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
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
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
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
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.
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
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
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
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
done least his Cataplasmes prove such sophismes too many vvhereof the reader may meet vvith in his defense as vvil make the soare vvorse rather then better and him to loose more peace at home then gaine victorie abroade Seventhly all his former proceedings notvvithstanding it is a vvonder to see vvith vvhat strange boldnes boasts of victorie he marcheth on from the beginning to the end Verily such as if all his proofes vvere such '' anantirretas demonstrationes omni exceptione majores evident demoÌ„strations as are above all exception admitting no contradiction such Achillean arguments and forcible †ischuroi logoi meden diakrinomenâ—â— reasons as are not to be resisted or doubted of and as he hath great store of them even huper ek perissou more then enough so if wee may beleeve him there is no one of them which is not of the nature of the Popes senteÌ„ce penitus definitiva absolutely definitive not liable to exception or appeale Wherefore he is ready †Tous anti â—gontas elegchein sharply to censure all gainsayers hovv learned iudicious orthodoxal divines soever and to charge them that doe heterodidaskalein teach othervvise vvith misinterpreting both of scriptures and fathers yea vvith other crimes little better then blasphemy Wherein though it vvere no great presumptioÌ„ for him to take liberty so to abuse his refuter considering the base conceite he hath of him yet seing he hath acknovvledged others vvhome he hath shutt up under the same sentences to be both learned and orthodoxall divines and are such indeed as both he and all men ought to reverence he ought certeynly to have dealt * Cum bonis bene aagier oportet â—Tully Phil. 3. cur eos quos omnes venerari debemus solus oppugnas better with them the heathen â—being Iudge But let not the Doctor think so to carry the matter away I hope the wise and judicious reader studious of the truth wil be able to discerne '' Aug. ad Petil l. 2. c. 10. non solum inani sonitu sed in capite vestro crâ—puerint that his blowne sentences with so many vaine â—racks are broken upon his owne head and that this lofty lifting up of his head in a cause that liveth so much upon begging and by shifts is both unworthy a man of his note and such as vvill †Evagrius deinon estâ— mega pâ—ronein mikrâ— prattoâ—tâ— never bring grace to him It vvould in all likelihood have argued him to be fuller of good proof if he had in more humility hung dovvn his head like an â—are of good corne then to stand so bolt upright as he doth Eightly concerning the course taken in this replie be the Reader advertised 1. that therin nothing is dealt vvith but the Doctors text and other places of scripture produced excepting such vvriters as are alleaged for interpretation of them and the clearing of the Refuter from the slanders layd upon him for misalleadging them And the reason is both because the scriptures onely can and are alone sufficient to decide the maine controversy concerning the right of the episcopall function and also for that the Doctor rejecteth all nevve vvriters as parties and incoÌ„petent for the same cause for vvhich the refuter might asvvel reject the old were they as they are not such Bishops and of his side as he pretendeth 2. The D. is not followed stepp by stepp in his ovvne order throughout his vvhole book but that vvhich lieth straggling here there is dravvne togither into one tracte asvvell concerning his text as the rest of the scriptures alleadged by him 3. neither are the 5. pointes of his sermon handled in the same order for the first of them concerning the Eldership is put off to the last place it being proved to perteyn nothing to the maine question 4. The vvhole is divided into three partes in the first vvhereof are 3. bookes the first concerning the Refuters preface the 2. concerning the fitnes of the Doctors choise of his text the division analysis thereof togither vvith the state of the question c. the 3. concerning the true and genuine sense of his text and whatsoever he speaketh of it In the 2. part first all other scriptures alleadged by him for proof of the question are dealt with and then the Refuter is cleared of falsifying and misapplying many testimonies of humane writers wherewith the Doctor often chargeth him by occasion whereof it is made manifest that many of the D. Fathers were neyther such Bishops nor yet of the D. opinion concerning the pointe in question as he affirmeth In the third part is handled that first point of his concerning the Eldershippe Lastly to end with a suite or two 1. Let me intreat M. D that ne pulchrum sibi ducat esse Davum in hac fabula imò unguem in vlcere ecclesiae the which if I may not obteyne but upon his third thoughts he remaine the man that he professeth to be in his second and that I have to doe with the * Tully Phil. 2. Non est mihi cum eo hoste certamen cuÌ„ quo aliqua pacis condicio esse possit Orators adversarie one that will receive no condition of peace but upon yeelding him the cause against truth I desire him that leaving all by-matters and amending such faults as he is justly taxed with in this reply he would follow the truth in love vvithout gall and bitternes as he tendreth peace at home and desireth to bring this controversie to an happy and speedy issue 2. As for the reader I praâ—e him that looking rather into the matter then enquiring after the authour he would not like the schollers of Pithagoras builde aforehand on the opinion of the teacher whether the D. or Refuter but †Amb. de fide lib. 1. c. 7. Imperiti legunt totum ut intelligant reade all seriously studie ponder and examine all that both parties have sayd in the whole carriage of this busynes then judge as God shall give vnderstanding remembring what folly and shame it is for any as Salomon saith ‡ Prov. â—8 13. to answer or give sentence of â— matter before he heare it wherein I perswade my selfe too many have much fayled aswel in praejudging the author of the answer as the matter or cause in question THE FIRST PART THE FIRST BOOKE concerning the Refut Preface Chap. 1. Wherein the reason moving the Refuter to answer the D. sermon is made good and the Ref freed from diverse vntruthes charged upon him by the D. Sect. 1. p. 1. THe way of some is perverted and strange but of the pureman his work is right sayth Salomon Prov. 21. 8. Now which part of the proverb belongeth to the Refuter in his preface and which to the Doctor in his answer to it let the indifferent reader secundum allegata et probata judge in the feare of God and spare not And first as the Refuters eye
discipline as he calleth it calling it a fancie a novelty that bewrayeth the falsity a mere humane invention a newe device c. And doth he not all this notwithstanding bestowe first a longe sermoÌ„ and then a large defence for confutation of what is said for it me thinkes therefore the D. is quite of the hookes in his thus reasoninge Things manifestly true or false are so judged in deed without disputation or discourse but it is by them sure to whome they appeare so not to others to others they are so judged by disputation and discourse It is true also that nether doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident but knoweth he not also that nothing is to be confuted but that which is evident whiles it is not evident it must be argued and disputed but when the falshood is evident it must be confuted Thus we see how stoutly this reason fighteth with the Ref. opinion the D. should now shew us how it fighteth with it self but whatsoever the matter is he hath not a word to that end the reader hath leave to work that out by his own imagination Let us passe on to the second reason of the three pretended by the D. called by him the second braneh thus framed by him on the Refuters behalf It is very huriful and abnoxiâ—us therfore necessary to be coâ—futed How this reason fighteth eyther with the truth or with the Ref opinioÌ„ or with it self or with the other reasons he sheweth us not but in stead thereof scofteth at the word obnoxious as if it would beare no other The D. scoffeth at a word letteth the point alone sense then scoffingly he giveth of it to wit subject to be hurt with evil tongues c. Wheras the word is turned almost in all languages French Italian Spanish aswell as English culpable diserving blame or punishment as the Refuter meaneth it But if it were not yet hereby appeareth how apt he is to take his brother by the throat not forgiving him the least syllabicall slipp but making him pay the utmost farthing If his adversary should use him after that manner ful oft perhaps might he be twitched up for halting But lett the D. make the word sound what he will the reader may see that the Eagle is hungry when she catcheth at such flies and the Refut meaning and so his words indifferently construed doe sound that it is a doctrine hurtful and worthy of blame and therefore to be confuted what sayth he to the reason he onely denieth it to be hurtful and why For I not onely sayd saith he but proved also both in the preface coÌ„clusion of the sermon that it was both profitable and necessary Which what is it bur a silly begging even of the mayn question I call it filly seing The D. beggeth the maine quaestion the proof lieth not in the body but in the preface and conclusion both which are answered by the Refuter to the former of which he hath replyed nothing nothing to purpose it being as himself calleth it in the division of his sermon def lib. 1. p. 28. not a proof but an application of that which before he pretendeth to have proved And if the Refuter had not disproved his proofes both in preface and conclusion and wheresoever else as he hath at least deemed himself to have done yet is the matter under triall still What then hath the Doct. here done but as if a man making claime of some parcell of land and bringing forth to that end certeyne deeds to prove his title wherevnto when his adversary shall plead forgery or insufficiencie he should think it sufficient for rejoynder to say he hath not onely sayd his title is good but proved it by the deeds aforesayd How the Refuter hath disproved the D. proofes whether sufficiently or otherwise mattreth not in this point sure it is the matter remayneth still questionable yea had he not at least made some shewe of a sufficient disproof of them what needed so wise a man as M. D. to make so great a volume of defences he told us even now I cannot yet forget it that nothing needeth to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident Come we now to the Ref words which the D. maketh his third reason The third sayth he It is necessary indeed to be confuted as if he had sayd it is necessary indeed to be confuted therefore it is most needful to be answered That clause of the Refuter is an epiphonematical repetition of the maine conclusion and nothing else as he that joyneth vit and honesty togither may easily see but the Doctor maketh it a different argument that he may make a child of his adversary his reader to imagine that he beggeth the question and proveth idem per idem but lett the judicious judge of his dealing herein and honour him for it as he seeth cause to me it seemeth an hungrie cause that is gladd to feed upon any thing Thus much for the Matachine fight charged vpon the refuters reasons how truely I leave to the readers sentence The Doctor goeth on and telleth vs how his refuter proveth the first of the three former reasons by divers arguments The first Sect. 2. Refut p. 3. Def. p. 3. whereof is as he sayth this The doctrine of his sermon is vtterly false because it is repugnant to the truth the word of truth the scripture of truth now what sayth he to it 1. he calleth them all ridiculous amplifications 2. he sayth his Ref. had rather take it for granted then be putt to prove is to be repugnant to the word and 3. that he for his parte shall make it cleare in this defence that there is not a sillable in the scriptuere to prove the pretended discipline and that the episcopall function hath good warrant in the word To all which I have not much to reply To the first not to stand upon the number of the amplifications we see the sentences are there onely and minde one thing the second being an exposition of the first the third of the second the one adding not an exegesis onely but an emphasis also to the other But say they are more then needed is it not much more then needeth to call them ridiculous Wisdome I perceive must dye with the Dâ—putt case there were such an amplification in the Service book as ridiculous as it is the D. I doubt not would find a hand to subscribe it as agreable to the word of God and no doubt but might doe it with more peace of conscience then to many amplifications therein conteyned yet no ridiculous thing in Gods service is agreable to Gods word To the second may I ask the Doct what need the refuter had to prove that in his praeface which the whole refutation tendeth to prove and whither it was not enough for him in it to admonish thereof And me
