the Angels of the 7. churches to be such Bishops as ours are he vndertaketh to trie pag. 3. whether those Angels were parishional or diocesan Bishops he shall finde that his first assertion doth crave the help of his assumption to stand in the place of one of the pillers that must support it And touching his conclusion since he tolde us even in the former page that it is the very conclusion which he proposed to be proved serm pag. 55. why saith he nowe he did not expresse it And if it be the main doctrin of his sermoÌ„ as every where throughout his defense he affirmeth why saith he it is onely implied in the collection of his doctrine out of the text But no more of these whies let us come to the maine question from which the reader hath bin held too longe I meane the triall of the truth of the assumption and how true it is that it is as he saith proved by the 4. first pointes of his five Well were it with the D. and the cause he pleadeth for if he could Sect. 5. as easely prove his assumption as he can saie it is proved But as in truth he hath no ground froÌ„ his text chosen of purpose to raise it vpon so he goeth not about the proof of it by any word or circumstance The D. doth not once offer to prove the point in question by any word of his text therein For every man certeinly seeth that it is every waie as doubtfull for ought appeareth to the contrary by his text whether the Angels therein spoken of were diocesan Bishops as whether the calling of diocesan Bishops be lawfull and good And it semeth that himself discerned some defect in his proofe seing he forbeareth to deliver it in syllogisticall forme of reasoninge wherin otherwise he is not sparinge for he hath no other syllogism that bendeth this waie then such as arise from each of his 4. pointes Nether one alone nor all the D. 4. points togither doe directly coÌ„clude his assertion Yea the D. referreth them to another question considered severally and a parte and yet not any one of them nor all of them in one togither directly concludeth that assertion which he saith is proved by them viz. that diocesan Bishops are here ment by Angels They all saile another way trade for the bringinge in of another commodity or conclusion viz. That the primitive Church was governed by diocesan Bishops and that the Angels or pastors or governors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours are Which point how well he hath proved we shall see hereafter here for the present till he shew us how he can directly and soundly conclude the former from the later I still must and will affirme that the assumption of his first syllogism remaineth as yet vnproved specially since he himself referreth his 4. pointes which are all his proof of it to another question For the first assertion propounded serm pag. 2. with which he accordeth his assumption determineth no other question then this viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the Churches But the assertion which his 4. pointes doe conclude is as his owne wordes teach in the next chapter pag. 60. the answere of another questioÌ„ to witt whether the premitive Churches were governed by such diocesan Bishops as ours are or by such presbyteries as we speake of This later is a question de facto examininge what forme of government was imbraced of the ancient Churches the former is de genuino scripturae sensu touching the true sense of the text he handleth Wherefore though Though the 4. pointes were granted yet the D. is still prooflesse c. â— Bishop Barlow serm at Hamp Court vpon Acts. 20. 28. fol. 3. it should be granted that he hath sufficiently confirmed the later yet it followeth not that the former is directly proved or necessarily concluded For he is not ignorant that one of his reverend Fathers †to whose judgment in the interpretation of a text he oweth more reverence then himself can challenge from his Refuter how basely soever he esteeme of him doth behould every parte of the outward functioÌ„ of D Bishops fully described in Act. 20. 28. as 1. The preheminent superiority above other Ministers in the word Episcopos 2. Both their Cathedrall seat or positive residencie in one Citie and a regencie setled in their persons during life in the word posuit And their diocesan jurisdiction in the wordes in quo viniverso And if the D. make any question of any one of these pointes he may finde the first much more sufficiently confirmed theÌ„ is his interpretation of the word Angels in his text for besides the proofes produced in the sermon it self to shewe that the Bishops of the primitive Church were set in a preeminent superiority above other Ministers he backeth his vnderstandinge of the word Episcopos with some colour of reasoÌ„ froÌ„ other Scripture that as there are scopountes Seers Phil. 3. 17. which expresseth the dutie of each pastor over his flock so there are 1. Pet. 5. 2. episcopountes quasi hoi opitoâ—s scopountas such as must visit over look both the flock the Seers wch last place of Peter the D. himself vnderstandeth of Bishops lib. 3. pag. 43. wheras to prove that diocesan Bishops are meant by Angels he alledgeth no shewe of any authority divine or humane that may perswade the name to be given vnto Bishops to expresse their preheminence above other ministers And as for the rest of the prerogatives of Bishops which Bishop Barlow did but point at not prosecute who seeth not how easy a matter it is to justify them by a like consequence of reasoninge to that which the D. useth For if we must beleeve that a diocesan extent of jurisdiction a prehminent superiority both in degree of ministery and power of ordeyninge c. is implied in this title the Angels of the Churches because the Bishops of the primitive Churches did governe whole dioceses and had therein such superiority above all other Ministers why should not the D. also beleeve that a diocesan jurisdiction and Cathedrall seate togither with a positive residencie in one Citie and a setled regencie during life is rightly gathered from these wordes in quo vni verse posuit seing he knoweth that the Bishops of the primitive Churches had every of them the like jurisdiction seate residenoie and regencie peculiar to their functions Notwithstanding the D. will at no hand consent that the presbyters of whom Paul speaketh Actes 20. 28. should be diocesan Bishops such as ours are for he taketh them for inferiour Ministers such as he will have to be called Preistes Now if he reply that the Churches practise in succeding ages allowinge vnto Bishops those priviledges before mencioned helpeth nothing to prove that those wordes of the text doe conveye the same partes or notes of
assumption and conclusion on this manner If the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops then not by such presbyteries as they stand for But they were governed by diocesan Bishops Ergo not by such presbyteries as they stand for The proposition of this argument is absolutely necessary for such presbyters and such diocesan Bishops as ours are cannot stand togither And if the Assumption be denied he is already provided of a disiunctive argumentation sufficient to confirm it So that he may daunce as in deed he doth lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. the round The Doct. daunceth the round betwene these two and need not seek any newe prosylloâ—isme to conclude that which is to be proved But 2. what meaneth the D. to take that for graunted which his refuter flatly denieth Doth he not plainely tell him answer pag. 10. that though at were so as he supposeth that there were no other Elders in the primitive Church bâ—t Ministers of the word yet that it would not follâ—w that the Bishops were Diâ—osan because a Presbyterie of Ministers such as the D. himselfe coâ—fsseth The D. taketh for graunted that which is flatly denied were then in use might be ioyned with the Bishop in the government of the Church and that the whole congregation might have as great an hand in the government as he for so some of our opposites do graunt it had some times and therefore the sole government of Diocesan Bishops may well fâ—ll though there were no sole governing elders to over turne them It is therefore plaine that the Refuter disclaymeth this dâ—siunctive proposition as not necessarily true and that the Doctor wittingly how wittily soever concealeth from his reader both that division which is among the favourites of the Hyerarchie some acknowledging the state of the Church in the Apostles times for the outward forme and government thereof to be popular as Archbishop Whitgift in defence of his answer pag. 180-182 which the Doctor esteemeth pag. 41. a Brownistâ—call and Anabaptisticall dotage and The D. coÌ„tradâ—cteth his owne doctrine that contradiction which is found in his own writing since he now putteth the reynes of Church-government into the hands of the Bishop to rule as ours doe without the advise of the presbyters whereaâ— he formerly acknowledged sâ—rm pag. 1â— that in the primitive Church the Bishop vsed the advise of certeyne â—raâ—e Ministers and in Church causâ—s did nothing almost without them A thing now growne altogither out of vse and in the opinion of â—ome whose judgemeÌ„t ought to sway much with the Doctor that kâ—nâ—e of government which the aunciâ—nt Presbyteries and their Bishops exerâ—ised is now transferred to the Mâ—gistrate to whome it is due aâ—d to such as by him are appointed sâ—e D. Whitgifts defense pag. 747 Howsoever therefore it may be granted that in the question delivered by the Doctor the disiunct on which his proposit on expresseth is impliâ—d yet it followeth not â—ay it is an apparaâ—t vntruth to affirm hâ—t the disâ—unction is on both sides presupposed necessarie which the Doctor must confesâ—e vnlesse to use his owne words he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logick seing his disjunction and question doth not sufficiently enumerate their opinions which have debated this question in generall viz. what the forme of government was which was first practized in the most ancient and Apostolik Churches So that if I would treade in the D. stepps I might justly repay him with some such marginall notes as pag 47. 53. without cause he hath sett down to disgrace his Refuter to witt that the D. and his Consorts at this Day doe pleade against the discipline which Arch-Bishop Whitgift other learned Protestants yea the most ancient freinds of the Hierarchy acknowledged to be practised in the apostolike Churches and that the Doctor mistaking the question and craftily concealing the division that is among them of his owne side is bold to affirme that to be graunted which he knoweth to be denied 3. I know that for his defence he saith that his Refuter acknowledgeth the question to be such as he proposeth but he doth both the Refuter and the reader the more wronge in so saying In deed when the Refuter intended to shewe that our diocesan Bishops maye be proved absolute popelings by the same reason that the D. urgeth to cast that name on the parishe Bishops for which they whom the D. calleth a new secte doe as he saith stryve he then affirmed that the question betwixt the Doctor and them not betwene the D. and us for those words the D. hath evilly put in to make his owne cause good was this whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors The Doct. chaungeth the Refutâ— words and Elders or by diocesan Bishops But how doth it followe that he acknowledgeth the first of his two questions before mencioned to be rightly and fully delivered in respect of the parts of the disiunction He that hath but half an eye may see the inconsequence of his reasoning specially seing the question expressed by the refuter hath more reference to the second quaestion de iure then to the first de facto Moreover hath the Doctor forgotten that at his first meeting with this question he enterteyned it so well that pag. 41. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe he intreated the reader to store it up for future use Shall I therfore now inferr that he contradicteth himself in saying that his assertion is falsified in the later part of the question 4. But what need so many words to thewe the weaknes of the Doctors disiunctive argumentation or to prove that there is not any presupposed truth in his disiunctive proposition I hope he wil graunt for he is a Doctor and cannot lightly so farr forget his logick rules but he must knowe that the question which he debateth in the first part of his sermon must holde proportion with that assertion which is to be concluded from the 4. first points of his five seing the first part of his sermon is comprehended in them Now the assertion which is to be proved by these 4. pointes is eyther this which his disiunctive argument concludeth viz. that the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops or rather that which before he set downe pag. 58. for the assumption of his first syllogisme viz. that Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But which soever of these two he chooseth certeine it is his question Sect. 4. wil not yeeld him any such disiunctive proposition as he now draweth from this which he tendreth For his quaestion must be a single one and not compounded of two members viz eyther this whether the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or no or rather this whether Diocesan Bishops be vnderstood by the angels or no And this last coÌ„meth somewhat neare the mark though it misse of the right tenour of wordes which it ought to have kept viz. whether Bishops
meant by angels in his text were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as are our Bishops at this day And thus we may see what moved the Doctor to change his first question and how litle he gaineth thereby seing he cannot compasse his desire of dravving the first point of his five to conclude that assertion to which he referred the first part of his sermon Wherefore seing his disiunctive argumentation will not serve his turne and he will yet once againe for it seemeth he is vnweaâ—iable attempt the effecting of his purpose let me advise him to peruse his owne advise given to his Refuter lib. 2. 44. namely to set downe his Enthymem and to supply thereto that proposition which is implied in the consequence so to make vp a perfect syllogisme His Enthymem is this In the primitive Church there were no other presbyters but Ministers Therefore the primitive Church was governed by diâ—cesan Bishops such as ours are Here now the Doctor is wise enough to perceive that the propositioÌ„ implied in the consequence of his Enthimem and therefore needfull to be supplied is this viz. whatsoever church hath in it none other Presbyters but Ministers the same is governed by such Diocesan Bishops as ours are but his wisdome foresaw that if he brought this propositioÌ„ into the sunne to be looked on his Refuter yea I may say the simplest of his readers would easely have discerned that it needeth no lesse proofe then the conclusion it self or the assumption which he would so faine reduce to his purpose Yea as the falseshood of it was discovered aforehand by the Refuter and that vpon good and sufficient reason which the Doctor baulked as he passed by so it may evidently be convinced from his owne wordes aswell in his sermon pag. 69. 70. as in this defense lib. 4. pag. 36. where he confesseth that 〈◊〉 the apostles dayes all the Churches which they planted that at Ierusalem onely excepted wanted Bishops and yet had each of them a coÌ„pany of Presbyters which as Pastors fedd them in coÌ„mon and laboured the conversion of others Onely when they were to leave the Churches altogither by death or final departure into other places c. then they ordeyned them Bishops and not before and this saith he is that which Ierom cap. 1. ad Tiium affirmeth that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed over them were governed by the coÌ„mon counsell of Presbyters Wherefore the injoying of a Presbytery coÌ„sisting of Ministers onely doth not necessarily argue that the Church which hath such a Presbyterie is governed by a Diocesan Bishop as the Doctor without truth or reason taketh it for graunted even at their handes who with good reason flatly denied it Wherefore I hope he will at length acknowledge his passage concerning governing elders to be altogither impertinent for to pay him with his owne coyne pag. 60. coÌ„mon sense requireth that what he seeth impertinent he should acknowledge so to be charitie would though selfe-love would not that if he discerned not the untruth and inconsequence of his reasoning he should rather have suspected his owne analysis to be forced then have blamed his Refuter for his owne want of judgement Wherefore not following him any longer in his outwandrings it is high time that we come to examine his other question de iure Section 5. which standeth on two feet as the former on this manner whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as he holdeth or must be governed by their Presbyteries as they affirme The deceites couched in this question as it is proposed are in part touched before sect 1. and shall more fully be deciphered hereafter wee are now to see how well it suteth with the later part of his sermon and the defense thereof where he saith pag. 60. it is handled By the later part of his sermon he meaneth the last of his 5. points which affirmeth the function of Bishops he meaneth such as ours are to be of apostolicall and divine institution In the handling whereof there is nothing to be found against the presbyteriaÌ„ government save one onely naked syllogisme serm pag. 60. which concludeth the government of the Churches by a paritie of ministers and assistance of lay Elders in every parish not to be of apostolical institution because it was no where in vse in the first 300. yeares after the Apostles And now in his defense lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. he giveth no other proofe to justify the assumption which the Refuter denied but this that it is proved in the former syllogâ—sme set to justify the government by Diocesan Bishops For if saith he the government by Diâ—cesan Bishops was generally and perpetually received in those 300 yeares it is manifest that this government which they speake of was not in use Here therefore he like as he did before taketh one part of The D. againe taketh one part of the question to prove the other the question to prove the other Shall I againe answere him in his owne wordes This doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause Verely he had litle reason to tel us that he hath handled this question in the later part of his sermon viz. whether the Church must be governed by these Presbyteries vnlesse he had more orderly disputed against the assertion of his Opposite Yea if he had as largely reasoned against their Presbyteries as he hath for Diocesan Bps yet the question is not directly fitted to the points which he concludeth since he insisteth wholly upon the triall of this issue whether of those two governments which he or his opposites do commend be of apostolicall and divine institution And though he joyne togither apostolicall divine both in the first propounding and also in the winding up of this point serm pag. 7. 54. yet when he addresseth him self to the confirmation thereof pag. 55. he chiefly aimeth at this to prove the function of Bishops to be of divine institution and taketh apostol call iâ—stitution for his Medius terminus to conclude by consequence that it is a divine ordinance Wherefore it is evident that the maine argument of his whole sermon is the proofe of this assertition that the function of Bishops such as ours are for the substance of theâ—â— calling is a divine ordinaunce for this he pretendeth to drawe from his text in as much as the name of Starres and Angels is there given to such Bishops And to this he reduceth all the arguments layd downe by him in the handlinge of his fift position which he calleth the later part of his sermon and from this he inferreth those three vses which he would have us all to make conscience of viz. To acknowledge their function to be the ordinance of God and in that regard both to reverence their persons and to obey their authority as we are exhorted Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17.
rather then to set out and to laye hold vpon a slender advantage rather Sect. 1 ad D. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect 2. Ref. pag. then to leave his diocesan Lords no footing in his text If an eminent superioritie cannot be gathered from the name of an Angel yet such a presidency as is given to one above others in every well-ordered society shall suffice to convey a diocesan Byshopprick to these Angels And if bâ—tter evidence fayle the confession of the Presbyterians shall serve to give them a Presidencie And though comonly he refuse the syllogismes which his Refuter reduceth into forme yet finding one handsomly framed to his hand though himself intended as he saith no such argument he is wel pleased to make use of it and to stand forth in defense of every parte of it The syllogisme runneth thus The Presidents of the Presbyters were Diocesan Bishops The Angels of the 7. Churches were presidents of the presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were Diocesan Bishops Concerning the Assumption it hath bene already shewed upon what reasons we hold it questionable whether these Angels were 7. onely persons of cheefe place in these Churches But here because the D. grounded himself upon the confession of the Presbyterians his refuter answered him by a distinction of a two fold Presbyterie mentioned in their writings the one a Presbyterie of governing Elders assisting the Pastor of each congregation th' other a Presbyterie of Ministers set over diverse churches Now because the former could yeeld the Doctor no colour of help to coÌ„vey a Diocesan Bishoprick to these angels he had expressly meÌ„tioned the later in the last wordes of the point before handled serm pag. 21. his Refuter signified his dissent from him in the assumption if his meaning were to give those angels a Presidencie over a colledge of Ministers assigned to sundry particular congregations And this he added that he knewe none that did confâ—sse the angels of the 7. Churches to be some of those Presidents Now the Doctor taking those testimonies of Calvin and Beza whom he hath often vâ—lified in other parts of his defense for plentifull proofe of his assumption he referreth us to that he hath alleaged out of their writings lib. 1. cap. 2. sect whether if we goe we shall finde just nothing to the purpose For Mr Calvin hath not one word touching those Angels Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 1. 2. And since he there expressly affirmeth that the presidencie which one Minister in caâ—h citie called a Bishop had over other Ministers his colleagues was brought in by humane consent and for the necessity of the times there is no likelihood that he held those angels in S. Iohns time to Humano consensit pro tempoâ—â—â— necessitate be Presidents of such a Presbyterie Yea his words doe shâ—w◠〈◊〉 1. that he speaketh of that forme of government which took place under the. Bishops that flourished after the Apostles and before the papacâ—e was discovered And though Mr Bâ—za doe affirme the Angel of the Church at Ephesus and so the rest each of them in his place to be the President of the Presbyterie there Annotat. in Apoc. 2. 1. yet hath he nothing neither there nor de Minist grad pag. 160. that can be drawen to shew that he estemed the Presbyteries or College of each Angel to be all of them Ministers of the word and Pastors of severall Churches But what need words be multiplied in so plaine a case Affirmeth he not himselfe serm pag. 22. that the parishes were not yet distinguished nor Ministers assigned to their severall Cures And must he not then vnderstand those Presbyrerians with whome he pretendeth to have agrement to speak of such a Presbyterie as had the charge of one onely Church not yet divided into severall titles Howsoever then he make a shew of justifying his assumption against the Refuters denyal thereof yet The D. subscribeth to his Ref. and proveth what was not gainesayd indeed he subscribeth vnto it and indeavoureth to prove it in a sense which now was not coÌ„tradicted for it is no disadvantage to us in the mayn question to give way to the assumption in such a sense as Mr. Beza avoucheth it since such a presidency as he alloweth to those Angels can never conclude them to be diocesan Byshops such as ours To come therefore to the proposition because the Refuter rejected it as false I will make good his censure both by removing Sect. 2. the D defence thereof by proposing some other just exceptions against it And 1. he cannot prove every president of a Presbytery in the Apostles times to be a Byshop much lesse a diocesaÌ„ Byshop in the usual construction of the word opposed to other Ministerial functions For if some Presbyteries were a company of Apostles Apostolicall men who were more then Byshops as he acknowledgeth serm pag. 38. and def lib. 3. pag. 81. needs must their president be more then a Byshop And who doubteth but that as Iames the Apostle was president not onely of the Synode Act. 15. but also of the standing Presbyterie Act. 21. 18 And Timothe an Evangelist president among the Presbyters at Ephesus for the time of his staye there by S. Paules appointment 1. Tim. 1. 3. so also every Apostle and Evangelist in the absence of the Apostles was the president of any Church where they made their residence though but for a short continuance Thus was Paul the president of that Presbyterie which imposed hands on Timothe 2. Tim. 1. 6. cum 1. Tim. 4. 14. of the Ephesian Presbyterie during his aboade amongst them Act. 20. 17. 31. And the like presidence even at Ephesus S. Iohn reteined doubtlesse when after his exile returning thither ibi denuò sedem ac donâ—icilium rerum suarum collocavit as Eusebius reporteth eccles Hist lib. 3. chap. 15. For it were absurd either to seclude him from all consultation with the clergie of that Church or to make him inferior vnto any of them And since the D. acknowledgeth that so longe as there remained any Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical meÌ„ they were the governors of the Churches lib. 4. pag. 72. we have reason to thinke that he cannot without contradiction affirme in generall of all the presidents that moderated the first Presbyteriâ—s that they were properly Byshops for he accounteth none of the Apostles to be properly Byshops lib. 4. pag. 57. and he subscribeth serm pag 86. to the saying of Tertullian de prescrip adv haereâ— that in the Apostolick Churches they re first Byshop had for their founder and Antecessor one of the Apostles or Apostolik men Now if all the presidents of Presbyteries were not properly Byshops how could they all be diocesan Byshops yea such as our Diocesans are 2. Certeinly the verie name of a president that had a Presbyterie adjoyned to him for the managinge of Church causes doth strongly argue the forme of Church-government then to
conversion of the residue eyther in citie or countrey For howsoever we deny not but that it belonged to them both as Christians to use all opportunity of winning to the faith as Ministers to preach to the heaeÌ„ also if they were present in their coÌ„gregatioÌ„s yet it was their office to attend on the flock whereof the holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. And not like Apostles or Evangelists to imploy themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians By these fewe words saith the Doctor the deep wisdome of the parish disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a fewe converted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted c. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set was onely that number of Christians already converted c. 3. that their proper office was to attend them onely which were already converted and not to labour the conversion of the rest c. The last of these I confesse is plainly averred by the Refuter and the second by consequence implyed But the first hath no shadowe of any foundation in his words so that the Doctor his deep wisdome hath drawne it I suppose out of his owne drowsy imagination And yet if it be an erronious conceit why bendeth he not the stroak of some one reason or other against it Yea how will the D. free himself from error seing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer that doth more savour of that conceit then these words of the Doct. Def. pag. 54. that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were fewe and when there were many yea when all were Christians and those in his sermon pag 25. that vpon the division of parishes there happened no alteratioÌ„ to the state of the Bishop 2. Moreover if the second be an errour whose hand is deepest in it whether the Refuter who alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers or the Doctor who citeâ—h the same scripture serm pag. 18. to justify this speach that the Presbyters were to attend the flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments Very likely then he supposed it to be a truth A contradiction in the Doct. that the flock over which they were set was onely that number of Christians which were already converted And he had good reason so to judge because that flock onely was the visible Church which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus But now he seeth it is an error so to conceive because our Saviour calleâ—h the elect not converted his sheep Ioh. 10. 16. and the L. in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet converted As if men could give or take the charge of such a flock or people as they neyther know nor could be taught to discerne by any notes that come within their vnderstanding because the Lord who knoweth all that he hath chosen and appointed in time to call and to whose cies things to come are as manifest as things preseÌ„t doth entitle his elect though yet vnborn or at least vnconverted by the name of his sheep or his people 3. As touching the third point the Refuter hath plainely discovered his judgment how farre he granteth it and in what respect he denieth it to be the dutie of Presbyters to labour the conversioÌ„ of Infidels For besides the coÌ„mon dutie of Christians to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith they are as he faith to preach vnto them if they will come into their assemblies but to imploy their labour in traveiling to and fro in any countrie or diocese to preach vnto them where they find any concourse of people this he denyeth to be any part of the Presbyteriall function and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle or Evangelist Which plaine dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor by shewing how in what course holdeth it their dutie to labour the conversion of infidels whether by the like traveil and imployment that the Apostles Evangelists vndertooke in places where the gospell had not yet any entrance or whether in any other fashion that the Ref apprehended not But he I will not say craftily concealeth from his Reader the parts of his Refuters distinction and as if he had simply denyed them any way to labour the conversion of any that were allenated from the faith he resteth on this trifling replie as though saith he the Apostles intended by their Ministery the conversion and salvation of no more but those few that were at first converted And then for the better manifestation of their wisdome he should have sayd of his owne inhability to make good his assertion he opposeth them with a fewe questions which yet are more then needed but let us heare them they are these 1. Whether the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were not Ministers of the word 2. whether they were not many in some places more in some fiwer yea sometimes as many as those who were before converted Act. 19. 6. 3. whether they being many were onely to attend that smal number of converts 4. whether the Apostles in ordeyning many intended not the conversion of more then those few 5. whether it was not their office to labour their conversion 6. If not how they were to be converted 7. Nay if they did not labour how were they converted Of these 7. the. 3. 4. and 5. might have been spared seing they are already answered viz. that the conversion of citie countrie did not belong to their office as any proper work thereof and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordeyning them otherwise then is before expressed The rest also might have been overpassed since he knoweth his Refuters mind therein save that he would closely intimate vnto his Reader as it seemeth two arguments to justify his owne assertion for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner The Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were all Ministers of the word and were many in each Church yea in some places as many as those that were besides converted wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their Ministerie to convert the rest and that it was a duty proper to their office to labour their conversio How true it is which in the first place he avoucheth I will not here debate it belongeth to another treatise the later part of his Antecedent importeth that the Apostles ordeyned many Ministers for each Church though the number of converts were so small that in some places it scarce exceeded the number of Presbyters A matter so unlikely that if the consequent annexed must hang in
