which our Bishops exercise is wholly by Gods word But 2. though those words detracted by the Doctor had not bene added by them if he thinketh it wil prove that the function now exercised by Bishops is warranted to them by Gods word he forgetteth his owne distinction betweene potest as modus potestatis togither with the difference which he putteth betweene function and authoritie lib. 4. pag. 100 102. 147. Neyther 3. is that authority which the booke requireth Bishops to exercise such a sole power of correction as the Doctor giveth unto them for the same booke requireth also of every Minister aswell as of the Bishop at his ordination that he preach the word and administer the sacraments The D. owne testimony against him discipline so giving every Minister a stroke in the outward policie government of the Church aswel as the Bishop which the Doct. taketh quite from him But to conclude this point the booke of articles doth in deed shewe the judgement of our Church in some matters of policie and church government devised by men aswell as in more weighty points of faith set down in Gods word Wherefore the doctrine of our Church concerning the later is not to be sought for in the booke of consecration or the 36. article that establisheth it much lesse in the preface of that booke but rather in those articles which concerne faith and sacraments For the whole body of our Church being assembled in Parliament evidently perceiving that there were some clauses sentences and articles in that booke and the preface thereof not warrantable by the word did therefore approve of it no further then it concerned the doctrine of faith and sacraments and provided also that no Minister of the word should be tied by his subscription further to approve it as well appeareth by the statute 13. Elizab cap. 12. And here I wish the reader 1. to take notice that in all that booke there is no word of Archbishops Archdeacons Deanes rurall Deanes with the rest of that rowe so that they will not be found be like in the word nor hath God by his spirit appointed them in his Church 2. To observe how the Doct. that so boldly and confidently that I say no more rejecteth so many Synods Churches and learned men alleadged by the Refut and acknowledged by himself to be orthodoxal divines is not so wel seene in his allegation here as he would seeme to be surely he mought very well conceive that we might take exception not onely to his booke of ordering Bishops Preists and Deacons but to the article that establisheth it both being made by the Bishops themselves Iudges in their owne cause and seeking their owne preheminence espetially when they were both so farre excepted against by that whole assembly of Parliament as not to binde any by subscription to approve them so much as consonant to the word Thus much concerning the booke of articles and the D. dealing with vs therein Come we now to the Confession of the English Sect. â—â— church collected as the D saith out of the Apologie The wordes as he layeth them downe are these We beleeve that there be divers degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Preists some Bishops c. But he should have read out to the end of the sentence and not breake off with an c. so keeping many of his readers from the sight of them if he durst for overthrowinge his owne cause For the very next words insinuate that these diverse degrees If the D. had read his owne testimony to the end it would have bene against him are of order not of power and jurisdiction whiles they make the office of those divers degrees to be one and the same saying to whoÌ„ is coÌ„mitted the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion It seemeth the D. was somewhat shortwinded when he read that sentence and I challenge him to bring one word out of all that confession that giveth more authoritie to Bishops then to other Ministers that are called Preists Doth not the 7. article of that confession professe that Christ hath given to his Ministers one aswell as another power to binde to loose to open to shutt Doth it not make the authoritie of binding and loosing to be in thaâ— censure of excoÌ„munication and absolving from it aswel as in preaching mercie or judgement Doth it not make the worde of God the keye whereby the Ministers must open or shut the kingdome of heâ—veâ— And doth it not affirme that the disciples of Christ aswell as the Apostles received the authortie of opening and shutting by it And that the Preist is a Iudge in this case though he hath no manner of right to challenge an authoritie or power that is as the observation vpon it vnderstandeth it civil or to make lawes to mens consciences To be short doth it not affirme that seing one manner of worde is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all that therefore there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting If I belie not the Confession but that these be the very wordes thereof let him that readeth confider whether the Confession produced by the Doctor as an Advocate in his behalfe to prove the Refuters fourth vntruth hath not as a Iudge given sentence against his owne Client Worthily therefore hath he here cited this confession and of no lesse worth is his owne observation vpon it It is to be noted saith he that our Church acknowledgeth nothinge as a matter of fayth which is not conâ—â—yned in Gods worde or grounded thereon And I will note it with him and doe tell him that he noteth well for vs and againste The Doct. note is for vs and against him selfe himselfe For if the government of the Church by such Bishops as he speaketh of be a matter of faith why putteth he a difference betweene matters of discipline and the articles of fayth and referreth the question of the function and superioritie of Bishops to the former lib. 3. page 38 and howe is their government mutable and not perpetually necessary as in his defence he often affirmeth In deed he once sayd that the â—piscopall function and authoritie which Timothy and Titus had the same with ours as being assigned to certaine Churches consisting in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches This was the Doctors faith when he preached and printed his sermon page 79. but it seemeth his Refuter hath occasioned his departure from it But let we that passe and keep we him to his note here Thus I reason It is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing for a matter of fayth which is not conteyned in
Notwithstanding for the clearinge of the state of the question two things are to be considered to wit first what he includeth in or excludeth from the substance of their callinge Secondly in what sense their function is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The substance of their callinge the Doctor explaineth serm Sect. 6. page 52. 53. where haâ—ing said that the angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are he addeth that is to say Diocâ—san and Provinciall Bishops being superiour in degree to other Ministers and having a singularitie of prehemmence for terme of life and a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction Neverthelesse the reader must not imagin that he speaketh of Provinciall or Metropolitan Bishops when he affirmeth the episcopall function to be of divine institution â—or in his defense he usually inserteth the word Diocesan as lib. 1. pag. 58. and lib. 4. pag. 139. to teach us that the Bishops whose function he mainteyneth to be of apostolical institution are no other then Diocesan Bishops As for Metropolitans though he thinke lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that their superioritie was intended by the Apostles when they appointed Bishops over mother Cities yet as well as he loveth them he dareth not affirme that any were ordeyned by the Apostles to the office or prâ—h minence of Metropolitan Bishops For every Metropolitan in his opinion lib. 3. cap. 1. pag. 20. 21. was The function of Archbps. is lesse beholding to the D. theâ— the function of Diocesan Bishops originally the Bâ—shop of his peculiar Diocese and not actually a Metropolitan vntill divers Churches in the same Province being constituted there was a consociation amonge themselves and a subordination of them to him as their primate So that the function of Metropolitans or Archbishops is lesse beholdinge to Mayster Doctor then the callinge of Diocesan Bishops Of the former he speaketh doubtfully lib. 4. cap. 5. p. 130. Their superiority arose as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directinge and force of necessity urging men to that course but as I rather think from the institution of the Apostles Of th' other he affirmeth very peremptorily lib. 4. pag. 139. 143. that the calling of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution The substance then of that episcopall function which he holdeth to be a divine ordinance the D. hath placed in these particulars 1. That they be diocesan Bishops or overseers of a diocese 2. That they be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. That they have a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power both of ordination and of jurisdiction in their places Loe here his enumeration and withall how he omitteth therein and that of purpose as it seemeth foure other more substantiall The D. omitteth 4. substantiall and lesse questionable points of the Bps. function but yeâ— wisely and lesse questionable points of their function who first had the name of Bishops appropriated to theÌ„ in the anceÌ„t Churches to wit that they were 1. Pastors of their Churches bound by their office to dispence the word and Sacramentes to their people and therefore 2. tied to make their positive residencie in that one City or Church whereof they had the Charge 3. assisted also every of them with his presbytery or Senate of Elders without whose advyce and consent in Church-matters nothing of weight was done and 4. not subordinated to the jurisdictioÌ„ or censure of any one Bishop superiour vnto him But of these pointes more he reafter lib. 3. 4. I now purpose not to insist on this defect in his laying down of the substanciall partes of the episcopall function neyther will I contend about the continuance of their Presidencie or singular preheminence whether it be essentiall or accidentall to injoy it coÌ„stantly for terme of life nor yet magnify the D. wisdome in his cuÌ„ning concealing of them as knowing how it wipeth his Diocesans over the shinnes In this rather I disire to give or receive satissaction whether that singularitie of preheminence and peerelessâ— power which he ascribeth unto Bishop be not a sole superioritie or sole power of rule as the Refuter affirmeth And this I the rather desire because the Doctor is so highly offended with the worde sole that as oft as he findeth it vsed by his Refuter in this question he rewardeth him with these or the like counterbuffs at every turne Whence coÌ„meth this sole I pray you that hath so oft bene foysted in I feare greatly froÌ„ The Doct. standereth shamelessly an evill conscience resolved to opâ—ugn and d face the truth lib. 3. pag 118. And in the next page God amend that soule that so often foysteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And againe pag. 126 O defiled conscience which ceaseth not to ascribe such odious and absurd asserâ—ions to me Thus and thus is M. Doctor pleased to declaime Why but how should the word sole or the name of sovereignty or Sect. 7. sole rule â—e so odious and offensive to the Doctors eares when notwithstanding all this face the thing is so pleasing to him that he pleadeth for it tooth and nayle To ask as he doth lib. 3. pag. 20. 68 69. where doe I say in all thâ— sermon that Bishops had or must have sole power or iurisdiction and whether Bishops cannot be superiour to Presbyters in the power of ordination or iuriâ—aiction vnlâ—sse they have all the sole pâ—wâ—r Thus to ask I saye helpeth litle eyther to frâ—e him from giving way to those assertions which he seemeth to abhorre or to make his Refuter guilty of so evill and defiled a conscience as he accuseth him of nay if he discharge a good conscience he must confesse either that his wordes doe not faithfully expresse his meaning or that he meant to give vnto Bishops that sol pâ—wer of rule which his Refuter gathereth from his wordes For what difference is there betwixt that singularity of preheminence which he maketh the first branch of the Bishops superiority serm pag. 32. and that sole superiority or sole power of rule which the Refuter speaketh of Doth he not teach us out of Cyprian and Herom pa. 33. 34 that the government and the whole care of the Church apperteineth to the Bishop which is one onely And that his singular preheminence is a peerelesse power and eminent above all yea such as admitteth no partner pag. 36. 46 And doth he not afterwards pag. 45. 46. 47. vndertake to demonstrate that the Bishop governeth in foro externo not onely the people but the prâ—sbyters also of an whole diocese as having authority to guide and direct them as their ruler and to censure and correct them as their Iudge Doth he not serm pag. 30. as is already shewed in the former chapter sect 10. out of Ignatius make 3. degrees of Ministers Deacons Preists and Bishops vnder Christ the Deâ—cons subject to the
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
Pastors Teachers the Deacons into treasurers for the poore and those which are Presbyters or Elders viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline Nicholaus Laurentius a late Superintendent in Denmark in his treatise of excommunication published Anno 1610. hath these asserrions That the right of excommunication is not in the power of any one man eyther Bishop or Pastor but in the power of the Pastors that company which Paul calleth the Presbyterie p. 62. That excoÌ„municatioÌ„ is eyther of the whole Church meaning the people or of certayn grave meÌ„ which are in stead of the whole Church so that the Pastor doe publikely in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence p. 64 That where there is no such Senate or Presbyterie except the Magistrate shall otherwise decree and provide the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish and the Superintendent and two of the Pastors in that Province wherein he dwelleth and bring the matter before them all c. ibid Many moe might be brought for this purpose if it were fitting for this place but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion and to shewe the Doct. weaknes in so overreaching as to charge that unjustly vpon his refuter which he himself is justly guilty of Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of foure other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor Sect. 1. pag. 4. of the ref and pag of the D. 4. 5. In the D. next section he chargeth his refuter to add to his former overreaching foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land because he said his doctrine was against 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs 2. contrarie to the profissed judgement of all our worthy wryters 3. contrariant to the lawes of our land 4. contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England A foul fault if true and no great credit for the D if not his refut in his sayings but himself in so saying hath vttered 4. notorious vntruthes let us therefore examine them and in this chapter the first of them The refuters words out of which the D. would extract the first of them are these that the Do. sermon is against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whome were worthy Martyrs who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Popes authority out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparity of Ministers and Lordly primacie of Bishops was but a politick devise of the fathers not any ordinance of Christ and that the government by the Minister and Seniors or Elders in every parish was the ancient discipline These be his words for his proofe he referreth us to three bookes the booke of Martyrs the booke called the Bishops booke and the booke called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious vntruth The witnesses saith he which the Ref. queteth were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops allowing the episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost incredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alledged against the same Incâ—edible in deed if they had been cast into the mould in which our nowe Bishops have been formed otherwise it is credible enongh that they may as I stil affirme that they doe testifye something against such a calling of Bishops as the D. mainteyneth and yet hold the function practise thereof lawfull Was it never heard of that some of our later Bishops that worthy Iewel and others allowed the episcopall function both in judgement and practise yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino which is the point in quaestion though the D. here would not see it And why may not they allowe of the Lordly primacie of Bishops jure bumano disclayme it jure divino aswell as allowe them to exercise civill authority and yet disclaime it as being lawful iure divino as may appeare they did in the places cited But 2. the D. goeth on and as if he had already said enough to prove his refuter to be as unconscionable as may be saith that he wondreth greatly at his large conscience in this behalf who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authours alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them A heavie charge if true but here it the comfort that upon due examination it wil be found to prove otherwise It is no newe thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies should be the readiest as the D. here is to laye the charge on others Let us novv trie out the whole in the particulars First concerning the testimony taken from the booke of Martyrs and the Bishops booke or booke intituled The institution of a Christian man the Doctor telleth us that he hath perused it and findeth nothing at all concerning the superiority of of Bishops over other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superiority of Bishops among themselves all whom with the ancient fathers I confesse sayth he in respect of the power of order to be equal as were the Apostles whose successors they are If it be but so as the Doct. here coÌ„fesseth they say enough to shewe and he hath subscribed it that the function of Archbishops is jure humano But if he had perused with purpose to find out what is there to be found he mought easily The D. caâ—â—â—niâ—â—eth have found full as much as the Refuter citeth it for For it speaketh not of Bishops severed from other Preists and Preachers but promiscuously of all Bishops Preists Preists and Preachers as appeareth by diverse passages of that part of the book there sett downe to witt the chap of the Sacrament of orders amongst which consider we 1. that there should be continually in the Church militant ministers or officers to have speciall power vnder Christ to preach the word administer the Sacramentes ioose and binde by excommunication and order consecrate others in the same roome and office whereto they be called that their power was limited and office ordeyned of God Ephes 4 coÌ„mitted and given by Christ his Apostles to certeyn persons onely viz. Preists and Bishops That albeit the holy-Fathers of the Church succeeding did institute inferior orders and degrees c. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mencion made of any degrees or distinction in orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers That the power and authority belonging to Preists and Bishops is of 2. parts potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis to the first wherof alwayes good consent hath bene about the second some disagrement and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people that the iurisdiction committed to Preists and Bishops by authority of Gods lawe consisteth in three speciall points 1. in admonition excommunication and absolution 2. in approving and admitting
of the parish 2. when the Bishops or ecclesiasticall Syndicâ— Iudge shall give licence and authority for the receiving of him into the congregation by the Pastor be shal not receive him into the Church but in the presence of the congregation and 3. not before he hath witnessed his repentance to the Congregation by confessing and bewayling his sinne before them craving â—â—â—don both of God and them togither with theâ—â— favour for his reciving in The which when the party hath done the Minister 4 ly shall ask the congregation whether they will forgive him his fault and commend his cause by prayer unto God that he would shewe mercy to him and coÌ„firm that in heaven which they doe on earth And the people answeringe thereto we will he shall againe ask them whither they will receive him into their company and count him as a brother wherevnto when they have answered we will then shal the Minister absolve him and receive him into the Church saying after this manner I doe here before this Church the guiding whereof is coÌ„mitted vnto me absolve thee from the punishment of thine offences and from the bonds of excoÌ„munication by the authoritie of God the power of Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost with the consent of the members of this Church present and also of the ordinary Ordinario suffragante And I doe restore thee againe to thy former place and ful right in the Church Behold here the order prescribed by theÌ„ for administration of this part of discipline and therein observe that the Bishop or ecclesiasticall Iudge had but a voyce in it he was neyther the doer nor the sole-doer but the Minister and the Seniors or cheefe men of the Parishe and the congregation had their voyces also and that as they could not doe it with out the Bishop so neyther the Bishop without them And thus farre they sought to bringe in the auncient discipline and doe shewe their judgement to be directly against his doctrine for the Bishops sole government as appeareth also by the former testimony cited out of the Bishops booke Consider we now what the D. sayth to the Seniors they speake of he telleth us that it is apparant that by Seniors they 〈◊〉 not ecclesiasticall officers because where they reckon vp all ecclesiasticall officers from the Clerks to the Church wardens Deacons Ministers c. they doe not once mention Seniors or their office And therevpon concludeth that by them they vnderstand some of the principall housholders in some places called vestry-men in some Masters of the parishe in some â—â—ncients of the parish Which is nothing to the purpose seing the ref never sayd that by the Seniors with whom they require the Minister to consult they mean any of the ecclesiastical officers theÌ„ established wherof onely they make mention in the Chapters noted in the Doctors margin yet when in the places alleadged by the Refuter they all those officers notwithstanding prescribe the Ministers to take to them Seniors and without their counsel to doe nothing in the the Church busynes to proceed with wicked persons according to Math. 18 and adjudging them worthy to be excommunicate and having gotten to approve it they must denounce it publiquely in the congregation that therein so much as may be they might bring in the anncient discipline will not any man that hath witt and honesty conclude that they acknowledged that of olde time there were Seniors let the D. call them what he will they call them Seniors who were joyned with the Pastors of particular coÌ„gregations in Church government and that they so farre as their comission and the lawes then established would permit them out of the love they bare to that discipline sought to bring it in The D. therefore wanteth witt or honesty in so charging his refut the former we knowe he hath the later the reader may see he wanteth else would he never at his first meeting with this testimony charge his refuter to be an egregious falsifyer to have produced forged allegations and when he is to take his leave of it will the reader to judge with what conscience that booke was alleadged as if the Refuter against coÌ„science had alleadged it But I will joyne with him in that request praying the reader in Gods feare so to doe as also how wel he hath proved his Refuter in the allegation thereof to be as he chargeth him an egregious falsifyer and to have produced forged allegations and so proceede to the rest of those notorious untruthes as he calleth them Chap. 4. Wherein the Refuter is discharged of the other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor The second notorious untruth layd to the Refuters charge by Sect. 1. ref pag. 4. D. p. 7. the Doctor is because he sayd that his dactrine is contrary to the profifsed profissed judgement of our worthy wryters Whitakers Fulk c. who in their answeres to the Papists who plead for their hierarchy with the same reasons that the D. doth for his doe determine that the government our Bishops exercise ever other Ministers is jure humano by the positive law of man onely the which if the D. say true is false and so the papists left vnanswered fre hence ariseth this second notorious vntruth but how doth M. D. make it appeare so 1. Can he deny the doctrine in his sermon to be cleane contrary to their judgement that holde the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers to be given them jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely No he dareth not contradict his Refuter in this point What then 2. Doth he deny that the Papists doe pleade for their hierarchy with the same reasons that he doth for ours no he onely indeavoureth to perswade that his arguments are good though theirs be naught 3. But doe not our worthy wryters those the refuter named with others in their answers to the Papists that alleadge the same reasons determine as the refuter saith that the governmeÌ„t which our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano not by divine right but by the positive lawe of man onely This is so evident a truth that the D. neyther doth nor can refell it Where then is that notorious vntruth wherewith he chargeth his Refuter by reason of those wordes is not he rather a notorious slaunderer in delivering The D. is the slauÌ„derer such an accusation as he cannot justify Iudge Christian reader wheÌ„ thou hast heard his answer First sayth he the popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold for they holde the order and superiority of Bishops to be jure divino implying thereby a perpetuall necessity therof in so much that where Bishops are not to ordeyne they think there can be no Ministers nor Preists coÌ„sequently no Church I holde otherwise as the Ref himself acknowknowledgeth p. 90 in fine If therefore the Papists doe bringe the like argumeÌ„ts to prove their
opinion which is so unlike to mine nothing hindreth but my arguments may be good though theirs be naught For those argumēts which demonstratively prove the episcopall function to be of Apostolical institution doe not straitewayes prove it to be divini juris Wherefore my opinion being so farr different from the popish conceite who seeth not that the judgement of our divines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposue to mine for though they hold not the episcopal function to be injoyned jure divino as being perpetually necessary yet what man of sound learning doth or dare deny that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles Thus we see how the D. hath ledd us along But notwithstanding the confidence of his speach observe wee the extreame povertie of his cause is he not neere driven think ye when to prove his great difference betwene his opinion and the Papists he is fayne to flye to the refuters acknowledgment of it in that 90. page where with the same breath he challengeth him to be contrary to himselfe seeminge at least to vnsay that in one place which he had sayd in another Doth he not remember that he hath often charged his refuter to affirme throughout his answere that he holdeth the episcopal function to be iure divino and to imply a perpetuall necessity thereof how then doth the refuters acknowledgement prove that the popish opinion is farre different from his Doth it not rather prove that in this very point wherein he layeth the mayne difference he he is fully knitt vnto them although forgetting himselfe as many Papists also do in their discourses he contradicteth at one time what he maynteyneth at an other But to let the world see how he jumpeth wth the Papists in this matter I wil relate his opiniō not in his ref words but in his owne The functiō authority saith he serm p. 79 which Tim. and T it had at Ephesus and in Crete cōsisting specially in the power of ordinatiō jurisdictiō was not to end with their persōs but to be cōtinued in their successors as being ordinary perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the Churches For if whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy and Titus furnished with episcopal power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours Loe here his owne wordes now who seeth not that they closely implye that which he saith the Papists doe more impudently The D. closely implieth what the Papists impudently affirme affirme viz that where Bishops are not to ordeyne there can be no Ministers or Preists and consequently no Church Yet there is a freind of the Do. who pleadinge the same cause blusheth not among other propositions delivered to disgace the Presbyterian discipline and the mainteyners thereof to affirme in playne termes that all Ministers created and made by the newe Presbyterie are mere laye-persons and cannot lawfully eyther preach Gods word or administer the sacraments so saith Tho Bell in his regiment of the Church page 136 and then addeth this is already proved and a little afer concludeth with Ieroms wordes often objected by the Papists against the Protestants ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem where there it no Preist or Minister there can be no Church But to returne to the D. seing all the reason he here bringeth to mainteyne his accusation is from the difference of opinion betwixt the Papists and him concerning the authority of Bishops it being made evident that there is no such difference as he pretendeth it will necessarily followe that this second vntruth how notorious soever here charged upon his refuter must be discharged upon himselfe For it is a truth so The 2. vntruth which the D. chargeth upon the Ref. returneth to himself evident as the D. cannot deny it that the judgement of our divines is wholly opposite to his in that they hold the calling of L. Bishops to be neyther divini nor apostolici juris neither as the Papists nor as the D. holdeth them if he did as he sayth so farre differ from them And putt case the difference betwixt the Papists and him were such as he saith yet what is that to the point in question I meane to prove the refuters assertiō to be a notorious vntruth nothing at all The D. in deed his opinion being so different as he fayth from the popish conceit asketh who it is that seeth not that the judgement of our divines opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to his and I may ask him what meant he to ask that question Maye not the D yea doth he not agree with the Papists in affirminge the episcopal function to be divini juris thereby intending that it is a divine and not an humane ordinance though he should differ from them in the point of the perpetual and immutable necessity of the function And may not our worthy writers of whome the Refuter speaketh yea can the Doctor shewe that they doe not contradict the papists aswell in the former point as in the later Will he say and can he prove that they determine such Bishops onely as have such a calling as the papists mainteyne to be jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely doe they not generally conclude and determine the matter of all Bishops whatsoever that are superior to other Ministers or can they holde which the Ref. saith they doe and the D. doth not denie that the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano onely and yet hold it an apostolicall ordinance also or can they hold that so farre forth as there is a perpetuall necessity thereof it is onely jure humano and that so farre forth as it is not perpetuall but so as the Church may be a church without it it is an apostolicall and a divine ordinance Or doe our writers therefore determine against the papists that the government aforesaid is onely jure humano because they defend it to be perpetually necessary Or doe they determine onely against those reasons of the papists by which they prove this government to be perpetually necessary Will the D. affirme this Is not the contrary to all this most evident to them that read their writings Doe they not plainly and directly without any relation to this or that conceite conclude against all those reasons which papists bring that the goverment of Bishops over other Ministers is not an ordinance divine or apostolicall but humane onely directly contrary to the D. conclusion lett his reasons be what they be may And it were worth the knowinge what reasons those are that demonstratively prove as he saith the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution yet prove it not to be divini juris and of perpetuall necessitie as also what worthy
maketh it to saye that by the scriptures of God a Bishop and a Preist are all one or knoweth he how farr and vnto whom he reacheth the name of an heretike verely Chrisostom saith * in 1. Tim. Hom. 11. ad Evagrium quaest vet et novi testā q. 101 de dignitat sacerdotali Betwene a Bishop and a preist in a manner there is no difference S. Ierom saith somewhat in rougher sort I here saie there is one become so peevishe that he setteth Deacons before Preists that is to saie before Bishops whereas the Apostles plainely teacheth us that Preists and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is a Bishop but the first Preist that is to say the highest Preist So saith Saint Ambrose there is but one consecration of Preist and Bishop for both of them are Preists but the Bishop is the first All these and other mo◠holy Fathers togither with Saint Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardinges advise musts be holden for Haeretikes And in his reply to him article 4. page 309. having shewed what primacie or headship Ierom gave to Peter viz that to avoid confusion which lightly happeneth in all companies where no order is Christ appointed Peter for that he was the eldest man to speake and deale for the rest as cheefe and heade of all his brethren he addeth these wordes which order also was afterwards vniversally taken throughout the world that in every congregation of Preists one should have a special preheminence above others and be called Episcopus Bishop This was thought a good politick way to avoid conteution in the Church By all which it appeareth that this worthy IEWELL was perswaded 1. That the preheminence of Bishops above other Ministers was first brought in by humane policie and not by any divine ordinance in the holy scriptures 2. that the preheminence of Bishops in the first originall and establishment thereof was onely a preheminence such as Peter had above the rest of his fellow Apostles which was at the most of order onely and not of any superiour cōmanding power jurisdictiō And 3. that in the primitive Ch other Elders besides Ministers of the word had an hand in the governmēt of the Church Thus we see the judgement of these two Bishops cited by Sect. 4. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. the Refuter nowe let the reader judge whether he hath uttered a notorious vntruth in saying the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops or rather whether the Doctor hath not malliciously The D. slandereth malliciously slaundered him in so charging him I saye malicious and if his conscience be spurred the quaestion from the abundance whereof his pen wrote it will subscribe to it For knewe he not all this to be true in the Bishops bookes quoted by the Refuter in his Margin Yea are not divers partes of these testimonies expressed in the Refuters answere page 34. and 124 Did he not reade them there And hath he not slipped them over with such a slubber that if he be not farre spent he cannot laye them and his answere to them togither without the blushredd-colour Well but the Doctor is none of them that will be madd without reason he therefore giveth vs a reason why he doth not credite his Refuter For sayth he the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the articles and confession of our Church Which reason is without reason and argueth the man not so wel advised as he mought be when he appealeth to the cōfession of our Church collected out of the Apologie thereof written as himselfe sayth by Bishop Iewel from the Apologie it selfe and Authors owne exposition and defence of it Is it likely think ye that other men should vnderstand him better then himselfe doth eyther in the Apologie or defence of it especially being authorized to write it by our Church and it allowed yea cōmanded to be in all our Churches But let vs examine his allegations apart The first is the booke of Articles and what doth that The 36. article thereof approveth saith he the booke of consecrating Bishops Preists and Deacons And what then that booke saith he in the Preface thereof saith that from the Apostles times there have bene those orders of Ministers Bishops Preists and Deacons in Christs Church and that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church Is not this a sweet proof mark it well The articles approve the booke and the preface of that booke saith that those three orders have bene in the Church from the Apostles times c. Therefore the booke of articles and consequently the doctrine of the church of England approveth the function of Bishops and their superiority above Preists to be of divine ordinance As if 1. what soever is sayd in the preface before the booke which in all likelihood was done by one or two onely and not by so generall a consent as the booke it selfe must needs be allowed for the currant doctrine of the Church of England in that age because the 36. article in our booke of articles doth for some purpose approve the booke of consecrating Bishops c. as conteyning in it all things necessary to such consecration But 2. doth that preface say that those 3. orders were in the Apostles times no but from the Apostles times exclusively which words do◠not prove they were in the Apostles times but the contrary as the refuter hath shewed out of Chamier de Pontif Oecum in his answere page 87. in the like phrase of Ierom to Evagrius saying that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas c. one of the Presbyters were chosen from amongst the rest set over the rest c. But 3. it seemeth they meant otherwise by the last clause which the D. citeth that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church But the reader must know that that sentence is none of theirs nor to be found in that preface it hath pleased the D. ex abundanti to add that clause of his owne head and cleane contrary to their meaning that made that book at least for as we have heard cap. 3 before going they held the superiority of Bishops The D. addeth one sentence to his testimony and detracteth another from it to be a politick devise of man and not the ordinance of God Let us goe forwards with the Doct he addeth that the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by Gods word Here 1. I charge the D as before with the adding of one sentence so here with the detracting of another whiles he deceitfully cōcealeth part of the words For the booke requireth the Bishop to correct and punish c. according to such authority as he hath by Gods word and the ordinance of this realme which later clause of the lawes of this realme they would never have added had they thought that the power
