meere cavill joyned with an evident vntruth The D. jâ—ineth a cavill and an vntruth togither to say as the D. doth that the proposition sett downe by the Refuter is not his but stretched beyonde not onely his meaninge but also his wordes 4. But it was the D. cunninge to take advantage of the word seeminge here vsed but elsewhere omitted so to perswade if he could that his Resuter had no colour from his wordes to coclude that he did sett vp but onely that he did seeme to sett vp absolute poplinges for which cause also in meeting with the places where the Refuter reneweth this objection which yet is no oftener then his owne wordes gave occasion by his renewinge of his calumniation against the favourites of the government by presbyters he sendeth back his reader to this place saying that thâ—se objections though repeated in other wordes answering to his owne termes are answered before and that to their shame see lib. 1. pa. 194. lib. 3. pag. 142. But will he nill he we have gained the propositio so that if his answere to the assumptio be not the better the shame will light vpon his owne pate To come therefore to the assumption First lett it be remembred Sect. 8. that the Refuter propounded it not as his owne assertion which he ment to prove by the constitution of our Churches or the practise of our Bishops but as a pointe which the D. vndertaketh to prove in his sermon 2. He is likewise to be so vnderstood as ofte as he objecteth against our Bishops that having sole and supreme authority they rule as Popes or Popelinge wherefore the assumption which the D. rejecteth as false and foolish or frivolous is this in effecte That all diocesan Bishops have or ought to have in the D. opinion not onely supreme but also sâ—le-authority in matters ecclesiasticall within their diocesse Or thus The D. giveth and alloweth to diâ—cesan Bishops such supreme and sole authority c. Wherefore to make way for the proofe of this Assumption the Refuter first layde downe the state of the question into which the Doctor is nowe entred viz. whither the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops and then addeth that where they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subuct to the congregation so farr off are they from giving sole and supreme authoritie to the Pastors alone c. Mr Doct. taketh all from them all and putteth the reâ—â—â— into the bandes of his Diocesans alone c. From which words to conclude the former assumption and in the contriving of the argument to keep as neere as may be to the tenour of the syllogisme proposed by the Doctor to himself to confute thus I argue Whosoever giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from their several Pastors with their Elders and Parishes Therefore the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth downe sect 11. pag. 43. and adjoyne such an assumption as best fitteth with it And I nothing doubt but the Refuter will easily be discharged from all the untruthes the Doctor chargeth upon him and it be made to appeare that the Doct. himself is the man that climbeth that ladder of vntruthes to put his The D. not the Ref. climbeth the ladder of vntruthes Bishops out of that seate of papacie wherein by his owne rules they were quietly seated And first I will confirme the partes of this argument then blowe awaye the smoke of those untruthes which rose from out of the Doctor as sparkes flye vpward The proposition I thus prove Whosoever giveth vnto one Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese such a power of government as would be found both supreme and sole if it were invested wholly in the person of any one pastor for the government of one parishe he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and Parishes is such a power as would be found to be both supreme and sole authority in causes ecelâ—sticall if it were wholly invested into the person of any one Pastor for the government of one Parishe Therefore whosoever giveth vnto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth vnto the diocesan Bishop alone for his diocese both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is cleare enough of it self and the assumption is drawne from the D. words both in his sermon and this defense of it when he saith againe and againe that the authority which he denieth vnto parishes with their Pastors and Elders in this controversy is an immediate and independent or supreme authority sufficient for ecclesiasticall government And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoyned to him Wherefore if it can be proved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical goverment which he denieth vnto Pastors with their parishes and Elders it will inevitably folow that he alloweth vnto every diocesaÌ„ Bishop supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall To proceed therefore to the proofe of this pointe which is the assumption of the first prosyllogisme thus