no cheiftie or preheminence to any one above the rest neyther perpetual not teÌ„porarie in any Pastoral duty of feeding or governing the people depending on them seing in his conceit they had neither Bishop nor President to guide the or to moderate their meetings in the absence of the Apostles who as he supposeth reteyned all episcopall government in their owne hands Which confused paritie or rather Anarchie as it was never imbraced of any reformed Church in these last times so it cannot without wrong disgrace to the Apostles be ascribed unto their ordinance As for the Apostles wordes to the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts. 20. 28. the Doctor seemeth inconstant and at odds with himselfe Sect. 13. ad sect 7. p. 75. in the application of them For he first quoted that text serm p. 18. to prove that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word and Sacraments where note that he limiteth the word flock and the duty of feeding to the company already converted which argueth as may well be supposed that he did not then conceive the residue of the City and Country yet vnconverted to be any part of that flock or The D. agreeth not with himselfe in the applicatio of Act. 20. 29. Church there spoken of but now he streatcheth both words to the whole nomber of all which in City and Country belonged to God and were by their Ministerie to be converted and rockoneth it as we heard before sect 7. one of the Refuters indigested fancies to restreine the flock over which those presbyters were set vnto the nomber of Christians already converted Heare we now the reasons that perswaded him to change his opinion for he useth not to doe and vndoe without reason First he urgeth the use of the word flock Iohn 10. 16. where the flock he faith is that for which the good shepheard gave his life vnto which apperteyned the sheep which his Father gave him even the elect not yet converted as he saith pag. 66. not onely among the iewes but the Gentles also even that Church which God meaning Christ who is God is sayd to have redeemed with his blood Acts. 20. 28 and that people of his which he saveth from their sinnes But how will he from his allegations inferre that the flock in which those Presbyters were set as overseers Act. 20. 28. was the people belonging to God aswell vnconverted as converted in the City of Ephesus and the Country adjoyning Doth not himselfe weaken the consequence when he faith This is spoken of the Church in generall yea but he proceedeth to say so the company of them that belong to Christ in any nation province diocese city or parish may be called the flock the Church the people of God Well then if the company of faithfull in one parish may be called the flock and Church of God aswell as a larger society of such as belonge vnto God in a nation province or diocese is not the Doctor yet as farre to seek as at the first for a found reason to perswade his conscience that the people yet vnverted but belonging to Gods election throughout the diocese or province of Ephesus were a part of the flock and Church which those presbyters were charged to attend to and feede May not a man with halfe an eye discerne that a greedy desire to contradict his Refuters assertion hath instead of better reason preveyled with him or rather as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter pag. 73. so transported him that he careth not how shamefully he contradicteth himselfe so as he may gainesay his adversaries present assertion Yet there is a worse fault that accompanieth this change of opinion in him for he absurdly consoundeth the visible Church of Christian professors knowne vnto men with the invisible Church or flock of Gods elect knowne onely to himself yea we may therevnto The D. coâ—radicteth himself coÌ„ foundeth the visible invisible Church maketh the Apostle author of a senselesse charge add a third fault no less absurd then the former when he makerh the Apostle Paule the author of a senseless charge imposed on the presbyters viz. to attende on a flock the nomber and parts whereof they neyther knew nor could know and to feede with the word and Sacraments such as were not yet begotten vnto the faith Attend we now a litle to the advantage which he maketh to his â—ause from this text to his removall of the disadvantage which his Refuter draweth from thence If sayth he they were to attend the whole flock in coÌ„mon then were they not assigned to severall parishes which were but parts of the flock to which purpose the place of the Acts was Sect. 14. quoted Before he borrowed as is observed sect 10. the first branch of his assumption to justify the second now the second is fortified by the third so that his owne pen maketh him guiltie of the fault which upon farre lesse cause he imputeth pag. 55. to Mark whethe D. be not coÌ„fouÌ„-ded in him self his Refuter scz to bring within the compasse of one syllogism two arguments which tend to justify the mayn point of the assumption Consider this well and with all remember that the 4. point is a bare repetition of that which he urged in the former argumet as is shewed sect 1. yea observe further that the second parr of his assumption which by this reckoning is the onely maine point of his argument is made a part of the consequence of his proposition as appeareth sect 2. By all which layd togither it is evident that this argument of his separatis separandis is nothing else but a concluding of the same by the same in this manner In the Apostles times the Presbyters were not assigned to severall cures whereby he meaneth parishes Ergo in their times they were not appointed to parishes But to come to his inference deduced from the place of the Acts. which he quoted if that be true which his words intimate that severall parishes were parts of the flock which the Presbyters were charged to attend how can there be a truth in the first branch of the Assumption which denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times must he not fall an ase at least lower then before when he sayd pag. 63. sect 6. that his assertion touching Churches not divided into parishes is to be understood â—â— epi to plaiston as true of most Churches I might ask him how it is possible the Presbyters should hold the charge of the flock in comon if it had severall parishes for the parts thereof how the flock could be undistinguished or attended on in coÌ„mon if the charge given to the Presbyters were such as upon like occasion might by a Bishop in his visitation be applied to all the Ministers of a Diocese as he afterwards affirmeth pag. 105. will it not be A contradiction in the Doct. hard think you
not the writing of the Apostles Acts make a second and the writing of the Evangelicall or Canonicall epistles a third and the receiving and penning of the revelation a 4. And as for the. 72. or rather 70. For Luke mencioneth 70. not 72. chosen by Christ cap. 10. 1. how confident soever the Doct. be in assigning to them an Evangelisticall function yet we cannot hastilie subscribe to him therein much lesse can wee graunt that which he affirmeth of Philip that he layd aside the evangelisticall function to take a temporary Deaconship Act. 6. and so returned to it againe but these are parerga by-controversies about which we will not contend Let us therefore attend to the reason urged by the D. to prove Sect. 〈◊〉 ad pag. 95. 96. that Timothy and Titus were advanced and not debased when they were made Bishops For saith he whereas before they were but Presbyters though called Evangelists in a large sense they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of handes ordeyned Bishops Behold here quot axiomata totidem paradoxa as many paradoxes as axiomes For how will he prove 1. that they were before but presbyters The D. beg geth 3. times together and contradicteth himself in one sentence c. 2. called Evangelists in a larger sense 3. now made Apostles of those Churches 4. and by imposition of hands made Bishops The two last are nakedly sent forth without any one ragge to cover their shame the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth before acknowledged by himselfe pag. 94. where he comprizeth Timothy and Titus no lesse then Philip and some others under the name of Evangelists specially taken for the extraordinarie functioÌ„ of those that went up and downe preaching the gospell being not affixed to any certain place And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertioÌ„ of a palpable falshood For how could they be but presbyters seing they stood in the extraordinary function of Evangelists Forsooth he saith thâ—â— what the fathers say of the 72 disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery the same may of Timothy and Titus much more be verifyed But doth he noâ— abuse the fathers in making them the authors of his owne paradoxe For doe they match the 72 disciples or any other Evangelists with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise then they doe the Apostles with the degree or place of Bishops Neyther is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops or to lift up Bishops above Prophets but to countenaÌ„ce that superioritie which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters by a comparison of the like difference which they apprehended betweene the Apostles the 70. disciples Wee haue therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superiour to all ordinarie presbyters for besides that already gathered from Ephes 4. 11. it is apparant by that honour which the Apostle and by that obedience which the Churches to which they were sent gave unto them whiles they were his fellow-helpers and companions in his traveiles 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16. 10. 16. 2. Cor. 1. 1. 7. 13. 15. 8. 23. Philip. 1. 1. and 2. 20. 22. Wherefore I conclude once againe that to make them Pastors or Bishops when they were Evangelists is not to advance them but rather to throw them downe from a higher degree of Ministerie to a lower In the second place whereas the Doctor had sayd that Timothy and Titus were furnished with episcopall power at the time of Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 pag. 9â— their stay in Ephesus and Creet by S. Pauls appointment and the Refuter denied that they received any new authoritie which before they had not c. the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner If they received no new authoritie why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of handes whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Tim. 4. 14. 2. Tim. 1. 6. and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop I graunt that Paul mentioneth hands-imposition on Timothy that some of the fathers doe thereby understaÌ„d his ordination to be Bishop Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove eyther from those words or any of the fathers writings that the imposition of hands mencioned by Paul was a second ordination to a new office or a furnishing of him with any new Ministeriall authoritie which before he wanted What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop may be construed as is before noted coÌ„cerning Iames their speaches are which say that Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem of a new or differing imployment in the work of the Ministerie for the temporarie charge he received which argueth no new authoritie or office imposed on him 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands his owne pen hath given him a direct answer pag. 94. lin 32. where he saith that Timothy and Titus who were of the later sort of Evangelists and therefore in an extraordinary function lin 15. of the same page were ordeyned Ministers of the gospell by imposition of handes which I would fayne know how he can prove by any testimony divine or humane vnlesse he carry those wordes of Paul 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. to his first ministeriall function 3. Againe he asketh may we think that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to severall Churches had that authoritie wheresoever they became which Timothy had at Ephesus Titus in Creet And he addeth verily Philip the Evangelist had not authoritie to impose handes for the furnishing of men with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent to Samaria for that purpose Act. 8. 5 -17 If it be his drift thus to argue Philip the Evangelist had no authoritie to give graces fit for the Ministery by imposition of handes Therefore besides the Apostles none but Bishops had that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Creet I answer his reasoning is many wayes faulty For he cannot prove eyther that Bishops have or that Timothy and Titus had that authoritie by imposition of hands to give such graces Neyther is it true which his words import that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and Iohn Act 8. 17. were graces fitting the persons that received them to the work of the Ministerie Wherefore although it should be graunted that the Evangelist Philip had no authoritie to give those peculiar graces yet he might haue as great authority wheresoever he came as Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet so that his assertion implyed in his quaestion viz. that besides the Apostles onely Bishops had the like authoritie to that which Timothy and Titus had hath no colour of any sound reason to uphold it Yea it is strongly confuted by
before shewed in answ to cap. 6. lib. 2. pag. 105. 106. that the Church of Antioch in the Apostles times was but one ordinary congregation assembled in one place Thus much for Evodius It followeth now of Liuus concerning Sect. 3. whom the Doctor telleth us serm pag. 82. that Peter and Paul being at Rome and there continuing somewhat above two yeares about the yeare of our Lord 56. ordeyned him Bishop of Rome who continued Bishop there â—0 yeares before the death of Paul 12. yeares â—fter and for proofe thereof citeth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Euseb lib. 3. ca. 13. 16 In his Margin he saith that Peter came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Nero to oppugne Symon Magus and Paul shortly after from whence after 2. yeares they both departed To begin with this last can the Doctor be ignorant that Eusebius and Hierom two of his best witnesses for the antiquitie of the episcopall function doe referre Peters oppugning Symon Magus at Rome to the 2. yeare of Claudius or can it be unknowne to him that many of our divines of great reading and sound judgement doe contradict both branches of his assertion and shewe from the sacred scriptures that Peter was not at Rome neyther at the time of Pauls first coÌ„ming thither nor yet in the time of his two yeares imprisonment there I forbeare to lay downe the particulars which are urged to this purpose the Doct. may peruse at his leysure what is written by D. Reynoldes in his Conf. with Hart the place before noted And Doctor Whitak de pont Rom. pag. 353 -359 Catal. test verit col 61. last edition and confute their reasons if he can He shall surely therein gratify the Romanists for Bellarmin convinced with the arguments on our side alleadged confesseth that Peter was not then at Rome when Paul came thither and from thence wrote so many epistles as those to the Colos Ephes Galat. Philip. and others which make no mencioÌ„ of Peter Now if Peter were not at Rome in those two years of Pauls remayning prisoner there how could he joine with Paul at that time in ordeyning Linus to the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome Add herevnto those perswasions which induce us to think that he had no such function at that time with Pauls allowance For why should he forget his paines or deny him that honor which he affoardeth to others that were his felow-workmen in the Ministery of the Gospell to make mencion of his name and labours at least in some one of those many epistles that he wrote from Rome in the time of his aboad there yea had he bin the Bishop of Rome when the Apostle Paul sent so many epistles from thence to other Churches would not he rather have made choise of him to joine hands with him in the Inscriptions of the epistles to the Philip and ColossiaÌ„s then of Timothy who in the D. opinion was eyther yet standing in the degree of a presbyter or if a Bishop the Bishop of Ephesus in another country In deed his name is remembred among other that sent salutations to Timothy 2. Tim. 4. 21. but since it is without any note of preheminence eyther in office or labours it argueth strongly that Paul was ignorant of any such episcopall charge or superiority as the D. alloweth him 10. yeares before Pauls death As for the ancient Fathers and Historiographers Eusebius the Sect. 4. D. best witnes for computation of times expresly saith lib. 3. ca. 2. Linus obteyned the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome after the Martyrdome of Peter and Paul which cutteth off the first ten yeares which the Doctor giveth him in the government of that Church But Damasus whose report the D. imbraceth as if it were an oracle serm pag. 23. affirmeth in pontificali de Petro that Linus ended his race in the Consulship of Capito Rufus which was more then one yeare before the death of Peter and Paul as D. Whitakers sheweth de pont Rom pag. 343. Wherevnto Iunius also assenteth Animadvers in Bellar. cont 3. lib. 2. ca. 5. not 15 and 18. I forbeare to prosecute that variety of opinions in all writers old and new touching the first Bishop of Rome and the order of their succession some giving to Clemens the first place some confounding Cletus and Anacletus some severing them and some conjoyning Linus and Cletus togither in the episcopall charge as doth Rufinus prefat recognit Clement But since there is such disagreement and the same so great that it perplexeth the learnedest favourites of the Romish succession it may give us just cause to affirme that their testimonie can yeeld no certaine proofe of any one whether Linus Clemens or any other that by the Apostles appointm t had the singular and setled preheminence of a Bishop in the Church of Rome It followeth concerning Mark the Evangelist whom the Doctor Sect. 5. affirmeth to be the first Bishop at Alexandria by the appointment of Peter and that testified as he saith by Nicephorus Gregorie Eusebius Hierom and Dorotheus In deed Nicephorus is worthy to be the foreman of the Doctors Iurie in this question for who fitter to cast a cloak of truth upon a fable then one known to be the author-of many fables Of S. Mark many things are repeated in the scriptures that will hardly be brought to accord with his supposed Bishoprick at Alexandria or with that which the Doctor affirmeth of him to wit that he was Peters disciple and his perpetuall follower For to overpasse his first attendance on Paul and Barnabas Act. 12 25. 13. 4. 5. 13 and on Barnabas when he was parted from Paul Act. 15. 37. 39. he was with Paul at Rome as one of his work-fellowes unto Gods kingdome Coloss 4. 10. 11. Philem. vers 24. and departed thence to visite the Saints at Colosse and in other Churches adjoyning Col. 4. 10. and he was with Timothy or neer to him when Paul wrote his last ep to him 2. Tim. 4. 11. But to overthrow his Bishoprick the very name of an Evangelist which the Doctors best witnesses with one consent allow him is sufficient seing we have before proved that an Evangelist could not assume the office of a Diocesan Bishop Neyther can the Do take that exception against Mark which he doth against Timothy Titus scz that be was but in the degree of a Presbyter seing he granteth him to be one of those that are kat hexochen called Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. cap. 4. sect 12. pag. 95. Moreover that which Eusebius and Ierom doe report of his writing his gospell at Rome according to that which Peter had there preached and of his carying it into Egypt and preaching it in Alexandria see Euseb lib. 2. cap. 14. 15. Hieron catal in Marco this I say is contradicted by Irenaeus more ancient then both for he lib. 3. ca. 1. testifieth that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter Paul And this testimony
be called to the knowledge of their sinne publikely to be punished that the Church by their wholesome correction may be kept in order Moreover the Minister going aside with some of the Seniors shall take counsell how others whose maâ—ners are sayd to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselves thanks is duely to be given to God but if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receive such sharp punishment as we see in the Gospell provided against their contumacy In the 11. Chap. they sett downe in case that they judge any for contumacy worthy to be excoÌ„municated how to proceed in the exercise and denouncinge of that sentence 1. the Bishop is to be gone unto and his sentence to be known who if he shal consâ—â—t and putt to his authority the sentence is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so much as may be we may bringe in the auncient disciplyne Here are their words now what sayth M. D. to prove that these words notwithstanding the refuter is an egregious falsifyer and that the reader may be these words thus transcribed discerne the allegations to be forged of this last he hath never a word concerning the first he telleth us that though they mention Seniors and auncient discipliâ—e yet they meant nothinge lâ—sse then to bring in lâ—y-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church And what of all this what if they did mean none of these yet shall that which the refuter affirmeth of them remayne true still What they meant and acknowledge we shall see by and by when we have seene the D. proofs that they meant not so He telleth vs he wil out of the book it selfe make it manifest and I wil tell him he will not but I will the contrary rather To make his word good if he could he sayth The whole goverment and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c. is established in that book and to make good mine I saie it mattereth not they had no commission from the K. to remove it and bring in that ancient discipline which by their wordes they acknowledge was not then in use but diverse from that established their coÌ„mission stretched no further then to examine the lawes reforme abuses letting the offices to remaine still yea and therein to proceed no further then would stand with those offices the lawes of the land Will the D. saye that they in all the booke have any one word to shewe that they held that government and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops ArchdeacoÌ„s rurall Deanes c. to be jure divino Nay as divers of them in their submission to King H. the 8. professe the contrary so throughout this book they have no one word tending to prove the Bishops authority over other Ministers to be any more jure divino then Archbishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c but as they are birds of a feather so they stand and fall togither by one and the same ecclesiastical lawe or humane ordinance But let vs heare what the Doctor can make the book speake concerning the Bishops authoritie he sendeth us to the 12. chap. where he saith it is decreed that the Bishop is at fâ—â— seasons to give holy orders c. to remove unfit men c. to correct by ecclesiastical censures vices corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendement of life to excoÌ„municate those which wilfully obstinately refist to receive into grace those that be penitent c. and finally to take care of all things which ex Dei prescripto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our ecclesiasticall lawes have coÌ„mitted to their knowledge and judgements Very wel and what doth the D. inferre of all this just nothing I will help him by and by But first who seeth not that those fathers vnderstoode two parts of that episcopall function one divine the care of those things which are prescribed them by God and coÌ„mon to all Bishops or Ministers of the word one principall member whereof to witt the diligent and syncere preaching of the word they mention as the first duty in the first words of that Chapter which the D. left ouâ— perhaps because divers of our Bishops have left it of as no part or the least part of their duety the other humane viz the exercise of that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which was committed to them by the K. in his ecclesiasticall lawes Now 2. to help the D. a little he should have inferred vpon the wordes sett downe by him That therefore the authority of doing all those things mentioned was in the judgement of those Fathers in the hands of the Bishops alone the which if he durst not doe he should have brought forth some other chapter to shewe it else certeynely he can saye nothing to the purpose And that it may appeare he cannot doe it I will nowe make it manifest out of the booke that they were of a contrary judgement and laboured so farre as their coÌ„mission would suffer them to bring in that auncient discipline before spoken of concerning the ruling and guiding of the particular flocks by the Mâ—nister and Seniors of the same and so farre brought it in by the order prescribed in that booke that it cutteth the windpipe of the D. sermon concerning his sole ruling Bishops so in sunder as it will never breath from their decrees nor ever have affinity with the auncient discipline they speake of We have already seene concerning discipline and excoÌ„munication what they decree cap. 10. 11 that being remembred add we to it that in the 6. cap. de excommunicat thus they further order 1. that if possibly it may be it being a thinge much to be desired the consent of the whole Church or Congregation should be had before excommunication be decreed or denounced against any 2. that no one man Archbishop Bishop or other shall have the power of excommunication in his handes And therefore 3 that neyther Archbishop Bishop or any ecclesiasticall Iudge sholl so much as decree excoÌ„munication without the consent of one Iustice of peace of the Minister of the Congregation where the delinquent dwelleth or in his absence of his deputy Curate or assistant and of 2. or 3. other Ministers both learned and of good life in whose presencâ— the whole matter busynes shal be heard debated pondered decreed In like sort for the receiving agayne of the excommunicate person into the Church vpon his repentance in the 14. chap they likewise order 1. that it shall not be by any Iudge before his repentance be approved and certificate therof made to the Bishop by the Minister and Syndicks or some of the cheife
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌ„t of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ was coÌ„mitted but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time as himself testifyeth wryting upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doct that the Archbishop in his defence of that his answere page 161. vpon his second thoughts three times confesseth asmuch almost in the same words I confesse sayth he that there was Seniors and I alleadged Ambrose partly for that purpose and partly to shewe that both their names and offices were exstinguished before his time And knoweth not the Doctor also that he spendeth two pages at the least 656. 658 to shewe the inconveniences that would as he conceiveth folowe vpon the reteyning of that government vnder ChristiaÌ„ Princes especially in the Church of England Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church doth he not in his answere to the AdmonitioÌ„ page 162 affirme that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same that it cannot be governed in tyme of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution c. Doth he not in his defence page 658. 660. spend a whole Chapter tending as the title sheweth to prove that there is no one certeyne kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed After which discourse knitteth he not vp the matter with these 3. knotts 1. that it is well knowne how the manner and forme of government used in the Apostles times and expressed in the scriptures neyther is now nor can nor ought to be observed eyther touching the persons or the functions 2. that it is playne that any one certayne forme or kind of government perpetually to be observed is no where in scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof left to the Christian Magistrate c. 3. that wee must admitt another forme nowe of governing the Church then was in the Apostles times or els we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all authority in ecclesiasticall matters Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authoritie doth he not acknowledge page 680. all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise be it civil or ecclesiasticall to be then executed in the Queens Maiesties name and right and to come from her as supreme Governour And speaking page 747 of the Colledge of Presbyters which Ierom calleth Senatum ecclesiae togither with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies saith he not that that kinde of government which those Churches Cathedral he meaneth had it transferred to the civil Magistrate to whom it is due and to such as by him are appointedâ— If the Doct. hath read him he knoweth all this to be true Thus much breifly for the testimony and judgment of that Archbishop the which how farre it differeth from the Doctors sermon whatsoever he sayth now by exchange in his defence and whether it casteth not the governmeÌ„t by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times let the reader comparatis comparandis judge Come we now to Bishop Iewels judgement set downe at large in his defence of the Apologie out of which the Doctor saith that Confession of the English Church was collected whose testimony I might well coÌ„mend in regard the booke out of which it is taken is commanded to be in all our Churches but that the Doctor wil againe as before cry a mountaine banck but I will barely lay it downe and let it commend it self First concerning the power of the keies he hath in his apolog chap. 7. divis 5. these words Seing one manner of word is given to all and one onely keâ—e belongeth to all we say speaking in the name of the Church of England there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerninge openninge and shutting And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Preist or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth he saith parte 2. page 140. that as a Iudge togither with the Elders of the congregation he hath authority both to condemne and to absolve And page 152. that in the primitive Church eyther the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation had authoritie herein and that the direction and judgment rested evermore in the Preest And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use yet he shewing out of Beatus Rhenanus howe they were vsed in old time saith That the excoÌ„municated person when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Preists as vnto the mouthes of the Church and opened to them the whole burthen of his hart by whom he was brought into the congregation to make open confession and satisfaction which done duely and humbly he was restored againe openly into the Church by laying on of the handes of the priests and Elders Againe concerning the authoritie of Bishops over other Ministers cap. 3. divis 5. page 109. he mainteyneth the testimony which in his Apologie he had alleadged out of Ierom ad Evagriu making all Bishops to be of like preheminence and preisthood against the cavills of Harding as the refuter will I doubt not against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith What S. Ierom meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth thâ—â— Ierom seemeth to match all Bishops together as if they were all equally the Apostles successors And he thmketh not any Bishop to be lesse then other for that he is poorer or greater then other for that he is richer For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium a poore towne equall with the Bishop of Rome And further he thinketh that a Bishop is no better then any Preist save that he hath authority to order Ministers Againe pag. 111. that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops they had it by agreement and custome but neyther by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods word And to shewe that it was not his judgment alone he produceth Ierom and Austin Ierom upon Titus 1. sayinge Lett Bishops vnderstand that they are above the Preists rather of custome then of any truth or right of Christes institution And that they ought to rule the Church altogither And that a Preist and a Bishop are all one c. Austin epist 19. saying The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Preist not by the authority of the scriptures saith Bishop Iewel in a perenthesis but after the names of honour which by the custome of the Church have now obteyned Againe chap. 9. divis 1. pag. 198. What ment Mr. Harding saith he here to come in with the difference betwixt Preists and Bishops thinketh he that Preists and Bishops holde onely by tradition or is it so horrible an heresy as he
