy and Titus Lay not handes rashly c. And doe thou avoid an Haeretick did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their handes that neyther people nor presbyters had or might have any stroak at all in those matters As for his gibing objection Belike the whole Island of Creete was a parish too it deserveth no other answer then this when he justifyeth his collection from any words in his refuters answer I will acknowledge him for an honest man mean while let the reader take notice of this that the Doctor in a fewe leaves after pag. 88 noteth this speach of his refuter that Creet had many Churches which argueth necessarily that the whole Iland could not be one onely parish The last fancy falsly fained by the Doctor is this that the popular Sect. 9. state of the severall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocracie and after into a Monarchie he should haue sayd that the well tempered Democracie did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracie after into an absolute Monarchy But he endeavoreth to shewe that the severall Churches were at the first governed Monarchically to wit by the Apostles or Apostolicall men severally For Apostles he nameth Iames that ruled perpetually and Peter and Paul c. for a time And of Apostolicall men that were perpetuall governors he hath good store as Mark Timothy Titus Evodius Simō the sonne of Cleophas c. But where are his proofes that all these or any of them governed Monarchically and by their sole authority Concerning Iames it is already shewed that his government was farre short of that sole authoritie which our Bishops carry
at this day in the managing of church-Church-causes And by that which hath bene now sayd concerning Timothy Titus the same may be affirmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus Creet But he asketh whether Paul did not coÌ„mitt the ordination of Ministers unto Titus without mentioning eyther of Presbyterie or people And we may ask him what mention he findeth there of prayers or hands-imposition which ought to concurre with ordination if he can include them as being vnderstood in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5 wee have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters and the peoples approbation in the words following hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee Quis enim credat Paulum c. who may beleeve Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in vse Muscul loc coÌ„ de elect Minist Againe he asketh or rather argueth in this manner Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed onely to Titus for Creete and to Timothy for Ephesus and doth not this evidently shewe that howsoever they might use eyther the presence or consent of the people or the counsell advise of the presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in coÌ„mon-wealths yet the sway of ecclesiasticall government was in them If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason theÌ„ the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular termes vnto Peter onely both his whol speach concerning the keies of his kingdome and the power thereof Math. 16. and that precept of feeding his sheep and lambes and of confirming his brethren Ioh. 21. 15. 17. Luk. 22. 32. Wherefore however Peter might use the help The Doct. reasoneth well for Rome and assistance of his fellow-Apostles in all those workes and the presence or consent of the people in the administratioÌ„ of the keies yet the cheef power and sway of all was in him alone Good newes for Rome if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument but the truth is such singular speaches directed to one onely doe not argue in that one any such preheminent power as the Romanists and Prelatists doe from thence gather So that since the Doct. can not prove that Timothy and Titus had any such singular and sole power in Church-government as the Doctor judgeth to be due unto Bishops it is plaine that he buildeth upon a vayne and false presupposall when he saith it is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that they had episcopall authoritie and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops in the exercise of their function But for the proofe of this he hath another argument in store thus framed Those things which were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone Sect. 10. ad sect 7. pag 83. as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end were written to informe diocesan Bishops But those epistles were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end Therefore they were written to informe diocesan Bishops Vnto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinctioÌ„ thus that it is true if vnderstood of successors in authority or power of performing the same works but false if meant of succession in the same office The Doct. therefore first indeavoureth to prove what his Refuter denyeth and yet in the winding up of all would perswade his reader that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption But he is to be advertized that vnlesse he make good what his Refuter denyeth he cannot conclude what he vndertaketh For whether we look to his former assertion which he saith is here againe proved himselfe doth thus explaine it sect 3. in the beginning that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus S. Paul intended to informe them as Diocesan Bishops and