Gods word or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors 2. It is to be noted that our CHVRCH acknowledgeth that though there be dâ—vers degrees of Ministers as Bishops Preists Deacous in the Church yet that one onely manner of word is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all and that there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting This assumption is the Confession now froÌ„ hence I may be bold to make one note more with this conclusion 3. Therefore it is to be noted that wheras our Churches practise is otherwise in the government that our Bishops now exercise it is net a matter of fâ—ith conteyned in Gods word or grounded thereâ—n but onely of poliâ—iâ— and humane tradition for the power of the keyes and discipline of the Church is one onely and given to all Ministers aswell as to Bishops by the word of God And consequently the doctrine of the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of The D. hath slaundered his Refut his owne testimonies produced for advocates being judges the Church of England and consequently that the Doctor hath here slandered his refuter his owne testimonies produced for Advocates being Indges But we have not yet done the D. as a man that will have somewhat to saye if the worst come to the worst asketh that if the Bishops being now better informed concerning their functions had nowe reformed their judgements according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity whether it would follow that their later thoughts which are comonly the wiser were false and worthy to be confuted I answere that it maye be asked whether he was more foolish or presumptuous in making that questioÌ„ For who is so foolish as to affirme that any mans later thoughts are false and worthy to be confuted because they are reformed according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity 2. Presumeth he not that if the Bishops be now of late grown to another judgement concerning their hierarchie then the Bishops their predicessors have bene in the dayes that are past that these later are wiser then the former and have reformed their judgments according to the holy scriptures c Doth he not thereby censure the former of error and ignorance concerning the truth in this behalf howsoever as it seemeth by his former note they made it a matter of faith conteyned in Gods worde or grounded thereon I will not here question the probabilities whether the thoughts of the nowe and late Bishops or their predicessors be the wiser this without comparison I dare saye that those Bishops that made not this title of superiority authoritie over their brethren and fellowe Ministers were men both godly and learned zealous lovers of sincerity wrote as against the coÌ„mon adversarie so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed and against ignorant Ministers nonresidents pluralitans many things of like sort nowe not onely tollerated but defended also let the Doctor advance the Prelates of these dayes above them if he will I will make no comparison Thus much shall â—uffice to acquite the refuter of the false and slaunderous imâ—utations of such notorious vntruthes as the Doctor hath layd vpon him in his answere to the first reason Chap. 5. Concerning the hurt like to come to the Church by the D. sermon and namely of advantaging the Papists We are nowe to handle the D. answere to the Refuters second reason as he calleth it though it be in deed but a member of the Sect. 1. Refut pag. 5. 6. D. pag. 11. 12. former in reply wherevnto I wil be more breife touching but here and there vpon a word or two most materiall the most parte of the Doctors speach being in deed nothing but sarchasticall and by-speaches The Refuter thought his sermon the more needfull to be confuted because though it was utterly failse yet he had caried the matter so handsomly smoothly and confidently that it caried appearance of truth and therefore discerned that much hurt was like to come to the Church of God by it Herevnto to let passe the D devised divisioÌ„ of the words he answereth by charging his refuter againe to crosse contradict himselfe saying that however his refut had sayd in the former reason that it is evidently false so not dangerous yet now he saith the doctrine is so by me handsomly and likely handled that it is so farre from being evidently false that every word hath an appearance promise of truth But the fight is here betwixt the Doctor and his owne shadowe not betweene the Refuter and his speaches Not the Refuter but the D. fighteth against himself Thinges evidently false are not dangerous in deed where and to whom the evidence appeareth yet dangerous enough to them that see not or will not see the falshood of them Thinges evidently false to one may have an appearence and promise of truth to another The Apostle 2. Cor. 11 3. c. feared leaste the Corinthâ—â— were beguiled as Eve was by Satan through the false APOSTLES that transformed themselves into an ANGELL of light and tolde theire tale so handsomely smoothly and confidently that it had an appearaunce and promyse of truth to the Corinthes why else was he affraid they would be beguiled by them though they scarce uttred one word of truth themselves being the Ministers of Satan and their doctrine utterly false even the doâ—â—â—ine of Divills And if the D. here reasoneth well who seeth not that he confuteth that reverend Bishop Iewell whom his Ref. as he saith in that speach imitateth Hardings doctrine was utterly and evidently false surely and yet dangerous too or Bishop Iewell said not well and yet he carried himself so smoothlie likely and confidently that to many it had shewe and appearance of truth why else doth that reverend Bishop bestowe so much labour in confuting it I could agayn say as much concerning the Ref. answer the D. defence but we must passe on The Doctor thinketh that he told his tale so smoothly in his sermoÌ„ that he had almost perswaded his refuter to be of his mind we cannot let him to think so nor he me to think that that imagination of his hart among others was vaine It may be he is now feeding himself vpon this fancie that as his sermon had almost perswaded him so this his defense hath altogither perswaded him to be of his mind but I suppose the refut or his freind will tell him that he haâ—h an ill stomach that feedeth fatt with such winde As for the rest of his speaches to the end of that section let the reader judge of them as they deserve The Refut proveth the hurtfulnes of the Doct. sermon 1. froÌ„ Sect. 2. the advantaging of the Papists and 2. from the scandalizing of others thereby Touching the first The Papists saith he would be much advantaged thereby seing that Antichristian doctrine even after the renewing
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
alone in his Diocese and so be guiltlesse of the vntruth he chargeth on the Refuter he must both affirme and prove that the Archdeacons and Deanes rurall and cathedrall togither with the Chauncelors and officialls which now rule vnder the Bishop and the Archbishop with his courts which are above him be of divine institution or at least were in vse in the time of the Apostles and so derived to succeeding ages And yet if he could and should performo this hereafter it shall nothing weaken the Refuters assertion who examining the tenor of his sermon and finding therein no intimation eyther of any assistants to restreyne his Diocesan Bishop or any superior court to rule over him did therefore truely Sect. 10. ad Section 11. page 43. Two other vntruths charged on the Ref. by the D. returne back into his owne bosome affirme that the Doctor put the reynes of the government coÌ„troverted into the hands of his Diocesan alone As for those two vntruthes which he sought and professeth to finde in the proposition they doe even as the former two returne home into his owne bosome For since he cannot deny but that the power which he taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes is in his opinion a supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall and such as wil be both supreme and sole in the Pastor yea more then Popelike if they had not a consistorie of elders joyned to him it is no vntruth to affirme but an vntruth to deny that he giveth both sole and supreme authoritie to the Diocesan Bishop whosoever he be that giveth to him alone that power of government which the Doctor taketh from every several Pastor with the Elders and people of every parish For whereas he objecteth that because he acknowledgeth a superior authoritie both in the Archbishop and his courts and in the provinciall Synods c. it is apparant that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that he giveth the whole authoritye ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected is before answered and here altogither impertinent because to wâ—â—ken the refuters proposition he must shewe that he giveth not supreme and sole authoritie to the Bishop in his Diocese although he give to him alone all the power that he taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But whereas he falleth backe to the assumption againe addeth touching his refuters speach in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that it is the supreme and lowdest lye and maketh the Assumption of his cheefâ—syllogisme evidently false it is a supreme and lowd lye in the Doctor if The D. maketh a loud lye I may returne him his owne words 1. to reckon this for one vntruth implied in the proposition when himselfe acknowledgeth it to be the assumptioÌ„ of his cheife syllogisme 2. to deny it for what could be spoken with a supremer lowder crye by him then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical and that not in this defense onely but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon where he offreth to prove it by divers testimonies To what end else citeth he pag. 30. Ignatius ad Smyrn and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens shewing that all must be subject to the Bishop who holdeth and menageth the whole power authority over all yea such a power as admitteth no partner much lesse a superior Yea what else meaneth his conclusion pag. 52. where he saith thus you haue heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are having a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop let the reader especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next chapter judge As yet therefore neyther the lowest nor the lowdest lies which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter doe belong to him they must goe home and rest with their owne Father for ought is yet done As for all that which followeth pag. 44. 45. eyther to Sect. 11. ad pag. 44. 45. sect 12. 46. 47. Def. free himselfe from giving popelike authoritie to Bishops or to prove his accusation against the Presbyterians that they make the Pastor of every parish a petty pope Well may it argue his wps good affection to the one and evill will which never said well to the other but it can neyther cleare him nor condemne them in his conscience who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides For neyther is the Doctors cause releived by that subjection which he affirmeth and the Refuter acknowledgeth of our Diocesan Bishops to their Archbishops c Neyther is their cause made the worse by the height or impudencie of that ecclesiasticall authoritie which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish For the question is not as the Doctor shifteth The Doct. shifteth the questioÌ„ it Whether by our Church constitutions Dioccsan Bishops doe lie subject to any higher authoritie or whether men may appeale from them c. but whether the Doctor doth not indeavour in his sermon to convey vnto every Bishop in his Diocese as his right by divine institution an authoritie and power of government in causes ecclesiasticall no lesse sole and supreme then the power which every Pastor should haue in his parish by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them if he had no consistorie of Elders to assist and restreine him And towching the parishbishop the question is this whether he should be or at least seeme to be an absolute Popeling as having sole and supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoyned vnto him If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slaundering and syllogistically conclude eyther from his owne sermon the Negative in the former question or from their writings whom he impugneth the assirmative in the later he shall I doubt not have good and honest audience In the meane time seing he hath not as yet affirmed much lesse proved that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolicall institution subject to the jurisdiction eyther of the Archbishop or of the provinciall synode it may suffice to close vp the former questio with his owne words p. 43. What hath he gained by all his owne triumphing outcries but the manifestation of his owne manifest vntruthes And for the later question since it is evident by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy that they doe subject their Pastor aswel as the meanest of the people togither with the whole congregatio to the Kinges authority to all his Majesties civill officers ecclesiasticall lawes and seing also it appeareth not onely by the same Tract art 26. but also by
precepta vocat hoc est divinitus inspirata et ob id authentica Aret in 1. Cor. 14. 37. 3. It is well knowne that the doctrine of the Apostles and their practise recorded in their writings yeeld us the most direct and expresse warrant which Christian people and their Teachers have I say not for the sanctifying of the Lords day which is our Sabboth because some great Favourites of the Prelacy holde it though vnjustly to be a varyable ordinance and alterable at mens pelasure but for the estableshing of a settled Ministery in every Church to feed the â—lock which dependeth on them 1. Pet. 5. 3. 4. Act. 14. 23. 20. Tit. 1. 5. Which I suppose all will graunt to be generally and perpetually necessarye Byshop Bilson not excepted Perpet Govern pag. 106. 107. and 208. And it is no lesle evident that there is no generall necessity or perpetuity in some precepts which Christ himselfe gave to his Disciples as Mat. 10. 5. 14. and 12. 16. and 15. 20. and 19. 21. Iohn 13 14. 15 wherefore the perpetuity or immutability of precepts given in the scriptures dependeth not vpon the authority of the person froÌ„ whom D. distinction falleth to the groâ—d they proceed immediately but vpon the generallity or perpetnity of the grounds or causes which give strength there vnto So that the things which are Apostolici juris and none otherwise divine ordinances then as they proceedd froÌ„ the spirit of God that directed the Apostles are generally perpetually immutable necessary in the presence and concurrence of those causes and grounds whichmade them at the first necessary And there is no other or greater perpetuity or necessitie in any of those things which are immediately divini juris Wherefore as the D. acknowledgeth the things which were ordeyned of the Apostle to be for the authority of their iustitution not onely apostolicall but also divine ordinances so he must confesse that whatsoever they established not for a short tyme but for succeeding ages the same deserveth to be estemed as a thing authorized divnio jure not apostGlico onely And herein we have the consent of sundry Orthodoxal writers Certâ— saith D. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. pag. 107. quod apostoli ut necessarium sanxerunt atque introduxerunt juris divini vim The D. distinction is against the iudgment or his own freindes aswell as others obtinet And in this very question of the superioritle of Bishops above Presbyters as it is their coÌ„mon Tenent that they are equall or rather all one jure divins by Gods lawe so they hold the doctrine and practise of the Apostles to be susficient warrant to conclude their assertion as we may see in Sadeel ad repet Turrian sophism loc 12. pag. 403. 412. partis secundae And in Chemnitius exam Conc. Trident. De sacram ordâ—n parte 22. sol 249. yea Sadeel pag. 117. putteth no difference betwene jus divâ—num and an Apostolicall ordinance for vpon these premisses Presbyteri certè apostolicis institutis habent jus ordinandi Illi vero qui haâ— aeâ—ate ecclesiam primi reformarunt erant presbyteri he coÌ„cludeth quare primi illi doctores potuerunt in ecclesia reformata ministros ac pastores ordinare idque jure divino In like manner Bishop Barlowe in his sermon on Acts. 20. 28. as one not acquainted with any difference in perpetuitie betwene â—us apostolicuÌ„ divinum giveth both indifferently to the episcopall function gathering out of one word posuit in his text that it was both praxis apostolike an ordinance apostolicall and thesis pneumalike a canon or constitution of the whole Trinitie enacted for succeeding prosterity Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 117. saith a thing may be called de jure divino two waies 1. because it is of God immediately 2. because it is of them who are so directed by Gods holy Spirit that they cannot erre And in this sense the superiority of Bishops over other inferior Ministers maye be called de jure divino or an ordinance divine Doctor Sutcliff de presb cap. 15. presseth among other argumentes apostolorum usum et morem to prove that the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers doth niti jure divino The same may be sayd of sundry others which at this daye hold the functioÌ„ of our diocesan Bishops to be an apostolicall and so a divine ordinance or give them a superiority of jurisdiction jure apostolico as the D. himself doth lib. 3. pag. 116. and are not so scrupulous as the D. is to allowe that the superiority of their function is warranted to them jure divino Neither feare they to conclude the episâ—opall govermeÌ„t to be perpetuall because it is an ordinance apostolicall Wherefore I would be glad to learne of the Doctor in his next defense seing he was not in his sermon or the margin of it pleased A request to the D. to tel us where he so lately learned that distinction to tell us who those Some are which in respect of perpetuitie doe put such a difference as he noteth betwene the thinges that are Divini and those that are apostolici juris For as he receyved it not froÌ„ any of the forenamed Favorites of the prelacy so neyther did he suck it from Doct. Bilsons breast the man that gave him in this question so good satisfaction For as the title of his booke sheweth that he holdeâ—h the government of Bishops to be the perpetuall government of Christes Church so the body of the booke it self doth plainely demonstrate that he concludeth the perpetuity thereof from no other argumentes then such as the D. urgeth to prove it to be an apostolicall divine ordinance Yea it seemeth that when the D. preached his former sermon of the dignity and duty of the Ministers either he had not yet learned or at least he little regarded this distinction For pag. 73. he taketh an ordinance delivered by the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 14. for a sufficient arguement to conclude that a sufficient maintenance is due vnto the Ministers of the Gospell jure divino by the lawe of God But let us come as neere as we can to his author of this distinction Bellarmin in deed distinguisheth betwene jus divinum and Apostolicum atfirming lib. de clericis cap. 18. that the mariage of preists is prohibired onely jure apostolico not divino Quod enim saith he Apostolus praecipit non divinum sed apostolicum praeceptum est But with him jus apostolicum is no other then jus humanum or positivum Ibid. cap. seq Moreover he urgeth the same distinction as the D. acknowledgeth lib. 3. pag. 101. to shewe what he tooke to be Hieroms meaning when he saith that a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter in nothing save in the power of ordination that is saith he lib. de Clericis cap. 15. in this onely he is superiour to other Ministers jure divino but in the power or jurisdiction jure
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
eutaxie of every Church dependeth in deed vpon the power of ordination and jurisdiction but not vpon the investing of the power in Bishops because his second thoughtes have drawne him to distinguish betwene potestas and modus potestatis lib. 4. pag. 102. 1 17. we have reason to thinke as shall appeare anone that he The Doct. streyneth his witts in vaine to avoid conâ— dreamed not of this distinction till he had set his witts awork to remove the contradiction which his Refuter objected against him Notwithstanding he cannot with all his cunning avoyde that necessitie which floweth from the first braunch of episcopall superiority For if the vnity of every Church dependeth on the singularity of preheminence in one duringe life and that in such sort as afterwardes he explayneth his meaning to wit that whereas there were many presbyters in one City yet there neither were noâ— might be in succeedinge ages downeward froÌ„ the Apostles times any more then one Angell in a church or one Bishop in an whole diocese how can it be denied that there is a generall and perpetuall necessity of episcopall superiority for the preservation of the Church in vnitie 2. Neyther will the learning of that distinction which he now putteth betwene pâ—tâ—stas modus potestatis free him from placing the like necessitie in the function of Bishops for the exercise of that lawful power of ordination jurisdiction whereon the Churches perpetuitie eutaxie or good order dependeth For to let passe that which he saith serm pag. 32. how the superioritie of Bishops not onely did but also doth consist in that two fold power no lesse then in a singularitie of preheminence during life he avoucheth in plaine termes that the power which Timothie and Titus had for ordination and jurisdiction was not to die with them but to be transmitted to them that should succeed them in the government of the Church That the authoritie yea the function and authority which they had consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with their persons but to be continued in their sucessors sermon pag. 75. 79. Defence lib. 3. pag. 72. lib. 4. pag. 84. 98. and 100 That the commandements and injunctions given them to be kept inviolable vntil the appearing of Christ were directed to them alone and their successors serm pag. 49. 74. And that the duties prescribed for the execution of their office authoritie were to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ lib. 4. pag. 77. And which is yet more he addeth that their successors were Bishops onely yea Diocesan Bishops serm pag. 75. lib. 4. pag. 85. and that not de facto onely but also de iure Ibid. And that Presbyters neither were nor could be their successors lib. 3. pag. 73. and that neither are those instructions given in generall to presbyters neyther doth the charge of those affaires belong unto them lib. 4. pag. 79. Wherefore also he affirmeth or rather from the premises concludeth that the epistles written to Timothy and Titus were the very patterns and presidents of the episcopall function and purposely written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone but them and their successors viz. all Bishops to the worlds end how to exercise their function serm pag. 72. 73. Defence lib. 4. pag. 75. 83. Yea and further saith that those precepts 1. Tim. 5. 19. 22. are perpetuall directions which are not common eyther to other Christians or to other Ministers therfore peculiar to Bishops lib. 4. pag. 77. Thus It is sufficiently proved that the D. holdeth a perpetuall necessity of the episcopall function have we seene at large the Doctors judgement now to â—ay all these things togither If the power and authoritie and not so onely but also the function which Timothy and Titus had was not to die with their persons but to be transmitted vnto and continued in Bishops because Bishops and not Presbyters were their successors even de iure and not de facto onely And if for the same cause as also because the charge of those affaires viz. of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ belongeth not to the Presbyters nor is coÌ„mon to other Christians or Ministers the Commandements and injunctions given to Timothy and Titus to be inviolably kept till Christs coÌ„ming were directed vnto Bishops onely I would gladly heare with what new distinction the Doctor who directly and expresly affirmeth the premisses caÌ„ discharge himself froÌ„ implying or teaching The Doct. himself cutteth the throat of his own distinction and hath not one hole to hide himin by necessarie consequence that the episcopall function was appointed for the perpetuall use of the Church and is necessary to be reteyned in all Churches till the coÌ„ming of Christ His conjoyning togither Timothies function and authoritie to be continued in their successors cutteth the throat of his distinction betwixt potestas mâ—dus potestatis neither can he flie to that starting hole wherein he hideth his head his heeles at least hanging out lib. 3. pag. 57. lin ult when he expoundeth his words is to be reteyned by meet or fitt expedâ—ent or convenâ—ent profitable or needfull to be reteyned For he acknowledgeth the powre or authority it In seeking succour the Doct. doth nothing but contradict in one plaâ— what he â—aith in a nother self to be perpetually necessary as an essentiall or immutable ordinance of God lib. 4. pag. 102. 147. Neither will it releeve him to say as he doth pag. 146. that Pauls directions in his epistles to Tim. and Tit. were given though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were no Bishops should have the like authoritie For he flatly secludeth both the Presbyters and all other Christians or Ministers from all right and title eyther to the powre it selfe or the execution thereof lib. 3. pag. 71. 72. lib. 4. pag. 79. And sayth serm pag. 79. that it is much more necessary for the Churches of all ages succeeding the Apostles then for the first Churches in their life time to have such governors as Timothy Titus that is men furnished with episcopall authority in a preheminent degree above other Ministers 2. If he shall retire at laste to his first and safest evasion specially fitted to the question of ordination without a Bishop serm pa. 43. viz. that though such ordination be not regular or lawfull ordinarily as he sayth pag. 37. according to the rules of ordinatie church government yet in case of necessity that is in the want of a Bishop it is to be allowed as effectuall and as justifiable What is this but in effect to grant that there is the like perpetuity and necessity of the function of Bishops as there is of sundry other ordinances of God which all esteme to be divini juris For the coÌ„parison which himself maketh pag. 44. betwene baptisme administred by one that is no Minister and
ordination performed by Ministers that are no Bishops doth evidently shewe it The truth is saith he where Ministers may be had none but Ministers ought to baptise and where Bishops may be had none but Bishops ought to ordâ—yn But though neyther ought to be done yet being done the former by other Christians in want of a Minister the later by other Ministers in defect of a Bishop as the one so the other also is of force the Church receiving the partie baptized into the communion of the faithfull and the partie ordâ—yned as a lawfull Minister Now if this be a truth say I then there must be a truth acknowledged also in these conclusions The D. againe saith as much for the per petuitie of the episcopall function as of the functioÌ„ af other Ministers that followe viz. That according to the rules of ordinarie Church-government as the right of administring baptisme is a peculiar prerogative of the ministeriall function jure divino by the lawe of God so eodem jure even by the same lawe the right of ordination is peculiar to the Bishops And as all Churches under heaven till the comming of Christ to judgement are bound to strive for the establishing reteyning of that Ministerie which God hath authorized to administer baptisme so are all Churches by a like band tied to contend for the episcopall function which hath right to ordeyne And consequently the calling of Bishops for ordeyning is as generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie as the office of other Ministers is for the work of baptisme I add that in the D. opinion there is as perpetuall and immutable a necessitie of the episcopal function for the ordering of every Church as there is in the opinioÌ„ of many very judicious divines of wine for the holy and pure administration of the Lords supper For whereas he alloweth not of any other forme of Church-governement then by Bishops unlesse in case of necessity where orthodoxall Bishops cannot be had and that because any government whatsoever is better then none at all serm pag. 97 In the like necessity where wine cannot be had they judge it better to take in stead of wine water or any other kinde of drinke vsuall in such places then wholly to neglect the Lords sacrament or to maime it by an halfe administration in one onely element see Polani Syntag. Col. 3213. Wherfore as their allowaÌ„ce of a change in the outward elemeÌ„t of the Lords supper being limitted to such an extraordinarie case doth rather support then contradict their assertion that the Church hath not libertie to refuse wine or to preferre any other element before it the D. his excusing other reformed Churches for enterteyning a Presbyteriall aristocracie in stead of an episcopall Monarchie onely in such a case of necessity as he pretendeth might give his Refuter just occasion to think though he affirmed no such mattet that he held the episcopall governmeÌ„t to be divini juris thereby intending that all Churches are bound to preferre it aswell in their indeavours as in their judgement before Sect. 6. ad serm p. 79. Defens lib. 4. pag. 100. 146. 148. and 167. any other forme of government whatsoever But there is an higher pitch of the necessity of this function as may appeare by some words that slipped from the D. in the penning of his sermon pag. 79. to witt that the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeyne churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very The D. did hold the episcopal function perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches being of the visible Churches For from hence it followeth by good consequence as his Refuter rightly gathereth answer pag. 145 and 138. that seing in his judgment the function and authoritie which they had was episcopall and diocesan such as ours is now therefore also in his judgement the episcopall power or government of Diocesan Bishops is perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches Now herewith the Doctor is highly offended and chargeth him with mallice want of iudgemeÌ„t and with ignorant mistaking or wilfull depraving of his sayings and that against sense lib. 4. pag. 146. 148. 167. A great charge in deed but how doth he avoide the consequence objected for sooth to explaine his meaning he dismembreth his owne speach cutteth asunder the knot which with his own tongue and pen he had knit for whereas before he spake jointly as of one thing expressed by two words of their function and authority that it was ordinarie and The Doct. plaieth fast and loose tieth vntieth but every one may see the sleight to his â—â—ame perpetually necessarie now to shew his skill in playing fast and loose at his pleasure he saith pag. 100. and 147. he meant that their function was ordinarie and their authoritie was perpetually necessary But as slippery as he is his Refuter will not suffer him thus to slip his neck out of the coller all his wit and learning can neyther unloose nor cut a sunder that chayne which bindeth him to a grosse absurdity His wordes serm pag. 79 are these The function authoritie which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creete consisting specially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wellbeinge but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches Yf the Doctor had meant so to divide the later parte of his speach as he woulde now perswade what meant he not to discover his meaning plainely It had bin easy for him to have disioyned their function from their authority in his whole speach on this manner q. d. But neyther was the function which Tim. and Tit. had at Ephesus and in Crete to ende with their persons as being ordinary neyther was their authority to dye with them as being perpetually necessary c. Therefore had he so ment in deed and truth as he now professeth since there wanted not skill there must needs be in him a wante of will to speake plainely vnto the capacity of his reader The Doct. is guilty of that imputation which he professeth to abhorr so that he standeth here guilty of that â—oul imputation which elsewhere he professeth to abhorre lib. 2. pag. 52. viz. a desyre and intent of dazeling the eies of the simple I might say the eies of all even the moste judicious as all maye see that reade with a single eie and weigh with an upright hand what he hath written But to speake what I think he rather belieth his owne heart in The D. in all likelihood belieth his owne hart saying now that he then meant that which he never dreamt of till he had set his witts a work to finde out some flie
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
Ministers and thus he layeth it downe Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselves Apostles and were not or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers had a corrective power over other Ministers The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the lâ—tter Apo. 2. 20. Therefore these Angels which before I proved to be Byshops had a corrective power over other Miniâ—ters The conclusion which the D. first aymed at serm pag. 49. when he laid downe the parts of this assumption as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48. was this that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct even those Presbyters which assisted them as parts of theire Presbyterie in the government of the Diocese Wherfore the Refuters answer pag. 101. knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephesâ—s for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles were not And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra for suffering the Teachers of the Nicholaitan hâ—riâ—y then Byshops â—ad majoritie of rule for correction over diocesan Presbyters And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops nor those persons with whom they dealt Diocesan Presbyters To this the D. replyeth The D. reply is â—rivolous false and slandâ—â—â—us that the answer is frivolous because he hath before proved the former his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shiâ—â— Wherevnto my rejoynder is that the first part of his reply is frivolous or rather false and the second a maâ—â—â—cious slaunder 1. For to say he hath proved and not to shewe where is meere trifling And if he have not eyther in his sermon or any part of his defence before-going any one â—yllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point which he faith he hath before proved what truth can there be in his saying 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters since the Doctor confesseth pag. 124. the word to be used in some Councels graunting the word may be used in a sense and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. 104. of his answere is it not a malliâ—ious slaunder to say he devised it aâ—d that for a shift espetially seing in the rest of his answere to this argument he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan But the Doct. saith pag. 124. that he neyther vsed the worde at all neyther if he had would he have used it in The D. understaÌ„deth not his owne testimony that sense scz for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government for in his vnderstanding the country Ministers are called Diocaesani Concâ—l Agath cap. 22. Tolet. 3. cap. 20. and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop were called Civitatenses But to our understanding it seemeth that the Praesbyters called Diocesani Concil Tolet. 3. cap. 20. being opposed to another sort there termed Locales were not country Ministers affixed to particular places but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyterâ—e which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese The words of the Councell are these Hâ— verò clerici tam locales quam Diocefani qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint querelas suas ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters as the Doctor would perswade but rather giveth both names to the same persons Id statuinus quod omnes jubent ut CivitateÌ„ses sive Diocesani Presbyteri vel Clerici salvo jure ecclesie rem ecclesiae sicut permiserunt episcopi teneant â—t vendere aut donare penitus non presumant But to leave this quarrell about words and to come to the matter seing it is cleare that the Do first intended by this argument to prove that Bishops had corrective power over those Presbyters which assisted them in they re Diocesan charge is not the Refuters answere very direct and pertinent to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning when he telleth him That the Teachers against whom those angels eyther did or shoulde have sâ—t themselves were not such Presbyters Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne to prove that they were such Presbyters nor removed the presumptions which the Refut alleadged for his denyall doth not the blame of a weak consequenceâ—ly still heavy upon his shoulders Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one and the defense of the other and then give upright sentence First touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined the Refuter asketh pag. 102. Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop should call themselves Apostles And addeth any mans reason will give him that these false Apostles were men who coÌ„ming froÌ„ some other place would have thrist theÌ„selves into the Church there to have taught with authoritie and by right of Apostleship And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira he saith that they also might be such intruders or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach having no calling thereto but however it no way appeareth that they were Ministers and members of the presbytâ—â—â—e assisting the Angel of that Church Now what saith the Doct Doth he make the contrarie appeare viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie No for he will not determine whether they were Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops Presbyterie or not and whether of the Diocese originally or come from other places Onely he saith it is playne they were Teachers that being in their Diocese the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. Wherein observe we 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere scz that it no way appeareth that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers it is more then he can prove his bare avouching that it is plaine doth not plainely coÌ„vince it yet will it nothing advantage him nor disadvantage his Refut to grant it 3. Moreover in saying that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. eyther it is frivolous if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then is common to every Pastor or Minister in his owne charge since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbidd such companions or else it is a begging of The D.