such as are nominated elected and presented to any Church 3. to make and ordeyn rules and canons for order and quietnes for diversities of degrees among Ministers c. And that those orders are to be made by the ministers of the Church with the consent of the people before Christian Prince and after Christian Princes with the authority and consent both of Prince and people Againe we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people comitted to their spirituall charge that wheras certeyn men doe imagine and affirme that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome power and authority over all Bishops and Preists in Christs Church c. that it is utterly false and untrue Againe it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neyther in the scripture nor in the wrytings of any authentical Doctor or author in the Church being within the times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or betwene the Bishops themselves but they were equall in power order authority and iurisdiction And that there is now since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops it was divised among the auncient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and vnity of the Catholike church and that eyther by the consent and authority or els 〈◊〉 least by the permissiâ—â— sufferance of the Princes and civill powers for the time rulinge For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees amonge Bishops and spirituall governors This it seemed the D. marked not of the Church so ordeyned some to be Patriarches some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archbishops some Bishops And to them limited not onely several Dioceses or Provinces where they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certayne bounds and limitts of their iurisdiction and power In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles it was lawfull for all Bishops certeyne of them assembling togither to constitute and consecrate other Bishops the sayd Fathers restreyned the sayd power reserved the same in such wise that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitane or Archbishop no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province likewise in other cases their powers were also restreyned for such causes as were then thought vnto them conventent Which differences the sayd holy Fathers thought necessary to enact establish by their decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed or established in the Gospel or mencioned in any canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiastical wryter within the dayes of the Apostles but to the intent that thereby coÌ„tention variance schismes divisions should be avoyded and the Church preserved in good order and concord Loe here their words now obâ—erve we among other things 1. that they joyne togither Bishops and 1. That they make Preists or Bishops all one Preists not onely in the duty of instructing but also in the power of the keyes of bearing the spirituall charge of the people coÌ„mitted to them 2. And in setting downe that headship of the Pope which they disclaime they joyne the Priests with the Bps. of Christs Church affirme his power of claime authoritie froÌ„ Christ over both to be alike false and vntrue 3. they saye that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops spiritual governours of the Church which last words spiritual governors must needs include all Preachers that have spiritual charge as is before noted 4. And as among those degrees ordeyned by them they reckoÌ„ Bishops aswel as Archbishops c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers the limitatioÌ„ of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces yea the limitatioÌ„ of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops which cannot be thought they would ever have done if they had held theÌ„ jure divino 5. And ail this was after that Christians were increased to an infinite multitude throughout the world and in an imitation of the example of like degrees in the old testament not for that any such were established in the newe c. wherfore if the D. had well perused their words with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading he mought have found that whatsoever they speak of the equalitie or superiority of Bps. amonge themselves affirming the one and denying the other to be instituted by Christ the same is to be understood not of such Bishops as had that name proper to them after the Fathers had established sundry differences of degrees but of all apostolike Bishops or spiritual governours preists or preachers which had the spiritual charge of any people coÌ„mitted to them by the Apostles Which appeareth yet more clearely as by that other booke called Reformatio leguÌ„ ecclesiasticaruÌ„ compiled by them wherein it shall appeare anone they make the Bishops in quaestion to be of no other institution then the rest of that ranck of Archbishops ArchdeacoÌ„s Deanes c. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall Stokesley two others of them and therefore fittest to interprete their own meaning writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole S. Ierom say they aswell in his CoÌ„mentary on the Epistle to Titus as in his Epistle to Euagrius sheweth that those primacyes long after Christs ascension were made by the device of men where as before by the coÌ„mon agreement consent of the Clergie every of the Churches were governed yea the Patriarchall Churches The words of S. Ierom are these sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Praesbyteris esse majores And in the margin this note is sett Difference betwixt Bishops Preists how it came in What caÌ„ be more plaine then this to shewe that those Bishops did acknowledge as the ref saith the disparity of Ministers the primacie of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops c. was but a politik divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ Iesus This shall suffice for that testimony before we come to the next it shall not be amisse to speak a word or two coÌ„cerning the D. confession touching the parity of Bishops among themselves but yet restreyning it to the power of order for feare of offending cutting off his Archbishops head But so it falleth out that when men are affraid to what is truth for offending one side they often speak to the offeÌ„ce of the other that so farre as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papall authoritie whiles he denieth what they affirme
reviving of their cerâ—monies amoÌ„gst us is so freely preached published tending to vphold their hierarchy aswell as ours the Doctors reasons being in deed the very same with theirs The Doctor answereth with many vile and opprobrious speaches and 1. telleth vs that the advantage which ariseth to the Papists both by his doctrine preached and the ceremoniees mainteyned still amongst us may through Gods blessing be this That when they see us not so new fangled as our opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they have departed from the primitive Church but are content to observe the auncient government lawful ceremonies used in the primitive Church they may be induced to joyne The D. abuseth the name of God with us c. Then which what can be sayd more against reasoÌ„ their owne profession to the abusing of the name of God and his blessing Knoweth he not that to this day they have bene incouraged in their madnes by our coÌ„ming so neere them and departing no further from them Doe they not both say and write that our book of leiturgie is an Apish imitation of their Masse-book that our religion cannot stand without their ceremonies that the contention that is amongst vs for them and eating their broath putteth them in good hope of our eating their rostemeat Doe not the Rhemists in their annotation upon Ioh. 21. 17. affirme that the Protestants otherwise denying the preheminence of Peter yet to uphold their Archbishops doe avouch it against the Puritans Yea even of late take they not occasion to fill theire bookes with our canons and constititutions arguments and resolutions to let passe others what will the Doct. say to that worthy Proctor of theirs Iacobus Gretzerus hath he not panegyr missae cap. 11. 12. demonst dogm cap. 7 alleadged against the reformed Churches our service booke for their popish holy dayes D. Tooker and our late booke of Canons both for the signe of the Crosse for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament for the whole hierarchy from the Archbishop downewards and for divers other their superstitions Hath not Cornelius Scultingius in his hierarchica Anacrisis alleadged D. Whitgift and transcribed whole leaves out of him for defence of their hierarchy Doth not Stapleton relect against Whitak Cont. 2. q. 3. art 3. take the Bishops arguments for the upholding of their hierarchy to uphold the Popes affirming they are built both on one foundation c I suppose the Doct. will not deny this yea they that are acquainted with their writings knowe more then this of the advantage they take by such sermons as that the Doctor printed What likelihood is there then of winning the Pipists by comming neerer them no no experieÌ„ce hath taught us that this policie in seeking to win the adversaries by dallying and playing with them and comming so neere them hath bredd more papists in England in few yeres then were wont to be bredd in many in so much as we have cause to feare that under colour of licking he Papists whole by this meanes the wound is become so great that all the balme in Gilead will sâ—atce salve it the case is so desperate Sect. 3. But 2. what shall we say to those opprobrious speaches which the D. casteth forth against all that mislike the ceremonies and episcopall government in saying they are new fangled and so farr caried with hatred to their persons papists he meaneth as to depart further from them then they have departed from the primitive Church And what to his vnjust The Doct. calumniateth both his Ref the reformed Churches censure of his Refut and of all that accorde in judgment with him when because he called his doctrine Antichristian he faith it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our opposites His tongue is his owne and he thinketh that none of his Lords will controwle him wherefore he spareth not to stuff a great