the approbatioÌ„ of their function in this or that particular text of scripture that the Doctor himselfe may and doth imbrace the one and yet reject the other Else how dareth he understand that text Act. 20 28. as he doth serm page 18. 37. 69. of inferior Presbyters which had no power eyther of ordination or of externall jurisdiction contrary to the judgement of Bishop Barloe who iâ— his sermon thereon at Hampton Court pag. 3. affirmeth that the Apostle in those wordes speeketh fully for the prelacie and describeth therein every part of the outward function of Bishops As for the D. reasons moving him to examine what manner of persons were noted by the Angels of the Churches though it were no hard matter to mainteyne the Refuters objections yet suâ—ceasing to contend further therein I will overpasse his 2. section pag. 29 30 it having nothing materiall or worthy of reply save what is already spoken to in the 〈◊〉 section of the former chapter And as touching the 3. 4. sections concerning the number of the angels and their preheminence because we shall have fitter places for them hereafter lib. 3. cap. 3. I will therefore here passe by them and so come to his 5. section In his 5. section two things may be commended to the readers Sect. 4. ad sect 5. Def. p. 35. observation First the Refut saying pag. 4. that it was in deed needfull to inquire what manner of Bishops those Angels were because Bishop Bilson and Bishop Barloe had fancied to themselves another sort of Bishops then eyther the Holy Ghost hath mentioned in the newe Testament or any sound divine offred to teach thereout The Doct. from thence inferreth that the controversie which remayneth to be decided is this viz. whether sort of Bishops such as those learned and himself defendeth or such as his adversarie and his adhaerents stand for is that kinde of Bishop which hath beene of late devised Where it is easy to be seene howe cunningly he changeth The D. changeth the question the question he should have sayd The controversie to be decided is this whether the Holy Ghost doth vnderstand by the Angels of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. such Bishops as our English Praelates are or rather such as his Refuter and his adhaerents stand for But wittily and not vnwittingly doth he shun this controversie for it seemeth he knoweth that to be true which his Refuter added to witt that if the vse of the word Bishop manifestly warraÌ„ted vnto vs by God in his word and the joynt interpretation of all protestant divines would have contented him others of his side we neyther had need nor occasion of this examination Wherefore though he offreth two things to our consideration for the deciding of the former question viz. what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Angels what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches yet he closly slideth The D. closely slideth from debating pointes propounded and then braggeth c. from the debating of them and propoundeth his 5. points before noted diverse from these to be handled in their stead So that his first assertion which he promised plainly to prove hath none other direct proofe then the bare propounding of those two questions which he offreth to our consideration Which the D. knoweth well enough notwithstanding he braggeth of the contrary and adjureth his reader in the name of God without partiallity to see on which side is better evidence and more pregnant proofs and to assent therevnto Secondly where the Doct. vndertaking to prove out of his text that the office and function of his Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good the Refuter tolde him it was soone sayd but not so soone done there being nothing in his text to prove it because to be lights starrs angels which was all the D. had said or could shew out of the words is not proper to his Diocesans but coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations as himselfe had taught in his sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers pag. 20 61. The D. replyeth indeed but as a man out of temper chargeth his Ref to wrangle and to have nothi g to say but that which with an idle coccisme he often repeateth and in this place is altogether impertinent and that he was resolved aforehand to cavill with whatsoever he should find in his booke c. Whereunto I will say nothing but this that concerning the temper of the Doctor and truth of his speach I will not the D. is a party he must not lett the reader indifferent therefore judge The sight of the Doctors former proceedings moved the Refuter Sect. 5. ad sect 6. p. 36. 37. pag. 4. to tell him that if he had walked with a right foote in the path he was entred into be should by his text have taught vs the meaninge of these two points not quire contrary as he geeth about by these two points tâ— teach vs the meaning of his text But the D. enraged aâ— these words of truth and sobernes as Festus was at the words of Paul was ready to take up his answere much learning hath made thee madd save that he would not ascribe to his Refut any learning at all therefore chooseth rather to say that too much wrath which is furor brevis made him so to forgett himself that he wrangleth without witt and against sense But I wish the reader consider whether the Doctor doth not overrashly judge him sick of his owne disease For what can he say eyther to excuse himself or justly to blame his Refuter For sooth that no man that is in his witts will say it is not lawfull for a preacher to explaine his text True but if the Refuter never sayd it and if the Doct. cannot extract any such thing from his wordes may not the reader worthily censure him for a mallicious slanderer 2. He asketh what The doct slaundereth it was which in this section he had in hand was it not saith he to indeavour the explanation of his text And to shew what manner of Bishops are here meant by the angells of the Churches And I answere him no he had already explained his text and affirmed that the Bishops meant by those Angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are now he was to make way for the performance of his promise to prove The Doct. seeth not or would not see what he had in hand his former assertion 3. He asketh againe what could be more fitly propounded for the explication of his text then the consideration of those two things before mentioned And a little after who seeth not saith he that the handling of these points is the very explication of the text I grant that these two points were fittly proposed to cleare his first assertion wherein he reposeth the explicatioÌ„ of his text if he had handled them so as he
perpetuitie of the episcopal function now in question Vnto these erronious conceits there had bene no dore opened had the Doctor bene pleased to have framed his questions in such termes as most fitly answere eyther to the first project of his sermon or to the 2. assertions before delivered in his Defence Agreable to his first project are these questions 1. Touching the explication of his text whether the Bishops meant there by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are 2. and touching the doctrine raysed out of his text whether the calling of such Bishops as ours are be of divine institution If he had rather stick close to the words of his two Questions before mentioned the first De facto is whether the angels c. the secoÌ„d De iure whether the calling c. as we heard even now Wherefore the reader may see that as before he changed his assertions Sect. 2. so now he changeth his questioÌ„â— neyther is it hard to discerne what might move him therevnto For in the first his owne The Doct. changeth his questions aswel as his assertions words discover his intent or purpose when he entreateth his Ref p. 60. to take notice what is the question betwixt them that so he may discerne his discourse concerning â—lders to be pertinent to the matter in quaestion Wherefore having set down the first question in those two meÌ„bers before expressed whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops as we sat or by Presbyteries of such elders as they speakeâ—f he taketh it for graunted p. 61. on both sides agreed on that the Churches were governed eyther by the one or the other so inferreth that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proof of his Bishops A direct proof so he saith but what Logician of any judgement will herein subscribe to his affirmation The question hath two members the Doctor holdeth the affirmative in the former and the negative in the later to prove the one and disprove the other is The D. disputeth not directly a double labour Wherefore since the Doctor susteyning the person of the opponent in this disputation beginneth with the first member of the question vndertaketh to prove this conclusion viz. The the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops such as ours are who would not now in an orderly and direct course of disputation expect at his hands some such Medius terminus as sheweth positively etherwhat agreeth to the function of a diocesan Bishop or what manner of government was anciently practized or such like And if he forbeare to argue to this purpose will not men of judgment be ready to thinke that either he hath little to alledg this way or to so little purpose that he distrusteth the issue of his triall But if he shall fly from the first member of his question which he made speciall choyse of and that with resolution to confirme it by vnanswerable evidence as his words every where and namely p. 29. 35. put his reader in hope and if in stead of confirming this point he shall bend the force of his disputation against the 2. meÌ„ber of his question to confute the reasons produced by the adverse part for the Presbyterie who can excuse his incoâ—stancie yea who that loveth him wel can judge otherwise then that it had bene much better for his credit to have openly professed that he would first deale with the later member and then come to the former or rather that he would first susteyne the person of a respondent and throw the burthen of proving upon his opposites as afterwardes he doth and plainly professeth it in the next sect pag. 62. But since he undertaketh the person of an opponent at the first entrance into this conflict let us see how artificially he reasoneth from the one member of his question to the other his disiunctive argumentation pag. 62. standeth thus Eyther the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or by such Presbyteries as they stand for But not by such Presbyteies as they stand for Therefore by Diocesan Bishops The proposition saith he is implyed in the very question betwene us And the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie The assumption is that first point of the five which new we have in hand But first I deny that his assumption is the first of his 5. points for wheÌ„ he sayth The primitive Church was not governed by such Presbyteries as they stand for doth he not therein oppose himself equally against both sorts of disciplinariansâ— aswell those that require a Presbyterie to assist their Parish-Bishop in every severall congregation as those which establish a presbyterie in every City for the governmeÌ„t of many parishes vnder one president having preheminence of order above the rest of the presbyters For so he explaneth the later member of his disjunctive question page 60. It is therefore cleare that his assumption here is no otherwise the first then it is the second third or fourth point of his five For how proveth he that his assumption is the first Forsooth he proveth it by the first as he sheweth page 62. Ergo it is the first and thus he proveth it They are not able to prove that ever there were any presbyters which were not Ministers Therefore the primitive Churches were not governed by such presbyteries as they stand for And why may he not reason from the 2. 3. or 4. point to the like purpose They are not able to prove that any of the visiâ—le Churches vsing goverment were parishes or that any parishes had their Bishop to governe them with the assistance of his presbytery or that the presbyters were in power of order and jurisdiction equall to their president and inferior to him onely in order c. Therefore the primitive Churches were not governed by such presbyteries as they stand for But this were to overthrow his dichotomies before set downe pag. 54. repeated lib. 2. pa. 41. specially that first distribution of his proofes which referreth the first point to a disproving of their presbyteries anaskevasticos the rest to the approving of our Bishops kataskevasticos wherefore I wil forbeare to contend any longer against his assumption weigh rather what he saith in defense of his proposition The disjunction implied in the proposition he affirmeth to be necessary Sect. 3. though not absolutely yet ex hypothesi and so presupposed on both sides The D craveth the question reasoneth from one member of it to another But I must give him to witt that if it were as necessary as he supposeth yet this kinde of reasoninge is on both sides esteemed no better then a pretty craving of the question neither can it be otherwise when he reasoneth from one member of the question to the other Else why may he not disprove their presbyteries by vndertaking the proof of our Bishops government with the change of the
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
apostolico Which distinction though in this place the Doctor admitteth not yet elsewhere lib. 3. pag. 26. he alloweth it to reconcile those speaches of Ierom ad Euagr and in Tit. cap. 1. where he denieth the superioritie of Bishops to be of divine disposition yet affirmeth it to be an apostolical tradition He may be vnderstood saith the D. as holding their superioutie to be not divini but apostolici juris But how soever he accord with Bellarmin in approving the distinction yet since he holdeth the episcopall superiority to be so farre forth a divine ordinance as it proceeded from God in asmuch as the Apostles were directed by the holy Ghost in ordeyning it he cannot without apparant contradiction to himself imbrace Bellarmins The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe which way soever he turneth him construction of Apostolici juris who taketh it for jus humanum or positivum Neither can he easily winde out of the briars of an evident contradiction when he denieth it to be divini iuris and yet graunteth it to be be a divine ordinance yea such an holy ordinance of God as ought at this day not onely so to be acknowledged but also to be obeyed and that of conscience serm pag. 94. 98. For if this be so how should it want what perpetuitie which agreeth vnto other things that are in deed divini juris by the lawe of God For out of what fountayne drew the D. this deep learning which Sect. 3. ad pag. 2. of the D. answere to the ref preface ad lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. nowe he setteth abroach answ to the ref preface pag 2. and lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. viz. that the things which are divini juris by the law of God are so generally iÌ„mutably and perpetually necessâ—rie that no true Church can be without them What will he say to the pure preaching of the word the right administration of the Sacraments and of the Church Censures and the orderly sending forth of Ministers lawfully chosen and ordeyned to theyr severall charges Are not these things divini juris by the lawe of God and divine or at least apostol The D. distinction erronious call ordinances generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie for who can take libertie in any of these to depart from the rule of Gods word and not be guiltie of sinn against God yea in that one Sacrament of the Lords Supper are not all the actions recorded in the first institution viz. in the Minister to take blesse break and deliver the bread and to take blesse and diliver the cup and in the Communicants to take and eate the one and to take and drinke the other are not all and every of these actions I saye generally perpetually and immutably necessary to be observed therfore to be esteemed to be divini juris else have our divines little reson to hold them for essentiall parts of the Lords supper and to urge for proof thereof Christs Commaundement doo this in remembrance of me see D. Bilson ag the Rhem Apologie parte quarta pag. 675. in quarto Bucanus Instiâ— loc 48. pag. 677. 678 NotwithstaÌ„ding I hope the D. will not deny the name of a true Church vnto every assembly of Christians which wanteth in any part the puritie of the doctrine or that syncere form of administratioÌ„ which the word of God pre cribeth for his Sacraments or Church-censures For he is not ignorant that among divine ordinances and things necessarie some yea the greatest somâ— doe concern rather the welbeing then the very being of the Church aâ—e onely needful or behooful for the wel-ordering of the Ch lib. 4. p. 103. 104 but not so gâ—nerally and immutably necessary as though no true Church could be wiâ—hout them Wherefore to draw this controversly to a direct issue though without any violoence offered vnto he phrase we might affirme every commaundement of God whether generall or speciall and temporall or perpetuall to be jus divinum because the word jus is derived of jussum as is before observed yet because the word is restrayned by the * Canonistes and by Ius divinum est quod in lege coÌ„tineÌ„tur et evangelio atque immutabile semper permanet lib. 1. Iuris canon Tit. 2. coÌ„mon use appropriated to such ordinances as are layd downe in the holy scripture for the perpetuall use of the Church I will here acknowledge a generall and perpetuall necessity in those things that are to be holden jure divino yet place I not so absolute a necessity as the D. dreameth of in those things that are divini juris as though no true Church could be without any of them It is sufficient if they be so immutably necessary that the Church hath no liberty as it hath in things indifferent to alter or abolish them but where they may be had they may not without sin be neglected much lâ—sse wittingly be refused or changed If the D. shall herein professe an agreement with vs and say that he therefore denieth the episcopall function to be divini juris because though it be lawfull to be reteyned as being ordeyned of God by his Apostles for the Churches which they planted yet it is not by any commandement or warrant from Gods word perpetually imposed on all Churches for so he seemeth to affirm lib. 4. pag. 145. lin 6. and 26 I praye leave to demaund why in the 2. page of his answ to the Refuters preface he contenteth not himself to disclaime at large that generall and immuâ—able necessity which is ascribed to thinges that are divini juris pag. 94. of his serm but rather addeth this clause so as no true Church can be without it If it be not to explaine that necessity which he spake of in his sermon to what purpose serveth it For he found no such clause nether in the words of the Refuters preface which he taxeth of vntruth nor yet in pag. 90. of his answere where he saith a true acknowledgment is to be founde in what sense he denieth the calling of the Bishops to be Divini juris But let us see whether the Doctor both in his sâ—rmon and in Sect. 4. some places of this defense thereof mainteineth not the epilcopal function to be generally and perpetually necessary and that in as ample manner as some other ordinances are that without all contradictioÌ„ are estemed to be divini juris 1. He appropriateth or at least attributeth kat hexochen vnto Bishops yea even to our diocesaÌ„ Bishops aswell as vnto the Bishops or Ministers of the 7. Churches in Asia and that in respect of their function the name of Angels sent of God starres held in the right hand of Christ serm pag. 55. 95. Yea he saith pag. 55. They are as cheif Stewards over Gods family and principall spirituall governours over Christs body And to them he restreineth pap 70 the name of hegoumenoi rulers or Leaders which the Apostle Heb. 13. 17. chargeth to be obeyed Moreover he
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâ—d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ— instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ„ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌ„mendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌ„mended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌ„mendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the mother-Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌ„tioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ„ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to â—â—vill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌ„dly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâ—es of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
Thus I could goe on a tribus ad centum but by this time I hope the D. seeth the aequivocation which lyeth in his owne argument for either he lacketh the word starrs in a double sence to witt for the tipe in the proposition and for the antitipe or thing signified in the assumption or else and rather the aequivocation lieth in the word were which in the proposition is taken substantiue but in the assumption significatiue For seing himselfe doth thus interprete his text serm pag. 2. The 7. starres are that is doe signifie the Angels of the 7. Churches his assumption is false vnlesse it be thus vnderstood q. d. The Angels of the 7. Churches were signified by the 7. starrs which Christ held in his right hand And if it be so vnderstood then to avoide foure termes which marre the fashion of his argument the proposition must be thus changed The persons whose Ministerie is represented by the 7. starres which Christ held in his right hand are just 7. But this is so grosse an vntruth that the D. cannot but see it and unlesse there be an other vaile to shadowe him wil be ashamed to avouch it much more to alleadge the words of the Holy Ghost Apoc. 1. 16. 2. 1. to mainteyne it seing he acknowledgeth all the Ministers of the gospel to the worlds end to be by their office starres and shining lights so his sermon of the dignitie of the Ministers p. 61. And in this sermoÌ„ in quest p. 55. he saith of Dioc Bishops in generall that they are starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand yea he affirmeth the same of our Bishops at this day pag. 98. Wherefore there being no need of any longer discourse to remove the vaile of this first argument I might here proceed to the second But before I come to it to prove the contradictorie to his conclusion I thus reason All the Ministers of the word that had charge to feed and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand But all the Ministers of the word that had charge to feede and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches were more then 7. singular persons onely Therefore the persons signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand were more then 7. singular persons onely The assumption needeth no proofe more then what is after gathered from Act. 20. 28. since it is of all our adversaries acknowledged and the deniall of it is the utter overthrowe of their whole building For how should this text justify the superioritie of Bishops above other Ministers if there were not diverse Ministers in each of these Churches subject to one Bishop And if there were but onely 7. angels that is Bishops in these 7. churches there was then but one onely angel or Bishop in each severall Church but it is cleare by that place of the Acts that there was more then one in that Church of Ephesus seing it speaketh of Bishops in the plurall number ordeined and set over that Church by the Holy Ghost and it must needs be with the rest of these 7. as it was with it and others Phil. 1. 1. Act. 13. 1. 2. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. The Proposition is a truth not to be denied seing it is also confessed by the Doctor serm of the dignitie of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. and easy to be proved if any man else should gainâ— say it For 1. the true reason why the name of Starres is vsed to signify the Ministers of God and to explane their function is this viz. that as the starres are set in the firmament to shine upon the earth Gen. 1. 17. and to governe the night Psal 136. 9. so it is the office of the Ministers in generall not of Diocesan Bishops in particular to shine as lights vnto the Churches in all puritie of doctrine and holynes of conversation Mat. 5. 14. 15. Ioh. 5. 35. Phil. 2. 15. cum cap. 1. 1. that men which naturally are in darknes 2. Cor. 4. 6. Eph. 5. 8. may have their hartes enlightened converted Act. 26. 18. Dan. 12. 3. and still directed in the way of obedience Psal 119. 105. Wherefore since it is the office and dutie of all Ministers in generall thus to sâ—ine and enlighten others it must needes be granted that the name of starres doth equally agree to all 2. And in this sense the word is vsed when it is sayd that the third part of the starres was darkned Rev. 8. 12. that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the starres of heaven and cast them to the earth Rev. 12. 4. For hereby we are to vnderstaÌ„d the corruption and apostacie not of Bishops Archbishops onely but of preachers Teachers in generall which in huge heaps and multitudes were drawne to imbrace teache haeresy superstition and idolattie 3. Moreover although it be so with the Ministers of the word as it is with the starres that as one starre differeth from an other in glory 1. Cor. 15. 41. some here excelling others in guifts and labours 1. Cor. 12. 4. 11. 2. Cor. 11. 23 shall also exceed them hereafter in glorie 1. Cor. 3. 8. yet it no where appeareth in holy scripture that the name of starres is given to any one degree or order of Ministers much lesse appropriated to the episcopall function to declare their preheminence dignitie or advancement above other preachers 4. Neyther is that gracious protection and safetie which is assured to the Ministers of Christ by his holding the 7. starres in his right hand Rev. 1. 16. 20. 2. 1. any priviledge proper to Bishops but a favour which he communicateth to all that faithfully serve him in their Ministeriall function whatever it be for the promise both of Christs presence and assistance Exod. 3. 12. Mat. 28. 20. to protect or deliver from evill Ier. 1. 18. 19. Ezek. 2. 6. 3. 8. 9. Act. 18. 9. 10. to preserve from falling 2. Tim. 4. 17. 18. Rev. 12. 4. doth equally agree unto all without any respect to their outward preheminence or lower standing Wherefore to prove the proposition against all gaynsayers thus I reason All that in those 7. Churches were bound by office to enlighten others and to guide them in the way of life by the light of their doctrine and had the promise of Christs presence to assist protect preserve them all such I say were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand But all the Ministers of the worde that had charge to fâ—ede and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches were such persons aâ— in those Churches stood bound by office to enlighten others and to guide them in the way of life by the light of their doctrine and had the promise of Christs presence to assist protect and preserve them Therefore all the Ministers of the word in those 7. Churches
one thing as Apoc. 14. 6. 9. three rancks of Ministers succeeding one another and concurring in one course of doctrine The 7. Kings and the two Kings above mentioned Apoc. 17. Dan. 11. were so many orders or states of government The parties refusing the marriage feast were so many companies agreing in one excuse c. In like manner if the Refuter shall say that those 7 monades of Angels reckoned up Apoc. 2. 3. were so many societies of Ministers conjoyned in one charge of one Church the D. may see his interpretation is backed by many like speeches in script where one monade or vnitie is put for many linked togithe in one societie Passe we now on to his 3. argument from which we might well Sect. 4. passe seing it might have bin better spared then ill spent it being nothing but a new repetition of what he urged before to prove the assumption of his second onely he hath here set in forme of reasoning the strength of that which was in substance of matter there delivered when he â—ayth The inscriptions of the 7. epistles written to the Angels doe shâ—w that they were 7. singular persons But least he should judge better of it then there is cause I will not refuse to examine it and this it is To whome the epistles were written they were just 7. for they were written singulâ— singulâ—s thâ— first to the first c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches the 7. epistles were written Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were juste 7. Once againe I must demaund whaâ— he meaneth by just 7 If 7. singular persons onely the proposition is grosly false and that also which he addeth for the proofe thereof for those epistles were not written singulae singulis personis each to one onely person but rather singulae singulis socâ—itaâ—ibuâ— each epistle to that societie of Angels or Byshops which attended on the Church in that citie mentioned in the inscription and not to them alone but also to the whole Ch. as is manifest by Apoc. 1. 11. and consequently in regard of that communion which all Churches have one with another to the rest of the Churches yea to every one that hath an eare to heare as the conclusion of each epistle sheweth chap. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29. and chap 3. 6. 13. 22. As for the testimony of Arethas Ambrose they nothing help to conclude his purpose scz that the Angels in his text were onely 7. persons For as we need not deny the Angels to whoÌ„ the epistles were written to be as Arethas saith iust of the same nuÌ„ber with the Churches so we may graunt with Ambrose that these 7. Angels were the 7. â—â—lers of the 7. Ch. And yet it followeth not that by the Angels mentioned in the D. text are ment onely 7. overseing Angels other Angels or Minist excluded as shal be shewed hereafter in answ to his next sectioÌ„ the testimony of fathers and new writers also they are moâ— that are with us then with him in this point namely that by the Angel of the Church in each inscription is to be understood more then one Minister or Church-ruler Mr. Fox in his meditations on the Revelation pag. 7. 9. 17. gathering and conferring togither the opinion of all interpreters that he could meet with sayth they all consented in this that vnder the person of an Angel the Pasâ—oâ— and Ministers of the Churches were vnderstood let the reader see what he sayth there concerning Augustin Primasius Hayâ—o Beda Richard Thomas and others I will also here shewe what some of them saye Augustin epist 132. sayth thus Siâ— enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Qâ—od si deAngelo superiorem Câ—lorum et non dâ— prâ—positis ecclesiae vellet intelligi noÌ„ consequenter diceret habeo adversuÌ„ te c. whereby he plainely sheweth that though he spake afterwards but as of one yet he vnderstood it of more then one as his 2. homely upon the Apocalyps sheweth Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae habeo adversum te dicit prepositis ecclesiarum That he sayth to the Angel of Thyatira I have somewhat agaynst the he sayth it to the rulers of the Churches And though Byshop Bilson alledgeth him to prove the contrary in the self same epistle the words following Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae the ruler of the Church is praised vnder the name of an Angel yet have we reasâ— to think he ment not to appropriate to one onely person eyther the title of prepositus ecclesiae or the praise there spoken of seing in the selfe same epistle compared with his 2. homely before named he includeth both the company of Presbyters the whole Church and it is easy to shew out of other his writings that by prepositus ecclesie ruler of the Church he vnderstaÌ„deth all them that had authoritie to preach the worde and to rebuke men of sinne c see his Tract on Iohn 46. and de civitate dei lib. 1. cap. 9. and Mr. Fox his meditations in Apoc ex August in Apoc. Hom. 2. Interdum Angelorum nomine ecclesias catholicas voluit intelligi neque enim soli opinor minîstri sed et universitas totius ecclesiae vocatur ad poenitentiam I could add to him Chrisostom in cap. 2. ad Tim. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. 10. Ierom on the same place and Phil. 1. 1. Gregory in his moral on Iob. lib. 11. cap. 3. Beda in Luk. lib. 2. cap. 7. Rupertus Tincinens lib. 1. in Apoc. c. 3. Albin lib. 1. in Ioh. 1. Aretius in Apoc 3. 1. Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Angelos ecclesiasticaruÌ„ in dextra sua habet Christus hoc est pastores omnes et episcopos seu verbi Ministros potestate sua regit c. And that it was not his meaning by the Apostles meaning of the word Angel in the singular nomber in each inscription as the D. would have it to vnderstand one onely cheife Pastor or Byshop over the rest but all the Ministers of each Church vnder that name may appeaâ—e by that he sayth that the 5. epistle was written vnto the Pastors of the Church which was at Sardis in cap 3. 1. againe in cap. 2. 1. verisilmile est c. It is very like that not some one of the ecclesiastical governors is noted here in the places following but the whole succession of the Byshops c. To passe by our owne writers Mr. Fox Mr. Perkins Mr. Brightman and others I will onely note what D. Fulâ—e saith in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1. 20. S. Iohn saith he by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should weare on their heads myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols But them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Againe they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers unto the Churches But to shut up with the D.