and their haereticall doctrine of which he laboured what he could to disburden the Church But however this be taken there is little reason for any man to thinke that those false Apostles were in open consistorie convâ—nted and censured as the Doctor imagineth And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe how will the second point be manifested which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers was the peculiar right of one Bishop here called the angell of the Church To tell us that he hath before proved that by the Angel of each Church one onely Bishop is meant will be no sufficient defense seing his proofes are already disproved cap. 3. sect 1. 2. 3. c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie viz. that under the name of one Angell the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned Apoc. 2. 2. 20 we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters in this manner They who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring or reproved for suffering false Teachers in their Church had a corrective power over other Ministers But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira was reproved for the later veâ—s 20. Ergo those Angels which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church had the corrective power over Ministers And since it appeareth by the commandement which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 11. that the praise oâ— dispraise of every angel belongeth in part unto the whole Church a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters Calvin Beza Marlorat Aretius Perkins c. though it should be graunted that one Minister to wit the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie is principally aymed at in the name of the angel of each Church yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction was his pâ—culiar right nay rather it will follow that so farre as his fellow angels and not they onely but the whole Church did partake with him in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him so farre also they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding Wherefore if the Doctors meaning be in his assumption to restreyne the praise or dispraise mentioned Apoc. 2. 2 20. vnto The D. wresteth the text or must yeeld the cause one onely person whom he reputeth to be the Bishop his Assumption is to be rejected as an erroneous wresting of the text contrarie to the true meaning thereof But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption viz. that in the praise or reproofe of the angel the rest of the Ministers or Elders and the whole Church did partake with him then must he subscribe to this conclusion to wit that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch did partake with the Angel of each Church in the power of administring the Church-censures And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text or any part of the holy scripture in defense of the explication of his text viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. Bishops for the substance of their calling such as ours are We are in the next place to see what strength there is in that argument whereby from the title of Angels in his text he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text handled by him Lib. 3. pag. 150. c. against the Refuters answere pag. 105. 106. LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title The angels of the Churches to justify Sect. 〈◊〉 the titles of honour which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates his argument is this The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title in calling them the angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therfore we should not think much that they are called Lordes The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositioÌ„ That vnto whoÌ„soever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour which is not vniversally true as the D. I suppose wil confesse in many particulars For the name or tiâ—le of Maior Bayliffe Alderman Constable c. I might say King Dukâ— Earle c. must needs be in his understanding by many degrees inferiour to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the word sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62. such as are Co-workers and Stewards of God c. But to give the former unto Ministers were to bringe confusion into the Church to overthrow that difference which the lawes of God man have set betwene civill eccles functions And though a man should offer to salve this mischeife with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings c. by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops yet I perswade my selfe he would not easylie admit of this disorder yea doubtlesse he would thinke it a great disparagement to his reverend Fathers spiritual Lords that everie painefull Minister of Christ should be equalled with them in those honorable titles which doe now lift them vp above their brethren And yet by his owne confession pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned they have all right to those titles of Doctors Fathers Pastors and Saviours of their brethren which are more glorious then that name of Angels of the Churches which he now appropriateth vnto Byshops We may take it therefore for an evident truth that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq is not true argument no not though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature I meane such as declare the same kind of honor either civill or ministeriall For I make no question but the D. would judge it as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops to beare the name of Archdeacons Officials or Curates c. as for Kinges Emperors to be called Dukes Captaines or high Constables And I judge it much more absurde to argue as he doth from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers to shew the dignitie of their function vnto titles of civill honour apperteyning vnto great personages that excell in externall pompe and worldly glorie And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument when to shewe the inconsequence thereof he said that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither
not parishes But though he cannot fortify his owne assertion yet will he assay Sect. 7. ad sect 5. pag 7. to throw downe their hold that oppugne it with this jolly Enthymem The word Eeclesia signifiâ—th according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit which iÌ„magine there is no true Church but a parish Wherein he doth neyther rightly The D. in one Enthymem saniteth 2. set downe their assertion nor assume a cleare truth to refute it The first appeareth by H. I his table pag 6. of his book whereto the Doctor pointeth in that besides a particular congregation of Christians meeting for religious exercises which the Doct. calleth a parish he acknowledgeth the name of Church to be given in the scriptures vnto some other societies viz. the Catholike militaÌ„t Church on earth the invisible society of Gods elect absolutely Catholike the people of a particular coÌ„gregation considered without and besides their Ministers and the company of a Christian familie The truth is he holdeth the onely true visible Church indowed by Christ with the spirituall power of order and government in it selfe to be none other then a particular congregation Neyther is the truth hereof infringed by that which the Doctor assumeth seing the name of a Church given at large to any company of Christians in regard of their profession of the true faith cannot prove the power of Ecclesiasticall government to belong vnto every such company of Christians or to any other society then one particular congregation 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth that The D. reasoneth ex non coÌ„cessis which he shall never be able to justify when he saith that the word ecclesia signifyeth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians great or small For he cannot shewe any one place of scripture where the word Church in the singular number is giveÌ„ to such a multitude of Christians in an whole Nation Province or Diocese as was distributed into many particular congregations Yea his own table page 4. sheweth that when the scripture speaketh of the Christians in an whole nation it calleth them Churches plurally and not by the name of a Church singularly as Churches of Galatia Asia Macedonia 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. t. Gal. 1. 2. And the like phrase of Churches is used for the Christians of one province Act. 9. 31. the Churches had rest throughout all Iudea Galile and Samaria Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches c. I will this once tender him this argument The word ecclesia in the singular number doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese nation or province Ergo the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine that the Christians of an whole Nation Province or Diocese though distributed into many congregations may not with standing by the warrant of the word be rightly termed one Church Yea it serveth rather to confute then to coÌ„firm the point now in questioÌ„ viz. that the 7. Churches meÌ„cioned in this text were properly Dioceses not Parishes As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words Eeclesia Paraecia Diaecesis coÌ„monly translated Church Parish Diocese how they are taken in the ancient writers I see not what advantage he can make by it to conclude the question The summe of all that he saith is this In ancient writers Ecclesia paroecia Dioecesis having refereÌ„ce to a Bishop his whole charge doe signify a Diocese and not a parish Which how true it is I cannot now enquire vnless I should digresse into a new controversy For the present it shall suffice to observe that though it were granted to be true yet it will not justify his assertion that the 7. Churches of Asia mencioned in his text were properly dioceses not parishes for in the consequence of his reasoning if he shall so argue he beggeth the question in two particulars which he should The Doct. beggeth the question in 2. particulars but cannot make evident by good demonstration viz. that in his text the word Ecelesia hath reference to one Bishop and his charge and that it carrieth the same signification for the singularity or plurality of particular congregations comprized within it which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth Leaving therefore this whole discourse and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as apperteyning to another question viz. how ancient that distribution of Dioceses and Parishes is which in later ages preveiled and passing by his whole 3. Chapter concerning the 7. Churches being handled in the former part lib. 3. I will now proceed to his 4. Chapter and the argument there concluding that the first Apostolike Churches were properlie Dioceses because the presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities countries that is to dioceses Chap. 2. conteyning an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolicall Churches were properly dioceses not parishes because the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses Sect. 1. ad sect 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64. We have already heard in the former part how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia to be great and ample citie togither with the countries adjoyning when he saith it cannot be denied but they were such because our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7 and nameth the principall some whereof were Mother cities He addeth imediately after For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation they first preached to the cheise cities thereof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had converted some their manner was to ordeyne Presbyters hoping by their Ministery to convert not onely the rest of the citie but also the countries adjoyning so many as did belong to God Which words the Refuter answ pag. carried as the 2. reason to conclude the point before questioned because finding the former argumeÌ„t to be so obscure and vnfitting as it is before shewed to be he judged it in effect all one to say It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great ample cities c. for it is evideÌ„t that the Apostles in the cheife cities of any nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine Presbyters by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie and country adjoyning and to transpose the sentences in this manner It is evident that the Apostles in the cheife cities of every nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine presbyters c. Ergo it cannot be denyed but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities
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
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
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
had coÌ„mitted to them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches I answer that he mingleth and that deceiptfully truth and falshood togither For thought it be true that the epistles doe presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction coÌ„mitted to them yet is it false and he but beggeth the question in assuming it for truth that the authority of ordeyning and censuring is an authoritie episcopall that is proper to Bishops onely and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction was given them eyther then and not before when they were appointed to stay in those places or there and no where else to be exercised by them A bare deniall of these particulars falsly presupposed by the Doctor is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Pauls epistles that they are by him presupposed in them His second argument in his owne Analysis is the same which Sect. 2. ad pag. 75. sect 2. p. 75 76. 57. his Refuter tooke to be the first and it standeth thus If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Tim. and Tit. were Bishops But the Antecedent is true Therefore the Consequent To discover the weaknes of the consequence or proposition the Doct. was told answ pag. 137. that the consequent dependeth not upon the Antecedent but with this supposition which is false that the Apostle by describing in these epistles the rules to be observed in ordination and jurisdiction intended to informe Tim. Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops how to carry themselves in those matters And if the Doct. had bin as willing to apprehend his right meaning as to pick occasioÌ„ of quarreling without any just cause given he might have discerned that the supposition whereof he speaketh is not of the naturall hypothesis of the proposiâ—ion impugned but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption as is necessary to be supplyed if he will have the proposition or consequence to passe vncontrouled Wherefore as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref Alas good man you know not what the supposition of an hypotheticall proposition 〈◊〉 so had he weighed his owne rules lib. 2. cap. 3. sect 3. for the fynding out of that hypothesis which in a coÌ„nexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogisme perhaps he mought have perceived the weaknes of his consequence which he would seeme not to see For the true hypothesis which is implyed in this connexive argument and must be supplyed to make it a perfect simple syllogisme can be none other then this They must needs be Bishops and ordeyned to that function to whom such epistles are directed as are patternes and presidents of the episcopall functioÌ„ c. Or more generally thus Every persoÌ„ to whom an epistle or speach The Doct. discerning the weaknes of his arguments exchangeth it is directed which conteyneth the patterne or precedeÌ„t of any function or directions how to exercise it is vndoubtedly invested in the same function And why now I pray you good Mr. Doct. may not this proposition be denyed or doubted of I will spaâ—e labour in refuting it for I suppose your self perceived the weaknes of it and therefore gave us the exchaunge of an other argument though you pretend another cause of the exchange And since you will not argue with T. C. to whose answerthe Ref directly pointed as with the finger but are willing to let him rest in peace neyther will I argue against Doctor Whitgift but affoard him the like kindeness Onely whereas you aske the Refuter how he could be so ignorant or without judgment as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop conteyned in those epistles did meane onely that description of a Bishop which is set downe 1. Tim. 3 to requite your kindnes I demaund how you could be so ignorant or void of judgment as to think that when Doctor whitgift said that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim declareth him to be a Bishop seing therein is conteyned the office and duty of a Bishop diverse precepts peculiar to that function he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop that Ministery which is comon to all Ministers for so you seeme to interprete his wordes when you affirme pag. 76. this to be his meaning that directions were given to Timothy throughout the epistles for the discharge of his office eyther in respect of the Ministery coÌ„mon to all Ministers or of his episcopall function cheifly in regard of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ And herein you tender his credit lesS then you would seeme when you make him to argue in this fashion The epistles written to Timothy doe give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function Ergo they doe declare that he was a Bishop for this were to make him guilty of your owne fault in begging of the question The Doct. beggeth the question as you doe when you add to your assumption or Antecedent that supposition before examined for if that be as you say it is the playne meaning of the assumption then your second argument beggeth the question in pittifull manner thus The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim and Tit was to informe them as Bishops how to exercise their episcopall functioÌ„ Ergo those epistles shew that they were Bishops No merveil therefore if the Doctor were desirous to cover the beggery of his reasoning with the Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. 78. sect 3. shredds of a new shaped syllogisme which disputeth thus Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ doth plâ—inly describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of Bishops he presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creete But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus describing unto them their office and authorittie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet c. doth plainely describe the office and prescribe the dutie of Bishops Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Into this new frame he casteth his argument as he pretendeth because the Refuter had confounded himself with his owne hypotheticall proposition but the reader is rather to judge that a false supposall of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze that he hath confounded himselfe in his owne The D. coÌ„foundeth himselfe in his owne reasoning reasoning For where he should according to his own project sect 1. of
this chapter haue given us a second reason for his first conclusion scz that Timothy and Titus were ordeyned Bishops by S. Paul he now tendreth us a second prosyllogisme to confirme the antecedent of his first argument But to let him goe free with this fault I will answer this argument as it standeth first to the proposition which although it never sawe the Sun before his defence came abroad he taketh for graunted because T C and his Refuter have assailed it in vaine So he flattereth himself in his owne conceite but all in vaine For a meaner Scholler then T. C. or his Refuter eyther may easily discerne the inconsequence of his proposition although he may seme to have fortified the presupposall which he concludeth with a double bulwark both of describing the authority and of prescribing the duty of Bishops For S. Paul in his speach to the Elders of Ephesus Acts. 20. 18. c. describing his owne office and authority as he was the Superintendent of that church president of the presbyterie there plainely describeth the office and authority of all Superintendents or presidents in particular churches consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed by all such as should succeed in the like office till the comming of Christ Notwithstanding it were absurd froÌ„ hence to inferre that the Apostles speach there presupposeth his ordination to the office of a superintendent or President of the Presbytery in that Church of Ephesus wherefore neyther doth it follow that the Apostle in his epistles to Tim Titus presupposeth their ordination to the office of Bishops in the churches of Ephesus and Creete though it should be graunted that in describing their authority as they were governours of those churches and in prescribing their duty such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christs comming he both described the office and prescribed the duty of Bishops But this which he assumeth for a truth I reject as an assertioÌ„ no lesse voyd of truth then the main coÌ„clusion now in question for it is grounded upoÌ„ this false suppositioÌ„ that none other then diocesaÌ„ Bishops had in those times or could have by succession the government of particular Churches Now let us heare what he can say in defence thereof The Assumption I prove saith he by those particulars wherein the episcopall Sect. 4. ad sect 3. pa. 78. authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of iurisdiction they being the censures of other Ministers doctrine 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. 3. 9. Iudges oâ— their person and conversation 1. Tim. 5. 19. 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofes he answereth nothing Answered nothing no merveile if he had no answere to these proofes as they are now fitted to the assumption of his new shapen argument if this be his meaning his best friends I think wil scarce coÌ„mend his honesty or discretion But if his meaning be that these proofes before layd downe in his sermon received no answer at all dooth he not too much forget himself since he taketh notice in the next page following of this reason yeelded for the denyall of his assumption viz. that those instructions comprised in the places alleadged were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops but particularly to them as Evangelists and in generall to the Presbyters c. But since this answere is in his eyes no answer at all let us trie whether it may not be sayd with more truth that his proofes whereof he boasteth are no clear proofes eyther of the principall points before denied or of those which he now assumeth He knoweth full well that his refuter flatly denieth that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assumption both before and now to wit that S. Paul had any intention to informe Timothy and Titus as Bishops or any other Diocesan Bishops by them how to demeane themselves in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction hath he any argument to prove this or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mencioned At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumptioÌ„ why are not the proofs thereof if he have any contrived into form of arguments are his syllogismes so soon at an end Me thinks he should not expect any help in this case from his refuter whom he judgeth to be but a very bungler in the art of Syllogising Yet if it must needs be done to his hands I will doe my best to give it the best coate I can and that is this Whosoever describing vnto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christs coÌ„ming doth describe their office prescribe their duties in those particulars wherein episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth he doth in so describing prescribing plainly describe the office and prescribe the duty of Bishops But S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus describing their office authoritie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christs comming describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth For he describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in the power of ordination and jurisdiction as the places before quoted doe shewe And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth Therefore S. Paul in so describing the authoritie and prescribing the duty of Timothy and Titus doth plainely describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of Bishops Behold here good Reader how the Doctor after many windings in and out is retired back to that which he assumed as you may see sect 1. for the proofe of his first argument viz. that episcopall authoritie standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdiction This was then taken for graunted and so inforced to prove that Timothy Titus their ordination to the function of Bishops was presupposed by S. Paul in his epistles to them in as much as they had that authoritie coÌ„mitted to them Here it is againe produced to justify the same coÌ„clusion because if episcopal authority coÌ„sist in those particulars theÌ„ S. Pauls describbing of their authority and prescribbing of their duty in the same particulars argueth the authority duty of Bishops to be describbed in those epistles c. So to make a shew of some variety of arguments one assertioÌ„ must come twice upon the stage for one purpose that with an impudent The Doct. beggeth stoutly face to begge rather then with â—ound reason from Gods word to coÌ„firme what is well known to be one of the main points controverted For his adding the authority of Gregorie Nazianzen Chrysostome
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
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
also they lived dyed I answer hath he not by as good proofs shewed Iames his assignement to the Church of Ierusalem and his living and dying there If then all this notwithstanding it be true that Iames was not properly a Bishop doth he not reason loosely when from such assignement of Timothy and Titus he concludeth them to be properly Bishops The refuters second answere is that it is manifest by Zuinglius his writings he neyther thought they were nor any other might be a diocesan Bishop Whereto the Doctor replyeth belike he spake otherwise then he thought and then addeth an other testimony of Zuinglius which saith that Timothy was a Bishop and that the office of an Evangelist and of a Bishop is all one where behold with what conscience the Doctor wresteth the words of his owne witnesse froÌ„ their meaning for there is nothing more evident to them that peruse Zuinglius his writings then this that with him every preacher of the gospell at this day hath as good right to the name of an Evangelist and of a Bishop as to the title of a presbyter or pastor vocat ad se Paulus Act. 20. presbyterâ—s i. episcopos Evangelistas vel ecclesiae ministros lib. de ecclesia fol. 48. And Tom. 1. fol. 115. in his parenesis to the cities of Helvetia affirmeth that the Bishop spokeÌ„ of 1. Tim. 3. was any Pastor or Minister of the Church Quo in loco saith he discimus omnes ecclesiarum ministros episcopos esse et dici eiusdem sententia assertorum habemus Hieromimum and fol. 117. having cited Tit. 1. 5. 7. to the same purpose he addeth Evidenter demonstrat bis locus c. this place evidently sheweth that a Bishop is no other then a Minister of the Church whom wee use to call parochum a parish preist or Minister But that the Reader may see how much Zuinglius misliked the large jurisdiction singular preheminence of Bishops at this day in use and that he was too great a favourite of the parish discipline to be wrested by the Doctor in defense of the monarchicall or rather in his judgment Tyranicall government of diocesan Bishops I praye the reader to have patience till we come to the first of the Doctors 3. arguments handled in the third part of this reply Chap. 11. Conteyning an answer to another of the the D. Arguments concerning the Bishopricks of Timothy and Titus handled sect 13-16 from pag. 98. to 104. FRom these two objections in the pursute whereof the Doctor Sect. 1. ad sect 13. pag. 98. fedd himselfe with a vaine hope to gaine some advantage he now returneth to give a fresh onset on his Adversary in this manner The supposed Evangelisticall function of Timothy Titus was to ende with their persons and admitted no succession as being both extraordinary temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and of Creet consisting specially in the power of ordination jurisdiction was not to ende with their parsons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothy Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Evangelisticall This argument layd downe serm pag. 79. his Refuter tooke to be opposed against the Antecedent of that objection which affirmeth Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists and who would not have so judged seing the conclusion denyeth their function authority to be Evangelisticall But he saith that the introduction premised before this argument hereof we may conclude thus sheweth that he intended not to deny or disprove that Antecedent but to bring a new supply of argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus Creet Which difference I referre wholly to the judgment of the indifferent reader not doubting but he will discharge the Refuter from all blame eyther of willfull or of negligent mistaking And whereas he flatly denieth that he doth deny they were Evangelists that he may not hide himselfe under a cloud I desire him plainely to answere us whither they remayned Evangelists after that calling which he supposeth they had to be Bishops If yea why doth he insinuate the contrary pag. 95. lin 24. c. when to justify this that they were not Evangelists but Pastors and Bps he saith that after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet they traveiled not vp and downe as in former tymes when they accompanied the Apostles but ordinarily remayned with their flocks If no why maketh he his Reader beleeve that in the conclusion of his argumeÌ„t above mencioned he neyther doth nor did intend to deny that they were Evangelists But as often before so here againe we must and will follow him in his owne way when he saith his purpose was from the former conclusion thus to argue The function and authority which Timothy and Titus exercised in Ephesus and Creet was eyther extraordinary and Evangelisticall as the disciplinarians teach or else ordinary and episcopall as the prelatists affirme But it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall Therefore ordinary and episcopall Here the assumption is the conclusion of the former argument and the proposition he taketh for granted as if it fully delivered the points of difference betweene us and him with his Associates in the cause he pleadeth Wherefore we must take leave to lay downe our owne opinion more clearely which is this in few words First we distinguish function from authority both which the Doct. coÌ„foundeth for though we affirme their function there exercised to be Evangelisticall and therefore extraordinary yet we doe not so avouch of their whole authority nor yet of that authority or power of ordination jurisdiction whereof he speaketh in the assumptioÌ„ of his former argument as the Doct. may perceive by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 84. Againe we distinguish betwixt authority simply considered and in generall to performe the works of preaching and ordeyning c. And that particular or personall authority which for the exercise of these works was invested in their persons and gave them allowance in all places where they came to exercise the works of their calling And therefore though we grant as before is noted the authority it selfe in abstracto simply considered to be ordinarily and perpetually necessary yet we affirme their personall authority to be Evangelisticall because all the authority they had did flow from their Evangelisticall function For like as the Apostles preached and baptized by the authority of their Apostleship so did Timothy Titus both Preach and impose hands c. by vertue of their Evangelistship So then to make answer first to the D. disjunctive argument 1. as touching the function which Timothy Titus exercised in Ephesus and Creet we affirme it to be extraordinary and Evangelisticall and therefore in that respect utterly reject his Assumption 2. touching their authoritie consisting as