I argue In debating this question whither the Churches are to be governed severally by Pastors and Elders in every parishe or by Bishops sett over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese whosoever impugneth the former and mainteineth the later he giveth vnto every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denâ—eth to the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But in debating the question before mentioned the D. impugneth the former branch of the question and maintaineth the later Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denied vnto the severall pastors with their Elders and parishes Here the Assumption is in it self evident if the question debated be such as is before noted which none of his freinds need to doubt of since the D. himself excepteth not against it but intreateth the reader to take notice of the state of the question for future use pag. 41. and when he repeateth it cap. 3. pag. 61. he acknowledgeth it to be rightly sett downe in respect of the partes of the disfunction Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyllogisme standeth firme For
alone in his Diocese and so be guiltlesse of the vntruth he chargeth on the Refuter he must both affirme and prove that the Archdeacons and Deanes rurall and cathedrall togither with the Chauncelors and officialls which now rule vnder the Bishop and the Archbishop with his courts which are above him be of divine institution or at least were in vse in the time of the Apostles and so derived to succeeding ages And yet if he could and should performo this hereafter it shall nothing weaken the Refuters assertion who examining the tenor of his sermon and finding therein no intimation eyther of any assistants to restreyne his Diocesan Bishop or any superior court to rule over him did therefore truely Sect. 10. ad Section 11. page 43. Two other vntruths charged on the Ref. by the D. returne back into his owne bosome affirme that the Doctor put the reynes of the government coÌ„troverted into the hands of his Diocesan alone As for those two vntruthes which he sought and professeth to finde in the proposition they doe even as the former two returne home into his owne bosome For since he cannot deny but that the power which he taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes is in his opinion a supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall and such as wil be both supreme and sole in the Pastor yea more then Popelike if they had not a consistorie of elders joyned to him it is no vntruth to affirme but an vntruth to deny that he giveth both sole and supreme authoritie to the Diocesan Bishop whosoever he be that giveth to him alone that power of government which the Doctor taketh from every several Pastor with the Elders and people of every parish For whereas he objecteth that because he acknowledgeth a superior authoritie both in the Archbishop and his courts and in the provinciall Synods c. it is apparant that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that he giveth the whole authoritye ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected is before answered and here altogither impertinent because to wâ—â—ken the refuters proposition he must shewe that he giveth not supreme and sole authoritie to the Bishop in his Diocese although he give to him alone all the power that he taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But whereas he falleth backe to the assumption againe addeth touching his refuters speach in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that it is the supreme and lowdest lye and maketh the Assumption of his cheefâ—syllogisme evidently false it is a supreme and lowd lye in the Doctor if The D. maketh a loud lye I may returne him his owne words 1. to reckon this for one vntruth implied in the proposition when himselfe acknowledgeth it to be the assumptioÌ„ of his cheife syllogisme 2. to deny it for what could be spoken with a supremer lowder crye by him then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical and that not in this defense onely but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon where he offreth to prove it by divers testimonies To what end else citeth he pag. 30. Ignatius ad Smyrn and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens shewing that all must be subject to the Bishop who holdeth and menageth the whole power authority over all yea such a power as admitteth no partner much lesse a superior Yea what else meaneth his conclusion pag. 52. where he saith thus you haue heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are having a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop let the reader especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next chapter judge As yet therefore neyther the lowest nor the lowdest lies which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter doe belong to him they must goe home and rest with their owne Father for ought is yet done As for all that which followeth pag. 44. 