meditations vpon the Rev. pag. 286. 290. Wherefore if we compare togither the parts of Christs Revelation it is much more consonant to the true use of the word Angel in other places to affirme with the Refuter that one Angel in each of the 7. Churches signifyeth not any one onely cheife Pastor but all those Ministers or Teachers which with a common care and joynt labour attended on the service of the Church wherein they lived so that it may well be said in his defence that he hath both reason and good reason to vpholde his assertion And that the D. may have his owne words returned home againe since he hath no weight of reason to limit as he doth the number of the Angels to 7. singular persons it maâ—tereth nothing what he inferreth froÌ„ falsly conceited limitation Sect. 8. Yet as if he had made all cock-sure on his side in his next section he tryumpheth in this manner Having saith he thus manyfistly proved that the angels of the 7. Churches were just 7 and consequently that there was one and but one in every Church whome the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church it wil be easy both to free my text frâ—m the câ—vils which more theÌ„ once my adversary objecteth against it and also out of the text to cleare the maine controversy in hand But it is a meare cavill in the D. joyned with slander to say that his adversary objecteth any cavil against The D. cavâ—lleth slandrâ—th his text In deed his Refuter hath saide more then once and it is so cleare a truth that he need not blush to avouch it an 100 times that his â—ext yeeldeth him no sure soundatioÌ„ whereon to raise any sound argument to justify the calling of diocesan Bishops because he hath no shadow of reasoÌ„ froÌ„ any word in his text to coÌ„clude that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. singular persons much lesse so many diocesaÌ„ Prelates For though he boast that he hath manysistly proved the former yet seing his proofes are disproved it mought be tolde him in imitation of his owne rethorick sect 12. pag. 47. that his manifestlie is a manifest-lie But let him be foreborne therein and let us see how his proofes doe hange togither in order to wiâ—t 1. That the angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. and consequently that there was one and but one in every Church whome the Holy Ghost â—â—lleth the angel of that Church It shal be graunted him that the latter will follow by good consequence from the former But in his reasoning pag. 32. he made the latter an argument or rather 2. arguments by an idle â—eâ—etition of one thing to conclude the former Wherein also how weakely he reasoneth is already shewed at large in as much as he cannot prove that there was one onely person in each Church saluted by the name of the Angel of that Church Neyther will it follow as is before observed that the angels of the 7. Churches mentioned in his text are 7. singular persons onely much lesse that they were so many diocesan Byshops though it should be graunted that in the inscription of each epistle one onely person beareth the name of the Angel of that Church It will therefore cost him more labour and sweat then he supposeth before he can out of his text cleare the maine controversie which is in hand For since the D. is here the Opponent mainteineth the affirmative sâ—z that the angels in his text were diocesan Bishops it is not enough for him as he well knoweth cap. 3. pag. 62. and chap. 5. pag. 101. to remove what his Refuter objecteth but he must also prove by necessarie and invincible force of argument what himselfe affirmeth But as for the latter to returne backe home his owne swete phrase pag. 105. he faire and mannerly slippeth his neck out of the coller and contenteth himselfe to attempt the former And I may well say to attempt it for he leaveth the strength of the objection vntouched The D. attemptetâ— but toucheth not c. as the reader may easily perceive if he compare his answer with the objection laid down pag. 4. of the Refuters answer where he saith That he which consideroth the text and the words thereof shall finde nought to prove his kinde of Byshops or ought to shew any such qualitie of their functioÌ„ as he iÌ„magineth For to be lights in the candlesticks starrs of heaven angels in this kingdome the heaven of heavens which is all the D. doth or any other can shew out of the words is not proper to diocesan Byshops but coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations as his owne selfâ— confesseth serm of the dâ—g and dutie of the Ministers pag. 20. 61. But to prove the D. once againe and to examine the force of the objection I will set it in order before his eâ—es thus Whatsoever text is such that neyther the D. dâ—th nor any other can flâ—we out of the words thereof any thing proper to diocesan Byshops but rather coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations the same yeâ—ldeth no proofe to uphold his kind of Byshops But this text Apoc. 1. 20. of the D. is such as is before sayd Therefore it yeldeth no proofe to uphold his kinde of Byshops The assumption which onely needeth to be cleared may be thus manifested The name of starres or angels togither with this title the angels of the Churches is common to all true Pastors of particular congregations and not any one of them properly to diocesan Byshops But all that the D. doth or any other can shew out of the words of the text Apoc. 1. 20. is eyther the name of starres or angels or at least this title the angels of the Churches Therefore all that the Doctor doth or any other can shewe out of the wordes of his text Apocal. 1. 20. to justify his kinde of Bishops is commoÌ„ to all true Pastors of particular congregations and nothing in it proper to Diocesan Bishops Here the assumption is in it selfe evident and the proposition is enlightened by the D. interpretation of the words of his text serm pag. 3. compared with the application thereof vnto all Ministers in generall serm of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers p. 20. 61. ut supra For in the former place he ascribeth to the Pastors or Bishops vnderstood by those names or titles none other dutie or dignitie then this namely to be as lights set on a candlesticke or shining in the Church which is as heaven upon A contradict in the D two sermons earth and as angels in Gods kingdome the heaven of heavens And in the later he giveth all this and much more to the office or function of Ministers in generall yea he alleadgeth this very text pag. 46. 63. to prove that they are both starres shining before others with the light of doctrine and good example and angels of the Lord or
rather angels of the Churches therfore to be received as angels For as herein they are like to angels p. 56. that they are sent forth unto the Ministerie for their sakes that are heires of salvation Heb. 1. 14. so they seeme to have some preheminence in respect of their Embassage and spirituall authoritie seing the preaching of the gospell is coÌ„mitted to men and not to angels as appeareth by the story of Cornelius Act. 10. 6. c. Neyther hath God sayd to any of the angels at any time that which he speaketh to his Ministers Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you â—orgive they shal be forgiven c. Wherefore as the D. cannot without check of conscience so neyther can any other without apparant gainsaying the truth eyther deny the names titles mentioned in his text to be coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations or restreyn any one of them to Diocesan Bishops Having thus layd open the strength of the Ref objectioÌ„ I come Sect. 9. now to examine the force of the Doct answere I answere saith he p. 34. that all Ministers who have charge of souls are in a generall sense called Angels Pastors Bishops because they are messengers sent from God to fâ—â—de and oâ—â—rsee his flocke But yet where there are many Ministers so called if there be one but one who kâ—t hexochen is called the Angel the Pastor the Byshop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest whereof see more in my answer sect 12. to page 6. Here let it be 〈…〉 against the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 to insinuate yet 〈…〉 â—â—pressy 〈…〉 that it is an honour proper onely to diocesan Byshops and 〈◊〉 coÌ„mon to other Ministers to be called the Angels of their Churches But it is already shewed that the honour of this name or title cannot be denyed vnto any Minister that hath charge of soules since it is a truth and so acknowledged that all such Ministers are messengers sent from God to oversee and â—eed that part of his flock whereof they have the charge 2. And whereas he câ—nningly slideth from the text which he proposeth to haÌ„dle The D. slideth froÌ„ his text to the inscriptions to the inscriptions of the 7. epistles Rev. 2. and 3. he is againe to be advertised that though he could justify the preheminence of one Minister above others from those inscriptions yet it will not follow that diocesan Byshops are onely meant by the Angels of the Churches in the text he made choyse of But 3. not to stand upon this advantage where he saith that where there is one and but one who kat hexochen is called the Angel Pastor or Bishop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest it nothing justifieth his cause but discovereth rather the weaknes thereof seing he no otherwise proceedeth then he began I meane in assuming The D. still beggeth for graunted what he should have proved and in pressing us with weake consequences to stand in stead of invincible arguments Before he affirmed there was but one in every Church called the Angel of the Church now being inforced to acknowledge that there were many other Angels or Byshops he will needs have that one to be called kat hexochen the Angel or Bishop of that Church so froÌ„ thence inferre that the same one Angel is plainely noted to have preheminence above the rest The strength of which reasoning may appeare by these goodly consequences following 1. There were others with Paul whome he might rightly call his fellowes and helpers wherefore he entitleth Titus kat hexochen his fellow and helper on the behalf of the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8. 23. and so plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest 2. In like manner seing there were others who in a generall sense might be called Apostles or messengers they whome he calleth in the same place the Apostles or messengers of the Churches were so called kat hexochen to note in them a preheminence above the rest 3 The same may be sayd of Paule when he entitleth himselfe a prisoner of Christ Phil. 1. and Epaphroditus his fellow-ptisoner Vers 23. Timotheus a brother Col. 1. 1. a Minister of God 1. Thes 3. 2. likewise of Peter intitlinge himselfe a fellow-Elder and a witnes of Christs sufferings 1 Pet. 5. 1. 4. And why then may not Bellarminargue froÌ„ Math. 16. 19. Iohn 2. 15. 16. that though others in a generall sense may be authorized to feed the sheep of Christ to guide the keies yet these things are spoken kat hexochen to Peter and doe there plainely note in him a preheminence above the rest 5 Without all contradiction the diocesan Byshopprick of Epaphroditus wil be dashed in peeces with this argument following if the D. former reasoninge have any validitie in it There were some others at Philippi who were in a generall sence yoak felowes to the Apostles wherefore when he speaketh precisely to one singular person I beseech the faithfull yâ—ke felow c. Phil. 4. 3. this one is called kat hexochen his faithfull yoake fellow and consequently this title noteth in that one an episcopall preheminence above the rest But what if we should graunt asmuch as his words doe ascribe vnto that Angel of each Church viz. that this title is given to one onely and plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest will he from hence inferre that because one angel in each Church had some preheminence above others therefore that one was a diocesan Byshop If so as he must to cleare the maine controversy now in hand surely he fayleth grosly in that fault whereof The. D. faileth in the fault imputed by him to his Refuter he accuseth his Refuter chap. 9. pag. 200. how justly let the reader judge in reasoning from the genus to a fained and Platonicall Idea or Poeticall species and that affirmativè for seing there are diverse sorts of preheminence viz. of order or oâ— dignity and in gifts or in degree of Ministerie or in charge and power of jurisdiction it is a sillie and simple argument to saie In each of the 7. Churches one Minister had some preheminence above the rest Therefore he had preheminence above them in degree of office or Ministerie But when he inferreth Therefore he had the prehemineÌ„ce of a dioâ— Bishop it is no lesse ridiculous then if he should say it is a byrd therefore it is a black swan But since he referreth vs to his answere to pag. 6. which Sect. 10. lieth sect 12. pag. 46. following there to see more of this matter I will search and see what he there hath for his purpose after that I have given the reader to understand upon what occasion he fell into the debating of this point The Refuter perceiving that the Doctor addressed himselfe to shewe what was the preheminence of these Bishops in respect whereof they are called the
to ours at this day Chap. 4. Conteyning an answer to the D. last argument draven from his text lib. 4. cap. 6. sect 3. pag. 142. handled by the Ref. pag. 155. 156. of his answer We are nowe come to that argument wherewith the D. closeth Sect. 3. all up lib. 4. cap. 6. sect 3. the which we might well overpasse seing he hath not one word in it more then is already answered Yet least he should think better of it then it deserveth I will give the reader a sight of it Those saith he that are called by the Holy Ghost the Angels of the Churches and were signified by the 7. starres which were in Christs right hand had divine both institution and approbation The diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the 7. Churches were signified by the 7. starres which were in Christs right hand Therefore thâ— Di Bishops of the 7. churches had divine both institution and approbation The proposition which needeth no proofe he proveth 1. by the name of angels 2. by the name of starres 3. by Christs holding the starrs in his right hand But the AssumptioÌ„ which carrieth both these names to Diocesan Bishops and affirmeth that they also were the starres in Christs right hand as he tooke it for graunted in his sermon The D. proveth what needed not proofe passeth by what he should haâ— proved so in the defence thereof he overpasseth it telling us that now he went not about to prove it because it was proved at large in the former part of his sermon And because the Refuter did againe put him in mind of his doctrine in his former sermoÌ„ scz that all Ministers are starrs Angels c. he againe repeateth his answer before refuted to wit that these names kat hexochen are attributed to Byshops to signifie their prâ—heminence To the rest of the Refuters words he vouch safeth none other answer then this that they are thâ— uttring of his splean and emptying of his gall against Byshops Wherefore I will acquaint the reader with the substance of them that he may judg whether they dâ—serve so to be censured Is there not sayth the Refuter pag. 155. preheminence of dignitie to ministers as starrs vnlâ—sse some of them may be as the sun from whome all other have their light all faithfull Ministers shyne as starres in the eyes of the Churches though they lift not vp themselves to darken the brightnes of their brethren by their glâ—ttring and glorious blâ—sing As for the 12. starres Rev. 12. 1. he saith they are eyther all Ministers or else the 12. Apostles onely For him therefore to appropriate this to diocesan Bishops is rather to shew his flattering humor then soundly to expound the text And then wondreth if the Doct. blushed not and trembled not when he spake of the prerogative of glorie which his diocesan Bishops shall have in the world to come and when he made the prophet Daniel patrone of such Lordly idlenes c. and sheweth that it is so much the more to be wondred at lâ—mented in him because of that which he knoweth professeth in his former sermon that all Ministers are starres angels c. as the reader may at large see pag. 156. In which words of the refuter there are these 4. Arguments closely couched which do clearly discover how the D. abuseth the text he haÌ„dleth The Refutâ— proveth by 4. arguments that the D. abuseth hiâ— text 1. To appropriate vnto diâ—â—â— Bishops that which is eyther coÌ„mon to all Ministers or proper to the Apostles is rather to shew his flattering humour then soundly to expound his text But the name of starres Apoc. 1. 20. is coÌ„mon to all Ministers and all Ministers are vnderstood also by the 12. starres Apoc. 12. 1. vnlesse we shall reâ—â—rte it onely to the Apostles Therefore to appropriate the name in both places to D. Bishops is rather to shewe his flattering humour then soundly to expound his text 2. The name of starres cannot expresse their preeminence who are as the suâ—â—s from whom others derive their light But such are Diocesan Bishops as both the D. serm pag. 47. lin 13. 54. antepenult Bishop Bilson perpet govern 291. affirme Therefore c. 3. To appropriate to Diocesan Bishops that prerogative of glorie which Daniel noteth in the starres he speaketh of cap. 12. 3. is to make the Propheâ— a patrone of Lordly ydlenes or at least to give that prerogative unto a work of another nature then that which the prophet mentioneth For that which by Daniels doctrine maketh men shine like starrs in heaven is the turning of many vnto righteousnes by faithfulnes and painfulnes in the Ministerie of the word But the workes which lift up Bishops above other Ministers are the ordeyning of Ministers the suspending of them c. workes of Lordly ydlenes not of painfulnes or faithfulnes in the Ministery of the word Wherefore the D. in appropriating to Diocesan Bishops that prerogative of glorie Dan. 12. 1. maketh him a patrone of Lordly idlenes c. 4. He who knoweth and professeth that all Ministers are starres angels so intituled Apoc. 1. 20. and that the preaching of the word is the cheefe worke of the Ministerie to which double honour is due cannot without contradiction to himselfe magnify their Ministerye by the same titles who eyther claime by priviledge to be exempted from that great and necessary worke of their calling or load themselves with so many cares and so much busynes not belonging to theire function that they cannot have an hower to think vpon that service for which they are cheefly counted Starres Angels or which is worse by their sole authoritie thrust out painfull labourers c. But the D. knoweth and professeth as is abovesayd Therefore he falleth into an apparant contradiction which is to be wondred The Doct. contradicteth himself at and lamented in magnifying by the same titles the function of Diocesan Bishops who eyther claime the former priveledge c. Now because the Doctors onely releefe against these arguments of the Refuter standeth in referring us to the former I onely desire the indifferent reader to consider the answeres before and hereafter made to his best proofes drawen eyther from his text or any other scripture for the justifying of the interpretation of his text or the doctrine of his sermon and then to judge whether the large proofe he speaketh of be not meere begging of the question and a grosse contradicting of himselfe Chap. 5. Concerning the argument drawn by the D. from Apoc. 2. 2. and 20. Lib. 3. cap. 5. sect 20. pag. 135. 136. Having already sifted all that the D. hath urged from his text for the singular preheminence and diocesan jurisdiction of his Sect. 〈◊〉 Byshops we are now to proceed to that argument which himselfe syllogistically framâ—th to prove that they had a corrective power over other
L. nor what he hath done for Israel before they would be embraced As for the scripture proofes which are gathered by him the foundation or principall corner-stone of them which he deemed to lie in his text that is utterly dashed in the former part Which being done the rest that dependeth on that were ready to fall of themselves Yet it hath pleased his adversary for their more thorough scattering in this second part to give every one his severall knock A labour not necessary were it not that the insolent confidence wherevvith they are avouched hath I knovv not how amazed and scared some vveak and fearfull mindes but for the better bringing both of him them to themselves againe that course is taken then which there is no shorter or directer For when the question is vvhat Church Bishop is Apostolicall the next vvay is to search the scriptures hear vvhat they say of themselves before vve regard what fathers or councels doe make them say D. Dovvname therefore hath no reason to take it unkindely which yet I knovv he vvill at his adversaries hand that he hath for evidence divided the house causing holy scriptures to goe by themselves in this second part of his Reply remitting the voices of men to the last place that they also may speak by themselves When divine humane suffrages are shuffled togither in one the simple hearer perceiving a sound which seemes glorious to him though they be men that speak yet he is presently ready to cry as the people did to Herod the voice of God and not of man In confidence of this stratageme the beggerly ceremonies which we borrowed of Papists have been lately mainteyned as Apostolical The methode therefore which this writer hath followed is for the readers good His answers are such as wil speak for themselves Onely this I may forespeak in their behalf that if they seem as in the former part I feare they will in the logicall termes and formes of reasoning to be over troublesom for the coÌ„moÌ„ reader the greatest part of that blame must rest vpon the defense which they were bound to follow For the defendant taking it too much in scorne that his logick wherein of all other thinges he would be thought to excel was somewhat impeached by his Refuters analysis be did so vehemently strive to maintaine that part of his credite that his Refuter was forced to give him that triall which such logicians trust to The studious reader will beare with this necessity and seek out the truth though it lie among thornes THE SECOND PART THE FIRST BOOK Chap. 1. Concerning the word Church handled by the Doct. in his Def. lib. 2. cap. â— sect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of the 2. point of his fermon viz. that the Apostolicall Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes IN the Doct. first section I find nothing but a vaine Sect. 1. ad â—ect 1. 2. D. floorish and therefore will overpasse it without answer In his second section he telleth us that at first he intended onely a light skirmish and therefore finding that his adversary brought a maine baâ—tell into the feild against him he thought good to bring in a new supplie before he put a new life into his former arguments to make them returne upon his Refuter a fresh And for asmuch as he was to intreate of Churches Parishes Dioceses he resolveth first to begin with the names that are diversly taken and first with the word Ecclesia which he telleth us is in all places of the new Testament excepâ—â—ng Act. 19. appropriated to the companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darknes conteyning many particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Satan the other the kingdome of God this later is called Ecclesia signifiing a company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the grâ— word importeth And so concludeth with his definition of a Church thus Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say more briefely thâ— Church doth signify a company of Christians To all which I for my part most willingly subscribe and from thence doe inferre that in the Doctors vnderstanding for the present the 7. Churches of Asia meant by the 7. candlesticks in his text were none other then so many companies of Christians called out of the world divided from all the companies of Infidels or Idolaters which were Satans Synagogues in any of the cities or townes of Asia And therefore he contradicteth the truth wherevnto he now beareth The D. coÌ„tradicteth the truth himself witnes when he indeavoureth to perswade pag. 36. 42. 54. that every of those 7 Churches conteyned in their circuite the whol citie couÌ„try adjoyning although the ChristiaÌ„s at that time were but a very few in coÌ„parison of heathen And that the church or flock which in those and other cities was coÌ„mitted to the care of the presbyters there ordeyned was not onely the number of Christians already converted but the whole number also of such as were in time to be converted Whereof we may see serm pag. 66. 69. and 88. As for the Doctors table following in the next page wherein he presenteth to his Reader in one viewe the diverse significations of the word Ecclesia reduced by him unto certaine heades his reader The D. table of ecclesia is erronious in some particulars hath reason to think that he is deceived in some particulars namely 1. in carrying Act. 2. 47. and Colos 1. 24. unto the catholike company of Gods elect which is the invisible Church For 1. all that were there and then Act. 2. called by the Ministery of the Apostles were called to a visible coÌ„munion and when their number was much increased so many of them as dwelt at Ierusalem remayned members of that Church as himselfe by and by acknowledgeth in referring unto it Act. 5. 11. 2. And why should we not take that Church whereof Paul was made a Minister Col. 1. 24 25. for the same unto which the rest of the Apostles were ordeyned 1. Cor. 12. 28. that is the catholike militant church as himselfe understandeth the later place 3. And to let passe his referring Act. 8. 3. to the whole militant Church dispersed whereas it appeareth to be meant of that Church of Ierusalem which was not yet scatterd abroad as vers 1. 3. 4. compared doâ— shewe it is 4. more to be wondered at that he should also carrie to the catholike militant church that of 1. Tim. 3. 15. seing he holdeth Timothie to be the Bishop of Ephesus affixed to it to live and diâ— there And 5. not to tell him how those two agree not wel togither how 2. contradictions in the Doct. will he accord his understanding Mat. 16. 18. of the militant part of the Church
be fitly called and was in deed the Bishop of that one nation And he is no lesse deceived in avouching that the charge of that one Church or nation was peculiarly allotted vnto him iÌ„mediately after Sect. 12. Christs passion or at least about the time of their generall dispersion from Ierusalem For besides that these two cannot stand togither there being a good space of time betwixt them as many appeare Act 1. 14. and 9 27. and 11 1. and 12 2 3. he that deligenly observeth the tenour of S. Lukes storie touching the state and government of the Church at Ierusalem shall meet with many presumptions which stronglie argue that for many yeares after Christs passion Iames had no such prerogative eyther of superioritie in order above his fellowe Apostles or of Superintendencie over the presbyters and people of that Church as is thought to be annexed to his episcopall function The first act of note after Christes ascension was the choyse of Matthias into the roome of Iudas wherein the text sheweth that Peter stood up in the middest of the Disciples and proposed the matter to the Assâ—mblie Acts. 1. 15. 26. whence as the Fathers Chrysostome Oecumen in Actes 1. doe gather so our owne writers doe acknowledge that Peter and not Iames had the presidencie Whitak de Pont. pa. 288. Chamier de Oecum pont p. 431. Reynold Conf. cap. 4. Divis 1. 2. In like manner on the day of Pentecost after they had all received the Holy Ghoste Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice Acts. 2. 14. and as the mouth of all answered for all see Chrysost Oecum Marlorat on the place to wype away that infamous slander of drunkennesse wherewith they were all charged At which time he also poured forth those gracious words of reprehension and exhortation which gayned in that day 3000 soules to God Act. 2. 22-41 3. Within a while after the taking a new occasion to preach Act. 3. 12. had such successe that many of his hearers imbraced the faith cap. 4. 4. And this he did when Iohn was in companie with him cap. 3. 1. 4. 11. like as afterwards when they both stood as prisoners before the rulers of the Iewes he so clearly maynteined their innocencie that they were both set at libertie cap. 4. 8. 21. 4. Likewise when the Apostles were all at once brought into question for their preaching Christ Peter as the prolocutor or cheife-speaker maketh the apologie for himselfe the rest cap. 5. 18. 27. 29. 5. Moreover when Ananias Saphyra kept back part of the price of the possession sold and layd downe the remaynder at the Apostles feet their lying and dissimulation was discovered and punished not by Iames but by Peter for at his word they both fell downe dead to the great terrour of all that heard the report thereof cap. 5. 3-10 If therefore this corporall punishment stood then in place of excommunication as some affirme See D. Dove Def of Church-govern pag. 21. it will follow that as before in preaching so here also in censuring of offenders which is deemed one principall part of episcopal prehemineÌ„ce Peter as yet caried a greater stroke theÌ„ Iames or any other the Apostles in the Church at Ierusalem 6. Yea he was had in so high estimatioÌ„ or rather admiratioÌ„ among the multitude for many other miracles wrought by his haÌ„d that they brought their sick layd them down in the streetes that at least his shadow when he passed by might shadow some of them cap. 5. 15. 7. Adde hereunto his râ—sidence at Ierusalem â—o well knowne abroad that Paul 3 yeares after his conversion came thither of purpose to visite Peter and found him there Gal. 1. 17. 19. and though after this he spent some time in other parts of Iudea as at Liâ—da Ioppa Cesarea in every place winning many to the faith cap. 9. 32. 35. 42. 10. 24. 44. yet he returned back to Ierusalem cap. 11. 2. and not long after was there cast into prison cap. 12. 3. 5. Neyther did this drive him after his deliveraÌ„ce thereout wholly to forsake Ierusalem for though for a time he went into an other place cap. 12. 17. yet repaired he thither againe and was there before the Synode that determined that controversy mentioned chapt 15. 7. Wherfore until this time which was about 18. yeares after Christs passion see D. Whitak de pont pag. 345 if any of the Apostles had any standing preheminence above the rest eyther in the ordering of their meetings or in the government of the Church of Ierusalem we haue better warrant to give it unto Peter then the Do can alleadge for Iames or any other So that if we should take as the D. doth this superioritie or superintendencie for a sufficient proofe of an episcopall function wee might hence inferre that Peter had it and not Iames at least for 12. yeares after Christs passision see Doct. Whitak vbi supra pag. 341 that is till the second yeare of Claudius the Emperour But I purpose not to inforce any such conclusion it shall suffice from the former premisses to conclude that S. Lukes storie contradicteth their testimonie which report Iames to be ordeyned by the Apostles Peter Iames Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem imediately after Christs passion For it were absurd to think that Peter should consecrate him to the office of a Bishop in that Church and reteyne in his owne hands for so many yeares after such consecration the cheefe power and preheminence that is supposed to belong to that function Wherefore as the Refuter had reason to except against the Doctors evidence first alleadged being altogither humane not divine so I doubt not but himselfe will see if he wink not too hard that he abuseth the scriptures which he cited to grace their testimonie on whom he principally relieth But to passe forwards let us now see what successe the D. hath Sect. 13. ad sect 4. pag. 31. in answering the rest of the refuters exceptions And first that objectioÌ„ which himselfe setteth downe sect 4. p. 51. in this manner If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem then they gave him the episcopall power But they gave him no power which the Lord had not before invested in his person as an Apostle Therefore they did not ordeyne him Bishop With the Doctrs leave I will change the assumption and distinguish it from the confirmation thereof which lieth more cleare in the Refuters owne wordes answ p. 131. The argument therefore must stand thus If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem then they gave him the episcopall power But they gave him not the episcopall power Ergo they did not ordeyn him Bishop The assumption as it now standeth is thus fortified The power of ordination and jurisdiction was not given to Iames by the Apostles for both were invested in his person by the Lord himself so as he being an Apostle might use eyther of them freely as