he saith specially in ordinatiō and jurisdictiō if he take it personally for that which was invested in them by the ministeriall functiō which they there exercised then I reject the assumption also in that behalfe but if it be taken simply and at large for any authoritie to exercise the like works eyther in the same Churches or in any other then I disclaime his proposition For we are so farre frō affirming this authoritie to be proper vnto Evangelists that we hold it rather cōmō to every Pastor in his owne congregation Let the reader see what the Doctor observeth for this purpose pag. 79. 84. and what we have added cap. 8. sect 12 touching their preheminence above other Ministers and the continuance thereof in the presidents of Synods Now to come to his Argument first set downe and to passe by that fault of mencioning function onely in the proposition wheras Sect. 2. ad pag. 98. 99. authoritie is also joyned with it in the assumption and conclusion the Assumption which was denyed by the Refuter must for the clearing of his true meaning be divided into two mēbers the one serving properly for the plaine naturall assumptiō viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors the other serving eyther for the Medius terminus of a prosyllogism to cōfirm the former or at least for an explicatiō of his meaning therin viz. that the functiō authoritie which they had or exercised in those Churches was such as assigned them to the particular care thereof and consisted specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction the refuter for brevitie sake omitting to distinguish these two differing propositions infolded in one fitted his answer to the later affirming as the truth is that therein he doth but begge the question in asmuch as he assumeth for The Doct. beggeth truth these two points before convinced of falshood viz. 1. that they were assigned to the perpetuall charge of those Churches 2. And that their authoritie was such a preheminent power in ordination and jurisdiction as he ascribeth elswhere to Bishops If prejudice or rather malice as it may be feared had not blinded the Doctor he might have aswell discerned this as some others have done that borrowed no light from the Refuter by any private cōference with him to finde out his true meaning and then he might have spared that outragious calumniation He roves and raves as men use to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answer somewhat But to answere his Assumption as he hath now nakedly propounded it viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be cōtinued in their successors I answer with the distinctiō before used to wit that their personall authoritie perished with their function and therefore in that respect the assumption is false howsoever there remayned unto perpetuall succession an authoritie to performe the same ministeriall works which they exercised by vertue of their temporary function So that if he will prove the assumption in that sense wherein it is denyed then must he prove the perpetuitie not onely of their authoritie in generall and for the works sake which they performed but also of their particular function and of that personall authoritie which they there exercised so as neyther the one nor the other did end with their persons but was continued in their successors the proofe therefore of his assūption must thus runne That function and authoritie which is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus Creet is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authoritie which they there exercised was not to end in their persons but to be continued in their successors Here the Assumption was denied because however the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet there is no necessitie that there should be in every Church an Evangelist that is to say one indowed with that peculiar function personall authoritie which Timothy and Titus had for the good ordering and executing of that power The Doctor saith he did not affirme that which is denyed scz that there must be an Evāgelist in every Church neyther is he willing to see that his assumption doth both in effect affirm as much plainely avouche what he dareth not to justify to wit that the very function which Timothy and Titus exercised is perpetually necessarie not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches To avoid this grosse absurditie he will needes now divide their Sect. 3. ad sect 14. pag 100. 101. function from their authoritie which hitherto he hath conjoyned For thus he explaineth his Assumption The function which Timothy and Titus exercised was ordinary and their authoritie perpetually necessary c. of which two points he saith his Refuter graunteth the later doth not touch the former as if the former branch could escape his touch when his whole assumption is rejected as false or there were no difference betwixt that power of ordination and jurisdiction in generall which the Refuter graunteth to be perpetually necessary and that peculiar authoritie which was invested in Timothy and Titus by reason of their particular function which was before denied to be continued in their successors But in truth as he hath O sweet D now distributed and construed the parts of his assumption in the second he idly affirmeth what was never denied and so leaveth untouched the point which he should have proved And in the first he offendeth more grosly for he borroweth the conclusion of his first argument to make good the Assumption of the same Before he proved the function of Timothy Titus to be ordinary episcopall because it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall And now to prove that their function was cōtinued in their successors and therefore not extraordinarie and Evangelisticall he telleth vs that it is an ordinarie function and the same which the Bishops that succeeded them did exercise And to make a mends for this The Doct. beggeth impudent begging he multiplyeth his default by heaping up many assertions whereof some are apparantly false and the rest no lesse doubtfull then the point which he indeavoreth to justify For first it is false which he saith of Timothy and Titus that in them there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certain churches so is that which he addeth to prove it viz. that their calling to the Ministery was ordinary and their gifts attayned
by ordinary meanes for himself interpreteth the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee was givē the by prophesie c. of his calling to the Ministery not by humane suffrage but by divine revelation by the cōmandement or oracle of the Holy Ghost lib. 4. p. 141. his calling therefore to the Ministery by his own confessiō must be extraordinarie 2. Neyther can it be denied to be extraordinarie in Titus that the Apostle cōmitted to his Church the finishing of his owne work for the first establishing of the Churches in Creta and furnishing them with Bishops or Elders to instruct them For himself confesseth that the Churches which were yet in constituting and vnfurnished with Presbyters to teach them had no need of a Bishop to govern them Lib. 4. pag. 63. 3. In like manner this large commission not confined to any one Church or Diocese but with equall charge extended over all the Churches in the whole Iland was more then ordinarie seing the ordinary Bishops and Elders were restreyned to the oversight of one onely Church or flock as appeareth by Act. 20. 28. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. and the Doctor that hath sought all records he could meet with for the next successors of Titus can finde none that had the like extent of jurisdiction till the next age after the Apostles and yet there is an apparant difference betweene him that the Doct. mencioneth and Titus as is before observed cap. 8. sect 13. next before this 4. Moreover it was extraordinarie that Timothy Titus were authorized to cōmaund and to speake with cōmanding authoritie 1. Tim. 1. 3 4. 11. 5. 7. Tit. 2. 15. for the auncient Bishops knewe that this was rather Apostolike then suting with the function of Bishops Ignatius in ep ad Rom. knowing his owne measure would not commaund as an Apostle but exhort c. but because these men by their daily conversation with the Apostle knew perfectly his doctrine and doings the Pastors of the Churches to which they were sent were to receive direction frō them and to yeeld obedience to their instructions 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16 10. 16. 2. Cor. 7 13. 2. Tim. 2. 2. 3. 10. 5. Yea even in gifts and the way of attayning them D. Downames Betters doe acknowledge this extraordinarie preheminence that they were indowed with extrordinarie gifts as the revealing of secrets and discerning of spirits and that they had their knowledge for the most part infused by revelation perpet govern pag. 88. Bishop Barlow serm in Act. 20. 28 fol. 6. And since some of these extraordinarie preheminences then shined most clearly when they were assigned to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet it followeth inevitably that their function was even at that time extraordinarie and therefore not episcopall but evangelisticall Now whereas he saith that their function was the same ordinary function which their successors all other Presbyters did exercise because 1. they were assigned to certeine Churches as the Pastors thereof 2. ordeyned thereto by imposition of hands 3. and by that ordination furnished with the power of ordination and jurisdiction what else doth he then indeavor to justify the point controverted by others no lesse doubtfull if not apparantly false To returne now to that assumption which at the first affirmed joyntly that the very function of Timothy Titus aswell as their authority Sect. 4. was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. it is most plaine by the reason added in his sermon pag. 79. before he bringeth in his conclusion that he then intended as his wordes signifyed to justify the perpetuity of their function for the wordes of his reason are these If whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy Titus furnished with episcopall power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours To this connexive proposition himselfe addeth the assumption and conclusion pag. 104. following But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed With what face now can the Doctor deny that this argument aymeth at the perpetuall necessity for all Churches not onely of that authority or power which he calleth episcopall but also of the very office or function of Bishops such as he affirmeth Timothy Titus to have bin His complaint therefore is very injurious as we have elswhere shewed to the full when he chargeth his Refuter with wronging him in saying that he maketh this episcopal power perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches that he contradicteth himselfe in another place when he acknowledgeth that where the episcopall government may not be had an other may be admitted But albeit the Doctor be loth to confesse himselfe guilty yet is it a signe of remorse that he refuseth to mainteine that necessity of the episcopall function which his argument at first directly concluded Howbeit he proceedeth in false accusation against his Refuter in saying he doth but elude his reasō with a malepert speach because he wished him not to wave crave but to prove the question for doth he not crave rather then prove that which he assumeth for an The D. waveth and craveth daunceth the round evident truth when he giveth us no other argument then his owne naked affirmance that it is evident c. to justify the assumption or Antecedent of his reason viz. that it was necessary whiles the Apostles lived to substitute in the churches already planted men furnished with episcopall power therein like to Timothy Titus And doth he not wave to and fro or rather goe back againe to the first point controverted in this whole Chapter when he avoucheth in the same Assumption that Timothy Titus were furnished with episcopall power when the Apostle Paul substituted them in the churches of Ephesus and Creet Wherefore if his drift were in this division such as he avoucheth in the entrance thereof viz. by a new supply of arguments to prove Timothy Titus to have bene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet the issue of all his reasoning is no better then a plaine dancing the round in this fashion Their function and authoritie was episcopall because it was not Evangelisticall for it died not with their persons and therefore was not Evangelisticall It died not with their persons because it was ordinarie and perpetually necessary c. for if it were necessarie to have men furnished with episcopall power whiles the Apostles lived it was much more necessary after their deathes Now that it was necessarie whiles they lived it is evident by the Apostles practise in furnishing Timothy and Titus with episcopall power at Ephesus and in Creet Who seeth not by all this his discourse that we are now just where we began All this waving therefore from one
contradicteth also an other report of his witnesses Eusebius Ierom and Dorotheus viz. that Anianus succeeded Mark in the government of the Church at Alexandria in the 8. yeare of Nero as being then and there Martyred For the Doct. himself serm pag. 82. referreth the Martyrdome of Peter Paul to the very later end of Nero his reigne which was 4. or 5. yeares after Againe howsoever some doe give him the name of a Bishop yet nothing is sayd by any one that can conclude the function of a Bishop Sect. 6. as being affixed to the charge of one Church Yea rather they all give him not onely the name but also the right function of an Evangelist not onely in accompanying the Apostles but also in traveiling from place to place to plant and establish Churches And among the rest Nicephorus most fully justifyeth him to be a right Evangelist For lib. 2. cap. 43. he reporteth that Mark published the gospell not onely in Egypt but also in Libia and in all Barbaria also to them of Pentapolis and Cykue and that he there coÌ„stituted Churches and gave them Bishops c. But the Doctors oversight is most to be admired in his bringing of Eusebius to witnes The D. own witnes is against him his Bishoprik at Alexandria For the contrary appeareth by the order which he observeth in setting downe the number and names of such as he accounteth Bishops of that Church For in his account Anianus was the first and Abilinus the second lib. 2. ca. 24. 3. 12. and Cerdo the third which after Anianus the first Bishop governed that Church lib. 3. cap. 16. What can be more ful and plaine to shewe that in Eusebius his judgement Anianus and not Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria As for those words whereon the Doctor buildeth lib. 2. cap. 24. that Anianus first undertook the publik administration of the Church at Alexandria after Marke the Apostle and Evangelist If prejudice had not stood in his light and others in whose stepps he treadeth they might have seen their grosse mistaking of his meaning who distinguisheth him from his successors by the name of an Apostle and Evangelist For if Mark must needs be the first Bishop because Anianus first obteyned Bishoprick after him then let Peter be acknowledged the first Bishop also at Rome because at Antioche Ignatius was the second Bishop by succession after Peter Euseb lib 3 ca. 30. And at Rome Clemens after Peter governed that church Ieron lib. 1. cont Iovin Yea let not Iames any longer be reckoned the first Bishop of Ierusalem because he undertook the charge thereof after the Apostles or rather iÌ„mediately after Christs passion But if the Doctor can discerne as he doth serm pag. 82. and 83. that Eusebius excludeth Peter Paul from the place or function of a Bishop at Rome when he giveth the first place to Linus after them the second to Anacletus and so forwards doth he not wittingly wrong his witnesses and deceive his reader when he taketh their word for a certeine evidence that Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria in saying that Anianus did first obteyne the government after Mark. In the fourth place Simeon the sonne of Cleophas is by the Sect. 7. ad p. 112. 113. Doctor produced as ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem after Iames as Eusebius testifieth lib. 3. cap. 10. But it is little for the credit of the episcopall function that it is inforced to crave aide of such fabulous reportes as flying fame scattereth and he must pardon us this fault that we can hardly credit the tale for if the Apostles had thought it necessarie that each Church should be governed by a diocesan Bishop would they have suffered Ierusalem to have wanted one for 10. yeares togither after Iames his death For Iames lived not above 30. yeares after Christs passion as the Doctor acknowledgeth serm pag. 69. but the destruction of Ierusalem which happened before Simeons choyse as Eusebius saith fell out in the 40. yeare after Christs death Cent. lib. 2. col 664. was there now imediately after the cities destruction more need of a Bishop there then before and was the choyse of their Bishop a matter of that moment that all the Apostles and Disciples of Christ remayning alive must needes meet togither to make the election and must he needes be one of Christs kindred yet let it be granted since the Doctor will have it so that Simeon was the next vnto Iames in the government of the Church of Ierusalem as Eusebius affirmeth and be it granted also that Iohn ordeyned Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna and that he constituted Bishops in diverse other places and that the Apostles in every place committed the Church to Bishops and left them their successours as Irenâ—us and others testify how will the Doctor prove that all these were diocesan Bishops induced with a singular power of ordination and jurisdiction in many Churches or congregations which is as his Refuter saith the very soul of a diocesan Bishop The Doctor in his wisdome passeth by this point as if he had not seene it in his Refuters answer and falsely chargeth him to take exception against the assertion of the Fathers which affirme Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles Whereas it is evident that he denieth onely the Doctors inference that from the Fathers affirmation concludeth diocesan Bishops such as ours to be of Apostolicall institution This ariseth saith he from the mistaking of the word Bishop which in the first tymes signified no more then an ordinarie Pastor Wherefore since the Doctor doth nothing else but in an ydle florish repeat that which he had in effect before delivered viz. that the Apostles derived their authority aswell for government as for doctrine vnto Bishops we should but waste wordes and time in vaine if we should vouchsafe him any other answere then that already given and remaineth yet vntouched Chap. 14. Answering the D. 6. chapter and sheweth that he hath not any one argument or testimony to prove directly as he pretendeth that the episcopall function is of divine institution HAving answered all that the Doctor bringeth to prove by coÌ„sequence the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance because Sect. 1. ad sect 2. cap. 6. pag. 138. 140. it was of apostolicall institution we are now to goâ— on and examine what he can alleadge in the last place directly to prove that it is of divine institution But before he begin to enter into the lists he beggeth the change of the question propounding The D. beggeth the change of the questioÌ„ this for the conclusion which he intendeth to prove viz. that Bishops were ordeyned of God which change we can be content to allowe so that he will acknowledge his error in conceyving these latter proofes to be more direct then the former for he fetcheth a farre more large compasse by consequence to conclude his maine doctrine seing there is much
such as are nominated elected and presented to any Church 3. to make and ordeyn rules and canons for order and quietnes for diversities of degrees among Ministers c. And that those orders are to be made by the ministers of the Church with the consent of the people before Christian Prince and after Christian Princes with the authority and consent both of Prince and people Againe we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people comitted to their spirituall charge that wheras certeyn men doe imagine and affirme that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome power and authority over all Bishops and Preists in Christs Church c. that it is utterly false and untrue Againe it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neyther in the scripture nor in the wrytings of any authentical Doctor or author in the Church being within the times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or betwene the Bishops themselves but they were equall in power order authority and iurisdiction And that there is now since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops it was divised among the auncient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and vnity of the Catholike church and that eyther by the consent and authority or els 〈◊〉 least by the permissiâ—â— sufferance of the Princes and civill powers for the time rulinge For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees amonge Bishops and spirituall governors This it seemed the D. marked not of the Church so ordeyned some to be Patriarches some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archbishops some Bishops And to them limited not onely several Dioceses or Provinces where they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certayne bounds and limitts of their iurisdiction and power In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles it was lawfull for all Bishops certeyne of them assembling togither to constitute and consecrate other Bishops the sayd Fathers restreyned the sayd power reserved the same in such wise that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitane or Archbishop no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province likewise in other cases their powers were also restreyned for such causes as were then thought vnto them conventent Which differences the sayd holy Fathers thought necessary to enact establish by their decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed or established in the Gospel or mencioned in any canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiastical wryter within the dayes of the Apostles but to the intent that thereby coÌ„tention variance schismes divisions should be avoyded and the Church preserved in good order and concord Loe here their words now obâ—erve we among other things 1. that they joyne togither Bishops and 1. That they make Preists or Bishops all one Preists not onely in the duty of instructing but also in the power of the keyes of bearing the spirituall charge of the people coÌ„mitted to them 2. And in setting downe that headship of the Pope which they disclaime they joyne the Priests with the Bps. of Christs Church affirme his power of claime authoritie froÌ„ Christ over both to be alike false and vntrue 3. they saye that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops spiritual governours of the Church which last words spiritual governors must needs include all Preachers that have spiritual charge as is before noted 4. And as among those degrees ordeyned by them they reckoÌ„ Bishops aswel as Archbishops c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers the limitatioÌ„ of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces yea the limitatioÌ„ of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops which cannot be thought they would ever have done if they had held theÌ„ jure divino 5. And ail this was after that Christians were increased to an infinite multitude throughout the world and in an imitation of the example of like degrees in the old testament not for that any such were established in the newe c. wherfore if the D. had well perused their words with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading he mought have found that whatsoever they speak of the equalitie or superiority of Bps. amonge themselves affirming the one and denying the other to be instituted by Christ the same is to be understood not of such Bishops as had that name proper to them after the Fathers had established sundry differences of degrees but of all apostolike Bishops or spiritual governours preists or preachers which had the spiritual charge of any people coÌ„mitted to them by the Apostles Which appeareth yet more clearely as by that other booke called Reformatio leguÌ„ ecclesiasticaruÌ„ compiled by them wherein it shall appeare anone they make the Bishops in quaestion to be of no other institution then the rest of that ranck of Archbishops ArchdeacoÌ„s Deanes c. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall Stokesley two others of them and therefore fittest to interprete their own meaning writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole S. Ierom say they aswell in his CoÌ„mentary on the Epistle to Titus as in his Epistle to Euagrius sheweth that those primacyes long after Christs ascension were made by the device of men where as before by the coÌ„mon agreement consent of the Clergie every of the Churches were governed yea the Patriarchall Churches The words of S. Ierom are these sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Praesbyteris esse majores And in the margin this note is sett Difference betwixt Bishops Preists how it came in What caÌ„ be more plaine then this to shewe that those Bishops did acknowledge as the ref saith the disparity of Ministers the primacie of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops c. was but a politik divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ Iesus This shall suffice for that testimony before we come to the next it shall not be amisse to speak a word or two coÌ„cerning the D. confession touching the parity of Bishops among themselves but yet restreyning it to the power of order for feare of offending cutting off his Archbishops head But so it falleth out that when men are affraid to what is truth for offending one side they often speak to the offeÌ„ce of the other that so farre as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papall authoritie whiles he denieth what they affirme
viz. that Bishops jure divino are equall among theÌ„selves in respect of power and jurisdiction aswell as order But though he deale honestly that himselfe and not the Bishops of King Henries dayes restreyneth the equalitie of Bishops among themselves to the power of order yet he casteth a great blemishe disgrace upon those our forefathers in signifying that the auncient Fathers consented not with them but with him and against them in this point As for that clause he addeth as were also the Apostles whose successors the Bishops are I know not to what purpose it serveth save to discover his contradictinge eyther himselfe or the The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself or the truth truth himself if he mean that the equality of Bishops amonge theÌ„selves is as large as that equality which was among the Apostles for theÌ„ he erreth in restreyning the equality of Bishops unto power of order onely the truth if he meane that the Apostles had no other equality among themselves then he giveth to Bishops for they were equall also in authority and jurisdiction aswell as in power of order as is rightly acknowledged by our Bishops in their bookes and by the auncienter Bishops in their writings Neyther is it true as the Doct. would insinuate thaâ— Bishops onely are the Apostles successors The D. untruly insinuateth that Bishops onely are the Apostles successors For to speak properly they have no successors and in a generall sense all Pastors and Teachers that hold and teach their doctrine are their successors And herein we have against him amongst many others the consent of those reverend Bishops who having sayd that Christ gave none of his Apostles nor any of their successors any such authority as the Pope claymeth over Princes or in civill matters doe make application thereof aswell to Preists as to Bishops But the D. notwithstanding upon this that the Bishops are the Apostles successors goeth on and telleth us That we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselves that therfore they were not superior to the 72 disciples or because Bishops are equall among themselves therefore they are not superior to other Ministers Whereunto I could say it is true if it were apparant first that Bishops other Ministers doe differ by any special difference as the 72. disciples did from the Apostles but no such thing appeareth eyther in the scriptures or in the Bishops booke from whence the Doct. reasoneth but rather as hath bene shewed by the refuter and is before mainteyned the cleane contrary Secondly that the Apostles had any superiority over these disciples the which the Doctor wil not so easily prove as take for granted seing 1. Christ living the Apostles had no authority over any 2. their Apostolical authority was not as then wheÌ„ the 72. were sent forth coÌ„mitted vnto them and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministery of the 72. was to be coÌ„tinued in the Church after Christ but onely to remaine for that present journey and afterwards to be disposed of as Christ pleased Thirdly it is also true that as the equality of the Apostles amonge themselves and the supposed superioritie they had over the 72 tooke not away their subjection and inferiority to Christ so neyther doth the equallity of Bishops among themselves nor their superioty over other Ministers take away their inferiority to the Pope by any necessity of consequence Wherefore I must for this The Refus rightly alleadged the testimony testimony conclude 1. that the refuter hath rightly alleadged it and 2. that the D. hath wronged not onely his refuter but us them in labouring and that with slaunder to wrest their testimony out of our hands The next testimony is taken from the booke called Reform leg eccles Sect 2. Ref. pag. 4. D. pag. 5. cap. 10. 11. de divinis offic ijs to prove that those which made the booke deemed that as the episcopall function is not jure divino so the government of the Church by the Minister and certeyn Seniors or Elders in every parish was the auncient discipline so consequently his doctrine in his sermon contrary to their judgement In answer whereunto 1. he chargeth his Refuter to playe the part of an egregious falsifyer and The D. columniateth the allegation to be forged but by that time the matter be examined I perswade my self the reader will thinke it meet the Doctor take home those speaches to himselfe as his owne proper the rather seing the Ref setteth not downe the words of the book but onely his own collection out of them 2. he fathereth that upon him which he neyther sayd nor meant With what eye trow we looked he vpoÌ„ the Refuters words that he would make his reader believe that the Refuter affirmeth as he afterwards intimateth that the The Doct. slauÌ„dereth compilers of the booke meant to bring in lay-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledg that it was the ancient discipline of the Church Let us now debate the matter as it deserveth at large And first it being remembred that the booke is cited to prove that the doctrine in his sermon is against the judgement of our immediate forefathers we are to see what his doctrine is viz that as the episcopal function in quçstion is jure divino so all ecclesiasticall power of jurisdiction is in the Bishops hands onely that the Pastors of particular flocks as they have their authority from the Bishop so all the authority they have is in fore conscientia not in foro externo eyther for direction or correction that belongeth wholly to the Bishop he is to reforme abusâ— exercise Church Censures against offenders It is not in the power of any Pastor of a particular congregation with any assistantes of lay-Elders or other associates to execute any censure c whereof we maye see more at large in the 4. point of his sermon pag. 45-52 And however in his defence he doth in part deny this to be his doctrine yet is it sufficiently averred lib. 2. Cap. 4. hereafter following to be his doctrine Now to prove that this his doctrine is against the judgement of those fathers is that booke alleadged the Doct. is now to make good his charge if he can he sayth he will doe it by transcribing the 10. 11. chap. cited the bare recitall whereof being as he saith a sufficient consutation of his forged allegations The words transcribed by him are Evening prayers being ended in citie parish Churches wherevnto after the sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne churches the principall Minister whom they call parochum the Parson or Pastâ—r and the Deacon if they be present c. and Seniors are to consult with the people how the mony provided for godly vses may be best bestowed to the same time let the discipline be reserved For they who have coÌ„mitted any publike wickednes to the coÌ„mon offence of the Church are to