parte of his great volume with such vnsavoury reproaches Perhaps he ment to justify at least it well appeareth he hath justifyed his ref in charging him to have given the papists much advantage for is it not a great advantage vnto them when they may if they liste assume the Doctors testimonie to disgrace those worthy divines which in other reformed Churches have abandoned the ceremonies and government controverted in our Churches with departing and that in a newe fangled and factious humor and of meere hatred to their persons from that ancient government and those lawfull ceremonies which they received from the doctrine and example of the primitive Church But it seemeth he forgatt that of Tully verecundius loquor propter Pompeium For however he vilifieth his refuter without blushing taking him to be no better then a dishclout yet considering he had so many Pompeies to deale with as his refuter mentioneth he could not but harden his face as an Adamant that he blusheth not notwithstanding their names with their testimonies and arguments and their just praises given them by other learned more then by the refuter to count all newe fanglisme and faction But 3. his freindes wil say he had good cause to be offended with Sect. 4. him that charged his doctrine to be Antichristian for who can with patience beare so heavie an imputation But the Doctor must beare it and it will stick close to his ribbs till he can remove the reason that inforceth it vpon him To witt that his doctrine tendeth to the upholding of the popish hierarchy aswell as ours and therefore is Antichristian The consequence he impugneth not all his labour is to weaken the Antecedent And first in the detestation thereof he cryeth out God forbid which brought to my minde the saying of Hazael 2. Reg. 8. 13. who when Elisha tolde him of the evill he should doe protesting against it with indignation sayd what is thy servant a dogge that I should doe this great thing and yet for all that he did it And I have heard some in my time crye fie on the Divil when they have done him great service Let vs therefore see whether the D. prayer and doings agree In the popish clergie saith he above Bishops and Archbishops the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as governours of the vniversal Church in in whom the popish â—yerarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth And againe Their government is justly called Antichristian who are his assistantes in this vniversal government The Doctors drift is as it seemeth to free him selfe from defending the popish hierarchy because he mainteyneth not eyther that headship and goverment of the vniversall Church which maketh the Pope to be properly Antichrist or that subordination and assistance vnto him in his headship which maketh the Romish Hierarchy to be properly Antichristian A poore shifte The Doct. hath a poore shift and a silly defence and a silly defence
Doctors reasons to inforce the acknowledgment of his doctrine for true that then it is not elsewhere to be had because he being knowne to be a scholler and professing to have read the cheefe Treatises on both sides it is likely that there is in his sermon the pith and substance of all that all of them can say for themselves and against vs. M. Doctor answereth it is an vnreasonable motion and the reasons thereof contradict both what he sayd even nowe and are contradicted by what he affirmeth afterwardes And to prove that the motion is vnreasonable he affirmeth it to be vnreasonable the weight of the whole cause should lye vpon one short sermon vttered by so meane a man as himselfe The which to vse his owne wordes is an unreasonable reason and such as contradicteth what he sayd even nowe and is contradicted by that which he affirmeth afterwards Even nowe he sayd that the proofs which he vsed in his sermon were such as satisfyed his owne conscience and that without boasting he mought assume to himselfe as goad skill to judge of an argument as the refuter or others of his side he calleth it blasphemy against the truth that his sermon was censured to have no sound proofe in it he sayth he is a Minister of the Gospell What as sound and faithfull as the refuter no he disdeyneth the comparison but as sound and orthodoxall as his betters and as conscionable in all his sermons and writinges and as carefull to deliver nothing but the truth of God And that his refuter cannot deny him to be a faithful Minister and orthodoxall Divine Agayne that he is perswaded in his conscience the Refuter hath not convinced him of any one vntruth throughout the whole body of his sermon All this he boasted even nowe of himself somewhat else a litle before yet now with the turning of the page he is becoÌ„e if he mean as he saith a mean man so mean as it is an vnreasoable motioÌ„ to desire any to think that if there be no sufficiency in his reasons it is not elsewhere to be had either he Eyther the D. speaketh by an irony and not sincerely or else he contradicteth himself speaketh by an ironie and not syncerely or else his former speaches coÌ„tradict this later And how it is contradicted by that he speaketh afterwards appeareth throughout his whole booke wherein every where he advanceth himselfe above measure yea in this very section he standeth upon the creditt of his evidence with a witnes making this offer that he is well contented to be credited in nothing if there be not better evidence in his sermon and the defence of it for the episcopall government then is to be found for the discipline in quesion in all the writings of the disciplinarians so advancing himself above all those sound and orthodoxall divines in the world that are by all soundly learned counted the lightes of the world Thus can he play fast and loose vp and downe debase and advance himselfe as may make for advantage before he was alofte as we have hearde learned and skilful to judge of an argument c. a faithfull Minister an orthodoxal divine c. nowe he is a meane man so meane a man as if he had not a fellow on his side to match him By by he is up on high again disdeyning comparisoÌ„ with his Refuter advanceth himself above all that have writt for the discipline Luther Calvin Beza c. Yea pawneth his creditt concerning all that ever he wrote of what subject soever upon his truth and sufficiencie in this one point But let vs nowe see the double contradiction in the refuters reasons as the Doctor calleth them but it but one reason as the refuter hath layd it downe the reader will not be so simple as to make the first clause or meÌ„ber of a sentence as the Doctor here divideth it a reason that because the Doctor is a Scholler therefore he hath in his sermon sayd asmuch as can be The D. dismembreth the Ref. words and reasoneth ex male divisis sayd of that argument He mought well enough for all that have sayd nothing to it but the Doctor is very ready to divide where his refuter conjoyneth it seemeth to allude to his owne words page 146. His refuters reasoÌ„ was too strong for him to deale with whiles the Medius terminus consisting of two branches was bouÌ„d togither and therefore he dissolveth it taking each branch by it selfe indeavouring like a grosse headed Sophister to perswade the reader that because he can bowe each twigge severally therefore he can breake the whole bundell or faggott But what the Doctor here weakneth or rather scoffeth at by dissolving I wil strengthen by vniting thus He who is knowne to be a Scholler of good skill to judge of an argument a sound and orthodoxall divine and professeth to have read the cheife treatisâ—s written on both sides in this controversie and to have set downe in a sermon vttered in the presence of God in the room of Christ those arguments which for the fulnes and plentifulnes of their proofe satisfied his owne conscience Of him it is likely we may receive the very pith and substance of all that all of them can say eyther for themselves or against vs. But the Doctor is known to be such a scholler and to have done all this For he professeth as much of himselfe as we have already heard Therefore of him it is likely we may receive the very pith and substance of all that all of them can say for themselves or against vs. For we cannot immagine that such a scholler so skilfull to judge of an argument such a divine so orthodoxall and so faithfull a Minister as he professeth himself to be we will not dispute the contrary with him we envie it not having read the chiefe treatises as saith would receive satisfaction and be perswaded by the weakest reasons or make any other choise but of the cheife the first borne strength of all the arguments he read to utter in the presence of God in the roome of Christ especially before that honourable auditory as he calleth it Who would offer him that wrong as to think he did not against that day gleane out the pith and substance of what he had read and could be sayd therein but that for want of skill or will to make the best of that he had read for his owne advantage and his cause left out the best proofes and made choise of the worst But what saith he against this or how maketh he his Refuters contradictions to appeare To lett his scoffe alone when he telleth vs he hath bene a scholler ever since he was five yeares old 1. He would knowe hovv it can be that he should have the pith and substance of all that can be sayd in that controversie seing his refuter chargeth him to speak without proofe The
and of great consequence the standing or falling of the the whole building depending vpon the strength be it more or lesse which it receiveth frō the foundation layd to vphold it But however he hath slightly passed it over that it may appeare howe vnjustly he hath censured his Refuter therein he shal be called back to a more serious debating thereof after a word or two spoken to some things concerning the other two Concerning the Author which is the D. himselfe he affirmeth Section 2. that the Refuter gave him greater prayse then eyther he desired or deserved c. and yet he scoffeth at it in his answere to his preface page 19. Againe he would prove his Refuter to be a worthlesse and a witlesse fellow because he passed by the learned treatises of the worthies of their side and made choise to contend with him in the vanquishing of whom there can come neyther creditt to himselfe or his cause nor disadvantage to the adverse part But the reader can easily conceive the contrary for in dealing All former writers of the D. side are answered in the answer to the doctor with the Doctor who hath read those accurate Treatises and in his sermon as wee have reason to beleeve layd downe the extract or quintessence of that which all those worthies could say therein he dealeth after a sort with them all and answereth them all in answering him Creditt enough therefore wil be gayned to the Refuter and his cause with disadvantage to the adverse part in case the D. being the man that he maketh himselfe to be prefat pag. 16. 