power of the truth seing the answer which he hath framed to oppugne it is not onely evill and absurd but though perhaps against his will and meaning giveth way unto it for from his owne graunt I thus argue to infringe that assertion which he laboureth to confirme 1. Whosoever is ordeyned the Bishop of any Church he receiveth the power of Episcopall order from the handes that ordeyne him But Iames received not the power of episcopall order from the handes of the Apostles Ergo neither was he ordeyned by them the Bishop of any Church 2. Againe Whosoever by his designement to the charge of any Church receiveth onely the power of jurisdiction to execute there that power of order which was before invested in his person he receiveth no new function by that designment But Iames the Apostle by his designement to the charge of the Church at Ierusalem received in the Doctors opinion onely the power of jurisdiction to execute that power of order which before was invested in his person Therefore he received no new function by that designement And consequently he was not ordeyned to the function of a Bishop in that Church To these arguments grounded on his owne answere I add this that followeth which the Doctor was willing not to see in the Refuters answere 3. Whosoever by Christs ordination received all Ministerial power with ample authority to execute the same inall places wheresoever he became he neyther did nor could receive any new power eyther of order or jurisdictioÌ„ by a designement to the oversight or care of any particular Church But Iames the Apostle by Christs ordination received all Ministeriall power with ample authoritie to execute the same in all places whereever he became Ergo he neyther did nor could receive any new power eyther of order or jurisdiction by his designment to the oversight care of a particular Church such as the Church of Ierusalem Thus leaving the Doctor to his best thoughts for his rejoynder in this behalf let us proceed to the next exception Chapt. 6. Answering the Fathers alleadged by the Doctor for Iames his Bishopprick Def. lib. 4. Chapt. sect 4. pag. 52. THe next exception concerneth the age or antiquitie of those Sect. 1. ad sect 4. pa. 52. sect 2. pag. 55. Fathers upon whose testimoney the Doctor buildeth his faith for Iames his ordination to the office of a Bishop in the Church of Ierusalem The Refuter finding the ancientest of his witnesses to be Eusebius about the yeare 320. c. demaundeth answer p. whither he had none of the Apostles Disciples which lived then to testifye his ordination the Doctor stoppeth his mouth with an other question what one of them whose writings are extant he could have alleadged whom he would not reject as counterfeit which is a plaine confession that in deed he hath none that is worth the mentioning For though he tell us that Clement the Disciple of the Apostles doth call Iames the Bishop of Bishops governing the Holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem yet as if his conscience tould him that his epistle was but a counterfeit he addeth But suppose that none of the Disciples of the Apostles in those fewe writings of theirs which be extant had given testimoney to this matter were not the testimony of Egesippus and Clement who both lived in the very next age to the Apostles sufficient No verily their credit is too weake as shal be seen sect 17. to overweigh the presumptions before alleadged to shewe that Iames received no such ordination from the Apostles as the Doct. standeth for It is therefore but his vaine bragge easier to be rejected then justifyed to say as he doth It is not to be doubted but that Iames his being Bishop of Ierusalem was a thing as notorious and as certeynly known among Christians in those times as there is no doubt made among us now that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterburie in K. H. the 8. his time For is it not rather much to be doubted of seing that among all the writings that are extant of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian and sundry others in the first 300. yeares the Doctor cannot find any one testimonie fit for his purpose Rem adeo illustrem nullum habere autorem sui seculi aut secundi c. portento simile est Sic Chamierus de Simone De Oecum pont lib. 3. pag. 456. sic ego de Iacobo As for that counterfeyt Clement before named he rather confuteth then confirmeth the Doctors assertion For I may say of the Doctor as he doth of the Pope how he can digest that lofty title Bishop of Bishops which Clement giveth unto Iames I knowe not For doth not this title usually ascribed to him as the Doctor acknowledgeth as strongly argue him to be an universall Pope as the mention of his governing the Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem can conclude him to be their Diocesan Bishop And since he is sayd to govern not onely sanctum Hebraeorum ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed et omnes ecclesias quae vbique Dei providentia fundaâ—â— sunt if prejudice had not forestalled the Doctors heart he would never haue forbidden his Refuter as he doth pag. 55. to collect from thence that he was no otherwise Bishop of Ierusalem that is not in any other function then over all other Churches For doth not the D. measure the meaning of this phrase by the line and levell of that large jurisdiction which had no being in any Bishop for many hundred yeres after the Apostles when he saith that the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople though called vniversal Patriarch yet was the Diocesan Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople alone and that the Pope himselfe though he clume to be vniversall Bishop yet is specially Bishop of Rome Yet as if he were hired to wrest this testimony out of their handes that bend it against the Popes supremacie he telleth us that in an edition of that epistle of Clement published by Sichardus at Basil anno 1526 he readeth thus Sed et omnibus ceclesijs which signifyeth that Clemens directed his epistle not to Iames onely but also to all Churches But this is to corrupt the text by a false finger for the former reading doth best agree with the title before given to Iames Bishop of Bishops And if Clement had meant to joyne any others with Iames in the inscription of his epistle he would in all likelihood haue said sed et omnibus episcopis per omnes ecclesias c. so joyning to him the Bishops of other Churches rather then the Churches themselves In the next place because the Doctors witnesses are all of them Sect. 2. ad sect 4. pag 13. such as lived in the 4. or 5. age after Christ his Refuter put him in minde of Bishop Andrewes wordes who in the like case saith serm pag 34. preached at Hampton court 1606. They wrote things they sawe not and so framed matters according to their owne conceits and many times
too weak to upholde it so it will soone appeare that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings so an abasement and not a preferment to him For what is it It is not saith he a clipping of his wings more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutuall consent every mans province as it were or Circuite and charge was assigned to him As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned to clipp the wings of all the rest for company to testify one vntruthby another For as he cannot prove so I have disproved cap. 5. sect 11. his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his severall Province or circuite by mutuall consent And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them why should he deny them to be properly Bishops every one of them in his circuit or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their authority and so a clipping of their wings to be confined within one province or to one nation when as by their Apostolicall function they had authority to preach and to execute all ministeriall duties in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come ye◠of all the rest Iames his share must needs be by farr the least if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle or at least a Titular Apostle onely for as he saith of titular Bishops lib. 3. pag. 130. that they were such as had the bare name but not the authority of a Bishop so he must also affirme of Iames that he was but a titular Apostle seing th' authority of an Apostle which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shal be offred and in planting Churches where none were c. is denied unto Iames if his whole authoritie be confined to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem which was already founded to his hand And if it were a punishment to Meletius and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour to haue his whole authority confined to one Church as other Bishops although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle As for the next point viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect 9. pag 62. Doct. Refuter pag. 134. for o yeares even till his dying day to omit what is already sayd cap. 5. sect 10. 25. for the contrary we are now to examine whether the cause of his stay there was as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church in the function of a Bishop The reason of his continuance there saith the refuter was not so much the ruling of the Christians that were converted which might have bene otherwise performed as the converting of multitudes both of Iewes and of other nations that vsually flocked thither which was a work of the Apostolicall function Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth that it is nothing to the purpose to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed But he is to be advertised that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there then he shall shew himself verie voide of reason to make the government of that Church eyther the onely or the principall cause of his so long remayning in that place And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight then that the Refuter mencioneth it is but a wrangling part in him to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion in this case Neyther is it any thing to the purpose to urge him to shew that the church of Ierusalem was otherwise governed vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts And where he sayth There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles c. eyther he doth but trifle or which is worse dissembleth his owne knowledge for if by a Pastor he meane a Diocesan Bishop he knoweth very well that it is not onely doubted of but flatly denyed that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles But if he take the word at large for every or any one that feedeth whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinarie calling of Presbyters Act. 20. 28. then he sheweth himselfe a meer trifler since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant that Iames was in this large constructiō of the word their Pastor by a temporary assignment and that besides him they had other Pastors even so many as there were presbyters in that Church But when he saith there is no doubt to be made but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth of his staying there 30. yeares was the same with the cause of the stay of Simon and the rest of his successors till their death he doth too apparantly begg the question For the cause which the Refuter propounded and the Doctor contradicted not ceased before Simons election to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem for his election was not till Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore there was no such recourse eyther of Iewes or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time or his successors as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection for the generality of them took place after that desolation made by Titus his army there was not the like need now as before for one of the Apostles there to reside to labour the cōversion of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place There remaineth one speach of the Doctor which in the Refuters Sect. 10. ad sect 8. pag 61. apprehension bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up as was shewed by this argumēt That charge saith the Doctor sermon pag. 68 which the Apostles had in cōmon whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames 〈◊〉 particular But that saith the Refuter p. 134. was not the charge of Bishops but of Apostles Ergo neyther was the charge which Iames had the charge of a Bishop but of an Apostle Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense The proposition is his owne he loveth his credit and he will not recall it what then Doth he contradict the assumption and say that the Apostles whiles they governed joyntly the Church of Ierusalem had the charge not of Apostles but of Bishops in the very function of Diocesan Bishops such as
Assumption And herevnto the lesse labour will serve seing we have already shewed that Archippus if he were a Bishop of that Church yet could not be a diocesan Bishop such as ours For Epaphras their first Teacher still continued one of them and a faithfull Minister of Christ for them Coloss 1. 7. 4. 12. And Archippus is subjected vnto the Churches admonition and censure in the very words wherevnto the Doctor sendeth us Coloss 4. 17. which is palaion in deed but nimis apostolicum too apostolicall for our times as Musculus upon those wordes saith But let us see what releef the Doctor foreseeing that his assumption would be denied yeelded to support it For proofe hereof saith he it sufficeth me that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth in Colos 4. 17. Bishop of Colosse which was a citie seeing I have manifestly proved before that the Bishops of cities were diocesan Bishops And must this proofe needs suffice others because it sufficieth him knoweth he not that we expect he should yeeld â—s some cleare proofe from the holy scripture why made he shew at the first as though he would prove Archippus his Bishoprick from Colos 4. 17. and now falleth from those words of Paul to the testimony of Ambrose who lived well nigh 400. yeares after Belike upon his second thoughts he discerned that the same exhortation used to Archippus which he gave to Timothy 2. Tim. 4. 5. doth not necessarily argue that he had the same office Or else he thought he should prevaile little in so arguing with those which hold Timothy to have bin an Evangelist and not a Bishop And surely it availeth his cause as little to send us to S. Ambrose seeing he hath not one word that can argue a diocesan Bishoprick in Archippus he calleth him praepositum illorum et rectorem qui post Epaphram accepit regendam eorum ecclesiam Which may argue I grant an episcopall ministery at large but will not serve to conclude the preheminent superiority of a diocesan Bishop Nay this is rather confuted by Ambrose who saith of Epaphras that he was â—vis illoruÌ„ et affectu vnanimitatis charissimus c. for if he remained Civis illorum then also their Teacher and Bishop though absent for a time from them and nothing inferior to Archippus but rather in order at least as in affection before him His assumption therefore having no releife neyther from the Sect. 4. Apostle Paul nor yet from S. Ambrose relieth wholly upon this poore argument borrowed from some other parts of his defence The Bishops of cities were diocesan Bishops Archippus was Bishop of Colosse which was a citie Ergo he was a dioecsan Bishop I answer first to the propositioÌ„ which he saith he hath before manifestly proved Although Bishops were Diocesans whence once the whole body of people inhabiting cities became subject to the oversight of one Bishop yet the first Bishops of Churches planted in cities were not diocesan Bishops for the Churches whereof they were Bishops being but a small handful to a large heap in comparison to the whole citie could not be properly dioceses as we have sufficiently shewed in our answer to all his proofes produced to the contrary Secondly to his assumpion I answer that as it is a knowne vntruth to affirme the citie of Colosse to have bin vnder the government of Archippus so neyther is it true that he had that sole or singular preheminence over the Church of Colosse which apperteyneth to Bishops such as the Do. contendeth for If therefore he will hereafter indeavor to make good the assertion that Archippus was a diocesan Bishop so ordeyned of God he must seek out some more pregnant proofes then his study for his sermon the defense thereof hath as yet affoarded him Lastly as touching the Angells of the 7. Churches whereas he should conclude the same which he had affirmed of Timothy and Archippus viz. that they were ordeyned of God he altereth the conclusion to this that they had divine institution and approbation for their funâ—tion The Doct. changeth to the end But of this change we have spoken before His. 3. arguments distinctly propounded in his sermon pag. 93. 94. he now reduceth to this one syllogisme Those who were called by the Holy Ghost Angells of the Church he should have sayd of the 7. Churches and were signified by the 7. starres that were in Christs right hand had divine both institution approbation But the diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches were called by the Holy Ghost the Angells of the 7. Churches and were signifyed by theâ— starrs that were in Christs hand Ergo they had divine both institution approbation The assumption which he knew would not without good proofe be admitted he saith he went not about to prove now because it was proved at large in the former part of the sermon And since he hath added nothing else for the proofe thereof but that which is answered to the full already till some better evidence come in place his conclusion must lie in the dust And we may I hope with the Readers good allowance conclude that he hath not any one argument from any part of the Canonicall scripture to shew that that the function of diocesan Bishops such as ours be is of divine institution There remaineth now that leaving the scriptures we examine that first argument of his 3. touching the government of the Churches the first 300. yeares after Christ handled by him serm pag. 56. 60. defense lib. 4. cap. 1. where all his humane testimonies come to be handled but because this second part is already large enough I will here break of and referre the examination thereof togither with that first point of his five which coÌ„cerneth governing Elders to the third part
viz. that Bishops jure divino are equall among theÌ„selves in respect of power and jurisdiction aswell as order But though he deale honestly that himselfe and not the Bishops of King Henries dayes restreyneth the equalitie of Bishops among themselves to the power of order yet he casteth a great blemishe disgrace upon those our forefathers in signifying that the auncient Fathers consented not with them but with him and against them in this point As for that clause he addeth as were also the Apostles whose successors the Bishops are I know not to what purpose it serveth save to discover his contradictinge eyther himselfe or the The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself or the truth truth himself if he mean that the equality of Bishops amonge theÌ„selves is as large as that equality which was among the Apostles for theÌ„ he erreth in restreyning the equality of Bishops unto power of order onely the truth if he meane that the Apostles had no other equality among themselves then he giveth to Bishops for they were equall also in authority and jurisdiction aswell as in power of order as is rightly acknowledged by our Bishops in their bookes and by the auncienter Bishops in their writings Neyther is it true as the Doct. would insinuate thaâ— Bishops onely are the Apostles successors The D. untruly insinuateth that Bishops onely are the Apostles successors For to speak properly they have no successors and in a generall sense all Pastors and Teachers that hold and teach their doctrine are their successors And herein we have against him amongst many others the consent of those reverend Bishops who having sayd that Christ gave none of his Apostles nor any of their successors any such authority as the Pope claymeth over Princes or in civill matters doe make application thereof aswell to Preists as to Bishops But the D. notwithstanding upon this that the Bishops are the Apostles successors goeth on and telleth us That we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselves that therfore they were not superior to the 72 disciples or because Bishops are equall among themselves therefore they are not superior to other Ministers Whereunto I could say it is true if it were apparant first that Bishops other Ministers doe differ by any special difference as the 72. disciples did from the Apostles but no such thing appeareth eyther in the scriptures or in the Bishops booke from whence the Doct. reasoneth but rather as hath bene shewed by the refuter and is before mainteyned the cleane contrary Secondly that the Apostles had any superiority over these disciples the which the Doctor wil not so easily prove as take for granted seing 1. Christ living the Apostles had no authority over any 2. their Apostolical authority was not as then wheÌ„ the 72. were sent forth coÌ„mitted vnto them and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministery of the 72. was to be coÌ„tinued in the Church after Christ but onely to remaine for that present journey and afterwards to be disposed of as Christ pleased Thirdly it is also true that as the equality of the Apostles amonge themselves and the supposed superioritie they had over the 72 tooke not away their subjection and inferiority to Christ so neyther doth the equallity of Bishops among themselves nor their superioty over other Ministers take away their inferiority to the Pope by any necessity of consequence Wherefore I must for this The Refus rightly alleadged the testimony testimony conclude 1. that the refuter hath rightly alleadged it and 2. that the D. hath wronged not onely his refuter but us them in labouring and that with slaunder to wrest their testimony out of our hands The next testimony is taken from the booke called Reform leg eccles Sect 2. Ref. pag. 4. D. pag. 5. cap. 10. 11. de divinis offic ijs to prove that those which made the booke deemed that as the episcopall function is not jure divino so the government of the Church by the Minister and certeyn Seniors or Elders in every parish was the auncient discipline so consequently his doctrine in his sermon contrary to their judgement In answer whereunto 1. he chargeth his Refuter to playe the part of an egregious falsifyer and The D. columniateth the allegation to be forged but by that time the matter be examined I perswade my self the reader will thinke it meet the Doctor take home those speaches to himselfe as his owne proper the rather seing the Ref setteth not downe the words of the book but onely his own collection out of them 2. he fathereth that upon him which he neyther sayd nor meant With what eye trow we looked he vpoÌ„ the Refuters words that he would make his reader believe that the Refuter affirmeth as he afterwards intimateth that the The Doct. slauÌ„dereth compilers of the booke meant to bring in lay-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledg that it was the ancient discipline of the Church Let us now debate the matter as it deserveth at large And first it being remembred that the booke is cited to prove that the doctrine in his sermon is against the judgement of our immediate forefathers we are to see what his doctrine is viz that as the episcopal function in quçstion is jure divino so all ecclesiasticall power of jurisdiction is in the Bishops hands onely that the Pastors of particular flocks as they have their authority from the Bishop so all the authority they have is in fore conscientia not in foro externo eyther for direction or correction that belongeth wholly to the Bishop he is to reforme abusâ— exercise Church Censures against offenders It is not in the power of any Pastor of a particular congregation with any assistantes of lay-Elders or other associates to execute any censure c whereof we maye see more at large in the 4. point of his sermon pag. 45-52 And however in his defence he doth in part deny this to be his doctrine yet is it sufficiently averred lib. 2. Cap. 4. hereafter following to be his doctrine Now to prove that this his doctrine is against the judgement of those fathers is that booke alleadged the Doct. is now to make good his charge if he can he sayth he will doe it by transcribing the 10. 11. chap. cited the bare recitall whereof being as he saith a sufficient consutation of his forged allegations The words transcribed by him are Evening prayers being ended in citie parish Churches wherevnto after the sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne churches the principall Minister whom they call parochum the Parson or Pastâ—r and the Deacon if they be present c. and Seniors are to consult with the people how the mony provided for godly vses may be best bestowed to the same time let the discipline be reserved For they who have coÌ„mitted any publike wickednes to the coÌ„mon offence of the Church are to
in this question to use his owne words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61. he must confesse vnlesse he will confesse himself to be ignorant in logicke that this disjunction is implyed The Churches of Christe are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parishe or by one Bishop set over an whole diocese And this disjunction as it is ex hypothesi necessarie it being agreed vpon on both sides that either the one or the other forme of goverment is to be imbraced and that one and but one of these assertions is true or false so it doth necessarily import both that they which affirme the former doo give vnto every parishe Church and her presbytery for the government of it self the same power which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops And that they which pleade for the government of Bishops doe allowe vnto every Bishop in his diocese the same power and authority which they denie to the severall parishes and their presbyteries For as it were a foolish question if both partes of the disjunction were true soo it were no lesse foolish if both partes were vntrue or false as it must be if that power of government be not lawfull for the one which is denied vnto the other Now to come to the vntruthes which the D. chargeth vpon his Sect. 9. ad Sect. 10. pag. 41. 42. Refuter he findeth in his assumption these two 1. that all authority is by the Drs. taken from the Pastors Elders and people in every parishe 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone To prove the first an vntruth he first granteth one parte of it true saying the Elders in deed I reject as a new devise 2. As for the parishioners though for our credit sake as he saith he leaveth out that dotage of their cheife authoritie as if we held it and so maketh vs beholding to him for leaving that out which wee never put in for where did he ever read that we give them the chiefe authority in government in them he acknowledgeth some authoritie in chusing or consinting to the choise of some Church officers And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes he leaveth them that Pastorall power which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of Parishes to witt their power of order as they are all Ministers and a power of spiritual or inward iurisdiction to rule their flock after a private manner and as it were in the Court of conscience The Elders indeed have little cause to thanke him but see how much the people and their Pastors are beholding to him he is content the people shall have some authority he had once sayde to choose but that was too much and therefore recallinge it he sayth to consent to the choise of some Church officers but they must stand to his curtesy hereafter to vnderstand at his pleasure who are those some Church-officers to whose choise they have authoritie to consent and who are those other some to whose choise they have no authoritie so much as to asâ—ent whether by the former he meane their Pastors and perhaps the Church-wardens and Parish clerks and by the later the Bishops Deanes Prebends Archdeacons c. yea or no. In like manner he alloweth to the Pastors of parishes a pastorall power both of order and jurisdiction but their Pastorall authority is not in foro externo but in fore consâ—ientiae and whatsoever it be it is delegated and coÌ„mitted to them by the Bishops serm pag. 45. to whom the care of the whole Church beloÌ„geth so that the authority is not theirs they are but as servaÌ„ts to the Bps so rule under theÌ„ as they are rued by theÌ„ as at large he assayeth to prove serm p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea in this defence p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastorall power onely which ever was granted vnto them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of severall Presbyters to them as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolicall but rather of humane papall institution Thus we see how deeply indebted the Pastors and people are to the Doctor for his allowance towards them 2. But how will these parts of power or authority thus allowed them by the D. prove an vntruth in the Refuter when he said that the question being as he said whether the Church should be governed by Pastors and Elders with the people or by Diocesan Bishops the Doctor taketh all from them all c. Must not that all which is said to be taken away be limitted to the question before proposed q. d. all that power of government which is controverted whether it belongeth to the Pastors with the elders people of every parish or to the Bishop in his whole Diocese all this I say the Doctor taketh from the Pastors Elders people and putteth the same not all simply into the hands of his Diocesan Bishop alone And in this sense which is the true sense though the Doct. shifteth out of it the refuters words are true as before is shewed The Doct. shifteth the sense Neyther can the Doctor without shame deny it seing that externall power of government which standeth cheefly in ordeyning censuring and absolving c. is the thing controverted in the quaestion before expressed which the Doctor holdeth to be the Diocesan Bishops right and unlawfully given to the parish-Bishop his Elders Wherefore the first vntruth falleth back upon the Doctors owne head when he falsly sayth that his Refuter affirmeth of him that he taketh all manner of authoritie from the Pastors Elders people And so also doth that second vntruth inasmuch as himself well vnderstandeth and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. vntruthes but they both fall back vpon his owne heade meaning in the proposition set downe page 41. to be of giving to the Bishop that power which is taken from the severall Pastors c. and not all power simply As for that he objecteth to prove that he giveth not all authority to the Bishop alone because others are in the ecclesiasticall government ioyned with him some vnder him as Deanes Archdeacons c. some above him as Archbishops and provinciall Synodes c. It shal be answered cap. 4. sect 8. where it is nothing to the purpose but an other shift from the question which is not defactâ— and of the time present viz what order of government now standeth in our Churches by our present lawes and constitutions but de â—â—re what forme of Church-government ought to be or at least lawfully The D. shifteth the question may be as being of divine or Apostolicall institution Or if dâ— facto yet it is for the time past for the first 200. yeares after Christ as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugne serm pag. 4. doe declare Wherefore if the Doctor will discharge himselfe from giving all the power of government in question to one Bishop
an heap of untruthes compiled to colour his slaunder And the untruth of his second is no lesse evident for as the distribution of his sermon the transitions vsed therein doe wholly dissagree from his whole analysis here propounded as is before observed so they doe justify his refuter against himself not onely in the premisses of his first syllogisme which agree with his two assertions serm pag 9. but also insecluding the first and the last of his 5. pointes froÌ„ all interest in the proving of the assumption of his first syllogisme For as the Refuter rightly observed answer pag. 8. from the D. owne wordes serm pag. 61. that the proofe of his first assertion is to be searched for not in the last of the five but in the 4. former so it is plaine by the transitions which he useth serm pag. 17. 22. 52. that the direct proofe of the like function vnto our Bishops either in those Angels or any other Angels or pastors of the primitive Churches hangeth vpon the three middle points and not vpon the first which concerneth onely the persons of whome the ancient presbyteries consisted And though now he make a faire shewe of reducing the first of his 5. pointes to prove his first assertion anaskevasticos by disproving the presbyteries which we desire yet even this very defeÌ„se he maketh for himself clearely justifieth his Refuter that sayd he could not see how it did directly prove that assertion the proofe whereof he searched after For if in his first point concerninge lay Elders he indeavoureth as himself acknowledgeth both in the 54. pag. of thiâ— and 61. pag. of the next chapter first and principally to disprove the presbyterian discipline that so by consequence the disproof therof might be a proofe for our Bishops with what face can he affirme that this first point is a direct proof of the assumption of his first syllogisme which saith that diocesan Bishops were in his text meant by Angels 3. Wherefore for an answere to his question which he tendered for his first reason it may suffice to demande the like of him that is how he could perswade himselfe that his analysis here delivered was answerable to the genesis or first composition of his sermon when he sawe or at least wise mought have seene that 4. parts of his five doe not conclude his first assertion and that the fift could not be brought to his frame without a change of the doctrine first propounded in his sermon But it seemeth the D. is so well conceited of his owne Genesis that he is perswaded that if his Refuter could have discerned it he would have acknowledged every poinâ—e to be vâ—ry pertinent and direct the whole so perfect that nothing is superfluous or wantinge A straÌ„ge fancy when his owne Analysis maketh one of his foure pointes to be a superfluous excrâ—scens and more then needes which before semed to be of necessary vse For in reducinge his 4. pointes to this conclusion That the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Churches were diocesan Bishops his third point which himself as we have heard maketh but a consequeÌ„t of the secoÌ„d can yeeld him no better argumâ— then this Those ancient Pastors or Bishops were Diocesan Bishops Therefore they were Diocesan Bishops Wherefore when he hath advisedly vpon his second thoughts compared his owne Analysis with his Genesis I nothing doubt but winke he never so hard he will The D. him felte makes a forced analysis against conscience see though I feare he wil be loath to confesse that it is his owne self that deserveth much more then his Refuter to beare this imputation of a forced analysis devised against the light of his owne conscicence Notwithstanding I deny not but that his 5. points are all of them some way pertinent to the purpose though none of Sect. 7. them directly conclude his first assertion which he saith is proved by 4. of them For his owne words doe shewe that when he first set downe those five points in the proofe whereof the body of his sermon standeth he minded not so much the explication of his text as the confutation of the Elder and later sort of disciplinarians as he calleth them whose odious opinions he had interlaced serm pag. 6. 45. in the proposing of those questions which served to cleare his first assertion I will prove saith be pag. 6. 1. Agâ—inst both sortes that there were no lay-governiâ—g Elders in tâ—e primitive Church 2. And then more particularly against the former that in the first 200. yeares the visible Churches were dioceses c. 3. And consâ—quently that the Aâ—gels of the Churches were not pâ—â—ishonall but diocesan Bishops 4. And agâ—inst the later That the Bishops being advanced to an higher degree of Ministerie were set above other presbyters not onely in priority of order but also in majorâ—â—y of rule To the same purpose he speaketh here in his defence pag. 54. affirming as before that he indeavoureth the proofe â—f thos pointes agâ—inst the new and â—lder disc plâ—arians And though he pretende to drawe all these particulars â—o one conclusion which he saith is the explâ—cation â—f his text yet this appea eâ—h to be a mâ—ere The Doct. preteÌ„deth without truth and shaketh hands with his text pretence voide of truth seing the explication of his text lieth not in this conclusion here set downe scz that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were diâ—cesan Bishops c. but in this assâ—rtion propounded serm pag. 2. scz that by the Angels mencioned in his text we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of their callâ—ge as our reverend Fathers are It is apparant therefore that in the handling of these 4. pointes he shaketh hands with his text and layeth by both it and the explication thereof and as if he were now not in the pulpit to explicate a text of scripture but in the schooles to dispute or rather declaime pro forma he wholly mindeth the justifying of our hierarchy and the confuting of their opinions which favour the presbyterie Neither can any man otherwise judg that observeth his wordes before set downe and compareth togither both his three first pointes with those 3. opinions which he texeth pag. 4. and the fourth with that which he reprehendeth pa. 6. In which respect also it shal be no great error to thinke that his 5. point is in his principall intendment rather opposed against their opinion which holde that episcopall superiority which he pleadeth to be vnlawfull and as he sayth pag. 5. Antichristian then proposed for the proof of his 2. assertion as he now pretendeth pag. 54. 58. Add herevnto his owne wordes in the next chapter pag. 60. 61. where he affirmeth the question discussed in his sermoÌ„ to be two fold The 1 De facto whether the primitive churches were governed by D Bishops as they say or by presbytertes of such Elders as we speake of The second