be called to the knowledge of their sinne publikely to be punished that the Church by their wholesome correction may be kept in order Moreover the Minister going aside with some of the Seniors shall take counsell how others whose maâ—ners are sayd to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselves thanks is duely to be given to God but if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receive such sharp punishment as we see in the Gospell provided against their contumacy In the 11. Chap. they sett downe in case that they judge any for contumacy worthy to be excoÌ„municated how to proceed in the exercise and denouncinge of that sentence 1. the Bishop is to be gone unto and his sentence to be known who if he shal consâ—â—t and putt to his authority the sentence is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so much as may be we may bringe in the auncient disciplyne Here are their words now what sayth M. D. to prove that these words notwithstanding the refuter is an egregious falsifyer and that the reader may be these words thus transcribed discerne the allegations to be forged of this last he hath never a word concerning the first he telleth us that though they mention Seniors and auncient discipliâ—e yet they meant nothinge lâ—sse then to bring in lâ—y-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church And what of all this what if they did mean none of these yet shall that which the refuter affirmeth of them remayne true still What they meant and acknowledge we shall see by and by when we have seene the D. proofs that they meant not so He telleth vs he wil out of the book it selfe make it manifest and I wil tell him he will not but I will the contrary rather To make his word good if he could he sayth The whole goverment and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c. is established in that book and to make good mine I saie it mattereth not they had no commission from the K. to remove it and bring in that ancient discipline which by their wordes they acknowledge was not then in use but diverse from that established their coÌ„mission stretched no further then to examine the lawes reforme abuses letting the offices to remaine still yea and therein to proceed no further then would stand with those offices the lawes of the land Will the D. saye that they in all the booke have any one word to shewe that they held that government and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops ArchdeacoÌ„s rurall Deanes c. to be jure divino Nay as divers of them in their submission to King H. the 8. professe the contrary so throughout this book they have no one word tending to prove the Bishops authority over other Ministers to be any more jure divino then Archbishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c but as they are birds of a feather so they stand and fall togither by one and the same ecclesiastical lawe or humane ordinance But let vs heare what the Doctor can make the book speake concerning the Bishops authoritie he sendeth us to the 12. chap. where he saith it is decreed that the Bishop is at fâ—â— seasons to give holy orders c. to remove unfit men c. to correct by ecclesiastical censures vices corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendement of life to excoÌ„municate those which wilfully obstinately refist to receive into grace those that be penitent c. and finally to take care of all things which ex Dei prescripto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our ecclesiasticall lawes have coÌ„mitted to their knowledge and judgements Very wel and what doth the D. inferre of all this just nothing I will help him by and by But first who seeth not that those fathers vnderstoode two parts of that episcopall function one divine the care of those things which are prescribed them by God and coÌ„mon to all Bishops or Ministers of the word one principall member whereof to witt the diligent and syncere preaching of the word they mention as the first duty in the first words of that Chapter which the D. left ouâ— perhaps because divers of our Bishops have left it of as no part or the least part of their duety the other humane viz the exercise of that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which was committed to them by the K. in his ecclesiasticall lawes Now 2. to help the D. a little he should have inferred vpon the wordes sett downe by him That therefore the authority of doing all those things mentioned was in the judgement of those Fathers in the hands of the Bishops alone the which if he durst not doe he should have brought forth some other chapter to shewe it else certeynely he can saye nothing to the purpose And that it may appeare he cannot doe it I will nowe make it manifest out of the booke that they were of a contrary judgement and laboured so farre as their coÌ„mission would suffer them to bring in that auncient discipline before spoken of concerning the ruling and guiding of the particular flocks by the Mâ—nister and Seniors of the same and so farre brought it in by the order prescribed in that booke that it cutteth the windpipe of the D. sermon concerning his sole ruling Bishops so in sunder as it will never breath from their decrees nor ever have affinity with the auncient discipline they speake of We have already seene concerning discipline and excoÌ„munication what they decree cap. 10. 11 that being remembred add we to it that in the 6. cap. de excommunicat thus they further order 1. that if possibly it may be it being a thinge much to be desired the consent of the whole Church or Congregation should be had before excommunication be decreed or denounced against any 2. that no one man Archbishop Bishop or other shall have the power of excommunication in his handes And therefore 3 that neyther Archbishop Bishop or any ecclesiasticall Iudge sholl so much as decree excoÌ„munication without the consent of one Iustice of peace of the Minister of the Congregation where the delinquent dwelleth or in his absence of his deputy Curate or assistant and of 2. or 3. other Ministers both learned and of good life in whose presencâ— the whole matter busynes shal be heard debated pondered decreed In like sort for the receiving agayne of the excommunicate person into the Church vpon his repentance in the 14. chap they likewise order 1. that it shall not be by any Iudge before his repentance be approved and certificate therof made to the Bishop by the Minister and Syndicks or some of the cheife
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌ„t of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ was coÌ„mitted but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time as himself testifyeth wryting upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doct that the Archbishop in his defence of that his answere page 161. vpon his second thoughts three times confesseth asmuch almost in the same words I confesse sayth he that there was Seniors and I alleadged Ambrose partly for that purpose and partly to shewe that both their names and offices were exstinguished before his time And knoweth not the Doctor also that he spendeth two pages at the least 656. 658 to shewe the inconveniences that would as he conceiveth folowe vpon the reteyning of that government vnder ChristiaÌ„ Princes especially in the Church of England Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church doth he not in his answere to the AdmonitioÌ„ page 162 affirme that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same that it cannot be governed in tyme of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution c. Doth he not in his defence page 658. 660. spend a whole Chapter tending as the title sheweth to prove that there is no one certeyne kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed After which discourse knitteth he not vp the matter with these 3. knotts 1. that it is well knowne how the manner and forme of government used in the Apostles times and expressed in the scriptures neyther is now nor can nor ought to be observed eyther touching the persons or the functions 2. that it is playne that any one certayne forme or kind of government perpetually to be observed is no where in scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof left to the Christian Magistrate c. 3. that wee must admitt another forme nowe of governing the Church then was in the Apostles times or els we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all authority in ecclesiasticall matters Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authoritie doth he not acknowledge page 680. all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise be it civil or ecclesiasticall to be then executed in the Queens Maiesties name and right and to come from her as supreme Governour And speaking page 747 of the Colledge of Presbyters which Ierom calleth Senatum ecclesiae togither with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies saith he not that that kinde of government which those Churches Cathedral he meaneth had it transferred to the civil Magistrate to whom it is due and to such as by him are appointedâ— If the Doct. hath read him he knoweth all this to be true Thus much breifly for the testimony and judgment of that Archbishop the which how farre it differeth from the Doctors sermon whatsoever he sayth now by exchange in his defence and whether it casteth not the governmeÌ„t by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times let the reader comparatis comparandis judge Come we now to Bishop Iewels judgement set downe at large in his defence of the Apologie out of which the Doctor saith that Confession of the English Church was collected whose testimony I might well coÌ„mend in regard the booke out of which it is taken is commanded to be in all our Churches but that the Doctor wil againe as before cry a mountaine banck but I will barely lay it downe and let it commend it self First concerning the power of the keies he hath in his apolog chap. 7. divis 5. these words Seing one manner of word is given to all and one onely keâ—e belongeth to all we say speaking in the name of the Church of England there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerninge openninge and shutting And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Preist or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth he saith parte 2. page 140. that as a Iudge togither with the Elders of the congregation he hath authority both to condemne and to absolve And page 152. that in the primitive Church eyther the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation had authoritie herein and that the direction and judgment rested evermore in the Preest And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use yet he shewing out of Beatus Rhenanus howe they were vsed in old time saith That the excoÌ„municated person when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Preists as vnto the mouthes of the Church and opened to them the whole burthen of his hart by whom he was brought into the congregation to make open confession and satisfaction which done duely and humbly he was restored againe openly into the Church by laying on of the handes of the priests and Elders Againe concerning the authoritie of Bishops over other Ministers cap. 3. divis 5. page 109. he mainteyneth the testimony which in his Apologie he had alleadged out of Ierom ad Evagriu making all Bishops to be of like preheminence and preisthood against the cavills of Harding as the refuter will I doubt not against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith What S. Ierom meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth thâ—â— Ierom seemeth to match all Bishops together as if they were all equally the Apostles successors And he thmketh not any Bishop to be lesse then other for that he is poorer or greater then other for that he is richer For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium a poore towne equall with the Bishop of Rome And further he thinketh that a Bishop is no better then any Preist save that he hath authority to order Ministers Againe pag. 111. that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops they had it by agreement and custome but neyther by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods word And to shewe that it was not his judgment alone he produceth Ierom and Austin Ierom upon Titus 1. sayinge Lett Bishops vnderstand that they are above the Preists rather of custome then of any truth or right of Christes institution And that they ought to rule the Church altogither And that a Preist and a Bishop are all one c. Austin epist 19. saying The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Preist not by the authority of the scriptures saith Bishop Iewel in a perenthesis but after the names of honour which by the custome of the Church have now obteyned Againe chap. 9. divis 1. pag. 198. What ment Mr. Harding saith he here to come in with the difference betwixt Preists and Bishops thinketh he that Preists and Bishops holde onely by tradition or is it so horrible an heresy as he
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
meere cavill joyned with an evident vntruth The D. jâ—ineth a cavill and an vntruth togither to say as the D. doth that the proposition sett downe by the Refuter is not his but stretched beyonde not onely his meaninge but also his wordes 4. But it was the D. cunninge to take advantage of the word seeminge here vsed but elsewhere omitted so to perswade if he could that his Resuter had no colour from his wordes to coclude that he did sett vp but onely that he did seeme to sett vp absolute poplinges for which cause also in meeting with the places where the Refuter reneweth this objection which yet is no oftener then his owne wordes gave occasion by his renewinge of his calumniation against the favourites of the government by presbyters he sendeth back his reader to this place saying that thâ—se objections though repeated in other wordes answering to his owne termes are answered before and that to their shame see lib. 1. pa. 194. lib. 3. pag. 142. But will he nill he we have gained the propositio so that if his answere to the assumptio be not the better the shame will light vpon his owne pate To come therefore to the assumption First lett it be remembred Sect. 8. that the Refuter propounded it not as his owne assertion which he ment to prove by the constitution of our Churches or the practise of our Bishops but as a pointe which the D. vndertaketh to prove in his sermon 2. He is likewise to be so vnderstood as ofte as he objecteth against our Bishops that having sole and supreme authority they rule as Popes or Popelinge wherefore the assumption which the D. rejecteth as false and foolish or frivolous is this in effecte That all diocesan Bishops have or ought to have in the D. opinion not onely supreme but also sâ—le-authority in matters ecclesiasticall within their diocesse Or thus The D. giveth and alloweth to diâ—cesan Bishops such supreme and sole authority c. Wherefore to make way for the proofe of this Assumption the Refuter first layde downe the state of the question into which the Doctor is nowe entred viz. whither the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops and then addeth that where they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subuct to the congregation so farr off are they from giving sole and supreme authoritie to the Pastors alone c. Mr Doct. taketh all from them all and putteth the reâ—â—â— into the bandes of his Diocesans alone c. From which words to conclude the former assumption and in the contriving of the argument to keep as neere as may be to the tenour of the syllogisme proposed by the Doctor to himself to confute thus I argue Whosoever giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from their several Pastors with their Elders and Parishes Therefore the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth downe sect 11. pag. 43. and adjoyne such an assumption as best fitteth with it And I nothing doubt but the Refuter will easily be discharged from all the untruthes the Doctor chargeth upon him and it be made to appeare that the Doct. himself is the man that climbeth that ladder of vntruthes to put his The D. not the Ref. climbeth the ladder of vntruthes Bishops out of that seate of papacie wherein by his owne rules they were quietly seated And first I will confirme the partes of this argument then blowe awaye the smoke of those untruthes which rose from out of the Doctor as sparkes flye vpward The proposition I thus prove Whosoever giveth vnto one Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese such a power of government as would be found both supreme and sole if it were invested wholly in the person of any one pastor for the government of one parishe he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and Parishes is such a power as would be found to be both supreme and sole authority in causes ecelâ—sticall if it were wholly invested into the person of any one Pastor for the government of one Parishe Therefore whosoever giveth vnto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth vnto the diocesan Bishop alone for his diocese both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is cleare enough of it self and the assumption is drawne from the D. words both in his sermon and this defense of it when he saith againe and againe that the authority which he denieth vnto parishes with their Pastors and Elders in this controversy is an immediate and independent or supreme authority sufficient for ecclesiasticall government And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoyned to him Wherefore if it can be proved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical goverment which he denieth vnto Pastors with their parishes and Elders it will inevitably folow that he alloweth vnto every diocesaÌ„ Bishop supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall To proceed therefore to the proofe of this pointe which is the assumption of the first prosyllogisme thus I argue In debating this question whither the Churches are to be governed severally by Pastors and Elders in every parishe or by Bishops sett over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese whosoever impugneth the former and mainteineth the later he giveth vnto every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denâ—eth to the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But in debating the question before mentioned the D. impugneth the former branch of the question and maintaineth the later Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denied vnto the severall pastors with their Elders and parishes Here the Assumption is in it self evident if the question debated be such as is before noted which none of his freinds need to doubt of since the D. himself excepteth not against it but intreateth the reader to take notice of the state of the question for future use pag. 41. and when he repeateth it cap. 3. pag. 61. he acknowledgeth it to be rightly sett downe in respect of the partes of the disfunction Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyllogisme standeth firme For
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
of those reverend and learned divines Calvin Beza c. as he confidently but falsly avoucheth Wherefore take he also to him these two vntruthes and add he a third likewise to the former where he saith in his margin pa. 47. that the Refuter mistaketh his reason vnlesse he had rather acknowledge that his reason is impertinent and frivolous For the question being What manner of preheminence those Bishops had which are in his text termed the Angels of the 7. churches that which he addeth of the wiser more learned disciplinarians their granting that they were Bishops of whole cities c. that their presbyteries consisted partly of annuall or lay Elders and that the Angels were nothing else but presidents of those presbyteries cannot in reason rightly be reduced to the question vnlesse it be vnderstood of those Bishops and Churches which are mencioned in the text which is to be explicated And if he be as it must be so vnderstood he falsly chargeth his Refuter with an ignorant mistakinge of his reason and lett him learne the lesson he elswhere taught his Refuter say ou manthano I vnderstand not my owne reason or else against his vnderstandinge he did both trifle in the one and slander in the other Chap 3. Concerning the residue of the Doctors defence of his preface or first part of his sermon from pag. 54 to the end Proceed we on now to the next section pag. 54. where he telleth us that hitherto his two assertions conteyned in the explication have bin Sect. 1. ad sect 18. pag. 54. propounded to be discussed and that now there is way made for the proof of eyther by enumerating distinctly the severall points which he proposed to handle c. And I wish the reader to remeÌ„ber how he saith before sect 1. pag. 28 that the points to be handled are first deduced out of the text from pag. 2. to pag. 6. of his serm lin 16. and secondly that they are enumerated The Doct. changeth the points of his sermon and distinctly marshalled pag 6 and 7. Now can any man that heareth him thus speak judg otherwise then that himself holdeth the points distinctly enumerated to be the self same and neither more nor fewer then those which are before deduced out of the text Yet he that wel examineth the matter shall find that neither is the number of the points the same neyther are the pointes eadem numero the same in number We have already heard what are the two principall assertions which he proposeth serm pag. 2. For the deciding of the former he layeth downe two questions which are inlarged into three viz. 1. whether the Churches whereof they were angels were parishes or Dioceses 2. And consâ—quâ—ntly whether those angels were parishional or Diocesan Bishops 3. What was the preheminence in regard wherof they were called angels whether onely a priority in order above other Ministers that for a time and by course or a superiâ—itie in degree and maiority of rule for terme of life In the direct answering of these three questioÌ„s togither with the later assertion which must be take as is before expressed the summe of his preface lieth as himself confesseth Defen pag. 29. Wherefore the points deduced out of the text cannot exceed the number of foure so that in the Doctors enumerating of 5. conclusions to be more at large prosecuted the nomber of these later excedeth the nomber of the former by one as every childe knoweth that can tell his 5. fingers And the reader may easily discerne that this One which is now marshalled into the feild and was not before appointed to serve in the battell is the first of the 5. which sayth there were not lâ—y governing Elders in the primitive Church for this cannot carry the face of an answere to any of the three questions before mentioned Now to compare the rest and to trie whether they be one and the same 1. His direct answere to the first question touching the churches must be this The Churches whereof they were Angels were diâ—ceses properly and not parishes But the second of the five for the first is shewed to be an intruder affirmeth that in the first 200. yeares the visible churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall goverment were dioceses properly and not parishes and the presbyteries which were in those times were not asigned to parishes but to diâ—â—eses Wherefore 2. That which followeth as a consequent of this viz. that the Angels of the Churches and presidents of the presbyteries were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops must be referred to the Bishops that lived in the first 200 yeares after Christ whereas the answere of the second question hath peculier reference to the Angels of the 7. churches that they were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops 3. In like manner the answere to the 3. question determineth the preheminence of those Bishops which are called the Angels of the Churches to be not a prioritie in order for a time and by course but a superiority in degree above other Ministers and a majority of rule during life But the fourth point amonge the five with a larger reference to the Bishops of the primitive Church for many ages affirmeth that every Bishop being advanced to an higher degree of Ministerie was sâ—t above the other presbyters not onely in priority of order but also in majority of rule for terme of life 4. And the last of the five having an eye vnto the function of Bishops described in the forenamed positions whose Churches are Dioceses and their Presbyteries assigned for the whole Dioceses whose preheminence also is a superioritie in degree and majoritie of rule promiseth to shewe and by evidence of truth to demonstrate that the calliâ—g of such Bishops is of divine and apostolicall institution But the last assertion proposed pag. 2. promiseth this onely and no more out of the wordes of the text to shewe that the office and function of Bishops there ment by Angels is in this text approved as lâ—wfâ—ll and commended as excellent Wherefore since there is so apparant a difference betwene the one and the other me thinkes the D. should sooner be drawne to confesse that the pointes first deduced out of the text to be handled doo differ both in nomber and nature from these which are secondly enumerated then to vndertake the mainteyninge of the contrary and the reducing of the first of his 5. conclusions to one of those 3. questions which he propounded for the triall of his first assertion As for that faire florishe which he maketh for the bringing of the first foure to the proofe of the first assertion and the laste of the five to the fortifyinge of the second how vainly he striveth therin the very change of both the assertions before named and here continued doth sufficiently declare yet his defect herein shall more fully be layd open hereafter vpon just occasion offred In the meane time I will first examine the scope of
de iâ—â—re whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as they hold or must be governed by Presbyteries as we affirme The first question he saith his handled in the former part of his sermon to which he reduceth his 4. first points And the second in the later which is the last of his five And thus in deed I graunt that every of his 5. points may be pertinent to his purpose yet still I affirme that if they be referred to the proof of his two assertions which he ought by his promise serm pag. 2. to prove the first and last might well have bene spared and the other three not to repeat againe how one of them at the least is needlesse doe neyther directly nor necessarily conclude that first assertion which he saith is proved by them Wherefore had he meant to frame his analysis to such a distribution as best agreeth with his Genesis we should never have heard from him that which so often he repeateth in this defence to wit that his five points enumerated pag. 6. 7. are the direct proofes of his 2. assertions proposed pag. 2 he would rather have divided that part of his preface which himselfe sect 1. of this chapter calleth the proposition into these two members 1. a proposition of certeine questions to be debated for the explication of his text pag. 2. 3. 5. which he promiseth to cleare but doth not 2. a digression from his text wherein he proposeh 1. the opinions of the disciplinarians whom he intendeth to confute pag. 4. 5. 6. and 2. those 5. pointes which he opposeth to their opinions pag. 6. 7. and pomiseth in his sermon to prove against them This had bene both true plaine dealing but he was not willing the world should see that his text affoardeth him so litle help as it doth to conclude the doctrine which he pretendeth to arise froÌ„ the explication thereof And therefore how oft so ever his refuter calleth vpon him to make good his promise by proving that we are by the angels in his text to vnderstand such Bâ—shops for the substance of their calling as ours are yet by no meanes will he once heare on that side and be recalled to this question but shâ—fteth it off by this calumniation that his Refuter by a forced analysis for I let passe his odious termes withdraweth him from the principall queston Wherefore to cut off all such quarrels and to damme vp some other lurking holes whereinto he flyeth as occasion serveth before we proceed to the examinatioÌ„ of any of the large discourses made by him in defece of his 5. conclusions It shal be good to take a better view of the state of the question debated in his sâ—rmon that the reader may throughly see what it is both that the Refuter denieth the Doctor is to prove first by the explication of his text and after that by such arguments as he taketh most pregnant for his purpose Chap 4. Concerning the state of the question handled by the Doctor in his third chapt sect 1. which is altogither chaunged by him The question discussed in the sermon as the Doctor telleth us Sect. 1. ad Cap. 1. sect 1. pag. 60. 61. Cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 60. is twofold The first de facto whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops as we sâ—y saith he or by the Presbyteries of such elders as they speake of The second de â—ure whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Diocesan Bps as we hold or must needes be governed by their presbyteries as they affirme The first is handled in the former part of the sermon to which he referreth the first 4. pointes the second â—n the later whereto the 5. or last appert yneth Here the reader must remember as is already observed in the former chap. that the principall question in the entrance of his sermon pag. 2. propounded to be discussed is wholly overpasseâ— the question I meane de vero genuino textus sensu whether by the angels there mentioned we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of â—â—eir câ—lling as ours are And so let vs see how well he hath reduced the whole controversie his text set aside to these two questions because he dealeth against two sorts of Disciplinarians who as he pretendeth differ greatly in their opinions the one from the other His first question he thus explaineth Whâ—ther the primâ—tive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops such for the substance of their calling as ours are or by such Presbyteries as they stand for viz. eyther parishionall consisting of the Parish-Bishop and a companiâ— of lay or onely governing elders or Presbyters in cities consisting of the President and other Presbyters Whereof some are Ministers but the greater some laye or onely governing elders The question being thus layd downe because the expositioÌ„ standeth generally betwene Presbyters and Diocesan Bishops a man would think that all which stand for the one do generally and alike reject the other Whereas notwithstanding the D. other of his minde doe acknowledge that presbyteries had place and use in the goverment of the ancient Churches and he would perswade his readers that the more learned sort of disciplinarians doe acknowledge the primitive Bishops to be diocesan But if the opposition be not simply betwene presbyteries and Bishops but onely betwene such and such yet a man would judge that both sides hold both diocesan Bishops and presbyteries though they disagree in the nature of their functions whereas it is apparant that he affirmeth diocesan Bishops to be absolutely disclamed of the later sort of presbyterians Agayne in the difference which he putteth betwene the elder the yonger sort of Disciplinarians who would not conceite that the elder sort deny vnto country parishes aswel any governing Elders as a parish Bishop have no entire presbyteries but in Cities onely Wheras it is well knowne that all their presbyteries are nâ—t limited to Cities that Elders are allowed to country-parishes even by them that contrive the Churches of City Country into one Eldershipp yet so as the Elders in the Country have not ful power of jurisdiction Moreover in the 2. question as he hath proposed it who would not thinke both that all which plead for presbyteries whether severall in every parishe or one in diverse doe holde the goverment which they imbrace to be a like necessary and that such as stand with the D. for diocesan Bishops doe with one consent strive onely for the lawfullnes of their places and not for the necessity or perpetuity of their functions Yet he indeavoureth to perswade his reader lib. 4. pag. 161. that the reteyning of diocesan Bishops such as he standeth for is noâ— condemned by any moderate or judicious divine but onely by the late Presbyterians whereas it is too evident for his deniall to evince the coÌ„trary that many at this day doe stand forth eagerly for the necessitie
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