17. who had read vvhat all could say and had the best helps of all that had vvritten before him of that argument and vvas vvise enough to make the best of that he read for his advantage shall yet in this question shevve himselfe as his Refuter sayth but poore in deed And vvhere to prove himselfe to be neyther weake nor worthlesse he affirmeth that in his sermon provided in 9. or 10. dayes at the most he hath so fortified his cause that the greatest worthies of opposites assayling it with their forces have not bene able in twice so many monthes to make the least breach therin I vvish it may be considered vvhether it be not a boast of much riches or no 2. If we may beleeve reports the greater part of that sermon vvas preached before at a visitation or assembly of Ministers with great applause But 3. it mattereth not whether it were provided in that time or no seing he was above 9. or 10 dayes after the preaching of it in reveiwing and enlarging of it for enlarged it was as he sayth preface 4. for the presse as the time of the cōming of it forth sheweth 4. He speaketh without booke and more then is true both in saying that the greatest worthies assayled it with all their force and that the answerer was in answering it twice so many monthes as he was in providing it Well may he knowe his owne time and helpers but the Refuter knoweth that the best able or greatest worthies were so far from assayling it with all their force that they touched it not with one of their fingers and that he one of the least among many was not so many weeks as the Doctor nameth monthes about it Doth the Doctor with reason imagine or looke that they who have neyther bookes nor libertie for studie nor presse nor purse for eyther at cōmand as himselfe hath can make so quick dispatch as he Lett him procure indifferencie herein then blame vs for want of expedition And with as litle reason argueth he when he telleth us that the greatest worthies assayling it with all their forces have not been able to make any breach therein in twice so many monthes as he was dayes in providing his sermō as if because they have not done it in that time they therefore were not able to doe it Well may he argue them of sloth and negligence but not of vnsufficiency vnablenes Concerning the matter whether the Refuter finding little in the D. sermon which is not in the Bishops booke from whence Section 3. he professeth to have received so good satisfaction and much almost verbatim word for word with it might not suppose say it was but borrowed I leave it to the indifferent reader not to the D. who is a partie to judge 2. The often references made thereunto were not so much as the D. sayth to shewe that what he delivered was taken thence as to let the reader see that both are ansvvered in one hovvever he sayth the Bishops proofes are such as never were nor never wil be answered 3. To make good his charge of falshood slaunderous libelling vpō the Ref for saying his sermō vvas borrovved of the Bishop he professeth he is not conscious to himself of taking any one line from any without citing the author c. And yet confesseth a litle before that diverse of his allegations were not of his owne first reading but examined at the founteine being as it were sent thither for thē by them whom he read the which as the Refuter denied not so the contrary to which he affirmed not neyther had reason seing it vvas fitt in deed he should examine them by the first Authors where ever he mett with them at the second hand whether they were true or no. Lastly as for his praise sett upon the oldnesse of the stuffe because that which is the oldest is the truest it is but an idle begging of that question which will not be graunted him it being The Doct. beggeth the question out of question that it was as the refuter saith built out of the Bishops old stuffe not of the oldest stuffe or of his stuffe which is the Ancient of dayes And therefore as Salomon Prov. 16. 31. saith of old age so say I of it It is then honourable and worthy of cōmendation when it is found in the way of righteousnes without which figure it is but as a cypher whose value in divinity is nothing worth But to let all passe come we nowe to the 3. point and examine Sect. 4. ad Sect. 3. Def. lib. 1. Cap. 1. pa. 27. we whether the Refuter deserveth to be censured as a man that spent his splene vpon the text captiously carping at the choise of it yea or no The Refuters words whereon the Doctor taketh occasion so to censure him are not as the Doctor layeth them downe out of an abortive booke as he calleth it thereby shewing how greedy he himselfe is of carping but as the Refuter himself in his answere pag. 2. line 5. 6. hath them namely these The text being allegoricall as himself confesseth digge he deep and doe what he can he shall hardly finde fast ground whereon to lay his foundation Can any man that judgeth his text vnfitt for his purpose deliver his opiniō in milder termes Is there any
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
Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishops and the Bishops to Christ And asketh he not pag. 46. what a Bishop else is but such a one as holdeth and menageth the whole power and authoritie above all yea and doth he not pag. 30. 31. out of the council of Sardis and out of Optatus and Hâ—erâ—m make those 3. degrees answerable to the high Preists and Levites placing the Deacons and Presbyters in the roome of the Preists Levites and the Bishops in the roome of Aaron the High-Preist the very cheife and Prince of all With what face then can he deny vnto the Bishop in his diocese a sole superiority or solepower of rule or say that the word sole is foisted in besides his meaninge Let him weigh the force of this argument and give us a direct answer to it the next time he writeth Whosoever ascribeth to every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner to governe in fore externo the Presbyters aswell as the people as their Ruler and Iudge holding and menaging the whole power and authoritie above all all subiect to him and he subiect to Christ he giveth to every B in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereignty and sole power of rule But the Dostor prescribeth â—o every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all c. Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereigntie and so power of rule The assumption is gathered from his owne wordes as is before shewed If he deny the proposition shall he not bewray in himself that evill conscience which he chargeth his Refuter with which is resolved to oppugne and deface the truth Can he be ignorant that a singular preheminence of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner put into the hands of any one to govern all the rest as their ruler and Iudge and he subject to to none but to Christ is not onely a sole superiority but a very sovereignty or sole and supreme power and rule Wherefore how soever every superiority in power or majority of rule be not a sole or sâ—preme power or superiority c Yet the Refuter hath rightly affirmed and the Doctor hath with check of conscience I feare denied the power of rule which he ascribeth to Bishops to be a sole power And touching our owne Bishops though he be loth to acknowledge Sect. 8. in plaine termes that they are sole ruling Bishops yet he affirmeth that which will easily evince it to be a truth For to let passe what he saith serm pag. 40. concerning ordination that the power thereof is ascribed and appropriated to the Bishop alone and that however by the councill of Carthage the Preâ—byters were to impose handes with the Bishop yet it was then as now with vs not for necessity but for greater solemnely c. To let this passe I say he confesseth lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 192. that the advice and â—ssistance of presbyters which the ancient Bishops used grew longe since out of use because it seemed needlesse both to the presbyters desyring their ease and to the Bishops desyring to rule alone And to take a way all shew of difference betwene those ancients and our Bishops who have not the like assistance of their presbyters that they had in former ages he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 5. pag. 111. That when Bishops used the advice of their presbyters the sway of their authority was nothinge lesse then when they usâ—d it not for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and advâ—se but never to over-rule the Bishop like as the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his Councell is nothing the lesse for it but the more advised The truth of this later speach is not here to be examined nor yet how well the former doth accord with the later there will come a fitter time for it hereafter for the present purpose it shall suffice to observe 1. That if a desire in Bishops to rule alone was one cause why the AssistaÌ„ce which formerly they had of their Presbyters grewe out of vse it may wel be thought that ours doe nowe rule alone seing they have no such assistance as they had 2. Neither can it be otherwise if that assistance which once they had was not to restreyne them of their willes but onely to yeeld them that help that great Princes free Monarches have of their grave Counsellors by whom they are advised in their affaires of state Here therefore I crave his answere to this argument Whosoever in their government proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them from swâ—â—ing the matter as pleaseth them they have a sole power of rule or do rule by their sole authoritie But our English Preâ—â—tes iâ— their Episcopâ—ll government and in proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them fâ—om swaying the matter as pleâ—seth them Let not the D. be ashamed to speake plainely what he closely insinuatâ—th Therefore they have a sole power of rule or do rule by theiâ— sole authoritie The proposition I suppose to be so cleare that the Doct. wil not deny it The Assumption is already acknowledged for true by himself I hope therefore in his next defence he will imbrace the conclusion and esteme it no longer an odious and absurd asserti on For why should he be ashamed to speake that plainly which he doth closely insinuate the rather for that one of his fellow Doct. D. Dove I meane in his defense of Church-government pag. 19. coÌ„ming to speak of a Diocesan D. Bishop ruling by his sole power saith that this is the cheefe matter now in question and further pag. 20. that he may speake something for the iustification of the Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie affirmeth that Timothy Titus were such Bishops Now no doubt the Doctor will expect an answer to that which was overpassed in the former chapter as impertinent to the point then in hand viz. That all power is not given to the Bishop alone because that in the government of the Church others are joyned with him some vnder him and some above him c. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 42. and he shall here according to promise have it And that he may see the force of his reasoning I wish him to remember that Christ saith of himselfe Math. 28. 18. all power is given to mean heaven and earth and to bethinke himselfe what answere he would give to one that shoulde thus argue In the government of the world there are others ioyned with Christ the Father is above him 1. Cor. 15. 27 28. and vnder him are both his Apostles and thâ—ir successors Mat. 28 19
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