20. and also all Christian Princes Ergo all power is not given to Christ alone neyther is his government a Monarchy or sâ—le power of rule If this conclusion doth not necessarily followe upon the Antecedent then the Doctor if he shut not his right eye may see the loosenes of his owne argument Shall I need to ask him whether King Iames doth not therefore governe the Realmes as a Monarch by his sole authoritie because in the government thereof he hath many subordinate helps under him Or whether the Duke of Saxonie and such like free Princes doe not governe by a sole power of rule their severall Provinces because they acknowledge the Emperour their superiour Hath not every Maister in the government of his how shoud a sole superioritie though some have both under them a Schoole Mr. for their children and a Steward for the oversight of their servants and above them sundry Magistrates who in the Province or Country wherein they live carrie a farre more eminent and pecrelesse superioritie It is apparant therefore that the sole power of rule in our Bishops is not impaired by any that are superiour or inferiour to theÌ„ unlesse they were in the same CoÌ„mâ—ssioÌ„ joyned with theÌ„ as such assistants as if the case require may restreine them Neyther is their Monarchical authoritie abridged by the power of Synods assembled as he saith pag. 43. for the making of ecclesiastical coÌ„stitutions since the Kings highnes ceaseth not to be a Monarch though he cannot make newe lawes nor doe some things without the consent of his Nobles CoÌ„mons assembled in the high court of Parliament Neyther would the Doctor feare to professe that our Bishops doe governe Monarchically or by their sole authoritie save that he foreseeth as it seemeth lib. 3. pag. 22 that if he should plainly ascribe unto them a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction it might be thence inferred that he alloweth no jurisdiction to Presbyters and holdeth those Churches to have no lawfull Ministers which have not such Bishops as ours are to ordeyne them And surely though he falsly charge his Refuter for disgracing his sermoÌ„ with those inferences yet if he have none other way to avoyd them but by denying that he giveth vnto Bishops a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction he must be content hereafter to beare this imputation that he giveth way to those absurdities he would seeme to disclayme For first touching jurisdiction since he placeth it in that singular and peerelesse power of rule before spoken of sect 7. which Sect. 9. admitteth no partner and subjecteth all both presbyters and people in foro externo to his direction as their ruler and to his correction as their judge that which is already pressed to prove a sole superiority or sole power of rule in Bishops doth directly serve to conclude a sole power of jurisdiction in them For to speake as he doth of externall publike jurisdiction in foro externo which standeth as he saith serm pag. 51. in receyving accusations in conventing parties accused and censuring such as are found guilty accordinge to the quality of the offence by reproofe putting to silence suspension deprivation or excommunication in which respect seing all the presbyters within the diocese are subiect to the Bishop yea even those that should assiste him aswell as others that are severed from him and affixed to their severall cures it is apparrant that that majority of rule which the D. giveth him over all cannot be lesse then a sole power of jurisdiction For who can deny a sole power of jurisdiction to him that is in the power and exercise thereof so lifted vp aboue all others in an whole diocese that they are all in subjection vnto him and he hath no assistantes to restreyne him Must the parish Bishop needs be a sole-governor if he have not the assistance of a presbyterie joyned in coÌ„missioÌ„ with him And is it plaine that the Iudges in the Kings Bench and common-pleas who are Assistants to the L. cheif Iustices are joyned to either of them as to help theÌ„ in giving right judgmeÌ„t so to restreine theÌ„ that they judge not alone according to their owne pleasure Sâ—â— his Def. lib. 3. pag. 141. 143. And shall not also a diocesan L. Bishop hold exercise a sole power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction when he is so superior vnto all in his diocese that he hath no assistance of any to restreine or over-rule him Moreover if Bishops onely and not presbyters be authorized jure apostolico to exercise their publike and external jurisdiction in all ecclesiasticall censures over the people and clergie of their dioceses as the D. affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 116. if also the power of reconciling paenitents by imposition of handes doth belonge to Bishops onely and that by the power of their order pag. 105. then surely their function is dishonored and their authority imparred by such as deny vnto them a sole power of jurisdiction Secondly concerninge ordination the reader is to be advertised that he saith serm pag. 37. it hath bin a receyved opinion in the Church of God even from the Apostles times vntill our age that the right of ordinatioÌ„ of presbyters is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop And addeth pag. 40. that the perpetuall consent of the Church of God appropriateth the ordinary right of ordination to the Bishop alone And pag. 42. that Bishops onely in the judgment of the Fathers have right of ordeâ—ninge Ministers regularly And therefore though extraordinarily and in case of necessity he seeme to allowe of their Ministery which in the want of a Bishop are ordeyned by other Ministers yet this is no other allowance then he giveth to the baptisme of women or laie-persons in the want of a Minister For he saith in plaine terms pag. 44. The truth is where Ministers maye be had none but Ministers ought to baptize and where Byshops maye be had none but Byshops ought to ordeyne In which words who seeth not that the ref hath sufficient ground to affirme that the D. giveth to Bishops a sole power of ordination If he will say as he seemeth to perswade lib. 3. pag. 69. that this argueth onely a superiority in the power of ordeyning and not a sole power then let him also professe plainly that Ministers have not any sole power of baptising but onely a superiority in that power above women or other laie-persons But he cannot thus evade though he would seing lib. 3. pag. 105. he expresly affimeth that the power of imposing hands to conveigh grace either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to panitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the Ministery for their ordination is peculiar vnto Bishops and to the power of their order whereby they differ from Presbyters and Deacons yea this power of ordeyning is in his conceite pag. 106. so appropriated to the
it hath no foundation in the word of God 2. Though that first point of his 5. concerning the Elders be as hath bin proved to this question impertinent yet will I take the like course with him therein 3 and lastly though he casteth of all the testimonies of the new divines either as incompetent being parties as he â—aith or as misalledged by him I will prove them both truely and rightly alledged and as competent as any he bringeth THE FIRST PART THE THIRD BOOKE Chap. 1. Conteyning an answere to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. booke wherein he laboureth but in vayne to mainteyne the first argument in his sermon viz. That the seven Churches of Asia whereof his text speaketh were Dioceses VVEe are nowe at the length come to see how artificially and soundly he collecteth from his text Sect. â— the Doctrine which he principally insisteth on viz. That the function or calling of diocesan Bishops such aâ— ours are is of Divine institution He saith pag. 94. of his sermon it is proved by the explication of his text which standeth in this assertion that the Bishops here meant by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are His argument therefore in an Enthymem runneth thus The Bishops meant by angels Apâ—â— â— 20. were such Bishops as ours are Therfore the function of Bishops such as ours are is of divine institution And in a playne syllogisme according to the course of his owne reasoning Def lib 4. p. 2. 3. thus The function of such as are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. is of divine institution Bishops such as ours be are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. Therefore the function of such Bishops as ours be is of divine institution Here I willingly subscribe to the proposition because the name of angels Starres holden in Christs right hand doth argue his sending and approbation but I flatly deny the Assumption or AntecedeÌ„t of his Enthimem as having no foundation in his text nor any one sound reason either in his sermoÌ„ or in the defense thereof to make it good For though he will at no hand indure to heare of any solo power of rule eyther for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops and that he doth vnderhand give such a power vnto them and that iure apostolico if he will strongly conclude the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. to be such Bishops as ours are he must clearly prove which he can never doe nor as yet ever attempted to doe that the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops But that his owne conscience may be the better convinced of the weaknes of his reasoninge and of his abusing the text which he handleth he is to be put in minde that himself serm pag. 52. 53. doth thus vnfolde the substantiall partes of the callinge of ouâ— Bishops to wit that they are Di cesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a peerâ—lesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction For hence it followeth that if he have not proved the Bishops ment by Angels in his text to be 1. some of them provinciall and and other some diocesan Bishops 2. all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power of ordination 5. and of jurisdiction if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified then it followeth that he hath left naked the main point which he should have coÌ„firmed namely that the Bishops here meant by Angels were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are Now it is apparant to all that peruse his sermon and the defense thereof that he never indeavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mencioned in his text to be a provinciall Bishop or in the power of ordination to have a peerelesse preheminence above others For though he tell vs serm pag. 18. that some of the 7. Churches were mother cities and deâ— lib. 2. pag. 63. that some of the succeeding Bishops were Metropolitanes yet all his strength is spent in proovinge every of those Churches to be a diocese and consequently their Bishops to be diocesan Bishops And though he speak some what for a preheminent power of jurisdiction in these Angels serm pag. 49. def lib. 3. pag. 135. yet in all his dispute of ordination he is silent of them altogither It remaineth then that we examine how well he hath proved the Bishops which are called the Angels of the 7. Churches to be like vnto our Bishops in those particulars sc that they were 1. Diocesan Bishops 2. Superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life 4. a peerelesse power of jurisdiction or as he expoundeth himselfe Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. a corrective power over other Ministers To prove the first sâ— that those Angels were diocesan Bishops Sect. â— that is to say in the large extent of their authority over an whole diocese like to our diocesans the onely argument that he hath either in his sermon or defense is drawne from the forme or constitution of those Churches whereof they were Angels which he peremptorily affirmeth but very weakly proveth to be dioceses properly The Doct. onely argument to prove the Angels to be DiocesaÌ„ Bishops is unsound in both propositions and not parishes he should say that those Churches were dioceses such as ours are over which our Bishops are placed wherefore to conclude his purpose he must reason in an Enthymem thus The 7. Churches whereof those Angels were Bishops were Dioceses such as ours are Therefore those Angels or the Bishops there ment by Angels were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans The Antecedent is an erronious fancy forged by the Doctor and hath nether testimony nor reason to support it as shall appeare by by In the meane while be it knowne to him that his câ—sequence also is to be rejected as weak and vnsound And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogisme he shall soone discerne it for to make a supply of the proposition which is presupposed in the consequence of his reasoninge he must argue thus The Angells or Bishops of such Churches as are Dioceses properly and nâ—â— parishes are Diocesan and not parishonall Bishops But the 7. Churches in Asia were Dioceses properly and not parishes Therefore the Angels or Bishops of those 7. Churches were diocesan properly and not parishionall Bishops In which proposition so supplyed if there be a necessary truth then must the Doctor confesse though against the haire and contrary to his former perswasion that the Bishops of whome mencion is made Acts. 20. 28. phil 1. â— were diocesan Bishops because the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi in his opinion were properly dioceses
things and to hold fast that onely which is good 1 Thes 5. 21. yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them 1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13. to marke such as teach contrarie to the doctrine that they have received and to avoide them Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the generall bande of love binde everie one freely to rebuke his neyghbour not to suffer sinne upon him Leviâ— 19. 17. and doth not the Apostles sharpely taxe the Corinthians for suffering the false Apostles to domineare over them 2. Cor. 11. 20. Wherefore if it be a cursed confusion subversion of ecclesiastical power to subject every teacher to the jurisdiction or corrective power of everie private hearer and to coÌ„mit the managing of the keies or Church Censures to everie meane Artisan then the D. may see how grosse an error it is to think that the dutie of examining or trying and not suffering false teachers doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiasticall censurâ—â— vpon them And the indifferent reader may perceive that while the D. laboureth to vphold the preheminent suprioritie of Byshops he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Ministeriall authoritie and to bring in a mere Anarchy Perhaps the D. wil reply that besides this trial or judgement of Sect. 4. discerning which is coÌ„mon to all Christians needfull for their preservation from seducers there is another and an higher kind proper to the guides of the Church and necessarie for the preserving of the whole â—lock from haereticall infection This wee acknowledge to be true but withall we say it is none other then a judgement of direction as Doctor Feild calleth it in his treatise of the Church lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222. which endeavoureth to make others discerne what themselves haue found out to be the truth And this is coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word Elders of the Church as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth coÌ„mon to all the Elders of Ephesus viz. to attend on the feeding of the flocke and to watch against the danger both of wolves entring in and of false teachers springing up amonge them Act. 20. 28 -31 For how should such danger be prevented by theire watchfulnes if it were not theire dutie to trye out the leawde behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits and not to suffer them to spreade the contagion and poyson thereof in the Church committed to their oversight This is yet more manifest by sundry canons prescribed elswhere by the same Apostle as when he requireth of every Presbyter an abilitie to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine Tâ—t 1. 5. 9. and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add herevnto the practise of the Aposties admitting the Presbyters of the Church of Ierusalem to consultation for the trying determining of that question touching circumcision c. which had troubled the mindes of many beleevers at Antioche Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparant therefore that in the triall and examination both of teachers and their doctrine the scripture knoweth no difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters so that if Bishops will challendge to themselves a jurisdiction and power of correction over Presbyters because it belongeth vnto them to trie or examine not to suffer false teaching Presbyters then for the same reason it being the dutie of every Pres byter to trie the doctrine of Bishops not to suffer them to spread any errour without resistance Bishops also must subject theÌ„selves to the corrective power of every Presbyter But he will alleadge as some others have done that there is a third kind of triall and judgement proper to them that have cheif authoritie in the Church to wit a judiciall examination of persons suspected in open coÌ„sistory with power to censure such as are found faulty which as it is now exercised of our Bishops so it was then practised by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus Indeed if this were true he might with some colour inferre that the angels function was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops but who seeth not that this plea is none other then a mere begging of the question For they that deny these angels to Still the D. beggeth be Bps. such as ours doe not acknowledge any such prehemineÌ„ce in one Minister above another for the trying and censuring of offenders Moreover by this reply the cause is as litle relieved as if a shipmaster to stop one leake in the one side of his shipp should make two or three on the other side more dangerous then the former For to cover the falshood of the proposition a double errour or untruth is discovered in the AssumptioÌ„ viz. 1. that by the triall which the Angel of the Ephesian Church tooke of the false The D. to stopp one leake maketh two Apostles is meant a judicial coÌ„venting of theÌ„ in open Consistorie and proceeding vnto censure against them being found lyars 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative of that one which is here intituled the angel of that Church The falshood of the former doth appeare in part by some things already spoken it being before shewed that the triall and examination Sect. 5. both of teachers and of theire doctrine appropriated vnto Ministers in the apostolicall writings is none other then that judgement of direction whereby themselves and their people are informed guided in this cariage towards those teachers I add 1. that the Doctor cannot paralell the words or phrases here used ou dune bastasai kâ—kâ—us ' kai epeiraso c. Apo. 2. 2. hoti eas ten c. ver 20. with any other text of holy scripture where the same words do imply such a judiciall triall as he supposeth to be infolded under them 2. And since the persons which are sayd to be tryed not indured professed to be Apostles and therefore such as challendged an authoritie and calling superiour to that Angel what likelihoode is there that they would yeelde themselves subject to his judiciall examination and censure 3. Againe the text saith onely that they were tried and found lyars now if they were in open Consistorie judicially tried why were they not upon the discovery of their false dealing enjoyned to give open testimonie of their repentance And if they refused so to doe why did they not beare the sentence of suspension and excommunication or degradation Or if any such proceeding was held against them why is it not recorded in the text seeing it woulde have made much more for the angels commendation then that which is expresly mentioned 4. Nay that is recorded which soundeth rather to the confirmation of the contrary for that bearing which is commended in the same angel vers 3. is by good Interpreters and amongst other by Mr Perkins construed of his groaning under the burthen of those false Teachers
suspence till he hath made good proofe of this assertion I seare it will wearie the dearest of his friends to wait for the proof thereof All that he hath yet found worth the mencioning is that the Evangelist reporteth Act. 19. 6. 7. viz. that Paul having found at Ephefus certeine Disciples about 12. in number that had been partakers of Iohns Baptisme by imposing hands on them gave them the guifts of the Holy Ghost so that they spake with tongues and prophesied From hence he gathereth 1. that these persons were at that time enabled by the giftes of the spirit for the worke of the Ministerie 2. Yea ordeyned Presbyters appointed to take the charge of that Church 3. That they did equall the number of all that were besides converted 4. And consequently that sometimes in Churches newly constituted the number of people converted was not much greater then the number of Presbyters placed among them for this he affirmed once before Cap. 1. pag. 6. The first of these may be doubted of we consider how generally the gifts of the holy Ghost were at other times beslowed Act. 8. 12-17 10. 44. 46. But I will not contend about this point The second is more unlikely then the first and the third more absurd then the second and therefore the last which floweth from these hath nothing to releive it for as there is not a syllable in the text to uphold eyther the one or the other so it suteth not with the Apostles wisdome so farre to exceed here the proportio which he held in other places betweene the number of the Presbyters and the state of the Churches to which they were assigned as himself confesseth in this 67. page lin 10. 2. Moreover it was the usuall course of the Apostles in all places where they came to plant the gospell first to continue their own preaching for the gathering of a competent number to the faith then to give them Presbyters to feed those whom they had converted as the Doctor also acknowledgeth in the first of his two arguments pag. 65. It were absurd therefore to imagine that he should now take a preposterous and contrarie order at his first coming to Ephesus to ordeyne them 12. Ministers and himselfe to stay there 3. yeares after to labour their conversion by his owne preaching 3. Again we may truely say of preaching Presbyters that which he saith of Bishops serm pag. 65. there was not that use of them among a people which was to be converted before they needed to be fedd and governed especially while the Apostles was present and had the assistance of Evangelists to labour their conversion with him Act. 19. 22. 4. Were the Refuter as full of questions as the Doctor he might ask him how 12. Presbyters could have that honourable stipend which in justice is due to the for their work fake as himself understandeth the Apostle 1. Tim. 5. 17. see lib. 1. p. 127. if the number of converts that were bound to mainteyn the were but so many persons or thereabouts 5. And if he shall ask to what use their guift of prophesy was imployed if they were not Presbyters affixed to the care of that flock he may take answer from these scriptures Act. 2. 17. 11. 27. 13. 1. 15 31. 1. Cor. 14 29. 31. 1. Tim 4. 14. which shewe that all prophesying was not inclosed within th breist of his preaching presbyters But I have sayd enough to shewe that we deny not without cause out assent to his idle fancie of a number of Presbyters given to some Churches by farre too many for the number of persons already converted Wherefore till he hath yeelded better proofes for this supposall it cannot conclude his purpose viz. that the Apostles intended the conversion of citie and countrey adjoyning by the Ministerie of those Presbyters which he ordeyned in any citie that had enterteyned the faith The 2. last questions before delivered intimate this opinion selted in the Doctor that if the Presoyters ordeyned in cities by the Sect. 9. Apostles were not appointed to labour the conversion of the rest yea if they did not indeavor it then there was no meanes to effect their coversion Hereto if the Assumption be addeth But there was a meanes appointed for their conversion and it was in time effected Then this coclusion will follow Therefore they were appointed to labour their conversion and as their office did binde them so they did indeavor it But the proposition is false and discovereth an high presumption in the Doctor that dareth limit the wisdome work of God unto one onely meanes that such as he fancieth to himselfe without any warrant yea against the clear light of the word For was not the conversion of Infidels unto the faith the principall work of the extraordinarie function of Apostles and of Evangelists that accompanied and assisted them in their traveiles 2. And when the Apostles themselves left any Churches to the care of Presbyters ordeyned by them did they not use the labour of their fellowe helpers to finish the work which they had begun 3. And why doth Mr Doctor take no notice of the meanes mentioned by the Refuter to wit the private labours both of the pres-byters of every well affected Christian striving to winne others unto the faith and the publick exhortations and instructions directed by the Ministers to those heathen that had accesse to the church-assemblies seing the scripture acknowledgeth that even by these helps the work of the Lord in the gathering togither of his Saincts hath bene very much furthered Rom. 16. 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15. 16. 4. 3. Iam. 5. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 14. 24. 25. 4. But though the Doctor make light account of these helps yet the Apostles were not ignorant that his hand was not shortned who had given them good as of his blessing upon such weak meanes so also of his working out the calling and salvation of such as belonged to his kingdome by many other wayes Act. 8. 4. 5. 26. 40. 9. 38. 10. 3. 5. 11. 19. 21. Isa 2. 3. Zach. 8. 23. Ioh. 1. 41. 45. 4. 29. 39. 12. 20. 21. Apoc. 3. 9. And therefore we have no cause to think that any feare of wanting fit meanes for the conversion of Gods elect that yet were drowned in paganisme should carrie them to comit this work vnto those Presbyters whom they ordeyned for the feeding of the flock already converted So much to the 7. questions there remayneth 3. more to make Sect. 10. ad pag. 67. 68. up the compleat number of 10 which though they be nothing to the present busynes yet may not be overpassed least he crow over his Refuter without cause Were all these Presbyters saith he Pastors property of that one flock or was there but one properly the Pastor or Bishop the rest being his Assistants 2. when more were converted then could well assemble in one ordinarie
all were leavened but by consociating many particular Churches which were distinguished some at one time and some at another as the nomber dayly increased vnder the the oversight of one diocese or provinciall Bishop His second comparision of a man who consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct if it be well weighed maketh more for his Refuter then for himself For as it is willingly granted that a man in his first conception hath no distinct members so it is as freely professed that it is no man to speak properly much less is it such a man as the Doctor is Wherefore that which he presupposeth in his comparison viz. that the Churches planted by the Apostles before parishes were multiplied in the cities and countries annexed were Dioceses even so as a womans ofspring is a man before the parts of an humane body are formed and distinguished this I say argueth with the Refuter and against the Doctor that The D. argueth against himself and for the Refut it is no less absurd to say that the first Apostolike Churches which had no parishes distinguished in their circuite were notwithstanding properly Dioceses yea such as ours are at this day then to affirme that a childe in his first conception before the parts of his body are framed is yet properly a man yea such a man as all others that are borne and converse among men We have heard how well he hath bestowed his paines for recoverie Sect. 10. ad sect 6. pag. 73. of his proposition out of his Refut hands it remaineth that we attend what he saith for the rescuing of his assumption which hath these parts 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures 3. that they were not onely to attend the whole flock converted but also to labour the conversion of the residue 4. and that in both these duties they must labour in cōmon In what sense the first is contradicted by the Refuter we have seen before sect 3. where was also noted how farre it differeth frō that which he now giveth in stead thereof viz. that the Churches planted in cities as at Ephesus Antioch c. were not in the Apostles times divided into Parishes from whence he may recieve a direct answer which here he expecteth to his question whither the Churches were thō divided into parishes or not viz. that although the Apostles did distinguish parishes by constituting particular congregations in severall places that is in each towne or citie that enterteyned the faith one Church-assembly yet none of the Churches which they established in any towne or citie was in their times subdivided into severall parish assemblies But what shall we say to that two horned argument which thus disputeth for his advantage If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times as at Alexandria it seemeth to have beene then was not every Church but one parish Is they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures and so the Assumption is true The Doctor taketh on imediately after these words against his Refuter for being transported with a spirit of contradiction whereof by and by in the meane time is not the Doctor The Doct. contradicteth him himselfe a strange kind of disputer that will contradict one branch of his owne assumption to justify his maine conclusion and yet assume the same to confirme another part of his assumption and then make his boast that his whole assumption is true But to answer him in kind thus I reply If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times then his assumption in the first branch is false if they were not then each Church in their times was but one parish that is to say one congregation and so he erreth in his maine conclusion And that he may see I use not this regestion because his argument hath put his Refuter to a nonplus for a more direct answere I give him to wit that his first horn hath a weak consequence his second is sophysticall The one is weak beause that which maketh an Church bearing the name of this or that citie as the Church of London or Sarum to be more thē one parish is not the distribution of the people of each diocese into many parishes but the combining of the parishes so divided into one Diocesan body If therefore he will prove the Church of Alexandria or any other which he supposeth to have been divided into sundry parishes in the Apostles times not to be one parish he must make demonstratiō of that which he often averreth but neyver proveth by any testimony divine or humane to wit that the parishes which issued out of the citie-church by such division were subordinated to her jurisdiction as daughter churches to their Mother The other is sophysticall because in saying the Presbyters were not assigned to severall parishes untill the Churches were divided into parishes he taketh the Presbyters not joyntly for the Presbyteries whereof his conclusion speaketh but singly for each Presbyter or Minister apart For we may grant that the assignement of one Presbyter to take the charge of one parish followed in course of time the multiplying of parishes in one Diocese and yet mainteyne that Presbyteries were appointed to severall parishes that is to say to particular congregations before any Church planted in cities by the Apostles was divided into severall parishes Wherefore had the Doctor regarded in what sense the Refut taketh these words Presbyters and Parishes or severall Cures when he denieth the two first branches of his assumptiō he would never have made so srivolous a flourish as he doth both here afterwards pag. 76 of a false conceited contradiction for his perswasion that every of the Apostolike churches was but one parish made him to censure the assumption as voyd of truth in that it denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times and the presbyters or Presbyteries ordeyned by them to be assigned unto their distinct charges Neyther shall the Doctor ever be able to prove though he strive til his heart ake that in this impugning of his assumption he contradicteth his owne perswasion formerly delivered But let us see how he freeth his assumption from the errors or Sectiō 11. ad pag. 74. untruthes objected against it First touching the third point before set downe viz. that the Presbyters were not onely to attend the converted but labour the conversion of the residue he was told that it was but the repetition of an errour before noted in the former argument whereto he answereth nothing but that he hath proved it to be an evident truth Wherefore his proofes being disproved the errour remaineth unsalved And the repetition of it seing he cōfesseth it to be of greatest force to prove that the Presbyteries were appointed to Dioceses pa. 70. argueth him to have ill distinguished