power of order in Bishops that they cannot communicate it to any others Wherefore though he should never so impudently stand forth to mainteine that he doth not ascribe a sole power of ordinatioÌ„ to them yet wil it be inevitably concluded froÌ„ his owne wordes For whosoever have the right or power of ordination appropriated to theÌ„ alone as a prerogative peculiar to their function and that by the power of their order yea so peculiar to their order that they cannot communicate it to men of another function they must needes have the sole power of ordination If therfore Bishops have the power of ordination so appropriated to them alone and to the power of their order as is before shewed from the D. owne wordes it followeth of necessâ—â—y that they have a sole power of ordination given vnto them This is also implied in those speaches so often repeated lib. 3. pag. 72. 86. 93. 97. that the power of ordeyninge was in the Bishops and not in the presbyters And that Bishops had the power or right of ordeyning which presbyters had not And of ordination and jurisdiction jointly as he constantly mainteineth them to be the principall and most essentiall parts of the episcopall authority lib. 3. pag. 68. lib. 4. pag. 78. so he flatly denyed the charge of these affaires to belonge vnto presbyters The Doct. must â—ay by his slander and graunte that he giveth sole power c. to Bishops or else he cotradictâ—â—h himself often lib. 4. pag. 79 And speaking of those precepts which Paul gave to Timothe for ordination and Church government 1. Tim. 5. 19. 21. he saith pag. 77. they were not coÌ„mon to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to Bishops So that we may safely conclude neither can the Doct. impugne it without apparant contradiction to himself that our Bishops are sole-ruling Bishops and that the singularity of preheminence or preheminent power which he ascribeth vnto Bishops as an essentiall part of their function is in deed a sole power of rule or monarchicall superiority The 5. Chapter Concerninge the sâ—ate of the Question and namely of the D. distinction of ius apostolicum divinum Thus have we done with the first come we now to the second point before proposed to be examined viz. in what sense the sole Sect. 1. ruling Bishops such as ours are is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The Doctor often acknowledgeth it to be a divine ordinance in respect of the first institution as having God the author thereof But he can by no means indure his Refuter to say that he holdeth their function to be divini juris orâ—de jure diâ—iâ—o and perpetually or generally necessary for all Churches yea his chollerâ—i so kindled thereat that he chargeth him with untruth calâ—mâ—â—tion wilful depraving of his assertion as we may see both in his answere to his Refuters preface pag. 2. and in this defense lib. 3. pag. 22. lib. 4. pag. 138. But it is already shewed in the defense of that preface that the Doctor abuseth the refuter depraveth his words and meaning in as much as he had an eye onely to the first institution of the episcopall function when he sayd that the Doctors sermon tended to prove that the sayd function is to be holden jure divino by Gods lawe and not as an humane ordinance And sithence was reserved to this place the more full handling of those nice conceits in the Doctor which were then overpassed touching the difference betwixt things that are divini juris and others that were apostolici and that absolute necessity which he placeth in those things that are divini juris we are now to enter vpon the coÌ„sideration of these particulars First therefore because he now seemeth in this defense lib. 3. pag. 26. 116. lib. 4. pag. 137. 139. to allowe in his owne judgement that distinction betwixt those things that are divini those that are apostolici juris which in his sermoÌ„ pa. 92. he proposed in the name of some other divines viz. that the former are generally The Doct. neyther doth nor can make good his distinctioÌ„ perpetually immutably necessary the later not so he might have done wel to have warraÌ„ted this distinctioÌ„ either froÌ„ the scripture or froÌ„ the testimony of some orthodoxal writers FroÌ„ the Scripture he cannot 1. because he hath already laid that ground out of Actes 15. 28. which will refute it as is already shewed in defence of the said preface 2. Moreover it is well observed of sundry Divines as Aquinas 2â— 2â— q. 55. art 2. that jus divinum dicitur quod divinitus promulgatur And Lubbertus de Pont. Romano lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 338 that jus dicitur a jussum per apocopeÌ„ Where fore as he saith jus divinum est quod Deus jubet so we may say that jus apostolicum est quod apostolus jubet vel ab apostolis jubetur The true difference therefore if there be any betwene jus divinuÌ„ and apostolicum standeth onely in this that the former hath the expresse and immediate commandement of God to warrantize that which he prescribeth whereas the later proceedeth from the Apostles as the Interpreters of Gods will and his Ministers which by direction from him give rules vnto his Church to observe In which sense the Apostle Paul distinguisheth his commandement from the Lords 1. Cor. 7. 10 12. vnto the married I command ouk â—go alla ho kurios not I but the Lord. c. But to the remnant ego lego ouk hokurios l speâ—ke not the Lord c. Will the Docter now say of the former precept because it is jus divinum that it is generall perpetually and immutably necessarie and of the later that it is not so as being onely jus apostolicum I hope rather he will spare the Refuter or his friend the labor to prove that the later is no lesse generally perpetually and immutably necessary then the former Significat Apostolus preceptum illud vers 10. niti expresso verbi divini testimonio non autem ex revelatione singulari spiritus sancti profectum Piscat in 1. Cor 7. 10. Suum autem id esse dicit vers 12. de quo nihil desertè expresserit Dominus non quod ipse ex se temerè aut suo arbitrio esset coÌ„mentatus Id enim se fecisse negat infra vers 25. 40. Beza in 1. Cor. 7. 12. And therfore after many other precepts delivered by the Apostles in sundry cases not before determined by any direct and expresse verdict of Gods word as will appeare to him that wayeth what he teacheth 1. Cor. 8. 9. 13. 10. 25 -29 11. 4 -14 23 -25 he bindeth them all up under one generall charge 1. Cor. 14. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are tou kâ—riou entâ—lai the commandements of God Dei
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
And if one of our Bishops may in his visitation apply to alâ— the Ministers of his diocese those words of the Apostle Acts. 20. 28. that they should attende the whole flock c. as he saith lib. 2. pag. 105. then he must acknowledge all those Ministers to be properly Diocesan and not parishonall Pastors because the whole flock or Church in such a speach is properly a Diocese and not a parishe Moreover by the like consequence he must acknowledge that the Prophets Teachers mentioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. were for the extent of their authority equall with the Apostles that is all vniversall Ministers none affixed to any particular Church or Diocese because the Church wherein God is sayd to ordeyne them is the vniversal Church militant as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 227. lib 2. pag. 4. Also that Titus was properly a nationall Bishop and not Diocesan or provinciall because the Church of Crete whereof he was Bishop was properly a Nationall Church and not a province or diocese And that the Bishops of our owne Church whose function he will have to be of divine institution are properly nationall also and not diocesan or provinciall because the Church of England whereof they are Bishops is neyther diocese nor province but properly a nation or nationall Church Wherefore if the Doctor doth not willfully shut his eies against the light he may se that though he could prove those 7. Churches to be properly dioceses yet it will not followe as he supposeth that the Angels of those Churches were properly diocesan Bishops So that if he faile also of his hope to prove or â—ather boast in vaine of that proofe which he professeth lib. 2. pa 3. to have drawne from his text to shewe that the 7. Churches of Asia were properly dioceses then may he sit downe in silence with the losse of his cause till he hath found out a new text in case any other can be found to justify the functioÌ„ of our Diocesan Bishops His argument which as he saith sect 2. cap. 3. is grounded Section 3. Ref. pa. 53. D. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 43. sect 3. vpon the text was in his sermon pag. 17. 18. proposed to prove a more large Conclâ—sion viz. that in the Apostles times and in the age followinge the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels to wit all visibles Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes wherfore before we trie how wel he hath proved those 7. churches to be Dioceses let us first see how absurdly he dealeth in strayning his text to a larger extent I meane to justify that generall coÌ„clusion before mentioned The words which â—ay downe his argument are these For whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seven naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith Theâ— starres were the angels of those 7. churches it cannot be denied but that the Châ— whereof they were Bishops were great ample cities and not cities alone but also the Countries adioyning From the last wordes of which-sentence the refuter frameth this connexive Syllogisme If the Churches of Asia to which our Saviour Christ writâ— were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the Countries adioyning then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes But the Churches of Asia were such therefore they were Dioceses c. And addeth that the Assumption lieth pag. 18. and the conclusion pag. 17. whereby it appeareth that the last wordes of the proposition which is supplied viz. then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes must not be restreyned to the 7 Churches of Asia onely but rather understood of all the visible Churches which were in the world at that time and in the age following as the wordes of his conclusion before delivered doe shewe Notwithstanding because the reâ—uter rejecteth the consequence of the proposition and saith it is naught the Doctor finding himselfe vnable to make it good disgorgeth his stomach against his The D. vnable to make good his owne reasoÌ„ seeketh to make his Ref. logick naught Refuter and thinking to make his logick naught asketh pag. 43. sect 3. if he cannot frame a Syllogisme with hope to answere it vnlesse the proposition have a consequence which he may deny and as if he were a Puny that had not learned the groundes of logick intreateth him that the Proposition may be simple and afterwards charging him not to know what the hypothesis or thing supposed in a connexive syllogism is taketh vpon him Magistraliter to teach him how to know it and willeth him to dispose his connexive proposition into an Enthymem and giveth him to witt that what part is wanting to make vp a syllogism the same is presupposed as the hypothesis whereon the consequence is grounded and so goeth on along in instructing his Refuter in logicall pointes where I leave him And on the Refuters behalfe I answere 1. that though he is not perhapps so great a logician as Maister Doctor yet he is not ignorant how to reduce an Enthymem into a simple Syllogisme he hath often done it before the Doctor drewe him into his schoole as the reader may see in his answere pag. 9. 29. 70. 73. 109. 139. 145. 154. 155. 156 and so hath proved The D. a false witnes him to be a false witnes in saying as he doth pag. 44. and 45. that he knoweth not what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposed in a connexive proposition and that he must unlearn that art if he will not be counted a Trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexive syllogisme that he may have a consequence to cavill with â— but doth not the D. himself frame many coÌ„nexive Syllogismes in this Defense See lib. 1. pag. 67. 84. 92. 101. 134. 165. 180. in the rest of his bookes many others may be found besides sundry Enthymemes which he leaveth void of that supply that should reduce to a perfect syllogism Wherefore if his Refuter be worthy so oft to be reproved as he is by the Doctor lib. 1. pag. 109. 146. and here et alibi passim for his connexive Syllogismes however another might doe it yet I may here tell the D. it becoÌ„meth not him to doe it Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum But had the Doctor made none yet the use of such Syllogismes is common both with Divineâ— and Logicians of good account Doth not Aristotle often use them See Prior. lib. 1. cap. 40. lib. 2. cap. 2. Are they not by good Logicians commended as most firme apt both for confirmatioÌ„ of truth coÌ„futatioÌ„ of errour To passe by Polanus Log. l. 1. p. 92 Let the D. read that worthy Sadeel Tit. de verbo Dei scripto c. cap. 2. and 3. Vseth he not in his reasoning there both kataskevasticos anaskevasticos ten connexives for one simple
And doth he not justify that his course of reasoning to be very proper and fit for Theologicall disputations that by the practise both of auncient writers and schoolemen I take him to be a man not much inferior to the Doct in the Art of reasoning but if he disdeyne the comparison I hope the Apostle Paul was no wayes inferiour to him let him see whether he confirmeth not this course 1. Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 18. c. Yea let the Reader remember how our blessed Saviour Christ the Prince of Logicians often vieth them Ioh. 5. 46. 8. 39. 40. 55. and 15. 19. 22. 24 Let the D. therefore saye what he will it is no disgrace to the Refuter with them that are wise and unpartiall to have used them 3. Moreover since the Doctor will needes read to his Refuter a logick lecture to â—each him how to reduce every Enthymem into a simple syllogisme how happeneth it that he giveth him no direction how to knowe vnto which of the premisses every thing presupposed in the consequence must be referred espetially when more assertions then one must be supplied as it is in the argument which himself hath framed sect 2. pag. 42. 4. But to stand no longer in answering him according to his foolishnes herein know he his Refuter whom he vndertaketh to teache hath learning enough to discerne as in many other parts of his defense so even in his mainteyning this argument that he scarce knoweth how to reduce some of his owne Enthymems or hypotheticall arguments into simple syllogismes For if he will drawe the words wherein his Argument lieth to conclude the question which here he proposeth to be debated his Enthymeme must be this The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not cities onely but also the countryes adâ—â—yning Therefore in the age followinge the visible Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes Now who seeth not the consequence of this Enthymem to be naught and that for the reasons which the Refuter yeeldeth 1. Because it presupposeth that which is not true to wit that all Churches in the world at that time were such as those 7. that is great and ample cities c. 2. because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. Of the later wee shall speake anone Let vs now see how he wipeth away the former The proposition or consequence saith he pag. 45. is so farr from Sect. 4. Ref. pag. D. pag. 45. lib. 2. presupposing all the Churches in the world to be great and ample cities that it doth not so much as presuppose those 7. in Asia to be such That is presupposed in the proposition but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption Here first let it be observed that the Doctor assumeth or affirmeth A flat contradiction in the D. in the assumption of his argument that those 7. churches in Asia were great and ample cities the falshood whereof is so apparant to his owne conscience that within a fewe lines after scz 16. or 17. he denieth it againe and saith it was spoken onely concerning 5. of those Churches But 2. to dispute the point in hand what will the Doctor answere to his refuter whom he maketh so ignorant in the groundes of logick if he should argue with him in this manner In every Enthymem what soever is not affirmed in the Antecedent yet is necessarily vnderstood to make good the conclusion the same is presupposed or taken for granted in the consequence of the argument But in the Doctors Enthymem before sâ—t downe to make good the Conclusion this assertion that all churches in the world were at that time such as those 7. to wit greate and ample Cities is necessarily vnderstoode but not affirmed in the An â—â—cedent â—herefore the same Assertion is presupposed or taken for granted in the consequence of the argument And if in the consequence of the argument then in the consequence of the propositioÌ„ which comprehendeth both the Antecedent conclusion of the Enthymem Till his answere be heard here vnto it shall not be amisse to peruse what he hath already answered to the objection which himself frameth viz. That what he saith of the 7. Churches he would have vnderstood of all other Churches and therefore presupposeth what his Refuter objecteth First he granteth it is presupposed in his argumentation but not in his proposition Then he addeth that as in other places he is not to be blamed for concluding from other Churches to these 7 so neyther here for concluding A silly shâ—â—â— an idle qâ—arel of the D. from thesâ— 7. to all others c. The former is a silly shift and the later an idle quarrell 1. True it is the Doct. hath added to the assumption in his argumentation as he hath framed it pag. 42. that which his refuter referred to the consequence of the proposition of his connexive Syllogisme but how will he justify his new presupposition viz. that his Refuter erred in referring to the consequence of his proposition that which the Doct. hath now added to the assumption of his new forged Syllogisme And 2. to what purpose doth he tell us he is not to be blamed for concluding from these 7. churches to all others since that which his Refuter blameth in him is not his so concluding but his presupposing an untruth for the inferring of his conclusion viz. that all the Churches in the world were at that time when Iohn wrote his revelation great and ample cities c. Neyther 3. can he salve The D. can not salve his credit his creditt by denying that he is herein blameworthy for 1. that he presupposeth thus much he cannot deny seing in his sermon he did affirme those 7. Churches to be great and ample cities and now he blusheth not to avouch that what is verified of these 7. the same may be truely affirmed of the rest And since in the wordes immediately following lin 24. pag. 45. he saith that all Churches had not within their circuit great and ample cities he must acknowledge his former presupposall to be a grosse untruth 4. What releefe then can he gaine by appealing as he doth to the testimony of his Refuter to prove that the forme and constitution of all the primitive Churches is one and the same for I yet hope that prejudice hath not so farr blinded him but he can see the falla â—y of his former reasoning ab accidente when he presupposeth all other Churches to be great and ample cities like as he said those 7. in The Doct. reason is â— fallacie of the accident Asia were because the forme and constitution of all Churches is one and the same Wherefore he rageth without reason in rejecting pag. 47. that reason which his Refuter yeelded for the denyall
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ„ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâ—lea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bâ—â—e had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâ—ster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a â—everall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possâ—â—e that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌ„ding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ„ is not the denial of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ an evidence that the answerer is coÌ„founded is not coÌ„fusioÌ„ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâ—ctâ—d Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ— sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ„ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
in this case As touching the first saith he I have often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be But why doth he wonder where there is no cause of wonder Let him surcease his wondring The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter till he shewe both where his brethren have so argued and why such an argument will not hold And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause to wonder at his proceeding that wandreth from his purpose or rather justifyeth his Refut in that which he vndertook to disprove For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge that which now is closely implied sc that the ancient Churches remeyned for a time vndivided 3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words we may wonder what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided to those which at the first were not The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth pag. 69. The later appeareth by this that his best reason to prove that each Church had froÌ„ the beginning the circuite of the citie country adjoyned is the practise of succeeding ages p. 49. 55. which after division of parishes combined them in one body vnder one Bishop As for his questions following though I see not how they will serve his purpose yet will I breefly touch vpon them and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere 1. would they have saith he the Church of a City country belonging to it to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place I answere so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation I hold it best they continue vndivided as the first Apostolike Churches did but when the people of any City and Country are so increased that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place 2. Then tell me saith he whether we that doe and of necessity must consist of diverse congregations are to followe the example of any ancient Church as it was before it was divided or as it was after it was divided I affirme that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied the practise of the Apostles the ancient Apostolike Churches is to be imitated of us in giving to those new erected assemblies both the name and forme or constitution of Churches and the like power for government which those apostolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion in any one branch thereof 3. He addeth They will say perhaps that eche congregation after the division was as that one before nothing lesse let them prove that and I will yeeld in the whole cause We say it in deed and will not shrinke from affirminge that in the Apostles tymes wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country which at first made one Church were distributed into diverse there eche congregatioÌ„ was in forme or constitution like to that one before and if it be not so why doth he not disprove it Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent giving his reader just occasion to thinke that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe As for the ages following in Constantines time or there aboutes when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoyninge to it their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questioÌ„ of divine institution eyther for the constitution of Church-assemblies or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels c. before cited as he saith can convince or perswade the conscience of his opposites to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance But to what purpose doth he trifâ—le time in these By-questioÌ„s which make him forget what he promised to prove viz. that every of those 7. Churches was divided into severall ordinary assemblies Yet in one point more we must followe him sc when he indeavoreth to shew that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand if he had added this clause that they were Dioceses such as ours are but he foresawe that this addition would have quite marred his market notwithstanding attendance shal be given to that he hath delivered in defense of the point which he mainteyneth It wil be said saith he that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuite of the Church in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the division of parishes as after Here for the better apprehending of his meaning if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same I suppose he would send us to those words which he hath within a few line after viz. that the circuit of every Church even from the beginning aswelas after the multiplying of perishes included not onely the citie but thâ— countrye thereto belonging And if this be his meaning as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant then behold how he is The D. mustâ— gg still inforced principium petere when from hence he inferreth the coÌ„clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following 50. sc that though the 7. Churches had not bâ—ne divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses And because he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref I wil assay to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme and if he can beâ—ter the argument let him take his owne away Every Church whose circuite in the intention of the Apostle or first founder â—f it was the same as including not onely the citie but the country thereto belongiâ—g aswell befâ—re the division â—f Parishes as after every such Church I saw was a Diocese from the beginning though not divided then into several Câ—ngregations But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches in the intention of the Apostles or their first founders herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning though not yet divided into many severall congregations Now let
of three yearees afterwards sendeth Tâ—mothy to be their Bishop who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that we should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time he maketh mention of the Churches of Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. In all this if there be any probability it lieth in his last wordes wherein he seemeth thus to argue S. Paul maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Ergo you may not think there was but that Church at Ephesus in his time The consequent of this Enthymem is subtilly set down If his meaning be to perswade his reader that there was more The D. laieth downe his consequence subtilly then one Church at Ephesus in Pauls time because he mentioneth Churches in Asia his consequence is worse then nought nothing hindreth his Refuter to think that there was one onely Church at Ephesus although there were more Churches in Asia That epistle to the Corinthians wherein he mentioneh the Churches of Asia was written before his departure from Ephesus recorded Acts. 20. 1. as we maye gather 1. Cor. 16. 5. 8. 10. compared with Acts. 19. 21. 22. yet when after this he had speach with the Elders of Ephesus those many Elders which he now telleth us Paul had there placed they had no severall titles or cures but in coÌ„mon attended the whole flocke or Church as himself avoucheth serm pag. 18. from the very words of Paul Acts. 20. 28. where he doth apparantly contradict himself if he now labour to perswade that there were at that time more Churches or distinct congregations A contradiction in the D. if he c. then one that Ephesus But if in arguinge as he doth he intend no more then this to shewe that in Pauls time besides that Church at Ephesus there were in Asia some other Churches what is this to the purpose I meane to prove that in Saint Iohns time each of the 7. Asian Churches conteyned diverse congregations As for that he addeth of Timothy sent vnto Ephesus to be their Bishop his ordinary coÌ„tinuance there vntil his death it is sooner said then proved as shal be shewed hereafter were it true it giveth him no help to justify his former assertion of diverse congregations in every of these Churches But 2. he proceedeth to shew that Peter likewise by his preaching converted many in Asia And 3. after the death of Peter and Paul S. Iohn went into those parts preached the Gospel for many yeares ordeyned Byshops Presbyters where need was 4. Wisheth vs to add to the Ministery of the Apostles the preachings of the Byshops and Presbyters ordeyned by them and Disciples whom they had instructed by whose Ministery some Churches were brought to the fayth as that of Colossae in the CoÌ„fines of Phrigia in Paules time From all which particulars in stead of coÌ„cluding that which he pretended to make more then propable viz. that the 7. Churches of Asia conteyned each of them diverse congregations he appealeth to the conscience of every indifferent reader whether it be not unlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of 45. yeares Wherevnto for answer 1. I also appeale to the coÌ„science of every indifferent reader whether the D. hath not proved himselfe a notable triâ—â—er The Doct. a notable trifler when he thus disputeth It is very unlikely that there should not be in any one of those famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus that is in the whole citie country belonging to it any more then one ordinary coÌ„gregatioÌ„ Therefore it is more then propable that they all conteyned diverse congregations But 2. how often will the D. contradict himself doth he not confidently affirme serm pag. 18. that in the Apostles times parishes were 10. The D. coÌ„radicteth himself not distinguished not any Presbyters assigned to their several Cures And doth he not still maintaine the same position def pag. 69. onely he excepteth the Church of Alexandria which was farâ— from any of these 7. And. 3. had not the Churches of Ierusalem Rome as great helps to enlarge them by the Ministery of many excellent Teachers and for as many yeares yet himselfe denieth any ordinarie congregations to be multiplied in them See we what he saith plainely for the one pag. 92. and 124. and more closely touching the other pag. 88. And 4. since he acknowledgeth that thâ—se Churches were much annoyed with heretiks as Paul foretolde since that which he foretolde Act. 20. 29. 30. did principally concerne the Church of Ephesus and himselfe complayneth of their generall forsaking him in Asia 2. Tim. 1. 15. moreover since it appeareth even by the testimonie of Iohn or rather of Christ himselfe that Ephesus had left her first love and that partly by persecutions and partly by false Teachers the prosperitie and growth of those Churches was much hindred Revelat. 2. 4. 9. 13. 15. 20. and 3. 2. 16. the indifferent reader will easily seâ— how litle likelihood there is that there should be eyther in Ephesus or in any the rest of those cities of Asia any more then one populous congregation of Christians 5. Lastly if any man think that after the preaching of such and so many as he saith for the space of 45. yeares it is probable there were more then 7. ordinarie congregations let him judge indifferently betwixt the Doctor and his Refuter whether it be not more likely his Refuters assertion is true that there were no more then 7. distinct Churches such as Colossae Magnesia and Trallis whereof he speaketh then that each of the 7. as the Doctor affirmeth was divided into severall Congregations And this may suffice I doubt not to shewe that the Doctor Sect. 12. ad pag. â—1 hath sayde nothing to disprove that first braunch of his Refuters reason for the deniall of the consequence of his Proposition when he sayd that it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of these Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinarie assemblies The other two braunches the Doctor telleth us he will ioyne togither And in deed they must concurre not onely one with the other but also both of them with the former For if he could have proved by much more pregnant arguments then he can that those 7. Churches had bene eaâ— of them divided into diverse congregations yet it will not followe they were Dioceses vnlesse it appeare also that all of them did depend upon one Cathedrall Church as cheife and had not the power of ecclesiasticall government apart in themselves Wherefore all his labour is lost if he produce not better probabilities to disprove these two later points If saith he there were but one Bishop for the Church both of the citie and Countrye as there were but 7. in all
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌ„try had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌ„s and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâ—iculars which he hearâ— assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâ—mens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâ—le before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌ„meth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â—2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ— And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ— I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ„ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌ„try then such as were already brought to