evasion to avoyde if it were possible that perpetuall necessity which his words doe equally throwe vpon the function of Timothy and Titus aswell as on their authority For 1. If he had cast but one cie vpon the propositioÌ„ of that brave syllogisme wherevnto the former senteÌ„ce is fitted as the assumption he might have observed that the word authority is superfluous idlie inserted in the later seing it is wholly omitted in the former The proposition of his argument is this The supposed evangelisticall function he saith not evangelisticall functioÌ„ and authority but evangel function of Timothy and Titus was to â—nd with their persons and admitted no succession being both extraordinary and temporary Wherefore to make the assumption sutable to this proposition he should have sayd not as he then did and still doth the function and authority but the function which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches was not to ende with theire persons but to be continued in their successors And theÌ„ the words following must of necessity be carried also to their function onely q. d. their function was not to end with their persons because it was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. And vnlesse he will yeeld to this construction of his assumption I meane either to blot out the word authority or at least to acknowledge that he userâ—â— those two words function and authority as synonima to expresse one onely thing to wit their office or function he will be inforced If the D. seeketh to avoyd one he falleth into another evill to lye downe under this foul imputation also viz. that he doth sophisticate and by foure termes in stead of three utterly marreth the frame of his supposed blamelesse syllogisme 2. Moreover if he will vouchsafe to peruse his Defense lib. 4. pag. 97 98. he may perceive that as his purpose was by a newe supply of arguments as he saith to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops so his maine argument there set downe concludeth the very function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie and episcopall because it was not extraordinarie and Evangelicall For although to conforme his first argument to his prosyllogisâ—â—es that follow he coupleth function and authoritie together yet the frame of his words doe shewe that by both termes he understandoth one thing onely to wit their proper function or office which was as he confesseth the onely thing now in question Otherwise having sayd in the proposition that their function and authoritie was eyther extraordinary and evangelisticall or ordinarie and episcopall he would never have set downe the assumption and conclusion so as he doth But it was not extraordinary and evaÌ„gelicall therfore ordinary and episcopall For neither grammer noâ— logick Neither grammer nor logick will indure the D. disjunction will permit him vnder this one word it to comprehend two things so distinct as he nowe taketh function and authoritie to be when he affirmeth the one denieth the other to be perpetuallye necessarie 3. But if he will needs begin with that disiunction with which he endeth he shall fall into a twofolde absurdity which he cannot avoid viz. an untoward laying downe of the question in the beginning and a shamelesse begging of the question in the end For neyther doe they hold the function onely of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie or their authoritie onely to be episcopall neyther doe the Disciplinarians teach their function onely to be extraordinary and their authoritie onely to be evangelicall but rather affirme their function to be both extraordinarie and evangelicall as in the proposition of his first syllogisme he confesseth And as for their authoritie vnderstanding thereby as the Doctor doth nothing else but a power to ordeyne and to exercise a publik spirituall jurisdiction they doe no where affirme it to be eyther extraordinarie or proper to an Evangelist Yea the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 84. and 100. that his Refuter graunteth that others were to succced Timothy and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office and that their authoritie though not their function was perpetually necessarie Wherefore if he take not authority and function for one and the same thing or at least restreyne authotitie to that peculiar power which distinguisheth their function froÌ„ all other ministeriall callings he hath apparantly falsified the state of the questioÌ„ And wâ—â— is worse in the winding up of his The D. falsineth the state of the question The Doct. bewrayeth the beggerie or his cause dispute bewrayeth the extreame beggerie of his cause wheÌ„ he proveth their functioÌ„ to be ordinarie because it was ordinarie For the conclusioÌ„ of his first syllogism p. 98. affirmeth the function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie his medius terminus to prove it is this It was not extraordinary which to confirm he saith that their function was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors aâ—d therefore was not extraordinary And to prove the AntecedeÌ„t he argueth thus Their function was ordinary and therefore was not to ende with their persons So that his whole reasoning-commeth to this issue Their function was ordinary and therefore it was ordinary To amende all these defaultes since it is apparant that in his maine conclusion he affirmeth their function to be both ordinary and episcopall as before I shewed the word authority to be superflous so it followeth froÌ„ thinges before delivered that the word ordinary in that prosyllogisme which he laieth downe pag. 99. 100. so as he received it from his Refuter is also superfluous and fit to be expunged that the syllogism may run currant in this manner That function which is perpetuâ—lly necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches was not to ende with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function which they had wheÌ„ they were assigned to certeine churches is perpetually necessary not onely for the well-beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function which they had being so assigned was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors Wherefore the Refuter hath not wronged the Doc. in charging The refut wrongeth not the D. bur the D. wrongeth himselfe when to avoid one absurdity he throweth himself into many him to asfirme that the episcopall power or function is perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but for the very being of the visible Churches The D. rather hath wronged himself in that whiles he laboureth to avoide the rocke of this one absurdity he throweth himself into the gulfe of many others And to him more fitly agreeth that which without cause he saith of his Refuter pa. 99. he roves and raves as men use to doe who being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat To conclude then this pointe seing the direction of the
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
Ministers and thus he layeth it downe Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselves Apostles and were not or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers had a corrective power over other Ministers The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the lâ—tter Apo. 2. 20. Therefore these Angels which before I proved to be Byshops had a corrective power over other Miniâ—ters The conclusion which the D. first aymed at serm pag. 49. when he laid downe the parts of this assumption as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48. was this that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct even those Presbyters which assisted them as parts of theire Presbyterie in the government of the Diocese Wherfore the Refuters answer pag. 101. knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephesâ—s for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles were not And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra for suffering the Teachers of the Nicholaitan hâ—riâ—y then Byshops â—ad majoritie of rule for correction over diocesan Presbyters And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops nor those persons with whom they dealt Diocesan Presbyters To this the D. replyeth The D. reply is â—rivolous false and slandâ—â—â—us that the answer is frivolous because he hath before proved the former his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shiâ—â— Wherevnto my rejoynder is that the first part of his reply is frivolous or rather false and the second a maâ—â—â—cious slaunder 1. For to say he hath proved and not to shewe where is meere trifling And if he have not eyther in his sermon or any part of his defence before-going any one â—yllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point which he faith he hath before proved what truth can there be in his saying 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters since the Doctor confesseth pag. 124. the word to be used in some Councels graunting the word may be used in a sense and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. 104. of his answere is it not a malliâ—ious slaunder to say he devised it aâ—d that for a shift espetially seing in the rest of his answere to this argument he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan But the Doct. saith pag. 124. that he neyther vsed the worde at all neyther if he had would he have used it in The D. understaÌ„deth not his owne testimony that sense scz for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government for in his vnderstanding the country Ministers are called Diocaesani Concâ—l Agath cap. 22. Tolet. 3. cap. 20. and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop were called Civitatenses But to our understanding it seemeth that the Praesbyters called Diocesani Concil Tolet. 3. cap. 20. being opposed to another sort there termed Locales were not country Ministers affixed to particular places but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyterâ—e which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese The words of the Councell are these Hâ— verò clerici tam locales quam Diocefani qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint querelas suas ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters as the Doctor would perswade but rather giveth both names to the same persons Id statuinus quod omnes jubent ut CivitateÌ„ses sive Diocesani Presbyteri vel Clerici salvo jure ecclesie rem ecclesiae sicut permiserunt episcopi teneant â—t vendere aut donare penitus non presumant But to leave this quarrell about words and to come to the matter seing it is cleare that the Do first intended by this argument to prove that Bishops had corrective power over those Presbyters which assisted them in they re Diocesan charge is not the Refuters answere very direct and pertinent to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning when he telleth him That the Teachers against whom those angels eyther did or shoulde have sâ—t themselves were not such Presbyters Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne to prove that they were such Presbyters nor removed the presumptions which the Refut alleadged for his denyall doth not the blame of a weak consequenceâ—ly still heavy upon his shoulders Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one and the defense of the other and then give upright sentence First touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined the Refuter asketh pag. 102. Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop should call themselves Apostles And addeth any mans reason will give him that these false Apostles were men who coÌ„ming froÌ„ some other place would have thrist theÌ„selves into the Church there to have taught with authoritie and by right of Apostleship And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira he saith that they also might be such intruders or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach having no calling thereto but however it no way appeareth that they were Ministers and members of the presbytâ—â—â—e assisting the Angel of that Church Now what saith the Doct Doth he make the contrarie appeare viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie No for he will not determine whether they were Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops Presbyterie or not and whether of the Diocese originally or come from other places Onely he saith it is playne they were Teachers that being in their Diocese the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. Wherein observe we 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere scz that it no way appeareth that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers it is more then he can prove his bare avouching that it is plaine doth not plainely coÌ„vince it yet will it nothing advantage him nor disadvantage his Refut to grant it 3. Moreover in saying that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. eyther it is frivolous if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then is common to every Pastor or Minister in his owne charge since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbidd such companions or else it is a begging of The D.