his arguments seing the two are in effect but one yea one error twice produced for two distinct arguments Secondly the last point of the Presbyters attendance on their charge in The D. 2. arguments are in effect but one yea one errour twice produced for two distinct arg coÌ„mon which is rejected as unworthy to be ascribed to the Apostles appointment or allowance that for this reason following It is at no hand to be indured that the Apostles should be suspected to appoint or allow of any disorderly confusion But to ordeyne many Presbyters or Ministers in comon to attend not onely the feeding of the whole flock converted but also to labour the conversion of the residue in the citie and countrey adioyning is to authorize and give allowance to a disordely confusion Therefore it is at no hand to be indured that the Apostles should be suspected to have ordeyned many Presbyters or Ministers for such attendance in coÌ„mon The proposition cannot be doubted of neyther taketh the Doctor any exception against it The assumption he contradicteth but answereth not the probabilities urged to cleare it And first the disorder and confusion is declared by a like example of a schoole erected in some great towne by some great scholler who having entred his Auditors in the principles of grammer being drawne away by some occasions appointeth certeyne Vshers in coÌ„mon to take care of all that were so entred and to gaine as many more as they could not of the same towne onely but of all other townes round about Now if they thus left to their libertie shall goe now hither now thither and teach now these now those as it best liketh himselfe and them is it not likely think yet that there would be good teaching and learning in such a schoole To this cafe the Doctor maketh no other answer but this that he is worthy to be put into a cloakbagg which proposed it but is not himselfe more worthy of the cloak bagg that could finde no better answer Surely if his refuter had made such an answer he would have sayd so but I will not for he sheweth himself to have wit enough to scoffe it out wheÌ„ he is at a non-plus For seing he sheweth not the dissagreement of the things compared togither who seeth not reason to think the comparison is much fitter then he would have it 2. Againe the Refuter asketh how such a coÌ„mon imployment of preaching here and there at randon could be orderly then since it was afterwards disorderly for the Doctor acknowledgeth serm pag. 20. that this promiscuous attendance was taken away by Euaristus for avoyding confusion And 3. he also intimateth that schismes must needes ensue when the people being tied to the hearing of no one preacher might upon their fancie run some after one some after an other and so peradventure leave some quite without auditors To all which the Doctor in his discretion giveth his grave consuÌ„re That which he meaning the Refuter bebleth concerning disorder and coÌ„fusion is wholly to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion Now that we may not think he wanteth reason thus to censure Sect. 12. his Refuter he asketh as a man that did not or would not see in which of the parts of his assumption points as he calleth them this orderly and â—nconfounded man noteth such disorder and confusion or was not the coÌ„fused conceit he spake of in his owne braine But is the Doctor in deed so shallowe conceited as he would seeme to be can he not discerne by the plaine mencioning of the teachers hearers going to fro from one company and from one towne to another the one to teach the other to heare whom and where themselves list that the disorder and confusion objected lieth neyther in the first or second branch of the assumption which concerne the distinction of parishes and the assignement of Presbyters to their severall cures nor yet altogither in that which he maketh the third scz that the presbyters were in comon to attend the whole flock but in this rather that they were in coÌ„moÌ„ to indeavor aswell the conversion of the residue in citie and country as the feeding of the whole flock already converted Wherefore that which he alleadgeth froÌ„ the state of the French and Dutch Churches among us to shewe there is no disorder or confusion in the three points which himself proposeth is in deed but meere babling and a deceitfull drawing of the reader from the question which is not whither one parish The D. cuÌ„ningly withdraweth the reader froÌ„ the questioÌ„ may enjoy sundry teachers coÌ„municonâ—ilis it mutuo auxiliâ— to attend the whole flock none of them being appointed to a several charge but whether one Presbyterie or company of Ministers may be appointed in coÌ„mon to the charge of an whole citie the country adjoyning so as each of them may at his pleasure bestowe his labour eyther in teaching any part of the people converted wheresoever they shall meet togither in an uncerteyne assembly or in preaching to any of the rest that remayn infiâ—â—elitie and in traveiling for that purpose from one part of the Diocese to an other as his owne minde shall guide him the former is that which the Refuter granteth and judgeth to be the state of the Apostolike Churches therein like to the French and Dutch here in England The D. case is but poor and weak the later he disclaymeth for the reasons before mentioned Herein therefore behoid and pitty the Doctors poore and weak estare for wheras before as appeareth sect 5. he renounced the comparison which his Refuter made betweene these outlandish Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches though fitly agreeing in the pointes wherein they were to be compared as is shewed sect 4. Now for want of better help to wipe away that disorder and confusio objected against that coÌ„mon imployment which his conceit ascribeth to the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles he is faine to apprehend the same comparison to conceale that disagreement which though then it were impertinently urged yet now serveth well to shewe how weakly or rather disceitfully he disputeth For although in one congregation assembling in one place many Ministers may without confusion teach at severall times one after another as it was in the Church of Corinth 1. Cor. 14. 31. and now is in the French churches yet may it be yea it is already proved to be disorderly for many Ministers to attend promiscuously and at their pleasure sometimes on the feeding of a people converted and that eyther in whole or in part and sometimes on the instructing of such as in an whole citie countrey adjoyning doe yet remayne in unbeleefe Moreover it is well knowne that there is no such coÌ„munitie in the charge which the French and Dutch Ministers have of one congregation as he attributeth to the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles for among these the Doctor giveth
Iames we account these particulars 1. that the Iewes had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations 2. that the church of Ierusalem was in some respect as is before shewed sect 3. the Mother-church of Christendome 3. that Iames was an Apostle principally to the Iewes 4. and that among the Iewes those of Ierusalem and the country round about did more specially belong vnto his oversight whiles Peter and Iohn who were also Apostles for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9. were imployed in other places 5. lastly that during his presidency in the Councell Acts 15. he was superiour in order but not in degree vnto the rest of the Apostles But among things more doubtfull besides the question it selfe of Iames his election or assignement to the function of a Bishop at Ierusalem I reckon these positions 1. that a presidencie in honour or preheminence in order such as he speaketh of is intimated by S. Paul in setting Iames before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him in respect of his episcopall charge at Ierusalem 3. and that in the same respect he had the presidencie in the councell Act. 15. 4. that he was alwayes after the time of his supposed election to his Bishoprick superiour in order to the rest of the Apostles when and whiles they remayned at Ierusalem 5. that this continuance of that superioritie in him appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this superiority or precedence did growe from the prerogatives which that Church and people had above others To these particulars if the Doctor will have us to give our free assent he must first inform us by what authoritie or consequence of reason he is ledd to apprehend a truth in every of them and remove the probabilities which doe incline our judgments to the contrary For touching Gal. 2. are not the wordes of the Apostle ver 7. Sect. 7. 8. affirming that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Peter much more plaine for his preheminence above Iames and Iohn in the Apostleship of the Iewes then the naming of Iames before them vers 9. can be for his primacie above all his fellowe-Apostles Is it not then much more frivolous and ridiculous in the Doctor to extract for Iames a preheminence in honour above Peter and the rest of the Apostles from that slender prioritie which Paul giveth him in naming him first then it is in Bellarmine to ascribe vnto Peter a preheminent dignitie above the rest because he is usually named in the first place Why therfore should not that did up the Doctors mouth that hath dammed up Bellarmines Sidrac inter adolescentes qui in ignem coniecti sunt primus numeratur neque tamen Sidrac socijs suis prefuit Sutclif de Pont. lib. 2. p. 105. Quando multi nominantur necesse est aliquem primum nominari c. Gravissime Erasmus Annot. in Math. 10. ex ordine recensionis non efficaciter intelligitur quis cui sit preferendus Whit. de pont p. 27. l. Adde we harevnto that which is of all observed in their answere to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not alwayes kept Peter which is first placed Mat. 10. 2. Marc. 3. 16. Luc. 16. 14. Act. 1. 13. is set in the last place 1. Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. 9. 5. And Iames here first named being one of the Lords brethren cōmeth after the greater part of the Apostles 1. Cor. 9. 5. when he saith the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord Cephas Levissimum igitur argumentum hoc ordinis est as Mr Whit. saith pag. 274. 2. And if no preheminence can soundly be conveyed to Iames from this precedence in nomination is not the D. strangely deluded when he taketh it for a sure truth that the Apostle intended by naming him in the first place to teach us not onely that he had a prerogative of honor above the rest of the Apostles but also that the same did arise from his episcopall charge at Ierusalem for is there any one word in the whole epistle that giveth the least intimation of any such difference betweene him Peter Iohn as the Doctor fancieth when he maketh him properly a Bishop for some and them Apostles for others of the circumcision Doth it not rather appeare by the right hands of fellowship c. mencioned verse 9. that Imaes exercised among the Iewes the same and no other Ministery that Peter and Iohn did and that they joyntly were Apostles for the Iewes like as Paul and Barnabas were for the Gentiles 3. And here by the way observe that this distribution of persons or places where these were after this agreement to exercise their Apostolicall function bred no inequalitie or disparitie betwixt them in precedence or honour For if the ancient prerogatives of the Iewes gave any preferment to their Apostles above those by whom God wrought among the Gentiles as the Do. supposeth then Paul was in this respect inferiour to the other but the whole scope of his reasoning tendeth to mainteyne the contrarie viz. that as elswhere he faith he was meden busterekenai in nothing inferiour to the very cheife Apostles 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the Iewes in generall gave not to Peter who had the Apostleship of the circumcision any preheminence above Paul the Apostle Teacher of the Gentiles how should Peter become inferior unto Iames by reason of any preheminence which the Church at Ierusalem might challenge above other Christian Churches Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge Iames his presidencie Sect. 8. to be probably gathered from the text because he concludeth the disputation adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assemblie vers 19. 20. 28. 29. so I can by no meanes allowe this presidencie to growe unto him as his right in regard of his episcopall charge in that Church much lesse can we take the presidencie for a sufficient proofe of his Bishoprick there although the Doctor should tell us tentimes that it proveth it For what strings can knit the joyntes of this argument togither Iames was president or Moderator in the Synode at Ierusalem Act. 15. Therfore he was the Bishop of that Church Was S. Paul the Bishop of Ephesus because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Actes 20. 28. pag. 2. he fate as president in the Convocation when the Clergie of Ephesus were by his call come togither Or was Peter Iames his predecessor in the Bishoprick of Ierusalem because he was president in the choise of Matthias to succeed in the roome of Iudas Act. 1. 15 Surgit Petrus non Iacobus vt is cui presidentia discipulorum cōmissa erat Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes c. Whit. de pout pag. 288. 2. But to come to that which he saith doth appeare Act. 15. viz. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior in order to the
occasion was offred wherever he became But the episcopall power in the Doctors understanding form pag. 32. 69. 73. is the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ergo the episcopall power was not given to Iames by the Apostles Now what is the D. answer I answer saith he by distinction The power of order if I may so terme it Iames had before as those who are Bishops sine titulo but the power of iurisdiction was coÌ„mitted to him wheÌ„ he was designed Bishop of IerusaleÌ„ c. The edge of this answere is bent directly against the assumption of the Refuters objection and against the proposition of the prosyllogism added for the confirmation thereof Onely whereas the Refuter affirmeth the power both of ordinatioÌ„ of jurisdictioÌ„ to be invested in the person of Iames by Christ when he made him an Apostle therfore neyther of them given him by his fellow-Apostles the Do telleth us that Iames received froÌ„ Christ onely the power of order but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him when they designed him the Bishop of Ierusalem So in stead of power of ordination power of jurisdiction into which the Refuter distributed all episcopall power and that according to the Doctors own direction as is before shewed he now yeeldeth us a new distribution of episcopall poewr into power of order and power of jurisdiction The D. is driven to make new distributions and yet utterly silenceth both the difference and the reason of the change which a man that loveth plaine dealing should not have done especially when he hath to deale with such as are of a very shallow conceit as he saith lib. 3. pag. 103. for though they may from henceforth rest perswaded that he confoundeth not the power of order in Bishops with their power of ordination because he maketh the later but a part of the former lib. 3. p. 102. 105. yet they may stand in doubt whether the power of jurisdiction which now he opposeth to the power of order be the very same that before he distinguished from the power of ordination If the same then his answer is both false and absurd yea contradicted by himselfe For when he reduceth all episcopall power wherein they excell presbyters unto the power of ordination and the powre of jurisdiction he carrieth the later unto publick The Doct. contradicteth himselfe and dealeth absurdly or deludeth his reader c. government in foro externo with authoritie over presbyters and people both to guide and direct them as their rulers and to censure and correct them as their judge serm gag 45-51 Now it Iames had nothing to doe with this power by vertue of his Apostleship how should the rest of the Apostles which were not made Bishops as the Doctor avoucheth sect 7. pag. 58. have the same authority in this behalfe wheresoever they came that Iames had at Ierusalem or Timothe at Ephesus as the Doctor confesseth cap. 4. pag. 96. Againe how often doth he tell us that this power of jurisdiction aswell as that other of ordination was derived vnto Bishops from the Apostles and that the Bishops are their successors in this power of government serm pag. 45. 70. and in this defence passim yea he saith That the Apostles each of them reteyned this power in their owne hands whiles they continued neere vnto or meant not to be long from the Churches which they had planted and for proofe thereof citeth 2. Thes 3. 14. 1. Cor. 5. serm pag. 65. Def. pag. 63. I aske therefore whence they had this power which they reteyned in their own haÌ„ds for a time coÌ„mitted to others wheÌ„ it seemed good to theÌ„selves he cannot say they received it by any such assignement to some particular church or Churches as Iames is supposed to have to IerusaleÌ„ seing he denieth them to be properly Bishops And if he shall say that the power of governm t or jurisdiction was inclosed in that Apostolicall coÌ„mission which they had from Christ Mat. 18. 18. and 28. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. and 21. 15. 16. is it not both false and absurd to deny that this power was invested in the person of Iames when he was made an Apostle Now if to avoyd these inconveniences he shall acknowledge that he taketh jurisdiction in an other sense his market is utterly marred in asmuch as he doth onely in shewe to delude his reader impugne that which his refuter affirmeth whereas in deed he justifyeth him in his whole argument For if both those powers of ordination and jurisdiction wherein the D. placeth the power and superioritie of the episcopall function were given vnto Iames by Christ and neyther of them by his fâ—llowe Apostles theÌ„ he received not the office of a Bp. by their ordinatioÌ„ Having thus freed the Refuters objection from the force of the Sect. 14. shewing 6. errors in the D. answer Doctors answer the Reader is to be advertised of these errors which Mr Doctor hath broched therein 1. that the Apostles received from Christ the power of order onely and not the power of jurisdiction 2. and therefore by their Apostleship were but as Bishops sine titulo For since the D. giveth vnto Iames in regard of his Apostleship received from Christ none other power then that of order which made him as a Bishop sine titulo he must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles were also as Bishops sine titulo and not indued by Christ with that power of jurisdiction distinguished by him from the power of order unlesse to avoid these rocks he will fall into the gulf of an other errour no lesse absurd viz. that the Apostles were not all equal in power by their Apostolicall function And if it be so as he saith that Iames had power of jurisdiction given him by his fellowe-Apostles when they designed him Bishop of Ierusalem it will follow from hence 3. that the Apostles gave him a power which themselves had not And 4. that those Apostles which were not made Bishops as Iames was never had that power of jurisdiction which he enjoyed Yea 5. the episcopall charge which Iames had at Ierusalem gave him a preheminence above his fellow-Apostles not onely in superioritie of order while they remayned there as before he affirmed but also in power of jurisdiction 6. And consequently all other Bishops ordeyned by the Apostles were in the like power superior to the very Apostles as many as were not properly Bishops These are the Doctors absurdities and the very naming of them is sufficient to abate the edge and weaken the force of his answer yea under correction be it spoken as it may well make him blush at the reading of his bragge preface pag. 17. where he saith in his conscience he is perswaded that no one of his proofes in all his sermon is disproved nor he convinced of any one uintruth throughout the body thereof so it may be a good motive to him no longer to strike against the
in this sort If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certeyne place then neither had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certeyne place Ergo neyther had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem The Doctors answer is that he hath shewed sufficient reason why he should not graunt the consequence in setting downe the difference between Iames and the rest of the Apostles But are the differences such as he can and will mainteyne that they necessarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop and the rest nor otherwise they neyther are nor can be a sufficient reason of his deniall of the cosequence Let us therfore peruse them First he saith that Iames herein differeth from the rest that to him at the first the Church of Ierusalem was assigned I answer that an assignement to the oversight of one Church maketh not a Bishop unlesse he be also confined unto it alone and that for perpetuitie But the Doctor can never prove that Iames was so coÌ„fined to the charge of the Church of Ierusalem Moreover we have better evidence for Pauls assignement to the Church of Corinth Act. 18. 9. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9. 2. 2. Cor. 10. 13. then can be alleadged for Iames his assignemeÌ„t to Ierusalem And if we may beleeve the D. he telleth us pag. 52. that at what time Iames was assigned to Ierusalem the rest were assigned also to their circuite one to one part and an other to an other This first difference therefore is eyther none at all or not such as can give the function of a Bishop to the one and deny it to all the rest Secondly the Doctor addeth that Iames did not traveile as the rest from one country to an other being not confined to one province But it is shewed in the former section that Iames was neyther confined to Ierusalem nor debarred from traveil abroad and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth will confine some others to certeine countryes as Thomas to Parthia Andrewe to Scythia and Iohn to Asia no lesse then Iames to Ierusalem And let me aske him what proofe he can make worthy of credit that Matthew Matthias and Iames that was martyred at Ierusalem Act. 12. 2. spent their daies in traveil froÌ„ one country to an other And if Iames be to reckoned a Bishop because he rested at Ierusalem when others traveiled from place to place why he should deny the rest to be also properly Bishops when they took up some speciall place to rest in as he sayth Iohn did at Ephesus c. specially seing the fathers intitle them Bishops of those places where they rested Thirdly an other difference he noteth scz that wheras the other Apostles having planted Churches when they sawe their time coÌ„mitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames coÌ„mitted the Church of Ierusalem to no other But can he tell us to what Bishops the Churches of Iconium Lystra Derbe Antioch in Pisidia and sundry others planted by Paul were coÌ„mitted For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches which being planted by him received no other Bishop to governe them if this reason proveth Iames to be the Bishop of Ierusalem The consequence therefore of the argument abovesayd is nothing weakned by the differences which the Doctor putteth betwene Iames and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth Notwithstanding that the reader may see how grossely he erreth in combyning these two functions of an Apostle a Bishop in one person I will here propose some of the reasons which D. Sutlif a zealous mainteyner of the episcopall governmeÌ„t hath pressed against Peters supposed Bishoprick at Rome De pont lib. 2. cap. 10. The Apostles saith he and Pastors or Bishops properly so called are â—o distinguished that an Apostle is one thing and a Pastor or Bishop is another Sect. 6. He hath given us as saith Paul Ephes 4. 11. some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers What can be spoken more cleerely he hath given some Apostles others Pastors and Teachers quosdam dedit Apostolos alios autem Pastores et Doctores Wherefore as he concludeth concerning Peter so doe I concerning Iames if Iames were an Apostle he could not be a Bishop Pastor to speak properly vnlesse we will confound both the gifts of Christ and membra dividentia the members of the division set down by the Apostle 2. The Apostles had this priviledge that they were called sent by Chrst iÌ„mediately Mark 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops it is farre otherwise they were not called iÌ„mediately of God but by men Paul prescribeth lawes vnto Timothâ— what manner of men were to be chosen Bishops warneth him to lay no hands suddenly upon any man 1. Tim. 3. 2. and 5. 21. Seing therefore Iames was by Christ alone not by men called chosen and ordeyned wheÌ„ce could he have a Bishoprick given him As for those Fathers which say that Iames was by his fellow-Apostles ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem we have already Cap. sect 22. heard Doctor Sutliffs answer this onely now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop seing he saith that Iames receyved the episcopall power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo as is also before shewed cap. 5. sect 13. 14. 3. The office of Bishops is farre inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it for the Apostles ordeyned Bishops heard their causes c. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonicall scriptures and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into al truth Iohn 14. 26. 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative for there were none more greivous schismes raised in the Church neyther any more foul heresyes sprang from any then froÌ„ Bishops Wherefore seing Iames was an Apostle quid opus erat ut quasi capite diminutus ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem velut Patritius ad plebem transiret I might adde his 4. and 9. arguments but because they come nere to things already urged I passe them over onely that it may appeare he putteth no difference betwene Peter and Iames in the limitation of their ministrie as the D. doth I will close up all with that which he hath elswhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec Iohannem nec Iacobum Apostoluns propriâ— dicimus fuisse Episcopum rationeÌ„que hanc reddidimus quia Apostolici officij â—ines nullâ— eranâ— Episcopi aut em suas habuere certas dioceses et provincias Yea saith he we say not that the Apostle Iohn or Iames was a Bishop properly we have rendred this reason for it that there were no bounds or limitts of the Apostolicall function whereas Bishops had their certeine diocesâ—s and provinces Which reason seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at as being vnable to answer it I hope the
Doct. will not doe him that favour to oppose himself therein to D. Sutliffe specially seing he hath already yeelded thus farre pag. 58. that if any be not perswaded of this point he will be content to suppose that Iames was not a Bishop of Ierusalem Notwithstanding as if the whole cause in a manner wholly relied Sect. 7. ad sect 8. pag 58. 59. upon this instance of Iames he indeavoreth by it to confute the learâ—eder sort of disciplinarians who holde that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree nor yet for termes of life and therefore if we may believe him deny that Iames was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at Ierusalem or President of the presâ—yterie otherwise then in his course not for any contynuance Of these conceites he maketh Mr. Beza the Author and because the Refuter â—ould him that he wronged Beza seing there is not a sillable nor a letter at all of him in the place he quoteth he saith all this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margent c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23 which if it be not againe miscarried by his printer seemeth to be foysted in I know not how For in the same Chap. and pag. Impress Anno. 1592. by Ioh. le Preux there are no such words as he alleadgeth But say that Beza in some later edition which I have not yet mett with hath such a saying viz. that though Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour eyther to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers what hindreth but that the Refuters answer might stand to wit that by his Bishopprick or presidencie he was not superiour to any degree but in order onely for when he compareth togither the differing functions of Apostles Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise an imparitie and difference betwene them not in order onely but also in degree and power In istis functionibus ex Apost Eph. 4. 11. â—â—tearepetitis inter se computatis non simplicem tantum ordinem sed etiam gradum agnosco cap. 1. pag. 5. To which purpose also he speaketh cap. 3. pag. 20. cap. 9. pag. 53. But to let the Doctor see how much he wrongeth him these wordes are fittest pag. 9. Apostolatus functionâ— fuisse illos 12. propria non tantum ordinis sed etiam potestatis eminnetia pralatos absit ut inficiemur ut mer am calumniam esse omnes intelligant quum nobis hoc mendacium tribuunt In which he calleth it no better then a calumniation to charge him as the Doctor doth And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza that Bishops were in degree superiour to other Ministers why putteth he not his hand to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza to shew the contrary Quantâ— majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare sive fundamentum illarum ponere quam superstruere et structas regere tanto magis istum gradum vtgere inter ipsos Apostolos oportuit 2. Et si tum esset ut nonnulli contendunt velut ipsa natura precipiente in omni sacro caetâ— gradus iste ad servandum inter collegas consensum necessarius saltem quam diu simul Hierosolymis congregatâ— fuerunt Apostoli nempe saltem ad illam dispersionem quae Stephani mortem est consecuta Act. 8. 1. vâ—um quempiam jam tum supra suos co apostolos extitisse oportuisset Wherevnto I will add the assumption and so inferre the conclusion But among the Apostles there was no superioritie in degree 2. neyther was it necessarie for the preserving of vnitie and consent among them that one should hold such a superiority above his fellow-Apostles whiles they remained at Ierusalem before the scattering that followed the death of Steven Wherefore it is not likely that among the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches there was any one superior in degree to the rest 2. neither can it be necessarie as some suppose even by the light of nature that in every sacred societie for the preservation of consent among colleagues one should have such a superiority in degree among the rest But to leave Mr. Beza let us see how the Doctor can make good Section 8. his purpose from this instance of Iames vz. that Bishops were superiour in degree to other Ministers and had a singular preheminence over them for term of life Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appeare for he is much deceived if he think to gaine his cause by such a sophism as this Iames was superiour to the presbyters of Ierusalem in degree and held a superiority over them during life But Iames was a Bishop Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles tymes superiour vnto presbyters in degree and that for terme of life For though we should graunt the assumption which is before disproved the argument is no better then if a man should argue in this manner Iames Mountague to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon is superior in degree of Ministerie to al the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells But Iames Mountague is the Deane of the K. Maiesties Chappel Ergo the Deanes of the K. Maiesties chappell are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministery I doubt not but the Doctor can well discerne in this latter a double deceipt because it inferreth a generall conclusion from premisses that are but particular assigneth a false cause of that superioritie above other presbyters And if he winketh not hard he may well see the same defaults are to be found in his reasoning For besides the generality of his coÌ„clusion there is an evident mistaking of the cause both of that superioritie in degree which Iames had above the Presbyters of Ierusalem and of his continuance in and about Ierusalem to his dying day To begin with the former whereas he should shewe that his Bishoprick gave him a superioritie in degree above the Presbyters of that Church it is apparant he hath no other Medius terminus to prove it then this that he was an Apostle and his honour degree by his Bishoprick not impaired so that in effect he reasoneth thus Iames being an Apostle and a Bishop was superiour in degree to the Presbyters of Ierusalem Ergo all other Bishops not being Aposteles as he was have the same superioritie above other Presbyters The Doct. proofe therefore which he presupposeth to be plaine and pregnant for his purpose is a plain inconsequence which with all his skill he can never justify Neyther can he easily mainteyne that which he assumeth for a truth viz. that Iames his honor degree by his Bishoprick was not impayred for as is already shewed cap. 6. sect 1. the authority of Clemens is