in them all other Diocesans or whether wee look to the nearest scoape of his wordes in his sermon pag. 74. it is evident he there intendeth to prove that which he supposed would be answered to his former objection viz. that the things spoken to Timothy and Titus were spoken to them as extraordinarie persons whose authority he should have sayd office should die with them which cannot be removed vnlesse he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinarie function wherein their successors should enjoy the same authoritie to the worlds end Neyther is this to deny his conclusion as he falsely affirmeth but to contradict his assuÌ„ption in that sense which is necessarie to make it good because otherwise he argueth not ad idem Let us therefore see how well his proofes are fitted to the assumption I prove it saith he first by testimonie both of Paul and of Ambrose and after by reason And first by S. Pauls testimonie that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the coÌ„mandements and directions which he gave him should be kept inviolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus 1. Tim. 6. 14. Ergo they were to be performed by such as should have the like authority and the same office to the end The consequence of this Enthymeme dependeth upon this proposition That the commaundements and directions given in charge unto Timothy could not be kept inviolable unto the end without a succession of such as should have not only the like authoritie but also the same office untill the end of the world The which is â—latly denyed and cannot be fortifyed by that which followeth scz that those commandements could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end seing the meÌ„bers of his disiunction are insufficient when he taketh it for graunted that those coÌ„maundements must be performed eyther in Timothees own person or in such as succeeded him in the same function for the Doctor cannot be ignorant that the coÌ„mandement which Christ gave to his Apostles Math. 28. 19 20. for preaching and baptizing was to be kept inviolable unto the coÌ„ming of Christ neyther could it be peformed by the Apostles alway in their own persons or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolike function It is performed as all the world knoweth by successors in a different functioÌ„ which haue authoritie to doe the same works though neither in the same office nor yet with that ample coÌ„mission for the extent of their jurisdiction In like manner the Refuter saith that the coÌ„maundements given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction were continued in the Church by presbyters which succeeded them though in a differing office according to that ordinary course which God had appointed for his Church Thus much for S. Paul whom the Doctor now leaveth and craveth help of Mr. Calvin T. C. and others to conclude his purpose Sect. 11. ad sect 7. pag 83. 84. scz that the
the name of the Lords Angel is much better to expresse a prehemineÌ„ce in him that is so intitled theÌ„ the Churches Angel seing this later debaseth his Ministery much more theÌ„ the former But as these names the L. Minister or servant and the Churches Minister or servant Phil. 1. 1. 2. Cor. 6. 4. cum 4. 5. and Colos 1. 24. 25. are indifferently taken for one and the same person or function so can there no reason be yeelded why also these titles the Lords angel and the Churches angel should be devided into severall functions To conclude if neyther the singularitie of the number doe argue a singular person nor the right reason of the whole title implieth a preheminence in one above others seing it is graunted that there were many Angels and proved that the title here used is in regard of the signification of the phrase coÌ„mon to all the D. hath no reason to say that his Refuter doth without reason yea good reason forsake the literal sense of the number But albeit enough hath bene said to shew that this title The angel Sect. 7. of the Church is to be taken for the whole societie of Ministers in every Church rather then for one singular person set in a singular preheminence above the rest yet to satisfie those which perhaps may demaunde why the Sonne of God should give in charge to Iohn to write vnto the angel as one rather then to the angels as to many it shal not be amisse to add this that followeth 1. I grant that as the number of the Churches particularly named fully answereth to the 7. golden candlesticks which represented those Churches so it was very fit the epistles directed to the Angels of those Churches should in their inscriptions proportionate the number of the Angels to the number of the starres by which those Angels were shadowed which could not have bene if there had bene expresse mention of more Angels then one in each inscription Notwithstanding as it were absurd from the precise number of 7. Ch. to gather that there were not in all Asia more then 7 Churches or that they kat hexochen are called Church 5 to note a prehemineÌ„ce in jurisdiction or governmeÌ„t over the rest so it were no lesse absurde to inferre from the literal mention of one Angel in every Church that there was but one onely person in that Church to whome the name of the Angel of that Church did by speciall right apperteine 2. Their vnitie in the Ministeriall function joynt commission to attend vpon the feeding and governing of one Church which ought to be accoÌ„panied with a coÌ„moÌ„ care and joynt labour as it were with one hand and heart or affection to further the Lords work in the peoples salvation is much more fitly declared by the name of one Angel then of many if we observe the phrase of speach used else-where by the Holy Ghost and in other names or titles to the like purpose We often find the name of one prophet Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Esai 3. 