answer is frivolous or a begging of the question of the question if he speake of such a judiciall licencing or silencing as Byshops in these daies exercise over other Ministers in their diocese But he will both prove that these false Teachers were subject to the censure of the Angels or Byshops remove that which his Refuter objecteth to the contrary The later he attempteth in this manner If they were not Presbyters he should say parts of the Presbyterie of that Church because they called themselues Apostles belike they were better men Is it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Byshop bycause he imagineth these who were subject to their censure were better men Is this the Refuters imagination or is not rather the D. conclusioÌ„ grounded vpon his own The D. cannot uphold his cause but by vntruthes imagination Why then may I not returne him his own wordes p. 124 Is the D. coÌ„science no better then stil to father vpoÌ„ the Ref vntruthes for his own advantage bewrayeth he not thereby what a cause he mainteineth that cannot be vpheld but by forgeries The Refuter to make good his deniall of that which the D. presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning vz. that the false Apostles were Presbyters and parts of the Angels Presbyterie affirmed that it was against sense to imagine that any such would assume to themselves the name and preheminence of Apostles and that any mans reason would rather give him that they were persons that came froÌ„ some other place Add hervnto that if they had been of the Ephesian clergie and so knowne to the whole Church to have imbraced an ordinarie calling and settled charge amongst them how should they with any colour perswade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ Doubtlesse the very consideration of the knowne difference betwixt the extraordinary Ministery of the Apostles and the ordinary function of Presbyters might have been sufficient without any further search to discover their lying forgerie which being knowne to have place among the latter should usurpe the name authoritie of the former But the text sayth Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be lyars by the wise and diligent care of the angel who examined or tried them it is therefore more probable that they were rather of the nomber of those wandring Prophets which as greivous wolves from without entred in to devoure then of those perverse teachers which springing up among them did drawe disciples after them See Aretius Beza and Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 2. And touching the false Prophetesse â—e zabell seing she is expresly said to be a woman though good Interpreters doe gather from hence that woemen were suffred to teach publikly in that Church see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20. yet were it too grosse to imagine that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers or to the charge of Presbyters And though it should be graunted that they were men not woemen which are deciphered by the name of that woman Iezabell yet the very name argueth theire greatnes theire prevayling by their subtile perswasions no lesse then Iezabel did by her coÌ„manding power to drawe many vn to their wicked wayes And the title of a Prophetesse importeth yâ— they boasted of an iÌ„mediate calling of extraordinary revelatioÌ„s Neyther doth the Doctor contradict this onely he saith If they The D. trifleth were not presbyters belike they were better men A frivolous speach and an unlikely consequence For what likelihood is there that they were better men seing some of them were found to be lyars in saying they were Apostles Or how doth the deniall of this that they were parts of the standing Presbyterie argue that they were no Presbyters at all But say they were of an higher calling to wit Evangelists or fellowe-helpers sometimes to the Apostles yet now Apostates from the faith as was Demas and some other what will this advantage the D. cause For sooth because himselfe imagineth that these who were better men were subject to the Bishops censure therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to his censure To come then at lengthe to that which he first proposed the reason I meane which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles Iezabel the false Prophetesse were subject to the Angels of the Churches wherein they usurped authoritie to teach he sayth If they were not subiect to them why is the one commended for exercising authoritie over them and the other reproved for suffring them For answere it shall suffice to ask why he assumeth for an apparant truth Yet the â—â—beggeth that which is rather apparantly false viz. that the Angell of Ephesus is commended for exercising authoritie over the false Apostles And why he pre supposeth in the coÌ„sequence of his reasoning that which he cannot justifie to wit that the false prophetesse of Thyatira was subject to the Angels censure because he is reproved for suffring her And thus wear lead as it were by the haÌ„d to see the falshood of the proposition of the arg before by himself coÌ„trived For a corrective power over Ministers cannot be firmely concluded eyther from the coÌ„mendation of the one that examined them which falsly called themselves Apostles or from the reproofe of the other that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people For put the case the D. were an Archdeaâ—on or which would please him better a Diocesan Lord that in the some parishes vnder his government corrupt teachers should â—ind free accesse to the pulpit but in other places by the carefull enquirie of the Ministers and Church-wardens finding what they are they should be restreyned me thinks in this case he should highely coÌ„mend the honest care of the one and sharply reprove the carlesse negligence of the other yet if a man should froÌ„ his coÌ„mendation or reproofe inferre that the persons so commended or reproved had the power of correcting and silencing Ministers I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicitie of such a disputer then vouchsafe him a direct answer See the loosenes of the D. reasoning But to leave suppositions and to let him see the loosenes of his reasoning by a more direct answer it is cleare that the Spirit of God doth no lesse commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Pauls doctrine Act. 17. 11. then he doth the Angel of Ephesus for examining them that falsely assumed the name of Apostles Wil the D. therefore acknowledge that they had a corrective power over that holy Apostle And who knoweth not that it is required of every private Christian to have their senses exercised in the word to discerne betweene good evill Heb. 5. 14. to trie the spirits of their teachers whether they be of God or not 1. Ioh. 4. 1. to bewarre of false Prophets and seducers Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4. to trie all
are of a different nature For Angels and starres are glorious creatures of heaven and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office but Lord Lordship and Grace are termes of civill honour not so well be sitting the Ministers of Iesus Christ Hereto the D. replyeth I confesse they doe not so well befit them because they come short of the honour and excellencie which in the name of angels the Holy Ghost ascribeth to them as if the honour of the episcopall function were much abased not increased as the world judgeth by those titles of civill honour given vnto Byshops for what else can he meane in sayinge they doe not so well befitt them because they come short c. And why then are ye so vnwise ô ye Princes and Nobles as to give vnto Byshops for the honouring of their those titles that doe debase them Be wise and instructed from henceforth to deny them these base termes of Lordship and Grace to give them those titles of honour which are peculiar to Christ and not common with them to any other creature viz. Pastors of soules the light of the world and saviour of their brethren see the D. serm of the dignitie of the Ministers pag 62. 64. But why maketh the D. a shew of removing his Refuters answere The D maketh shew of removing his Ref. answ but doth not once touch it and yet leaveth it altogether vntouched For he cannot give his argument a discharge from the inconsequence objected against it till he shew eyther that the titles which he coÌ„pareth are not of an other nature or that the termes of civil honor coÌ„troverted doe wel beseeme those whose calling is adorned with titles of greater honour in another kind to witt in regard of a spirituall and celestiall dignitie To attempt the former were to quench the light of coÌ„mon reason and to indeavour the latter is to conveye the controverted titles of civill honour by an equall right vnto every Minister seing the titles of greatest spirituall dignitie doe equally belong to all the Ministers of the word as is before observed The D. therefore as one that wittingly will not see the weaknes of his consequence spendeth all his strength in fortifying the AntecdeÌ„t viz. that the names of Lords c. given to Byshops by earthly Princes is a title of lesse honour then that which the Holy Ghost giveth them in calling them the Angels of the Churches I wil not now urge him a fresh to give us some better reason then any he hath yet proposed for the proofe of that which he taketh here for graunted sz that the Holy Ghost appropriateth vnto Byshops such as ours the name of the Angels of the Churches I will onely examin how well he hath proved that this is a more honourable title then the name of Lords They are called saith he not onely Angels that is messengers and Ambassadors of God as all Ministers are in respect of their Ministerie but each Sect. 3. of them also is called the Angel of the Church whereof he is Byshop in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church as the holy angels are said to be their angels over whom they are appointed governours guardians therfore the name Lord giveÌ„ to them in respect of their governmeÌ„t authority is a title of lesse honor theÌ„ that which in the same respect is giveÌ„ theÌ„ by Christ Here also I must passe by a double error in his words before discovered namely that Byshops onely and not any other Ministers have right vnto this title the Angels of the Churches and that more 〈◊〉 As if it were more honour to be the knight of a shire in ParliameÌ„t then to be the Kings â—eutenant honour is implyed in this latter then in the name of the Lords Angels or Embassadors which he acknowledgeth to be coÌ„mon to all Ministers see for that these points the answ to his 7. sect lib. 1. cap. 2. The weight and worth of his reasoning is now to be examined which standeth in this Enthymem Everie Byshop is called the Angels of the Church whereof he is Byshop in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church like as the holy angels are sayd to be their angels over whom they are appointed Therefore the name Lord given to them in respect of their government is a title of lesse honour then the other that is given in the same respect Why if both titles be given to Byshops in one and the same respect doth it not rather follow