45. eyther to Sect. 11. ad pag. 44. 45. sect 12. 46. 47. Def. free himselfe from giving popelike authoritie to Bishops or to prove his accusation against the Presbyterians that they make the Pastor of every parish a petty pope Well may it argue his wps good affection to the one and evill will which never said well to the other but it can neyther cleare him nor condemne them in his conscience who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides For neyther is the Doctors cause releived by that subjection which he affirmeth and the Refuter acknowledgeth of our Diocesan Bishops to their Archbishops c Neyther is their cause made the worse by the height or impudencie of that ecclesiasticall authoritie which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish For the question is not as the Doctor shifteth The Doct. shifteth the questioÌ„ it Whether by our Church constitutions Dioccsan Bishops doe lie subject to any higher authoritie or whether men may appeale from them c. but whether the Doctor doth not indeavour in his sermon to convey vnto every Bishop in his Diocese as his right by divine institution an authoritie and power of government in causes ecclesiasticall no lesse sole and supreme then the power which every Pastor should haue in his parish by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them if he had no consistorie of Elders to assist and restreine him And towching the parishbishop the question is this whether he should be or at least seeme to be an absolute Popeling as having sole and supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoyned vnto him If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slaundering and syllogistically conclude eyther from his owne sermon the Negative in the former question or from their writings whom he impugneth the assirmative in the later he shall I doubt not have good and honest audience In the meane time seing he hath not as yet affirmed much lesse proved that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolicall institution subject to the jurisdiction eyther of the Archbishop or of the provinciall synode it may suffice to close vp the former questio with his owne words p. 43. What hath he gained by all his owne triumphing outcries but the manifestation of his owne manifest vntruthes And for the later question since it is evident by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy that they doe subject their Pastor aswel as the meanest of the people togither with the whole congregatio to the Kinges authority to all his Majesties civill officers ecclesiasticall lawes and seing also it appeareth not onely by the same Tract art 26. but also by
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
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
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
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
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
precepta vocat hoc est divinitus inspirata et ob id authentica Aret in 1. Cor. 14. 37. 3. It is well knowne that the doctrine of the Apostles and their practise recorded in their writings yeeld us the most direct and expresse warrant which Christian people and their Teachers have I say not for the sanctifying of the Lords day which is our Sabboth because some great Favourites of the Prelacy holde it though vnjustly to be a varyable ordinance and alterable at mens pelasure but for the estableshing of a settled Ministery in every Church to feed the â—lock which dependeth on them 1. Pet. 5. 3. 4. Act. 14. 23. 20. Tit. 1. 5. Which I suppose all will graunt to be generally and perpetually necessarye Byshop Bilson not excepted Perpet Govern pag. 106. 107. and 208. And it is no lesle evident that there is no generall necessity or perpetuity in some precepts which Christ himselfe gave to his Disciples as Mat. 10. 5. 14. and 12. 16. and 15. 20. and 19. 21. Iohn 13 14. 15 wherefore the perpetuity or immutability of precepts given in the scriptures dependeth not vpon the authority of the person froÌ„ whom D. distinction falleth to the groâ—d they proceed immediately but vpon the generallity or perpetnity of the grounds or causes which give strength there vnto So that the things which are Apostolici juris and none otherwise divine ordinances then as they proceedd froÌ„ the spirit of God that directed the Apostles are generally perpetually immutable necessary in the presence and concurrence of those causes and grounds whichmade them at the first necessary And there is no other or greater perpetuity or necessitie in any of those things which are immediately divini juris Wherefore as the D. acknowledgeth the things which were ordeyned of the Apostle to be for the authority of their iustitution not onely apostolicall but also divine ordinances so he must confesse that whatsoever they established not for a short tyme but for succeeding ages the same deserveth to be estemed as a thing authorized divnio jure not apostGlico onely And herein we have the consent of sundry Orthodoxal writers Certâ— saith D. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. pag. 107. quod apostoli ut necessarium sanxerunt atque introduxerunt juris divini vim The D. distinction is against the iudgment or his own freindes aswell as others obtinet And in this very question of the superioritle of Bishops above Presbyters as it is their coÌ„mon Tenent that they are equall or rather all one jure divins by Gods lawe so they hold the doctrine and practise of the Apostles to be susficient warrant to conclude their assertion as we may see in Sadeel ad repet Turrian sophism loc 12. pag. 403. 412. partis secundae And in Chemnitius exam Conc. Trident. De sacram ordâ—n parte 22. sol 249. yea Sadeel pag. 117. putteth no difference betwene jus divâ—num and an Apostolicall ordinance for vpon these premisses Presbyteri certè apostolicis institutis habent jus ordinandi Illi vero qui haâ— aeâ—ate ecclesiam primi reformarunt erant presbyteri he coÌ„cludeth quare primi illi doctores potuerunt in ecclesia reformata ministros ac pastores ordinare idque jure divino In like manner Bishop Barlowe in his sermon on Acts. 20. 28. as one not acquainted with any difference in perpetuitie betwene â—us apostolicuÌ„ divinum giveth both indifferently to the episcopall function gathering out of one word posuit in his text that it was both praxis apostolike an ordinance apostolicall and thesis pneumalike a canon or constitution of the whole Trinitie enacted for succeeding prosterity Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 117. saith a thing may be called de jure divino two waies 1. because it is of God immediately 2. because it is of them who are so directed by Gods holy Spirit that they cannot erre And in this sense the superiority of Bishops over other inferior Ministers maye be called de jure divino or an ordinance divine Doctor Sutcliff de presb cap. 15. presseth among other argumentes apostolorum usum et morem to prove that the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers doth niti jure divino The same may be sayd of sundry others which at this daye hold the functioÌ„ of our diocesan Bishops to be an apostolicall and so a divine ordinance or give them a superiority of jurisdiction jure apostolico as the D. himself doth lib. 3. pag. 116. and are not so scrupulous as the D. is to allowe that the superiority of their function is warranted to them jure divino Neither feare they to conclude the episâ—opall govermeÌ„t to be perpetuall because it is an ordinance apostolicall Wherefore I would be glad to learne of the Doctor in his next defense seing he was not in his sermon or the margin of it pleased A request to the D. to tel us where he so lately learned that distinction to tell us who those Some are which in respect of perpetuitie doe put such a difference as he noteth betwene the thinges that are Divini and those that are apostolici juris For as he receyved it not froÌ„ any of the forenamed Favorites of the prelacy so neyther did he suck it from Doct. Bilsons breast the man that gave him in this question so good satisfaction For as the title of his booke sheweth that he holdeâ—h the government of Bishops to be the perpetuall government of Christes Church so the body of the booke it self doth plainely demonstrate that he concludeth the perpetuity thereof from no other argumentes then such as the D. urgeth to prove it to be an apostolicall divine ordinance Yea it seemeth that when the D. preached his former sermon of the dignity and duty of the Ministers either he had not yet learned or at least he little regarded this distinction For pag. 73. he taketh an ordinance delivered by the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 14. for a sufficient arguement to conclude that a sufficient maintenance is due vnto the Ministers of the Gospell jure divino by the lawe of God But let us come as neere as we can to his author of this distinction Bellarmin in deed distinguisheth betwene jus divinum and Apostolicum atfirming lib. de clericis cap. 18. that the mariage of preists is prohibired onely jure apostolico not divino Quod enim saith he Apostolus praecipit non divinum sed apostolicum praeceptum est But with him jus apostolicum is no other then jus humanum or positivum Ibid. cap. seq Moreover he urgeth the same distinction as the D. acknowledgeth lib. 3. pag. 101. to shewe what he tooke to be Hieroms meaning when he saith that a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter in nothing save in the power of ordination that is saith he lib. de Clericis cap. 15. in this onely he is superiour to other Ministers jure divino but in the power or jurisdiction jure
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
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.