2. Hos 9. 8. or Preist Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Ezech. 7. 26. Hos 4. 6. Malach. 2. 7. and Angel or messenger Isay 42. 19. Malach 2. 7. to be put for the generall body of the Ministerie or whole multitude of Prophets or Preists c. in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them as occasion serveth 3 Neyther need it seeme strange to us that a multitude or company of Ministers should be vnderstood vnder the name of one Angel seing a multitude of heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometymes in the scripture shut up vnder one Angel in the singular nuÌ„ber as may be gathered from Gen. 24. 7. 2. King 19. 35. and Psal 34. 7. compared with Psal 91. 11. Gen. 32. 1. and 2. King 6. 16. 17 seing also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels joyntly labouring in any one worke is set forth vnder the name of one evill or vncleane spirit 1. King 22. 21. 22. Mar. 1. 23-27 and 5. 2-3 Luk. 4. 33. 34. and called the Devill or Satan Luc. 8. 27. 30. 1 Pet. 5. 8. Heb. 2. 14. Ephes 6. 11. 12. 4 Moreover seing it is a thing very coÌ„mon and usuall throughout the whole booke of the Revelation by the name of one Angel to vnderstand a multitude or some whole societie of Ministers and Teachers it was very meete that the beginning of the booke should be sutable to the other parts and that the first vision should have none other construction then such as might holde proportion with or rather as a line leade us to the right vnderstanding of the rest that follow Here Iohn seeth 7. starres in the right hand of the sonne of man which are interpreted to be the Angels or Byshops and Ministers of the 7. Churches and he writteth 7. epistles to so many Angels In another vision he seeth 7. Angels to whom were given 7. trumpets singulae singulis to everie Angel one trumpet and they blewe theyr trumpets successively one after another and with differing effects Rev. 8. 2. 6. 7. c. After this he sawe 7. Angels and 7. vialls given vnto them singulae singulis in which vials were 7. plagues successively also powred out by every Angel in his time Rev. 15. 6. 7. c. 16. 1. 2. c. In these latter visioÌ„s like as in the former some of our best Interpreters do vnderstaÌ„d by Angels the Ministers and preachers of Gods word for in every age they lift vp their voices as trumpets Esa 58. 1. Num. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 12. to shew the people theire sinnes and to proclayme the will of God vnto men And when they denounce his judgments against the contemners of his truth and binde them vp in their sinnes Math. 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 23. they after a sort poure out the vials of Gods wrath vpon their heads Ier. 1. 10. and 25. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 10. 6. Rev. 11. 5. 6 Now there is none so foolish as to think that in the tyme of every vials powring out or of every trumpets blowing that one Angel precisely mentioned was one supreme Bishop that had a prehemenent pastorall authoritie over all the Ministers of that age it is acknowledged rather of many judicious divines that every of those 7. Angels standeth for a multitude of faithfull Ministers which in their tymes successively with one â—art and as it were with one voice published one the same truth to the world See amongst others Marloâ—at in Aâ—oc 8. 2. 6. 7. and 15. 1. 6. and Aretius in Chap. 8. 6. 9 13. The same may be sayd yea it is and must be acknowledged of those 3. Angels which followed one another Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9. to recall men vnto the true worship of God after it was corrupted by Antichrist Marlorat on that place Method Collat. pag. 322. and Mr. Fox his
Ierome and to make him the more gracious with the Disciplinarians he saith it is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost they rely in this cause the like words he hath p. 61 following and lib. 3. pag. 45. and 58 but this is I say not almost but altogither a malicious slander For he is not ignorant that his refuter every where calleth for proofes from the scripture as others have done before him that his testimonie is then onely regarded of them when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth But it well appeareth by his citing Ierome so oft in his sermon 40. times at least well nigh twice as oft as he alleadgeth any other that he relyeth very much on his authoritie To him here he addeth Eusebius Epiphanius some others whose testimonie in his conceit should suffice to perswade for such a matter as this now in question But his Refuters exception is just such a ioynt act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church as the ordeyning of Iames to the episcopall charge of Ierusalem how should it be proved but by the scripture and who could better testify it then the Evangelist Luke who wrote the historie of their actes If then he hath not recorded it it is a strong presumption he was never Bishop there