angels of the Churches thought it not fitt to suffer him with begging to carry that away which he ought to have proved to witt that the BISHOPS which are intituled the Angells of the CHVRCHES were so called in respect of that preheminence which he fancied to be in them above other Ministers and therefore telleth him that they had the name of Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie and not because of any sovereigntie or supremacie over other their fellow Ministers as the Doctor implieth here and plainely though vntruely affirmeth afterwardes In these fewe wordes the DOCTOR findeth as he supposeth to say no worse of him two vntruthes the former he saith is an errour the later a plaine-lie because though he give to Bishops superiority over other Ministers yet neyther sovereignty nor The Refut cleared of the Doct. slaunder supremacie Concerning the lie which the Doctor slaunderously chargeth on his Refuter I shall have fitter occasion to speak hereafter here onely will I cleare him of that errour ascribed to him for sayinge that the Bishops of those Churches are named Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie Let vs therefore heare how worthily the Doctor disputeth to convince him of errour Though sayth he to be called Angel generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one amonge many Ministers in one and the same Church to be kata hexochen called the Angel of the Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regarde of theire generall callinge but a peculiar stale belonging vnto â—â—e who hath singular preheâ—â—nence above the rest that is to say a BISHOP Beholde here how he disputeth nowe 1. Can any judicious reader that compareth this speache with that which he delivered before pag. 34. finde in this latter any one materiall point more then in the former When he referred us hither to see more of this matter we had reason to expect some new argument and that of more weight to prove the point which was before but nakedly proposed But if my sight deceiveth me not nothing else is here to be seene but the selfesame sentence varied in a few words that carrie the same sense A thing which everie novice in grammer schooles that hath but read his copia verborum might have done in the turning of a hand as they say This slight dealing becommeth neyther so great a logician nor so grave a divine much lesse so censorious a Doctor yet beholde The D. â—wisteth a 3. fould cord of vanyty a greater fault or rather two other greater defaults to make vp a threefoulde corde of vanitie For he hath neyther convinced his Refuter of error nor justified his own assertion by him reproved 2 To convince his Refuter he reasoneth thus No coÌ„mon title belonging to all Ministers in regard of the generall calling of the Ministery is given kat hexochen to one onely among many Ministers in one Church But the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given kat hexochen to one onely Minister among many in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of angels Apoc. 1. 20. is not a coÌ„mon title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling to the Ministery Both propositions are false for it is already proved that vnder the name of Angels or the Angels of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 20. all the Ministers of the word how many soever are comprized wherefore the D. bare affirmation that one onely in each Church is kâ—t hexochen so intitled is no better then a bare broaching of an vntruth his owne The D. contradicteth himselfe delivereth an vntruth beggeth the question sermon of the dig and dutie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. which directly contradicteth this being judge with the begging of the question And to evince the falshood of the former proposition it is easy to give instance of sundrie titles belonging in coÌ„mon to all Ministers which yet are sometimes kâ—t hexâ—chen given to one singular person as when Iohn is intituled The Elder 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Ioh. 1. Paul a Minister of the Church or a Minister of Christ and of his gospell Colos 1. 24. 25. Rom. 15 16. Ephe. 3. 6. 7. Also when he giveth the name of a fellow-workman felow-souldier or Minister of God vnto some one among many 2 Cor. 8. 23. Phil. 2. 25. 1 Thes 3. 2. Wherefore vnlesse there were more truth then is in his reasoning he hath small reason to charge his Refuter with error for affirming that the Bishops of whome his text speaketh are named Angels in regard of their generall calling of the Ministery 3. See we now whether he hath any more strength of truth to mainteine his owne assertion to wit That they are called the angels of the Churches in respect of a prehemineÌ„t superiority in power and jurisdiction over other Ministers His argument must be framed to this effect Whatsoever title is given kat hexochen to one onely amoÌ„g many Ministers in one Church the same is a particular stile beloÌ„ging to one that hath singular preheminence above the rest that is to adioce san Byshop But the name â—f Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given to one onely among many Ministers in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of angels Apoc. 1. 80. is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath singular preheminence above the rest of the Ministers in those Churches that is to a diocesan Bishop And consequently the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given to diocesan Byshops in regard of theire episcopall superioritie above other Ministers in the same Churches whereof they were Angels Here the assumption being the same with that in the former arg may receive the same answ vz. is false hath no breath of life in it except to begg the questioÌ„ As for the proposition the falshood of it is more grosse palpable The D. beggeth in the assumption and delivereth a flat falseshood in the proposition then the former For besides that which is before delivered to shew that some titles belonging in common to all Ministers are and may be given kat hexochen to one onely among many which argueth that the giving of a title kat hexochen to one doth not prove the same to be a peculiar stile beloÌ„ging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others this may be added which was also before observed that if it should be graunted that such a title is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others yet from hence to inferre that it is a stile peculiar to a diocesan Byshop to use the Doct. words againe is as ridiculous as if a man should say it is a bird therefore a black swan or thus Mr. Dow. amonge many Ministers is a Doctor therefore he is a Duke a Deane a Byshop or Archbyshop Wherefore since both the premisses aswell in this as in the former argument are false the reader may safely reject
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
c. But the D. saith his analysis mistakeÌ„ to say no worse as if he could have justly laid an heavier fault upon his Refuter if he had not favoured him And in deed he loadeth him with a fouler imputation when after in the same page he saith that in digesting his words before expressed into a connexive syllogisme he framed a proposition for the nonce to cavill withall A rash censure the less to be regarded because the Refuter may safely appeale to Gods owne tribunall who knoweth that he dealt syncerely and was led by the connection of both sentences to conceive the meaning to be such as is before shewed But he should saith the Doctor have looked to the end of that which he made the 3. sect where he should have found this to be the maine conclusion of all that followeth the first argument concerning the 7. Churches to that place viz. that the Presbyters in the Apostles times were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses But he thought it needlesse to carrie the word for so farre when there was need of help to prove the point aforegoing Notwithstanding let him walk in his owne way I doubt not but to make it appeare that the argument and the prosyllogismes thereof framed by himselfe doe discover both his owne mistaking of his Analysis to say no worse and the weaknes of his arguing aswell now in this defense as before in the sermon itself The maine conclusion to which he sendeth us hath these words serm pag. 18. lin ult c. The Presbyteries therefore in the Apostles times were appointed not to feverall parishes but to whole cities the couÌ„tries annexed viz. to dioceses that both they might convert them attend and fâ—ed them being converted The conclusion is long as you see and unfoldeth in it sundry propositions which since the Doctor hath not rightly distinguished I will presume though I looke to be required with shrewd words for my labour to propose to the view of the Reader in this manner The conclusion sheweth to what the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed 1. Negatively They were not appointed to severall parishes 2. Affirmatively they were appointed to whole cities and the countries annexed Which is first explayned viz. to dioceses 2. amplified by a twofold end of their appointment 1. that they might convert them 2. that they might attend and feed them being converted So then it appeareth that in the words of his sermon before Sect. 2. going pag 18. 19. we are to expect the proofe of these 5. points for else he stretcheth his coÌ„clusioÌ„ beyond the bouÌ„ds of the premises which should inferre it viz. 1. the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to severall parishes 2. they were appointed to whole cities the countires adjoyning 3. those cities countries were Dioceses 4. one end of that their appointmet was to coÌ„vert c. 5. the other end was to attend feed the coÌ„overted But of these 5. propositioÌ„s he coÌ„cealeth wholly in this defense the third and last The former it seemeth he took for graunted and therefore now coupling the two first togither he setteth them downe in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses the other was wisely concealed because there is not one word in his sermon to make it good though it be of the greatest moment for his purpose In deed he had sayd before that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments and to labour the conversion of the residue c. but how great a difference there is betweene these two ends of the Ministery of the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles and those that his conclusioÌ„ mencioneth it is easy for the simplest of his Readers to discern Whether the change were made unwittingly or of purpose to deceive I will not determine neither will I presse him for resolution of the doubt unlesse he please It is the analysis of his conclusion and all that apperteyneth thereunto which we now look after His coÌ„â—lusioÌ„ whatsoever it was at the first is now coÌ„prized in this copound axlome before delivered The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses which he maketh the antecedent of a Enthymem to inferre the principal questioÌ„ touching diocesan Churches in general viz. Therefore the Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were not parishes but dioceses The Antecedent he saith is proved by two arguments the first whereof not to speak now of the proposition which he omitted lieth in this sentence The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries thereto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged unto God And to the confirmation of this he referreth all that which his Refuter carried an other way For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation first preached to the cheife cities thereof c. to the words neyther were the parishes Which halfe perswadeth me that he hath borrowed his first argument for the proofe of the Antecedent from the second fourth points before noted to be couched in that conclusioÌ„ delivered in his sermoÌ„ For other wise his analysis cutteth theÌ„ off froÌ„ the coÌ„clusioÌ„ as superfluous branches maketh his first argument to be Cryptically inwrapped under the confirmation thereof Now if it were borrowed thenee then the wordes following serm pag. 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c in all equitie should be not a second argument to confirme his first antecedent but rather a new prosyllogisme to justify the generall proofe thereof To coÌ„clude whencesoever he derive it there is so small a difference between the Medius terminus of his first argument with both the prosyllogismes set to uphold it the wordes which in his second argument are of greatest force as he saith pag. 70. of this defence to prove that the persbyteries were appointed to Dioceses that they are little better when he hath made the best that he can of them then a beggerly repetition of one thing or a proving of the same by the same So that we may well think if his Refuter should The Doct. proveth idem per idem have contrived his arguments so as himself hath done he would have bene as readie as now he is to charge him with mistaking his Analysis But let him make the best advantage of his owne Analysis let us trie the valour of his syllogismes which he profereth to our Sect. 3. view And first of that Enthymeme which concludeth the principall question in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Therefore the churches indued with power of ecolesiasticall government were not parishes but Dioceses This consequence saith he the Refuter granteth ingranting the connexive proposition of the Syllogisme which he
fremeth pag. 58. of the answer If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. To visible Churches indued with power of ecclesissticall government the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed Loe here the D. reasoning now what if the adding of this assumption utterly marreth the fashion of his argument hath he not then spent his labour well to discover his owne heedlesse oversight to say no worse for had he well perused the parts he might have found 5. termes in his syllogisme viz. 1. The D. hath 5. germes in one syllogisme Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 2. appointed to Dioceses not to parishes 3. appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government 4. the Churches themselves indued with such power 5. Dioceses and not Parishes To redresse this grosse fault if so simple a Scholler as the Refuter might presume to give any direction to so great a Clerk as Mr. D. me thinks he should have done well to have exchanged the Antecedent of his Enthymeme with some Proposition in sense equivalent that might have yeilded the same predicatum which his conclusiō carrieth as thus The Churches to which the Presbyteries ordeined by the Apostles were appointed were properly dioceses such as ours and not parishes Or thus Dioceses such as ours and not parishes were the whole and onely charge of the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles The assumption then to be added must be one of these viz. The Churches which in the Apostles times were indued with the power of ecclesiasticall government were those vnto which the Presbyteries ordeyned by them were appointed Or thus The Churches which the Apostles indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were the whole onely charge of those presbyteries which they ordeyned So the conclusion would naturally flow from these premisses to wit Therefore the Churches which the Apostles indued or were indued in their times with the power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly such as ours not parishes which of these soever he shall choose the proposition is to be refused as utterly false Against the Assūption whether former or later I have nothing to except This onely I say if the Doctor shall dislike the later as too narrowly limited by those wordes whole onely charge I must then tell him his syllogisme is also herein deceitfull and faultie that his proposition speaketh of an appointment differing from that which he intendeth in his Assumption the feeding and governing of the visible Churches being but a part yea the least part of the charge of those Presbyteries in asmuch as he supposeth they were appointed also to an other more principall work viz. to labour the conversion of such as were yet enemies to the faith and not members of the Churches But if he will acknowledge the visible Churches to be the whole and onely charge of the Prebyteries ordeyned by the Apostles then the premisses of his syllogisme doe make warre the one against the other For the assumption so understood directly crosseth the assumption and the fortifications thereof which are pag. 65. fitted to confirme the Proposition or Antecedene of his maine argument and consequently through their sides it pearceth the hart of the proposition itself For if the visible churches indued with power of ecclesiastical govermēt were the whole onely charge of the presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles then were they not appointed for the conversiō of the rest of the citie countrie neither was that work the end or motive that swayed the Apostles to ordeyn them So that his proposition which affirmeth that those presbyteries were appointed for whole Dioceses hath nothing to support it Moreover if he shall dislike the limitation which I have added to his proposition restreyning it to such Dioceses as ours are or at least to such Dioceses as were also Churches he is to know that his consequence is naught and such as of which he hath no graunt from his refuter to boast of For unlesse it be presupposed that the Dioceses to which he saith the Presbyteries were appointed were Churches and like to our diocesan Churches his argument wil be deceitfull also in a second respect to wit because his antecedent and the conclusion speak not of one kind of Dioceses but of such as differ toto genere if the one be churches and the other not so or at least in specie if they be Diocesan Churches unlike to ours For as is heretofore noted Diocesan Bishops like to ours doe require the Churches where of they are Bishops to be dioceses or diocesan Churches like to ours This memorandum therefore being premised that by Dioceses in his proposition we are to vnderstand Diocesan Churches like to ours we are come to examine the first of his two arguments which himself frameth to prove the proposition before denyed in manner forme following They who were appointed to whole cities and countries to labour so farre at Sect. 4. they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God were appointed to Dioceses and not to Parishes But the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities and countries thereto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 3 44 PM 5 7 2011 were appointed not unto Parishes but unto Dioceses that is to Diocesan Churches like to ours This Proposition saith he I omitted as taking it for granted Be it so yet since he saw that his Refuter esteemed the consequence weake of that argum he framed to a conclusion somewhat differing he mought wel have bene jealous of his rejecting this proposition also For since the Presbyters of which he speaketh were planted in the cheife cities of such a nation as the Apostles desired to cōvers what hindreth but the countreyes annexed might be Provinces or rather whole Nations and not Dioceses properly Moreover how can they be sayd to be appointed to Diocesan Churches such as ours for to speak of other Dioceses that are estranged from Christianity is to rove farre wide from the question who are appointed unto cities and countries not to feed and govern them as all Churches are by their Pastors but to labour their conversion that yet remayned Pagans and Infidels To provoke him therefore in his next defence to undertake the proofe of this proposition which he now taketh for graunted I first contradict it thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countries for the working out of the conversion were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours Then I take his owne assumption with the help thereof to conclude the contradictorie of his former proposition in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to whole cities and countries for the working out of their conversion Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours This our proposition opposed against his may
be fortified by this Enthymeme Those whole cities and countries whose people are generally so â—stranged from the faith that their conversion must be laboured are not diocesan Churches like to ours Therefore neyther they who were appointed over such cities and countries set over diocesan Churches such as ours The Antecedent is a truth so apparant to all the world that it were madnes to contradict it And the consequence is such as I verify think no man of comon sense will ever call it into question As for the Refuters exceptions against the proposition which he had framed for an other purpose they are as the Doctor saith eavils not worth the refuting and yet to shewe his valour he will needes have a fling at them though with shame to himselfe For first for want of just matter of blame he forgeth a false calumniation in in saying That his Refuter absurdly eavilleth with him as if he had sayd that all in the citie and country were in S. Iohns time converted For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this that the Apostles ordeyned Preseyters for such an end as he supposeth yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities the countries adioyning And he backeth it with this reason that the seed of the word in many places was thick sowne but came thin up and the heat of perseeution at that time burnt up the zoale and profession of many Which if it were too weak to justify the exception why doth he not take notice of confute it thinketh he his unpartiall readers will take it for a sufficient refutation to say it is a cavill not worth the refuting The second exception is of more moment because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors owne argument before set downe For the ordeyning of Presbyters for whole cities and countries to labour the conversion of all that in those places belonged to God can never prove that they were appointed to the care and charge of diocesan Churches unlesse there be a necessitie that all which in time were to be converted by their Ministerie should be and remaine members of the same Church with them It shall not be amisle therefore to stay a while upon the examination of that which the Refuter hath sayd to justifie his deniall and the Doct. to mainteyn the affirmation of this necessitie Sect. â— In defense of the negative it was alleadged answ pag. 57 that it is very likely if not certeyne that they of Cenchrea received the gospell from Corinthe for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth for it is called the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply first layeth downe his own opinion touching this matter and then indeavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea out of his refuters handes His owne opinion or rather definitive sentence quast ex cathed a satis pro imperis he delivereth in this maner I say that they whose Ministerie was intended for the conversion of the citie and countrie to their care and charge both for the first conversion of them and government of them being converted the citie and country belonged And the Doctor onely saith it and dareth the Refuter or any of his vnlearned associates contradict it No verily they will rather assent to him so farre as truth and reason grounded on the truth of Gods word will permit them that is kat â—â— in parr but not aploos and in generall for it is most true that the Apostles and Evangelists whose Ministerie was intended eyther to begin or to bring forwards the conversion of any citie and country had the care and charge of the people in those parts aswel for the governing of them whom they did convert as for the labouring of their conversion at the first But how long and how was it for a perpetuitie or for a time onely till they might be furnished with their proper Ministery And when the faith spread it self from any of those cheife cities which first enterteyned it into the townes adjoyning that with such increase that the number of beleevers in those places were sufficient to make two or moe Churches or congregations did they all remaine still parts of one Church and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversie wherefore if the Doctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative he should haue plainly contradicted the refuter and sayd there was a necessitie that all which were brought to the faith in any city and country adjoyning by the labours of any appointed for their conversion should remayn though never so many or farre distaÌ„t meÌ„bers of the citie-Church which first enterteyned the gospell Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proofe then his bare word I say it to conclude this necessitie And it was not easy for him to yeeld any sound reason for the justifying of such an assertion in wisdome therefore he judged it better to say and affirme that which though it beleffe pertinent yet might seeme more reasonable viz. that such as were converted by their labours that were appointed to indeavor their conversion should submit themselves to be governed by them and in stead of yeilding any pregnant demonstration to confute his Refuters exception to make a shewe of removing that which was alleadged by him To this purpose he addeth that though Cenchrea be called a Church yet was it not such a Church as we now speak of indued with power of ecclesiasticall government but subiect to the â—urâ—sliction of the Church of Corinthe Thus he faith but hath he any other reason then such as before I say it to shewe the subjection of Cenchrea to the Church of Corinthe No surely for though he often reiterateth this affirmation pag. 46. 105. 129. yet his best proofe is most certeynly so it was I doubt not therefore but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost equalling the beleevers in Cenchrea and those in Corinth with the same name calling the one the Church in Cenchrxa the other the Church in Corinthe Rom. 16. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. will argue our assertion to be more probable when we say they were distinct Churches alike indued with power of ecclesiasticall government then his denyall that hath no other confirmation then I say it or so it was for what authoritie hath he eyther to subordinate one to another or to confine in one ecclesiasticall body those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches Thus much for his Proposition his Assumption coÌ„meth now to Sect. 6. 2d pag. 65. be examined which he saith is confirmed by two arguments the one the end intended by the Apostles in appointing Presbyters in cities which was the conversion of the nation for which themselves first preached in the cheife
as with Arrians as ours be with men of another language 3. And here by the way observe how the Doctor at vnawares pulleth downe with the one hand what he setteth vp with the other For against this comparison between those churches that lived among the Arrians and the French Churches among us alleadged to prove that the later are as he saith the former were models of diocesan Churches I may returne his owne exceptions thus The French Churches cannot be Models of diocesan Churches like as he supposeth the other were because their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of lay-men and wanteth a Bishop which they had neither are they placed and reâ—eined for the the conversion of the citie and countrie to them as in the Doctors conceit the ancient Churches among the Arrians were for otherwise how should they be converted as he argueth pag. 67. And this also by the way weakneth his arguing to shew that Sect. 6. the French and Dutch Churches among us are no parish assemblies For if they be neither diocesan nor models of diocesan Churches what else can they be then parishes such at least as the Refuter in this question esteemeth to be parishes or parishonall Churches 2. But in this point he sheweth himself what he is when knowing as is before noted sect 3. in what sense the Refuter holdeth those The Doct. knowing the Refut to speak in one sense â—â—ieth to an other Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches to be parishes he doth notwithstanding flie to another sort of parishes viz. such as ours now are deprived of the power of ecclesiasticall government and subordinate to an other Church as members thereof to his exceptions therefore in this behalfe this reply may suffice That which is one Church among many in one citie is one parish or one congregation such as in this question we define a parish to be But the French Church in London is one Church among many in one citie as the Doctor acknowledgeth p. 7. 1 It is therefore one parish as wee understand a parish in this question Againe That which hindreth not the french and dutch Churches among vs fro being each of them one ordinary congregation assembling to one place for the worship of God doth not hindâ—â— them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question But the Doctors exceptions viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches doe dwel in many distinct parishes according to the circuite of our English division of parishes in London and other places aâ—d that their Churches are indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof these exceptions I say doe not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them one ordinarie congregation assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God Therefore neyther doe they hinder them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question As for that one speach inserted touching the French and Dutch Churches when he saith they have a Presbyterie as the Church â—â— Geneva hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might have in an imitation of the ancient Christinians me thinks it scarce savoureth of truth or at least argueth forgetfulnes in himselfe For if that he speaketh of having a Bishop once in eâ—â—e and still in possâ— The Doct. speach either is vntrue or else contradicteth himself be referred to the French and Dutch Churches here in England where doth Alasco say that they once had a Bishop and how knoweth he that our Bishops would suffer them to have in each church a Bishop of their owne If to the Church of Geneva as he needeth not Alascoes testimonie to prove that they once had a Bishop so in saying that they now might have a Bishop what else doth he but contradict here what he earnestly pleadeth for lib. 4. pag. 166 viz. that the Churches of France and Geneva neyther in the first reformation could neyther now can obteyne the government of Bishops to be sâ—tled among them though they would but it is no new thing to meet with the Doctors slippings this way We come now to the Refuters regestion when he striketh at the Doctor with his owne weapon in this manner â—â— there were no parishes Sect. 7. ad P. 70. lin 8 in the Apostles times how could there be Dioceses seing every Diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes The Doctor telleth us it is but a floorish and a kind of answer that best fiâ—teth him that is at a non-plus But it is well knowne that this kind of answer is very usuall with divines nothing inferior to him eyther in schoole learning or divinity that to contradict any assertion belonging to the question aswell as the conclusion principally contraverted doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theologicall scholasticall disputations yea it is in deed of speciall use to put the adverse part to a non-plus or at least to let the indifferent Reader see the weaknes of his argument and therefore no mervâ—ile though the Doctors patience be not a little troubled with it But see we how he bestirreth himselfe to escape the stroak of it Good Sir saith he what is this to my consequence Againe to what end is this spoken to deny my consequence or the maine conclusion And a little after Therefore when he would sâ—â—me to denie the consequence of the propo-â—â—tion he doth not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against the assumption he dâ—niâ—th the principall conclusion Good Mr. D. with your patience is there no difference betwixt the deniall of the conclusion and the retorting of an argument against it And is it nothing to you if your maine conclusioÌ„ fall to the ground so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand uprightâ— but it is a fault in the Refuter when he would seeme to impugne your consequence to passe by it and to set upon your conclusioÌ„ when you thought it had been sufficiently garded Belike you looked not for such a stratageme at his hands whom you tooke to be amazed at the fight of your argument as you say pag. 71 and so shallow conceited when he is in his best wits that if we may beleeve you pa. 80. he can see no further then his nose end Yet perhaps if you had seene your consequence touched by the former part of his answer you would not have blamed him â— for running out against your conclusion before he gave the onset to your assumption But to let your scoffs alone tell us in good earnest doe you think your consequence is altogither out of the reach of this his regestion as you call it doth it not rather fall with the conclusion for how could Presbyteries be appointed to Dioceâ—es when there were none If therefore the want of
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
Ergo also the second To make good the consequence of the Proposition he said that it standeth upon the foundation which the Doctor himselfe layd in the first argument drawne from his text neyther was he therein deceived for in this defense cap. 2. sect 2. he confesseth that he presupposed all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government to be like to those 7 because it is not to be doubted but the primitive Churches indued with that power were of like nature and constitution But the Doctor burieth all this in silence and as if the Refuter had intreated that the consequence might passe without controulment he seemeth vnwilling to yeild him so much favour vnlesse it may be lawfull for him to use another which he saith is like viz. that if the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishonall Churches in the first 200 yeares he meaneth unto the full end of that terme then neyther were the Churches of other cities And then telleth us But they were not parishonall churches as for Rome he had proved and for Alexandria would prove therefore concludeth so of the rest Well let us reason a little with him is the consequence indeed the same so he saith but doth he speak as he is perswaded if not why setteth he such a face of truth upon a lie If yea why inwrappeth he his owne feet in the snare that he layeth for another for whether he disclaime or allow the consequence and the hypothesis whereon it is grounded will he nil he he must beare the blame of a foule contradiction To disclaime it is to overthrow as before is noted the foundation of his owne argument pa. 42. To allow it is to make way for the utter ruine of A foul cotradiction in the D. that assumption which he urgeth for a double advantage p. 69 122. lin 1. for if that may be verefied of all other Churches which he avoucheth here and pag. 124 for certeinty of Alexandria and elsewhere pag 50 and 122 denieth probable in some others then by the like consequence alike grounded on the same hypothesis we may conclude that all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were also divided into diverse parishes even in the Apostles times deserveth not the D. now to be beaten with his owne cudgell pag 73. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction that he should not care so he may gainsay his adversaries present affertion how shamefally he contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with the Doctor Notwithstanding I can easily free the Refuter from that disadvantage which the D. conclusion threatneth For we can and wil hold our owne consequence for a truth on both parts already assented to till we heare him directly contradict the hypothesis whereon it is grounded as himselfe acknowledgeth viz. that all churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were at the first of the same nature and constitution but the later shall hang in suspence till he hath proved that it is grounded on the same hypothesis For in our apprehension his consequence presupposeth that all Churches were alike not in that nature and constitution wherein they stood at the first but in this alteration wherein Alexandria Rome went before others namely to be distinguished into many parishes whereas all at their first planting were vndistinguished as himselfe confesseth To passe therefore forwards to the Assumption because the Sect. 2. ad sect 2. pag. 102. Refuter saith it appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars Mr. D. asketh whether his syllâ—gismes are so soone come to an end and perceiving that his cheefe proofs are that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one congregation he further asketh whether this was his Assumption whereto I answer that for brevity sake the Refuter omitted the contriving of his proofes into forme of syllogisticall reasoning presuming as the Doct. saith elswhere in his owne defense pag 79. that any man might from that which the Doct. observeth to be his cheife drift conclude his assumption thus The Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalem were each of them in the Apostle Pauls time no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore they were each of them at that time but one parish But the Doctor having wronged his Refuter before by stretching his assumption beyond the age of the Apostles to the full term of 200 yeares holdeth on and doubleth the wrong by reteyning the same addition of 200. yeares that he might have the more colour to cavill with the consequence of the argument to charge his Refuter with playing the Sophister in taking that for graunted which he did not so much as dreame of viz. that each of those Churches continued one congregation and so one parish for 200. yeares because they were but one congregation in the Apostles times Wherefore what he objecteth to infringe this consequence I overpasse as unworthy the answer seing he forged it for the nonce to cavill with True it is that the consequence of the Entoymem before set down presupposeth a truth in this assertioÌ„ scz that those Churches are parishes whose people are no more then such as ordinarily assemble in one place And the Refuter deemed it a vame of time and labour yea meere folly to call into question that which was of the Doctor assented unto serm p. 4 viz. that when we affirme and he denieth every visible Church to be properly a parish by a parish is meant a particular ordinary coÌ„gregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God Wherefore in denying nowe the consequence of the argument before delivered what else doth he but play the wrangler For he that meaneth truely to bring the matter controverted to the right issue will never offer to gainsay what is certaine and confessed And because he saith that the reasons of his deniall are set downe at large cap. 3. sect 5. 6. I must tell him that I finde nothing there that directly controuleth the hypothesis of our coÌ„sequence here to wit that every Church which maketh but one ordinarie congregation is a parish And whatsoever is there sayd touching the point then in hand it is sufficiently to use his owne words overthrown already Wherfore let us hear those 2. ReasoÌ„s which for a surplussage as he saith he now addeth The first is this If these Churches because they were each of them one congregation were parishes Sect. 3. ad pag. 103. before the division of parishes then they were such Churches as after the division parishes were But they were not such Churches I will adde the conclusion Ergo neyther were they parishes before the division of Parishes because they were each of them one congregation First I praye the Doctor to tell us what moveth him to tumble into the conclusion and consequent of the proposition this clause before the division of parishes Where