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
plebs ipsa maximè habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere And how oft doth Austin say that Peter signified the Church and bare the person of the Church when Christ sayd unto him Tibi dabo claves c. Mat. 16. August tract 50. 124. in Iohan. Item in Psal 108 de agonia Christi cap. 30. And Gerson Trilog 8. quest Claves inquit datae sunt ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo On which words the Bishop of Chichester in his answer to Tortus pag. 65. giveth this note Cum vnum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio omnes enim idem sentiunt But to passe by many others the wordes of Ferus in Act. 11 are worthy of the Doctors observation Peter the Apostle chief of the Apostles is constreyned to give an account to the Church neyther doth he disdeyne it because he knew himselfe to be not a Lord but a Minister of the Church The Church is the spouse of Christ and Lady of the house Peter a servant and Minister Wherfore the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also reject and depose them if they be not fit And in giving this preheminence to the Church above Peter doth he speak against the scripture or against reason Doth not S. Paul acknowledge the same touching himselfe and his fellow Apostles 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancie if not frenzie to urge as the Doctor doth lib. 3. passim the superioritie of one Bishop in an whole Diocese or Province above all the Presbyters and people thereof Notwithstanding as the Refuter doth no where say so neither can it be gathered frō his words that the form of Church-governmēt was at the first or now ought to be wholly democraticall or popular the Doctor is not ignorāt as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. 3. that his Ref pleadeth for the Aristocraticall forme of government as that which in his opiniō ought to be established in the severall Churches Neyther doth he therein crosse himselfe or any of his fellowes that favour the parish discipline for they all as I am perswaded doe hold the ecclesiasticall government to be a mixt forme compounded of all three states as many worthy divines doe confidently mainteyne P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. see his Com. plac clas 4. sect 9. Baros de polit civ ecclesiastica lib. 2. pag. 42. 43. D. Whitak de Roman pontif pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ who is the head not onely of the whole Church in generall but also of every particular visible Church Ephes 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27 the Church may be truely reputed a Kingdome or Monarchy so it hath some resemblance unto a Monarchy in regard of that preheminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers But because no one Pastor or Bishop hath power to governe or determine causes ecclesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure but ex consilio compresbyterorum by the Counsell of his fellow-Elders the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy And in asmuch as the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment it agreeth in part with a Democracie notwithstāding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry sommer in a dripping Section 8. yeare when he supposeth in his third fancie that we hold the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. Titus to have bin provided for such a popular state wherein the people doe rule their leaders They were provided for a mixt state wherein many presbyters vnder the guidance of one Pastor or president doe administer execute all matters with the peoples consent approbation And in the affirmation as we have the assent of the most and the best divines of later times Calvin on Titus 1. 5. Beza on Tim. Cap. 5. 19. 22. and Tit. 3. 10. and sundry others so we have the Apostles owne warrāt in the close of his epistles with these words grace be with you or with you all 2. Tim. 22. Tit. 3. 15. for by this it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of cōmon use not onely for other Ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Moreover since the Apostle chargeth Titus to observe in the ordination of Elders that order which he had before enjoyned him Tit. 1. 5. whence can we better derive that order then from his owne practise and his fellow-Apostles who used aswell in ordination as in other Church-affaires both the advice and help of other Ministers and the approbation of the people as appeareth by these scriptures Acts. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 2. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 6. 22. 23. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. 2. Cor. 2. 10. The Doctor therefore is misledd by his owne conceit when he imagineth that the Apostles wordes unto Timothy and Titus Lay not handes rashly c. And doe thou avoid an Haeretick did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their handes that neyther people nor presbyters had or might have any stroak at all in those matters As for his gibing objection Belike the whole Island of Creete was a parish too it deserveth no other answer then this when he justifyeth his collection from any words in his refuters answer I will acknowledge him for an honest man mean while let the reader take notice of this that the Doctor in a fewe leaves after pag. 88 noteth this speach of his refuter that Creet had many Churches which argueth necessarily that the whole Iland could not be one onely parish The last fancy falsly fained by the Doctor is this that the popular Sect. 9. state of the severall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocracie and after into a Monarchie he should haue sayd that the well tempered Democracie did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracie after into an absolute Monarchy But he endeavoreth to shewe that the severall Churches were at the first governed Monarchically to wit by the Apostles or Apostolicall men severally For Apostles he nameth Iames that ruled perpetually and Peter and Paul c. for a time And of Apostolicall men that were perpetuall governors he hath good store as Mark Timothy Titus Evodius Simō the sonne of Cleophas c. But where are his proofes that all these or any of them governed Monarchically and by their sole authority Concerning Iames it is already shewed that his government was farre short of that sole authoritie which our Bishops carry