The Doct. replyeth saying as though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers such as he of best credit reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the actes As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses I overpass that consideration to sect 15. c. I am here to advertise the Reader the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought to releeve the weaknes of his argument For unlesse he can make sure and certein Proof of this among other partes of his induction that S. Iames was ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem how shall he justify his conclusion before set down to wit that the episcopal function is without quaestion of apostolicall institution And howe shall certeine and sure proofe of Iames his ordination to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem be made from such witnesses as the Doctor hath produced Are not the canonicall writings of the newe testament penned partly by the Apostles and partly by Evangelists which were their companions best able to testify what function Iames and other faithfull servants of Christ did beare and exercise in the Churches that injoyed their presence We find many things recorded by Luke concerning the Ministerie of Paul and Barnabas Philip and others by whose labours the kingdome of Christ was inlarged Acts 9. 15. 27. 13. 2. 3. 14. 14. 15. 22. 31. 8. 5. 40. 21. 8. Neyther are the scriptures silent touching Iames and his imployment at Ierusalem Act. 1. 13. 15. 13. 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9. 2. 9 why then should this ordinatiō of Iames to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church be wholly buried in silence if it had bene the joynt-act of the Apostles before their dispersion and an act of that moment wherein they gave the first president of a new function of greatest use highest place for all churches in succeeding ages Was it not as worthy more necessarie to be recorded then the first institution of the Deacons office Act. 6. 2. 6 Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption that Iames never had any such ordination seing there are no footsteps of it in the Apostolical writings and seing the Doctors defense is so slight as it is mark it I pray first he asketh whether the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Acts a frivolous question No man denyeth that as Christ did many things which are not written Ioh. 20. 30. 21. 25 so also did his Apostles but will he argue thus They did something not recorded in the scriptures Ergo they did this now in question How doth the Doct. forget himselfe thus to open so wide a dore unto the Papists to bring in all their superstitions under the name of vnwritten traditions Can he give us any one instance of an Apostolicall ordināce or of any Apostolike actiō of like momēt and necessarie use for all Churches that is not mentioned in their writings neyther can be proved otherwise then by the stories and writings of the Fathers And this may serve for answere also unto his second question whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers c. reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the acts In some matters of fact credit is not to be denied to their report as that Iames the Iust was martyred at Ierusalem and that Mark the Evangelist preached the gospel at Aleandria but there are many matters of fact testified by many ancients and those of the best credit as the D. speaketh which notwithstāding many worthy mē nothing inferior to the Doctor esteem worthy of no credit I wil instance only in Peters Bishoprick first at Antioch then at Rome which is contended for not onely by Papists but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacie let the testimonies be wel weighed which are brought for the maintenance of Peters episcopall chaire in both Churches Rome especially even by Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 227. 262. and 264 and they wil be found to be neyther in number nor in credit inferiour to those that the D. alleadgeth for Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalē yet as many other men of singular learning pietie doe deny credit to their report so the Doctor also as one nothing moved eyther with the authoritie of those fathers or with the judgement of his great Mr that gave him so good satisfaction in the studying of this controversy utterly secludeth the Apostle Peter from the office of a Bishop in any of those Churches as we may see serm pag. 81. 82. and in the 7. section of cap. 3. def If the Doctor shall say he hath reason to beleeve the testimony Sect. 5. of the Fathers for the one and to denie credit vnto them in the other know he that we haue reason also to withdrawe approbation from this which he alloweth But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question Although saith he the acte of making Iames Bishop be not set downe in the Actes yet the stori◠so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem Acts. 15. 21. of his assistance of presbyters of his presidencie in that Councill where Peter and Paul were present that it may appear their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there To the same purpose afterwards sect 9. pag. 61 he saith That the same scriptures togither with Gal. 1. 2. doe shew Iames his continuance as Ierusalē as the Superintendent of that Church not for a short time but for