by good probabilitie that equall honour is implyed in both should not then the D. have done better to have fortified the consequence of his argument then to leave it naked as he doth And why neyther in this nor in the former Enthymem supplieth he not the consequence or proposition which according to his owne rules lib. 2. pag. 44. might make a perfect syllogism at least why doth he not fill up his comparison and tell us from whose governmeÌ„t the name of Lord given vnto Byshops is borrowed Perhaps because he saith in the next clause of his defence that Bishops have that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporall he would have us to conceive that it is for that cause a title of lesse honour then that other which Bishops have common to them with the holy Angels of God If this be his meaning as â—â—gesse it is for I know not what better colour he can preteÌ„d for the justifying of the coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of his reasoning we are then to inquire whether he be not deceived eyther in laying downe the reason of the name Lord given vnto Bishops or in making that the cause of a lesse honour included in the name His own words are the occasion of drawing the former into question when he saith They are not therefore civil Lords because they have the title of Lords coÌ„mon to them with the Lords temporall for who knoweth not the distinction betwene the Lords spirituall and temporal We are not ignorant of the distinction so often mentioned in the actes of parliament but the D. seemeth not to know the right meaning and use thereof For if the Bishops be not civill Lords nor their Lordship a civill honour because they are distinguished from the nobles of the laytie by the name of Lords spirituall then it followeth that theire Lordship and honour annexed thereunto is meerely spirituall But it is so well knowne to all the world that Bishops doe partake with temporall Lords in all the appurtenances of civil Lordship and civill honour that to deny it were delirare cum insanis to plaie the madd man The reason therefore of the distinction retained in our lawes is rather to shew the different condition of the persons then the diversity of their Lordship because the one are spirituall persons or clergie-men and the other temporall men or lay-persons Or â—f the D. will needs have theire verie Lorpships to be distinguished by those
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
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
cap. 17. sect 2. pag. 316. D. Reynolds Conf. cap. 5. divis 3. p. 224. doe acknowledge to be in part grounded upon an excellencie above the rest in vertue and grace For Augustin de Bapt. cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 1. saith his primacie was conspicuous and preheminent with excellent grace And Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 13. calleth him reliquorum omnium Apostolorum propter virtutis amplitudinem facile principem Wherfore if the Doctors meaning be to equall Iames every wayes with his fellow-Apostles in all spirituall grace that adorneth the function of a Minister of Christ he must be beholding to his Reader to take it upon his owne word for it will be hard to make good proofe of it But if he limit the equalitie he speaketh of to the power of the Apostolike function which is all the equality that he can with reason maintein he shall shew himselfe too absurd to avouch that onely for kindred sake vnto Christ he was worthy to be preferred before the rest or that the Apostles were bound to be lead by this respect in the distribution of ecclesiasticall honours This is in deed carnall divinity and such as argreeth not with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Mat. 12. 48. 50. Iam. 2. 1. Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 16. and 12. 5. It might be asked if in respect of love and reverence to Christ the founder of the Church at Ierusalem it were necessarie to preferre one of his kindred to the Bishoprick thereof before the rest that were otherwise equall whether the like respect ought not to haue place in the choise of such as were to succeed any of the Apostles in the Churches which were founded by them and in such as are at this day to succeed men of special reputation in any Church whatsoever For S. Paul testifieth of Andronicus and Iunia Rō 16. 7. that they were his kinsmen and fellow-prisoners which giveth them a singular note of preheminence above many others they were episemoi en tois apostolois famous or of speciall note among the Apostles and before him in Christ Yet we never reade that they were preferred to a Bishoprick in any of the Churches which were many that Paul had founded Is it not a shrewd presumption that he was ignorant of any such president since he had no care to walk by the same rule Againe may I ask M. Doctor why Iames was not aswell before his election to his Bishoprick as after for the same reason honoured by his fellow-Apostles with that precedēce which they gave him when they made him a Bishop To conclude if any such primacie of honour above the rest of the Apostles accompanied Iames his ordination to that supposed Bishoprick why should it not by cōmon consent be rather cast upon one of those whom Christ preferred before the rest for were not all his disciples bound to give most honour to them whom he most honoured If then Peter Iohn and Iames the brother of Iohn were by Christ preferred in honour before his Iames though for his pietie surnamed the Iust was it not an injurie I say not to them but even to Christ their Mr in controwling that order of preheminēce which he had set among his Apostles to give one of their inferiors a place of dignitie above them Wherfore as the Refuter wronged not Clemens or Egesippus in charging the speach of the one to be vnsavourie and the respect alleadged by the other to be carnall so it is no injurie to Eusebius who buildeth vpon their reportes to say he was too credulous in interteyning for truth upon their words that which upō due examination appeareth unworthy of any credit And the same is the fault of the rest which in later time without any further search gave credit vnto their testimony Which sottish imitation as one Mr. Bell calleth it epist before his tryall of new religion pag. 1. Survey of popery part-3 cap. 7. pag. 342. if it were the cause of many errors even in matters of doctrine as is for instance shewed in the errour of the Chiliasts I see no reasō to the cōtrarie why it might not also be a cause of many errors in matters of fact or historie Yet the Refuter did and so doe I still so farre tender their estimation that wee withdraw not any assent from their report but when there is better warrant eyther of scripture or sound reason leading another way Now whereas the Refuter saith that Iames neyther was properlie Sect. 6. ad sect 5. Bishop of Ierusalem nor might be because he continued in his Apostleship a distinct office from it The D. to make him odious with his Reader replieth that he giveth all his witnesses the lie But though he be a Doctor he useth a false finger to justify his suggestiō thrusting out the word properly which the Refuter inserted pag. 132. of his answ and charging him to say plainly that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalē not could be It is plaine and the Doctor acknowledgeth it that the Refuter here denieth vnto Iames he doth it not so much of himselfe as from the mouth of some late writers of worthy account D. Whitakers D. Reynoldes Bishop Iewell and others In charging him therefore to give his witnesses the lie what else doth he but through his sides wound their credit seing the fault if any ligteth on their heads But the truth is neyther he nor they doe oppose the former denaill to the testimonie of the fathers but to their assertion which from the name of a Bishop given to Iames or Peter in the writings of the Fathers doe inferre that Iames or Peter were properly Bishops For the Refuter in his wordes imediately before going saith that the Fathers might will call Iames by the name of a Bishop which then was of greatest dignitie seing it is certeyne he had though an higher yet the same place in Ierusalem that afterwards Bishops claimed and possessed in other Churches And elsewhere answere pag. 143. he explaineth his judgment more plainely in the words of Doctor Whitakers de pont pag. 303. who saith that when the Fathers call Iames or Peter a Bishop they take not the name of Bishop properly but call them Bishops of those Churches in which they aboad somewhat long c. I now adde the words of D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart Cap. 4. divis 2. because the Doctor to finding the place quoted thought his name was used onely for a shewe concerning Iames he saith that he which maketh him a Bishop of one citie whom Christ made an Apostle to all the nations of the earth bringeth him out of the hall as they say into the kitchin And in answer to Chrysostome alleadged by Stapleton and Hart as he is by the D. to confirme his supposed Bishoprick he addeth It seemeth he spake it vpon the word of Clemens apud Euseb lib. 2. cap. 1. And when Hart sayth he should not help him with such shifts against the
Doct. will not doe him that favour to oppose himself therein to D. Sutliffe specially seing he hath already yeelded thus farre pag. 58. that if any be not perswaded of this point he will be content to suppose that Iames was not a Bishop of Ierusalem Notwithstanding as if the whole cause in a manner wholly relied Sect. 7. ad sect 8. pag 58. 59. upon this instance of Iames he indeavoreth by it to confute the learâ—eder sort of disciplinarians who holde that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree nor yet for termes of life and therefore if we may believe him deny that Iames was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at Ierusalem or President of the presâ—yterie otherwise then in his course not for any contynuance Of these conceites he maketh Mr. Beza the Author and because the Refuter â—ould him that he wronged Beza seing there is not a sillable nor a letter at all of him in the place he quoteth he saith all this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margent c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23 which if it be not againe miscarried by his printer seemeth to be foysted in I know not how For in the same Chap. and pag. Impress Anno. 1592. by Ioh. le Preux there are no such words as he alleadgeth But say that Beza in some later edition which I have not yet mett with hath such a saying viz. that though Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour eyther to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers what hindreth but that the Refuters answer might stand to wit that by his Bishopprick or presidencie he was not superiour to any degree but in order onely for when he compareth togither the differing functions of Apostles Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise an imparitie and difference betwene them not in order onely but also in degree and power In istis functionibus ex Apost Eph. 4. 