at this day in the managing of church-Church-causes And by that which hath bene now sayd concerning Timothy Titus the same may be affirmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus Creet But he asketh whether Paul did not coÌ„mitt the ordination of Ministers unto Titus without mentioning eyther of Presbyterie or people And we may ask him what mention he findeth there of prayers or hands-imposition which ought to concurre with ordination if he can include them as being vnderstood in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5 wee have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters and the peoples approbation in the words following hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee Quis enim credat Paulum c. who may beleeve Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in vse Muscul loc coÌ„ de elect Minist Againe he asketh or rather argueth in this manner Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed onely to Titus for Creete and to Timothy for Ephesus and doth not this evidently shewe that howsoever they might use eyther the presence or consent of the people or the counsell advise of the presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in coÌ„mon-wealths yet the sway of ecclesiasticall government was in them If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason theÌ„ the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular termes vnto Peter onely both his whol speach concerning the keies of his kingdome and the power thereof Math. 16. and that precept of feeding his sheep and lambes and of confirming his brethren Ioh. 21. 15. 17. Luk. 22. 32. Wherefore however Peter might use the help The Doct. reasoneth well for Rome and assistance of his fellow-Apostles in all those workes and the presence or consent of the people in the administratioÌ„ of the keies yet the cheef power and sway of all was in him alone Good newes for Rome if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument but the truth is such singular speaches directed to one onely doe not argue in that one any such preheminent power as the Romanists and Prelatists doe from thence gather So that since the Doct. can not prove that Timothy and Titus had any such singular and sole power in Church-government as the Doctor judgeth to be due unto Bishops it is plaine that he buildeth upon a vayne and false presupposall when he saith it is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that they had episcopall authoritie and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops in the exercise of their function But for the proofe of this he hath another argument in store thus framed Those things which were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone Sect. 10. ad sect 7. pag 83. as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end were written to informe diocesan Bishops But those epistles were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end Therefore they were written to informe diocesan Bishops Vnto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinctioÌ„ thus that it is true if vnderstood of successors in authority or power of performing the same works but false if meant of succession in the same office The Doct. therefore first indeavoureth to prove what his Refuter denyeth and yet in the winding up of all would perswade his reader that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption But he is to be advertized that vnlesse he make good what his Refuter denyeth he cannot conclude what he vndertaketh For whether we look to his former assertion which he saith is here againe proved himselfe doth thus explaine it sect 3. in the beginning that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus S. Paul intended to informe them as Diocesan Bishops and in them all other Diocesans or whether wee look to the nearest scoape of his wordes in his sermon pag. 74. it is evident he there intendeth to prove that which he supposed would be answered to his former objection viz. that the things spoken to Timothy and Titus were spoken to them as extraordinarie persons whose authority he should have sayd office should die with them which cannot be removed vnlesse he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinarie function wherein their successors should enjoy the same authoritie to the worlds end Neyther is this to deny his conclusion as he falsely affirmeth but to contradict his assuÌ„ption in that sense which is necessarie to make it good because otherwise he argueth not ad idem Let us therefore see how well his proofes are fitted to the assumption I prove it saith he first by testimonie both of Paul and of Ambrose and after by reason And first by S. Pauls testimonie that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the coÌ„mandements and directions which he gave him should be kept inviolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus 1. Tim. 6. 14. Ergo they were to be performed by such as should have the like authority and the same office to the end The consequence of this Enthymeme dependeth upon this proposition That the commaundements and directions given in charge unto Timothy could not be kept inviolable unto the end without a succession of such as should have not only the like authoritie but also the same office untill the end of the world The which is â—latly denyed and cannot be fortifyed by that which followeth scz that those commandements could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end seing the meÌ„bers of his disiunction are insufficient when he taketh it for graunted that those coÌ„maundements must be performed eyther in Timothees own person or in such as succeeded him in the same function for the Doctor cannot be ignorant that the coÌ„mandement which Christ gave to his Apostles Math. 28. 19 20. for preaching and baptizing was to be kept inviolable unto the coÌ„ming of Christ neyther could it be peformed by the Apostles alway in their own persons or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolike function It is performed as all the world knoweth by successors in a different functioÌ„ which haue authoritie to doe the same works though neither in the same office nor yet with that ample coÌ„mission for the extent of their jurisdiction In like manner the Refuter saith that the coÌ„maundements given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction were continued in the Church by presbyters which succeeded them though in a differing office according to that ordinary course which God had appointed for his Church Thus much for S. Paul whom the Doctor now leaveth and craveth help of Mr. Calvin T. C. and others to conclude his purpose Sect. 11. ad sect 7. pag 83. 84. scz that the