Sect. 5. ad sect 4. pag 78. 79. Oecumenius and Gregorie who testify as he saith that the episles teach Bishops how to behave themselves in the church of God is a secret confession that he knoweth not how to cōclude from Saint Pauls owne words that which he vndertooke to make apparant by his epistles to Timothy Titus But because the Doctor will needs fitt to this last assumption the proofe thereof that answere which was given to another I wil first reduce it to the parts of his reasoning then peruse the forces which he bendeth against it Whereas therefore he saith that episcopall authoritie cheefly consisteth in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction which Timothy and Titus had in charge if by episcopall authoritie he meane that which Bishops haue now gotten into their hands and appropriated to themselves then the proposition is false and the falsehood thereof made plaine by that supposed case of a Democracie in time changed into an Aristocracy and afterward into a Monarchie layd downe by the Doctor in his Refuters wordes pag. 79. but if he understand by episcopall authoritie that which in the Apostles times and with their allowance was seated in the function of diocesan Bishops then the assumption and the proofe thereof is contradicted by the Refuter when he saith that the directions given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction apperteyned not to diocesan Bishops for the Apostle dreamed of no such sovereigntie but in particular unto Timothy and Titus by an higher power as Evangelists in generall to all the presbyters as having the charge of those affaires in their severall congregations in the Churches right to administer them To impugn this answer first he laboureth by two argumēts to prove that Timothy and Titus did not perform those things by an higher power viz. 1. because they were to be done by a power which was to continue in the Church untill the end 2. because the power whereby Bishops doe the things that Timothy and Titus had in cōmission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue to the end But if the Doctor had observed his Refuters meaning who by an higher power understandeth that power of office which was invested in the persons of Timothy Titus for being Evangelists he might perhaps have perceived the deceit that lieth in his own reasoning For although the power of ordeyning and censuring considered simply and in generall as the Refuter speaketh be such as was to continue in the presbyters though now by Bishops appropriated to themselves as he also granteth yet this hindreth not but that as the Apostles so Timothy Titus being Evangelists did performe those works by an higher power that is a power seated in an higher office But if his meaning be that Timothy and Titus did those things by vertue of an office that was to continue and that the power of doing those works is derived to Bishops by apostolicall allowance what else doth he but continue his old trade of begging 2. In like manner he deceiveth himselfe and his Reader when he fastneth a contradiction on his Refuter in saying the Apostles dreamed not of any such sovereigntie as now is in Bishops above Presbyters when he had before sayd that Timothy and Titus did the same things by an higher power to wit of their Evangelisticall function which Bishops have now appropriated to themselves 3. And he argueth too loosely when to prove a falshood in the refuters assertion viz. that those instructions were given to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists he sayth they were given them as they were particularly assigned governours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete For it was not repugnant but very agreable to the office of Evangelists to be assigned vnto the government of particular Churches at the pleasure of the Apostles on whom they attended 4. In deed if the Doctor could give us any one sentence in those epistles to Timothy Titus shewing the charge of those affaires to belong properly to Diocesan Bishops I would freely confesse the Refuter had erred in denying it and affirming the charge thereof to belong in generall unto the presbyters but though wee haue wayted all this while for the demonstration of this point frō the Apostles writings yet we heare no newes of any argument that clearely deduceth this conclusion from any word or phrase which Paul useth in his epistles onely he sayth he hath sufficiently proved this point before lib. 3. Wherefore that the reader may see how worthily he disputeth there in defense of his Diocesan Lords I will pray leave to lay downe in open viewe what he here referreth us unto In his third book cap. 3. sect 1. he giveth a threefold superiority Section 6. unto Bishops over other Ministers viz. singularitie of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction all which he groundeth upon Tit. 1. 5. And because his Refuter had denied Titus to be a Bishop he referreth his Reader there for the proofe thereof to that which was to followe lib. 4. cap. 4. which we haue now to examine In the meane time he desireth him to take it for granted In like manner towards the end of that book cap. 5. sect 18. he argueth that Bishops had corrective power over the presbyters because Timothy and Titus had such power over the presbyters of Ephesus and Creete as he proveth if we may beleeve him by most evident testimonyes out of Pauls epistles Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 1. 3. 4. 19-22 And unto his Refuters answere viz. that Tim. and Titus were not Bishops and that he should never prove they were he returneth this reply I desire the Reader to suspend his iudgement till he come to the proofes on both sides if he shall not find my proffes saith he for their being Bishops better then his to the contrary let him beleeve me in nothing Lo◠here his wordes and how confidently he relieth aforehand upon his proofes which he meant to produce for this assertion that Timothy and Titus were Bishops Notwithstanding when he cōmeth to make this apparant that by the scriptures yea by S. Pauls epistles written unto them the maine issue of his whole reasoning cōmeth at last to this effect Episcopall authoritie consisteth chiefly in the power of ordination and jurisdiction But the authoritie which Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet principally consisted in the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ergo their authoritie was episcopall And consequently they were Bishops Here now if the proposition be doubted of or denied wee are sent back to this former disputation where he begged that this cōclusion might be taken for granted Is there any likelihood think you that we shall ever find a good end put to this controversy whē Sect. 7. ad sect 5. 6. p. 80. 81. we must dance the round after the Doctors pipe in this fashion But leaving the Doctor
to the readers sentence therein let us proceed to that example or supposall before mencioned the rather for that he most proudly insulteth over his Refuter as if he were a Brownist or Anabaptist or had broached sundry schismaticall novelties as I am not ashamed once againe to lay downe his wordes to the readers viewe so I doubt not but to cleare him from those â—oul imputations Suppose saith he a Democracy where the common wealth is governed by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing admitting ordering and consuring of officers and directing them how to behave themselves in their offices What if this government fall into the handes of the nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some one mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole-governour still observing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be sayd that those lawes were the very patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall and Monarchicall government whereby the first maker of those lawes would inform in the one the nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the severall Churches or congregatioÌ„s which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church-busines in processe of time it came to be restreyned to the Clergie onely the Bishop and his presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things growe worâ—â— and worse the Bishop like a Monarch gâ—â—t the reignes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of ordiâ—aâ—im and iurisdiction remeine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and precedents eyther of the second or third kinde of government neyther were they given to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie togither These are the Refuters words now the Doct. having first solaced himselfe in an idle repetition of the particulars interlaced with scornfull gibes to shewe the unlearneder sorte the trim Idea as he pleaseth to speake of that discipline which the Refuter and his fellow challengers have forged he coÌ„meth at his leasure very gravely to refute his supposed novelties one after an other in this order First it is here presupposed saith he that every Church indued with power of ecclesiâ—sticall government was a parish c. which dotage I have before refuted Shall I say that we have before proved his assertion that the first Churches were properly dioceses to be a meere dotage I will rather say he might well have spared the mencioÌ„ of this controversy seing the Refuter doth not once mencion the word parish or parishonall The second supposed novelty he maketh this that the foruse of Church government at first was democraticall or popular the chief authority being in the people which by the Presbyterie did ordeine and censure all Church-officers His Refuters wordes are these The administration of Church-matters was first in the severall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyters had the managing of all Church-busynes And againe the right was in the Church and the execution in the Presbytery But doth the Doctor speak as he thinketh when he calleth this schismaticall novelty and for this esteemeth his Refuter a Brownist or Anabaptist Knoweth he whome he woundeth in thus censuring him his opinion hath he never observed in his reading the Centuries cent 2. Col. 134. this saying Si quis probatos authores huius sâ—â—uli perspiciat videbit formaÌ„gâ—bernationis propemoduÌ„ democratias similem fuisse Singulae enim ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum dei pure decendi sacramenta administrandi absolvendiet excommunicandi haereticos scelerátos ministros eligendi ordinandi justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi c. The same wordes are recorded also in Catalogo test verit lib. 2. Col. 108. but more directly to purpose speaketh D. Whitgist in his defense pag. 180. In the Apostles times the state of the Church was popular And pag. 182 I therefore call it popular saith he because the Church it self that is the whole multitude had interest almost in everything Shall he be now with the Doctor a Brownist or Anabaptist for so saying And why shall not Thomas Bell a professed enemie to all Brownists and wholly devoted to the Prelates service be taxed of schismaticall novelty for teaching as he doth that excoÌ„munication precisely and cheefly perteyneth to the Church and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons fit for that purpose and chosen for that ende this he saith and this he proveth by Christes wordes Math. 18. 17. 18. dic ecclesiae tell the Church c. that is to say in his vnderstanding vnto the whole congregation see his regiment of the Church cap. 12. sect 4. If his credit be little worth which the Doctor yet me thinks he should be ashamed to justify the Rhemists and Bellarmin against Doctor Fulk and Doct. Willet who affirme that the right and power of the keies and so of excommunication belongeth vnto the Church and the Pastors prelates exercise it as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church see Doctor Fulk answ to the Rhem on 1. Cor. 5. sect and D. Willet Synops cont 5. quest 4. part 2. But Mr. Beza if you will beleeve the Doct. making mencioÌ„ of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular government giveth him this stile Democraticus quidem fanaticus De Minist gradibus cap. 23. pag. 155. But Mr Bezaes wordes in that place doe shewe that he giveth that stile to Morellius for no other cause then this that he presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order which for election of Church-officers is religiously and prudently observed in the citie of Geneva Which is such as well accordeth with the Refuters doctrine for it alloweth the Church to be electionum sacrarum conscia et approbatrix to take notice and give approbation howsoever a prerogative is given to the Pastors Magistrates to goe before the people in the choise 2. Notwithstanding the Doctor asketh if it be not a phrensy to urge the peoples supremacie in Church government and whether there be any shewe in scripture or in reason that the sheep should rule their shepheard or the flock their Pastor Say as much should be graunted as his questions imply must he not first prove that his Refuter giveth supremacie of rule unto the sheep or people over their Pastor before he can conclude him to be ledde by a fanaticall spirit against scripture reason But is there not want of judgement rather in the Doctor that imagineth the Pastor to be ruled by the sheep or people when the Church which is the whole body hath the managing of all Church-affaires by her Presbyters which are the principall members Doth not Cyprian that holy Martyr say lib. 1. epist 4.
plebs ipsa maximè habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere And how oft doth Austin say that Peter signified the Church and bare the person of the Church when Christ sayd unto him Tibi dabo claves c. Mat. 16. August tract 50. 124. in Iohan. Item in Psal 108 de agonia Christi cap. 30. And Gerson Trilog 8. quest Claves inquit datae sunt ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo On which words the Bishop of Chichester in his answer to Tortus pag. 65. giveth this note Cum vnum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio omnes enim idem sentiunt But to passe by many others the wordes of Ferus in Act. 11 are worthy of the Doctors observation Peter the Apostle chief of the Apostles is constreyned to give an account to the Church neyther doth he disdeyne it because he knew himselfe to be not a Lord but a Minister of the Church The Church is the spouse of Christ and Lady of the house Peter a servant and Minister Wherfore the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also reject and depose them if they be not fit And in giving this preheminence to the Church above Peter doth he speak against the scripture or against reason Doth not S. Paul acknowledge the same touching himselfe and his fellow Apostles 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancie if not frenzie to urge as the Doctor doth lib. 3. passim the superioritie of one Bishop in an whole Diocese or Province above all the Presbyters and people thereof Notwithstanding as the Refuter doth no where say so neither can it be gathered frō his words that the form of Church-governmēt was at the first or now ought to be wholly democraticall or popular the Doctor is not ignorāt as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. 3. that his Ref pleadeth for the Aristocraticall forme of government as that which in his opiniō ought to be established in the severall Churches Neyther doth he therein crosse himselfe or any of his fellowes that favour the parish discipline for they all as I am perswaded doe hold the ecclesiasticall government to be a mixt forme compounded of all three states as many worthy divines doe confidently mainteyne P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. see his Com. plac clas 4. sect 9. Baros de polit civ ecclesiastica lib. 2. pag. 42. 43. D. Whitak de Roman pontif pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ who is the head not onely of the whole Church in generall but also of every particular visible Church Ephes 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27 the Church may be truely reputed a Kingdome or Monarchy so it hath some resemblance unto a Monarchy in regard of that preheminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers But because no one Pastor or Bishop hath power to governe or determine causes ecclesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure but ex consilio compresbyterorum by the Counsell of his fellow-Elders the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy And in asmuch as the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment it agreeth in part with a Democracie notwithstāding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry sommer in a dripping Section 8. yeare when he supposeth in his third fancie that we hold the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. Titus to have bin provided for such a popular state wherein the people doe rule their leaders They were provided for a mixt state wherein many presbyters vnder the guidance of one Pastor or president doe administer execute all matters with the peoples consent approbation And in the affirmation as we have the assent of the most and the best divines of later times Calvin on Titus 1. 5. Beza on Tim. Cap. 5. 19. 22. and Tit. 3. 10. and sundry others so we have the Apostles owne warrāt in the close of his epistles with these words grace be with you or with you all 2. Tim. 22. Tit. 3. 15. for by this it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of cōmon use not onely for other Ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Moreover since the Apostle chargeth Titus to observe in the ordination of Elders that order which he had before enjoyned him Tit. 1. 5. whence can we better derive that order then from his owne practise and his fellow-Apostles who used aswell in ordination as in other Church-affaires both the advice and help of other Ministers and the approbation of the people as appeareth by these scriptures Acts. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 2. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 6. 22. 23. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. 2. Cor. 2. 10. The Doctor therefore is misledd by his owne conceit when he imagineth that the Apostles wordes unto Timothy and Titus Lay not handes rashly c. And doe thou avoid an Haeretick did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their handes that neyther people nor presbyters had or might have any stroak at all in those matters As for his gibing objection Belike the whole Island of Creete was a parish too it deserveth no other answer then this when he justifyeth his collection from any words in his refuters answer I will acknowledge him for an honest man mean while let the reader take notice of this that the Doctor in a fewe leaves after pag. 88 noteth this speach of his refuter that Creet had many Churches which argueth necessarily that the whole Iland could not be one onely parish The last fancy falsly fained by the Doctor is this that the popular Sect. 9. state of the severall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocracie and after into a Monarchie he should haue sayd that the well tempered Democracie did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracie after into an absolute Monarchy But he endeavoreth to shewe that the severall Churches were at the first governed Monarchically to wit by the Apostles or Apostolicall men severally For Apostles he nameth Iames that ruled perpetually and Peter and Paul c. for a time And of Apostolicall men that were perpetuall governors he hath good store as Mark Timothy Titus Evodius Simō the sonne of Cleophas c. But where are his proofes that all these or any of them governed Monarchically and by their sole authority Concerning Iames it is already shewed that his government was farre short of that sole authoritie which our Bishops carry
Creta hath as yet received no firme support no not from humane evidence much lesse from the holy scriptures Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius Linus Mark Simeon others whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient Sect. 1. ad sect 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops which if we should wholly overpasse in silence we should neyther wrong him nor the cause seing the records of men subject to error drincking in many errors through oversight or want of judgment cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand as hath bin often observed But because he glorieth though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence we will enter into a neerer search after the truth make no doubt but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader both the falshood of some of his records and his false or deceitful handling of the rest And first he beginneth with Antioche vvhich as he saith serm pag. 81. had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno 45 and Hist lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat ad Antioche I ansvver there are many parts of S. Lukes sacred â—â—ory that vvith hold us from acknovvledging any such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ and yet there is no mencion of Evodius much lesse of his Bishoprick After the death of Herod vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho and. 45. of Christ as Euseb accounteth in Chron. an 45. Paul and Barnabas returned froÌ„ Ierusalem to Antioch Acts. 12. 23. 25 at which time there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there by whose imposition of hands Paul Barnabas were seperated to the work wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there And if Peter had gone after his imprisonment to Antioch there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch they gathered the Church togither and rehearsed all that God had done by them there aboade a long time with the disciples cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there grew that dissention about circumcision which occasioned that meeting at Ierusalem to end the question Cap. 15. 1. 2. c. where was Evodius all this while was he a non-resident from his charge had he bin the Bishop of Antioch and there resident how is it that we heare nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne and of their relating to him as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ierusalem Cap. 21. 18. 19. the successe of their traveiles why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy eyther with or against Paul and Barnabas why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes then their Bishop for which part soever he tooke it was necessary for the Churches instruction in all succeeding ages that as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. 3. so he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth after the the Synode was ended Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche aâ—d letters were written not to the Bishop but to the brethren of the Gentiles and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled who rejoyced for the consolation Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time so did Paul Barnabas till they were so styrred that they parted companies vers 32. 35. 39. 40 but before Paul and Barnabas were divided Peter coÌ„ming thither was withstood by Paul to his face for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius worthy the name or place of a Bishop indovved vvith such a singularity of povver and honor above all other Teachers though of an higher degree then Presbyters as loÌ„g as they are vvithin his Diocese If vve may beleeve the Doct pag. 136. lib. 3. ought not he to have interposed his episcopall authority in coÌ„manding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles and in appeasing those contentions vvhich arose betvveene Paul and Peter and betvveene Barnabas and Paul vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction Surely vvhat ever the D. conceiveth of these matters who can perswade themselves that S. Luke and S. Paul would have buried in silence the name office and indeavours of Evodius if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul to the Bishoprick of Antioch As for Eusebius his Cronicle it doth too much discredit it selfe Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case for it saith that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius which was the. 39. of Christ placed his chaiâ—e at Antioch and there sate 25. yeares and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius he removed to Rome and there sat also 25. yeares Because both these computations cannot stand togither the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error and reduced to 7. yeares but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius cannot accord with S. Lukes storie for his continuance in Iudea and his imprisonment by Herod not long before the death of Herod see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis 3. and D. Whit. de pont Rom. quest 3. pag 346. 347. 2. that Peters removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius contradicteth the D. assertion scz that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45 which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius by Eusebius his owne account Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point avouched by Eusebius and Ignatius to wit that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius For a parish-Bishoprick that is the function of a Bishop set over one particular coÌ„gregatioÌ„ is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles but that function of a Diocesan Bishop which the Doct. contendeth for is denyed and worthyly seing it is
esteemeth them to be the proper pastors of the Church lib. 4. pag. 141. lin 18. and giveth vnto other presbyters seâ—m pag. 45. no other pastorall authority then what is delegated vnto them by their Bishops Wherefore like as he reasoneth to shewe the lawfullnes and excellencie of the episcopall function pag. 54 so may we to prove by necessary consequence froÌ„ his owne wordes that it is generally or immutably necessary or perpetually imposed by Christ and his Apostles on all Churches For if the office of presbyters which in his opinion are but assitantes vnto the Bishops admitted in partem sollicitudinis to seed that parte of the Church which he should commit vnto them be not onely lawfull but necessary also to be reteyned and that jure divino then the same may be said much more of the function of Bishops that are as he supposeth the cheef and principall pastors even by Gods ordinance But if their function be not divini juris nor generally and perpetually necessary for all Churches then let the Doctor also professe plainely that he mainteineth not the office of Presbyters or any other Ministers to be The Doct. saith as much for the perpetuity of Di ocesan Bishops as of any ministers of the word yea more divini juris and generally or perpetually necessarie for the feeding or governing of the visible Churches of Christ Yea let him without staggering affirme that it is a thing indifferent not de jure divino necessarie but left to every Churches libertie to accept or refuse as they shall see expedieÌ„â— those that are authorized of God as Starres Angels Pastors and guides to convey vnto them the light of his truth and the word or bread of life and to convert them in the way of salvation But 2. doth not his reasoning import the contrary when he saith pag. 55. that if every Minister be to be honoured in regard of his calling with double honour viz. of reverence and maintenance which he saith serm of the dignitie and dutie of the ministers p. 65. 73. is due to them by the word of God yea jure divino theÌ„ much more is the office of Bishops who are the cheife and principall Ministers to be had in honour Yea doth he not from the doctrine of his sermon in question inferre these vses impose them on the consciences of his hearers pag. 94 96 viz. 1. to acknowledge their function to be a divine ordinance 2. to have theÌ„ in honour as spirituall Fathers as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians cap. 2. 29. and to receyve them as the Angels of God as they are called in his text 3. to obey their authoritie as being the holy ordinance of God according to the Apostles exhortation Heb. 13. 17. For can the consideration of Gods ordinance appointing their function commanding honor and obedience to be given vnto them in the dayes of the Apostles binde the coÌ„science at this day if their function were not of necessity to be coÌ„tinued Or can the exhortation of the Apostle Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17. touch the consciences of the people of England so strictly as he pretendeth and not reach at all to the conscience of those professors and teachers of the faith of Christ that live in other reformed Churches It is true I confesse that such Leaders and Labourers in the Lords worke must first be had before they can be honoured and obeyed but doe not these exhortations and many other apostolike canons which prescribe what is required eyther of Ministers for the good of their flocks or of people for incouragement of their Teachers as Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 4. 5. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 1. Cor. 9 14. Gal. 6 6. 1. Thess 5. 12. 13. Heb. 13 17. by an equall bond binde all Churches aswell to labour for the establishing of such Elders Bishops and Leaders as to see that when they are setled they may both give all diligence to performe their duties and receive all reverence and honour due vnto them And 3 how often doth he tell us in this defense lib. 3. pag. 24. 26. 44. 48 55. 59. 63. et alibi passim that many of his allegations doe testify for the superioritâ—e of Bishops not onely de fâ—cto but also de iure as giving test mony to the right and shewing what form of government ought to be as being in the judgement of the Fathers which he approveth perpetuall And though he returne the lie upon his Refuter lib. 3 pag 57. for saying that he plainly avoucheth a necessity of reteyning the government of Diocesan Bishops when he affirmeth that as it was ordeyned for the presâ—rvation of the Church in vnitie and for the avoiding of schiâ—me so it is for the same cause to be reteâ—ned yet he confessed pag. 64. that Ieroms judgement in the place alleadged was that Bishops are necessarily to be reteyned for the same cause to wit the avoyding of schisme for which they were first instituted And from the same words of Ierom he collecteth pag. 111. that of necessity a pâ—erelesse power is to be attributed unto Bishops Wherefore if the Which way soever the Doct. turneth him he offendeth D. be not guilty of a plaine-lie and notorious falsification of Ieroms meaning in carrying his words to a necessity in reteyning Bishops surely he hath much wronged his refuter to charge him with the like guiltynes for the like collection And if he consent not in judgment with Ierom he doth too much abuse his reader in fortifying his assertion with his testimony vnlesse he had given some intimation wherein he swarveth in opinion from him But 4. he discovereth his owne judgement touching the necessity of diocesan and provinciall Bishops something more clearely when he saith lib. 3. pag. 3. that of provinciâ—ll or nationall Churches the metropolitans Bishops of dioceses aâ—e and ougâ—t to be the governors For if he had intended onely a lawfullnes and not a necessity of reteyninge The Doct. wrongfully chargeth his Refuter their functions he would have sayd they are and may be rather then as he doth they are and ought to be the governors yea in his sermon pag. 32. doth he not imply a necessity I say not an absolute necessity as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter lib. 3. p. 57. but a generall and perpetuall necessity for succeding ages aswell as for the Apostles times when he saith that vpon this threefolde superiority of Bishops scz singularity of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction there dependeth a three-fold benefit to every church to wit the vnity perpetuit e and eutaxie or good order thereof For who can deny that those things are generally and perpetually necessarie to be reteyned in every Church whereon the vnitie perpetuitie eutaxie of every Church dependeth If the Doctor shall thinke to escape by saying that the perpetuity Sect. 5. ad lib. 4 pag. 102 147. and