11. â—â—tearepetitis inter se computatis non simplicem tantum ordinem sed etiam gradum agnosco cap. 1. pag. 5. To which purpose also he speaketh cap. 3. pag. 20. cap. 9. pag. 53. But to let the Doctor see how much he wrongeth him these wordes are fittest pag. 9. Apostolatus functionâ— fuisse illos 12. propria non tantum ordinis sed etiam potestatis eminnetia pralatos absit ut inficiemur ut mer am calumniam esse omnes intelligant quum nobis hoc mendacium tribuunt In which he calleth it no better then a calumniation to charge him as the Doctor doth And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza that Bishops were in degree superiour to other Ministers why putteth he not his hand to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza to shew the contrary Quantâ— majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare sive fundamentum illarum ponere quam superstruere et structas regere tanto magis istum gradum vtgere inter ipsos Apostolos oportuit 2. Et si tum esset ut nonnulli contendunt velut ipsa natura precipiente in omni sacro caetâ— gradus iste ad servandum inter collegas consensum necessarius saltem quam diu simul Hierosolymis congregatâ— fuerunt Apostoli nempe saltem ad illam dispersionem quae Stephani mortem est consecuta Act. 8. 1. vâ—um quempiam jam tum supra suos co apostolos extitisse oportuisset Wherevnto I will add the assumption and so inferre the conclusion But among the Apostles there was no superioritie in degree 2. neyther was it necessarie for the preserving of vnitie and consent among them that one should hold such a superiority above his fellow-Apostles whiles they remained at Ierusalem before the scattering that followed the death of Steven Wherefore it is not likely that among the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches there was any one superior in degree to the rest 2. neither can it be necessarie as some suppose even by the light of nature that in every sacred societie for the preservation of consent among colleagues one should have such a superiority in degree among the rest But to leave Mr. Beza let us see how the Doctor can make good Section 8. his purpose from this instance of Iames vz. that Bishops were superiour in degree to other Ministers and had a singular preheminence over them for term of life Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appeare for he is much deceived if he think to gaine his cause by such a sophism as this Iames was superiour to the presbyters of Ierusalem in degree and held a superiority over them during life But Iames was a Bishop Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles tymes superiour vnto presbyters in degree and that for terme of life For though we should graunt the assumption which is before disproved the argument is no better then if a man should argue in this manner Iames Mountague to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon is superior in degree of Ministerie to al the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells But Iames Mountague is the Deane of the K. Maiesties Chappel Ergo the Deanes of the K. Maiesties chappell are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministery I doubt not but the Doctor can well discerne in this latter a double deceipt because it inferreth a generall conclusion from premisses that are but particular assigneth a false cause of that superioritie above other presbyters And if he winketh not hard he may well see the same defaults are to be found in his reasoning For besides the generality of his coÌ„clusion there is an evident mistaking of the cause both of that superioritie in degree which Iames had above the Presbyters of Ierusalem and of his continuance in and about Ierusalem to his dying day To begin with the former whereas he should shewe that his Bishoprick gave him a superioritie in degree above the Presbyters of that Church it is apparant he hath no other Medius terminus to prove it then this that he was an Apostle and his honour degree by his Bishoprick not impaired so that in effect he reasoneth thus Iames being an Apostle and a Bishop was superiour in degree to the Presbyters of Ierusalem Ergo all other Bishops not being Aposteles as he was have the same superioritie above other Presbyters The Doct. proofe therefore which he presupposeth to be plaine and pregnant for his purpose is a plain inconsequence which with all his skill he can never justify Neyther can he easily mainteyne that which he assumeth for a truth viz. that Iames his honor degree by his Bishoprick was not impayred for as is already shewed cap. 6. sect 1. the authority of Clemens is
argument to another in shewe is but to dazell the eyes of his reader that he might not discerne his grosse begging For in effect this is all he can say They were furnished with episcopall power therefore their authoritie was episcopall or S. Paul made them Bishops and therefore they were Bishops of his ordeyning As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. 16. viz whether it be perpetually necessary that the sway of the ecclesiasticall authoritie should be in one and what forme of Church-government is to be preferred as the best I forbeare to follow him in those digressions His resolution to the former being negative doth scarce accord with the conclusion of his last argument which affirmeth that such governors as were Timothy Titus in his opinion furnished with episcopall power are much more necessarie after the Apostles death then in their life time But his resolutioÌ„ to the later is grouÌ„ded on such a reason as wil put life againe into the same if there were an undoubted truth in it For could he prove the Monarchicall government of Bps to be of divine institutioÌ„ as he affirmeth it would follow not onely that it is the best forme of Church-government but also necessarily to be continued And as I nothing feare to graunt him that consequence so I knowe he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopall function He hath sought for it first in the Angels of the 7. chueches then in Pauls approbation of Archippus Epaphroditus he proceeded to Iames his presidence at Ierusalem now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordeyning Timothy Titus to the function of Bishops In all which disputations of his I have clearely shewed that the scriptures give him no colour for his assertion We are therefore now ready to listen to those testimonies of antiquity which if we might beleeve him with a generall coÌ„sent beare witnes to his assertion that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Creet Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquitie alleadged by the Doctor to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet FIrst he alleadgeth the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Sect. 1. ad sect 17. pa. 105. epistle to Titus of the second to Timothy wherein the one is sayd to have bin ordeyned the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans Being asked by his Refuter whether he thought them to be of the Canon or added by the Apostle he signifieth that he is not of that opinion Whence I inferre that their evidence can never justify his maine purpose which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution But he saith It is certeine they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter other disciplinarians would make them If it be certeine their antiquity is great their credit very good why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certeinty First for their antiquity they deserve not that preheminence which he giveth them to be heard before Eusebius the rest of the fathers which he alleadgeth for the authors of the most ancient Syriac and the old latin translations found no mencion of an episcopall ordination bestowed on Timothy Titus in the greek copies which they followed And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter imbraced doe fully accord in the subscriptioÌ„ of all the former epistles with those latter copies into which that clause of that Bishoprick was foisted in If therefore their credit have not some better support then their antiquity their evidence is little worth The Doct. greatest labour in defense of their credit is to remove out of the way his Refuters objection who saith The subscription set vnder the epistle to Titus affirming it to be written from Nicopolis is contrary to Pauls owne words Titus 3. 12. because of Paul had been at Nicopolis when he wrote after this charge given vnto Titus Indeavor to come to me to Nicopolis he would not have sayd â—kei gar kekâ—â—ka c. for there but rather entautha here I have determined to winter The Doctor paveth the way to his answer with this preface In deed saith he if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would have respected their censures but the Cavillations of the disciplinarians against them are to be rejected You may see how partiall the Doctor is who yet would seeme to hate partiallity and how little credit these subscriptions have with the D who therefore hath resolved to give them what grace he can because they are disciplinarians who have disgraced them The Rhemists may freely controull the subscriptions of sundry other epistles because they are not parties in this cause see their Argument on 1. Cor. 2. Cor. Gal. 1. and 2. Thess and 1. Tim. for the place whence the epistles were sent But Mr. Beza can have no indifferent hearing his reasons are but Cavillations But heare I pray how the Doctor confuteth him If you will saith he consider with me that Paul being as usually he was in peregrination Titus could not tell where he was Paul therefore being at Nicopolis wrote as any discreet maÌ„ would in the like case Come to me to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him Titus might have sayd where Paul as being vncerteine where Paul was whither himselfe was to goe It seemeth the Doctor eyther did not consider or would not take notice 1. that it was needlesse for Titus to be informed where Paul was at the writing of this epistle seing he was not to goe presently to him but to make himselfe ready to come upon a new message as these words declare when I shall send Artemas to thee or Tichicus be diligent to come to me 2. that Paul his being then in peregrination as the D. conceiveth doth very probably argue the contrarie to that which he collecteth to wit that as yet he was not come to Nicopolis were he resolved to spend the winter and to wait for Titus his coÌ„ming thither But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the coÌ„mon judgement of such as are discreet I very willingly submit the triall of this difference to the discreet reader which observeth in the writings and speaches of them that are discreet the different use of these adverbs hic illic here there whether it stand with discretion 1. for the K. Almner which followeth the court when he is at Greenewich to send for one of his followers with the like words When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee then come thou vnto me to Greenewich for there I meane to winter or rather thus for here I meane to winter 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters if
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