first to speak to his disciples vers 2 yet afterwards he spake to all the people assembled vers 13. 15. 54. Besides it is to be observed that a great number of these beleevers were strangers which were not inhabitants of Ierusalem but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost and some of them it may be not actuall members of any Church but such as are spoken of Ioh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore seing it is evident by the wordes of S. Lokes storie that all the beleevers which belonged to the Church at Ierusalem in that time were assembled togither in one place from time to time as occasion served it is sufficiently proved all the Doctors cavils not with standing that they did not for their number exceed the proportion of one ordinary congregation and consequently as the rest of the Churches before spoken of so this was rather a parish assembly then a diocesan church like to one of ours As for the Doctors exceptions sect 6. pag. 87. viz. that the Sect. 14. ad sect 6. pag. 87. Church of Ierusalem was never intended to be one parish among many but a mother Church to beget others which were to be severed from it and yet to remaine subject to it and that it was intended that all the Christians both in citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem like as the people of citie and country were all under one high-preist me thinkes that reader is strāgely and strongly conceited of the Doctor that will enterteyne these points upon his owne meere conjecture and bare word For however it is cleare that many Churches drew their originall from Ierusalem and received the faith by their Ministerie which had bene for a time members of that Church Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. 9. 19. 22. yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection that any of those daughter churches yeelded to Ierusalem or the presbyterie there established And therefore the intention which he dreameth of concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of Ierusalem like as all the Iewes were anciently under the high preist hath neyther foundation in the holy scriptures nor can he gather it from the practise of succeding ages seing their advancing of the Church of Cesarea to the honour of a Metropolitance Church superiour in jurisdiction to Ierusalem argueth that they were altogither ignorant of it For among the many and great thoughts of the Doctors heart can this enter into it that they would wittingly depart from that order which was instituted or intended by the Apostles to follow the which was instituted or intended the Apostles to follow the course of that preheminence which the Romane Emperors that were enemies to Christ and his truth should establish in their politicall government But what need many wordes in a plaine matter This is enough for resuting so frivolous a fancie as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it Thus have we seene how well the Doctor hath proved that the Churches founded by the Apostles were Dioceses properly like to ours and not parishes It now followeth in the second book that we examine his proofes for his Diocesan Bishops THE SECOND PART THE SECOND BOOK Chapter 1. Shewing that in the 4. point of the Doctors sermon and third book of the defense thereof there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopall function IN the fourth point of the Doct. sermon he handleth Section 1. ex professo the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and in the 3. book of his defense he indeavoureth the justifying of the same And first he intreateth in generall of their superiority in degree but though he boast serm pag. 29. that all antiquity favoureth his opiniō yet he passeth by the Apostolicall writings as too ancient for his purpose Notwithstanding when he commeth to declare the particulars wherein the superiority of Bishops consisteth he referreth us serm pag. 32. to the epistle of Paul to Titus cap. 1. 5. there to behold that threefold superiority given by him to Bishops to wit their singularity of preheminence during life and their power of ordination and of jurisdiction not confined to a parish but extended to the whole Iland of Creete and to all the cities thereof A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop or of a nationall Primate rather then the calling of a Diocesan Prelare if he could make good the parts of his reasoning viz. that Titus not onely had such a threefold superiority but also was by his calling a Bishop as he supposeth But this later wherein the controversy cheefly standeth hath no foundation in his text onely he telleth us pag. 50. of this third book that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon by the cōmon consent of the ancient most approved writers of the Church The which what is it but a secret confession that the text of holy scripture will not serve his turne to prove that Titus was a Bishop In like manner when to justify the singularity of preheminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese he saith serm pag. 33. that there was one Timothy at Ephesus one Titus in Creete one Epaphroditus in Philippi and one Archippus at Coloss◠what else doth he but presuppose not prove that every of them was a Diocesan Bishop As if the whole Iland of Creet with all the cities thereof made but one Diocese and as if we were more bound to beleeve Mr. Doctors word then the Apostles testimoney who saith that there were other Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus Phil. 1. 1. giveth vs to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa and nothing inferiour to Archippus Colos 1. 7. 4. 12. Afterwards when the Cōmission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus and to Titus in Creete is urged to prove the power of Bishops first in ordination and then in jurisdiction to make us a mends for his often begging he promiseth serm pag. 49. to prove afterwards that they were 〈◊〉 the which how he performeth we have heard before frō his own mouth for his proofes touching Timothy Titus are of the same nature as shall more fully appear hereafter Now more thē this here noted he hath not in his whole discourse I meane either his sermon or the defense thereof touchinge the superioritie of Bishops to prove by the scriptures that they have any such preheminence allowed then by God Wherefore if the Doctor hath found any cleare text to prove the episcopall function and superiority in question to be a divine ordinance it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermō and in the fourth book of his defense where this questiō is at large debated and his Assertion proved as he saith serm pag. 55. and def lib. 4. pag. 4. first by consequence and then directly whither
sufficiently proved before But this is the poore shift to pay him once again with his owne pag. 71. which the Doct. usually flieth unto WheÌ„ he hath nothing to justify his assertioÌ„s he perswadeth himself such is his judgment that in the question of Dioceses and diocesan Bishops he hath the upper-hand because he hath proved that there were such Bishops and Churches in the 2. or 3. age after the Apostles and therefore when he is foyled in any of his reasons that should prove the calling of such Bishops to be of divine institution he flieth to this as his refuge I have already proved the Churches to be Dioceses and the Bishops Diocesan and therefore if you grant that the function of Bishops was instituted of God and that Bishops were ordeyned or approved of the Apostles then you graunt asmuch as I intend to prove This then being his best defence the reader may see the Doctors sinceritie and that he was not wronged by his Refuter when he told him that he deceiveth his reader by an equivocation in the word Bishop But in deed he much wrongeth his refuter and all them whom he calleth his consorts when for a requitall he saith that they doe deceive their readers in that they would perswade them that because the name Episcopus Presbyter were confounded therefore also the offices were confounded For where doth the refuter or his consorts thus argue The objection which he before took notice of and pretendeth in all this discourse to remove is as himself setteth it down pag. 65. that the name Episcopus in the Apostolicall writings is given to Presbyters and that Bishops such as ours are not mentioned in the scriptures For answere whereunto he said then and now repeateth it againe that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who afterwards and now are called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches This he first indeavoured to prove by that instance of Epa. phroditus Phil. 2. 25 but his fayling therein is sufficiently discovered now once againe he attempteth it let us attend whether his successe be any better For saith he as I sayd in the sermon whiles the episcopall power was in Sect. 12. ad sect 16. pa. 71. 72. the Apostles and Apostolike men those who had that power were called the Apostles And what then Will he hence conclude that therefore Bishops such as afterwards and now have the name appropriated to them were then called Apostles doth it not rather follow much better on the contrary that in the Apostles times the name of Apostles was given to no other then to the Apostles themselves or Apostolike men which were as himselfe acknowledgeth pag 72 Evangelists hath not the Doct. then spun a saire threed to strangle his owne cause But since he pretendeth to repeat the words of his sermon why doth he curtoll them there he said pag 71 whiles the episcopall power was for the most parte in the Apostles Apostolike meÌ„ those who also had that power were called Apostles now he leaveth out these words for the most part and also May I intreat him plainely to informe us what moved him to make this change It seemeth he thought these words at the first needfull to be added as indeed they were to conclude his purpose for unlesse he can make it appeare that the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters which he calleth episcopall power was in some other besides the Apostles or Apostolike men of Evangelists and that those also were called Apostles or at least the Apostles of the Churches he cannot inferre his former Assertion to wit that those who are now called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches And now it seemeth he foresawe that the testimonies afterwards alleadged cannot prove any other then the very Apostles or Evangelists whom he calleth Apostolike men to beare the name of Apostles in the apostolicall writings though his witnesses speak what they can he make his best advantage of them 1. he saith that Ambrose by Apostles in some places of scripture as 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes 4. 11. understandeth Bishops but is the Doctor perswaded that the spirit of God understandeth such Bishops as are now questioned by the word Apostles in those places If not why leadeth he his reader into an errour and perswade him to beleeve The Doct. leadeth his reader into that error which him selfe dissaloweth that which himself dissalloweth If he be why urgeth he not those scriptures to prove the maine quaestion seeing none can be found more pregnant then these if that be their meaning to prove the doctrine of his sermon viz. that the function of Bishops such as ours is of divine institution And why doth he reach the contrary in saying as before pag. 70. that the word Apostoli absolutely used is a title of those which were sent of God with authority apostolicall Moreover can the Doctor be ignorant that Ambrose in Ephes 4. 11. doth also say that the Evangelists are Deacons and that Pastors are and may be Lectorâ— quilectionibus saginent populum audientem that Magistri so he translateth the word didascaâ—j Teachers exorâ—ista sunt quiain teclesiaipfi compeseunt et verberant inquietos If therfore the Doct. will have us to believe that Diocesan Bishops such as ours were mentioned in the Apostolicall writings under the name not of Bishops but of Apostles because Ambrose faith Apostoli episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops let him freely confesse that the functions of Lectors Exercists such as the Papists will haue to be sevarall orders of the Clergic were also established in the Apostles times mentioned in their writings though not under the same names yet under the names of Pastors and Teachers or Masters Ephes 4. 11. and that Ambrose testifieth the same in the words aaforegoing for if he shall refuse to subscribe to this later inference he must pardon vs this once for not imbracing the former 2. And seing he faith Cyprian speaketh to the like purpose lib. 3. epist 9. Apostoles ideft episcopos Prapositos Dominus elegin The L. chose Apostles that is Bishops Let me againe demaund of Mr Doct. whether he be perswaded that the Apostles whom our Lord did choose and who after our Saviours ascension chose Deacons as Cyprian in the same place testifieth were Diocesan Bishops such as ours If not howe will Cyprians wordes further his purpose which is to prove that in the Apostolicall writings such Bishops are called Apostles If he be why is he ashamed especially seing he hath Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 226. alleadging both Cyprian Ambrose Bishop Barlow serm in Act 20. 28. fol. 17 urging Cyprian for that purpose to inrowle the 12. Apostles among other Bishops which he affirmeth to be ordeyned of God in his last argument hereafter following Cap. 6 Nay why affirmeth he the contrary in this 3. chapt viz. that some of the Apostles were not properly Bishops Yea he there
acknowledgeth that it is truely affirmed of the rest of the Apostles Iames excepted that they had not certeyne Churches assigned to them and therefore were not Bishops To conclude it is apparant to them that with understanding read Cyprians whole epistle that to increase the power and honour of their function who were Bishops in his time he presseth the preheminence which God gaue to the high-prcifts above the reste Deut. 17. and Numb 16. much more earnestly then he doth the prerogative of Christs Apostles above the Deacons Wherefore the Doctor too much abridgeth the episcopal function of her due antiquitie in deriving the originall thereof at the highest fro Christs election of his Apostles For if this later wil prove the function of Bishops to be mentioned in the new Testament under the name of Apostles then will the former as strongly argue theire function to be mentioned in the book of Moses under the name of that preisthood which was given to Aaron and his successors But drawe wee to an end at the last and for the winding up of Sect. 13. adpag 72. all the Doctor once againe taketh hold of Theodoret but in vain seing himself affirmeth as was before observed sect 6. the first Bishops who were by Theodoret called Apostles or the Apostles of the Churches to be no other then Apostles or Apostolicall men yt is Evangelist for if they were eyther Apostles or Evangelists then were they not properly Bishops and if properly Bps such as afterwards were chosen out of the Presbyters the they were not Apostles nor Evangelists for otherwise the offices wil be confounded which ought to be kept distinct as shall be shewed more fully in the examination of that which he hath sayd in defence of Iames his Bishoprick in his 3. chap. sect 7. and touching Timothy Titus in his chap. 4. sect 11. As for the question of the time how long the name of Episcopus and Presbyter were confounded and when the Diocesan Bishop had the name Episcopus appropriated to him it is such as the D. might well have overpassed save that he cannot indure to be contradicted in any point of the least moment The processe of time whereof Theodoret speaketh when the name of Bishops was appropriated to such as in his dayes were usually so called was in the Apostles time as the Doct. gathereth not from any words of Theodoret but by conference of him with Ierome But Theodorets meaning is best gathered from his owne words In processe of time saith he they left the name Apostle to those that are properly called Apostles and the name of Bishop they gave to them that had bene called Apostles Who seeth not that in his opinion the name of Bishop was not appropriated to that function which in his time time enjoyed it til the name of Apostle was left to those that were properly so called But the Church-governours were called Apostles for many yeares after their time as the refuter shewed out of Epiphanius and Isidore Answ pag. 153. And the Doct. himselfe confesseth that the name of Apostle continued in vse so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remayned But under that Emperour Antonius Pius who reigned vntil the yeare 152. many of them remained alive as Nicephorus testifieth lib. 3. cap. 22. And as for those Bishops which by Ignatius are distinguished fro Presbyters are said by Ierome to have had their beginning at Alexandria after S. Mark the Doctor knoweth well enough it is easier for us to deny then for him to prove that they were Diocesan Bishops such as ours neyther is it pertinent to the present question here to debate that matter seing we now waite to heare what can be alleadged from the scriptures to prove that such Bishops had their ordination and originall in the Apostles times and that with their approbation And though he hath insisted long upon this point being as he esteemeth of great consequence yet his maine assertion that Bishops such as ours were in the Scriptures called the Apostles of the Churches and the instance produced to prove it to wir that Epaphroditus the Philippians Apostle was such a Bishop doe lie as naked as at the first having no shredd of Holy writt nor any peece of reason to cloath them Wherefore the conclusions that he inferreth upon these premisses viz that Bishops being then called Apostoli were superior to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri Episcopi that such Bishops as were superior to other Ministers were in the Apostles times and mentioned in their writings and consequently that the offices of such Bishops and of Presbyters were distinguished even then when the names were confounded These are the conclusions and what are they but as walles whose foundation is layde in the sande and dawbed with intempered morter and therefore how glorious soever in shew yet can they neyther longstand nor yeild any firme habitation for our diocesan Prelates to lodge in It hath bin already shewed that in the judgement of some of the Doctors owne witnesses Epaphroditus and others called the Sect. 14. Apostles or Messengers of the Churches were Evangelists rather then properly Bishops now to make the probability of this point the more apparant I here tender to Mr Doctor and the indifferent reader these considerations First touching Epaphroditus his imployment in traveile to and fro agreeth better to the function of an Evangelist then of a Bishop 2. and it seemeth he was sent rather for an interim till Timotheus might be spared to come unto them Phil. 2. 19. 25. then to make perpetuall residence there 3. Moreover there is small likelihood the cheefe care and oversight of that Church and their affaires was cōmitted to him by the Apostle seing he preferreth Timothy therein before him for of him he saith vers 20. 22. I have no man like minded that will naturally care for your matters c. But ye know the proofe of him c. him therfore I hope to send c. which words doe cast more disgrace upon Epaphroditus if he were their Bishop then all the titles of commendation given him verse 25. can wipe away For what praise can it be to a Bishop to be laborious in other places and faithfull in other services when in a naturall care for the affaires of his owne Church he suffreth others to goe before him and striveth not to excell them 4. Againe in this epistle sent as the Doctor saith by Epaphrodirus it is plaine he singleth out one whom though he name not yet he honoureth with the title of a naturall or faithful yoakfellowe cap. 4. 3. and beseecheth him to help not onely those weomen which laboured with the Apostle in the gospel but Clement also and the rest of his fellow-labourers If so much had bene sayd for the singular preheminence of Epaphroditus the D. doubtlesse would have made his best advantage of it wherfore me thinkes it should move him to make a Quere why the Apostles should thus
single out an other if the cheife care of that whole Church and the oversight of all Bishops or Ministers that there laboured in the Gospell were the standing right and singular prerogative of Epaphroditus And till the Doctor hath yeilded some stronger probabilities for his assertion then are yet seene I nothing doubt but the indifferent reader will see and acknowledge that from the text it selfe we have more reason to denie then he hath to give to Epaphroditus the singular superiority of a diocesan Bishop in the Church of Philippi Secondly concerning those brethren that were sent with Titus to the Corinthians since the principall ende of their Embassage was to stirre up those of Corinthe to make ready their benevolence for the poore Saintes at lerusalem 2. Cor. 8. 6. 24. 9. 3. 5. it is not likely that the Apostle Paul would be the author or approver of applying in this service any that were affixed as Bishops to the selted charge of particular Churches especially seing there was at that time store of others that accompanied the Apostle in his traveiles and might better be spared as having no setled imployment in any one place Moreover it may be probablie if not necessarily gathered from the Apostles description of those men that they were Evangelistes rather then Bishops Of the one he saith 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. his praise is in the gospell throughout all the Churches and not that onely but he was chosen also of the Churches to be suntcdemos bemoon our fellow-traveiler or companion in our journey c. And of the other vers 22. We have oftentimes proved him to be diligent or carefull in many thinges c. But there is not one word that intimateth any bande whereby they were tied to the selted charge of any particular Church or Churches much less can it be gathered from the Scriptures that they had the singular preheminence of diocesan Bishops Wherefore leaving the Doctor to his meditation upon these considerations let us proceed to some other particulars urged by him to justifye the title of his 3. chapter viz. that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops Chapt. 5. Shewing that the supposed Bishopprick of the Apostle Iames is not supported but contradicted by the scriptures which the Doct. alleadgeth And mainteyning the Refuters reasons produced to prove that he receyved not the episcopall power or function by any ordinatiō from his fellows Apostles bandled by the D. serm pag. 62. c. Def. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. and the Res pag. 131. 132 c. THe Doct. 3. argument is thus propounded pag. 65. of his sermon Sect. 1. ad cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 48. 49. The Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops and committed the Churoches vnto them Therefore the opiscopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution First touching the consequence because the Refuter sayd it was too nere a neighbour to the proving of idem per idim venlesse by ordination we understand the deputing of persons to that Church and by institution the appointing of the calling it self the Doct. thinketh he did him wrong to think he would commit so grosse a fault as to prove the same by the same seing he could not but discerne that he argueth from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function But had not the Refuter trow ye reason to doubt of the Doctors meaning doth he not serm pag. 92. take both these assertions for one and the same viz. that the episcopall function is of divine institution and that Bishops were ordeyned of God For if they be not one in the D. apprehension how shall the direct proofe of the latter be a direct proof of the former But since he now testifieth that he argueth from the ordination to the institution I will so vnderstand him In that which followeth I cannot but commend his honest and plaine dealing for beholding an oversight in the Ref when in this sense he acknowledgeth the consequence to be good he himself vndertaketh to lay open the weaknes of it and confesseth freely that a just exception may be taken against it viz. that though the Apostles ordeyned the persōs yet Chirst instituted the function for that is the judgment of many of the Fathers and among the rest of Cyprian who Lib. 3. ep 9. saith that our L. himself ordeyned Apostles that is to say Bishops Whereto I say that we are beholding to the Doct. that teacheth us to impugne his owne argument and now since by his owne confession the consequence is not good he must be beholding to us if we permit it to passe without check for in deed it is a cleare case that the ordination of persons cannot prove the function it self to be instituted of them that give the persons their ordination And here by the way the reader may see how lightly the D. esteemeth the judgment of the Fathers in this very question wherin he relieth most upō their testimonie For if al those Fathers which affirm the Bps to be the Apostles successors that the two degrees of Bps or Presbyters doe answer to the degrees of the Apostles 72 disciples c. doe hold the episcopall functiō to be Christs owne ordinance as here he confesseth and if they that thus teach be so many so ancient vnsuspected and approved that it cannot be denied but the calling and superiority of Bishops togither with the inferiour degree of Presbyters is of Christs owne institution as he concludeth lib. 3. p. 32. how cōmeth it to passe that the Doctor hath the forehead eo deny it and mainteyne so stifly as he doth that The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the episcopall function was instituted by the Apostles Thinketh he to salve this difference by saying as he he doth that of this matter he will not contend when as yet he contendeth very earnestly to make good his assertion yea he boasteth lib. 3. pag. 24. that he hath with such evidence demōstrated the calling of Bishops described in his sermon to be of Apostolicall institution as he is wel assured his Refuter with all his partakers will never be able soundly substācially to confute Perhaps his best evidēce is yet behind for hitherto we have seene nothing that carrieth any such weight with it that the Refuter should neede to call for any help of his partakers to remove it let us therefore attend on the proofe of his Antecedent which he vndertaketh to effect by shewing the time when the places where and the persons whome the Apostles ord yned Bishops Concerning the time the Doctor putteth a difference between Sect. 2. ad sect 2. p3 49. 50. the Church at Ierusalem and the rest For there because shortly after Christs passion a great nomber were converted to the faith and because it was the Mother-Church vnto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini ordeyned Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem
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.
the Bishopriks of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 11. and 12. pag. 93-97 THe second objection lieth thus Timothy and Titus were Evangelists Sect. 1. ad sect 11. pag â—3 Ergo they were not ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus and Creete This consequence the Doctor denied because their being Evangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certeine Churches and furnished with episcopall power they became Bishops And to remove this answere the Refuter proveth first that their being Evangelists did hinder their assigning to certein churches without which they could not be Bishops 2. That when they were left at Ephesus and in Creete they received no such new authoritie as he calleth episcopall neyther needed any such furnishing as he supposeth The first is proved not by 2. reasons as the Doctor imagineth but by one disiunctive argument in this maÌ„ner What could not be done without eyther confounding the offices which God had distinguished Ephes 4. 11. or depriving Timothy and Titus of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower that the Apostle Paul neyther would nor could doe But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists could not be done without eyther confounding the offices which God hath distinguished Ephes 4. 11. or depriving them of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower Ergo the making of Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists was a thing which the Apostle neyther could nor would doe The assumption is very scornfully rejected by the Doctor because in his imagination the partes thereof are nice points which none of the fathers did ever understand but his triumph is vaine and vnseasonable whiles we are in examining by the verdict of the scriptures or by reason grounded thereon what to determine of this controversy Wherefore to passe by this answerlesse answer I will indeavour to draw the reader to the consideration of that I haue to alleadge in defense of our assumption as followeth To conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops Pastors in one person at one time is to confound the offices which are distinguished Ephes 4. 11. And to take from an Evangelist his evangelisticall function when he is invested into the office of a Bishop or Pastor assigned to the charge of one certein Church is to deprive him of an higher and to thrust him into a lower calling But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists could not be done without eyther conioyning both offices in one person or taking their first office from them when the later is given to them Ergo neyther can it be done without eyther confounding the offices which are distinguished Ephes 4. 11 or depriving them of the higher function to thrust them into a lower Here the proposition is impugned in both the branches therof first therefore for the former thus I argue It is apparant by the very text Ephes 4. 11. and by other scriptures that the severall functions of Ministery there mencioned were by Christ distributed to severall persons not coÌ„mitted two or moe of them to one man at once Ergo to conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops in one person at one time is to confound the offices which by God are distinguished For the manifestation of the antecedent first let the text be weighed Ephes 4. 11. 12. he gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers He saith not he gave some to be Pastors onely and some to be Evangelistes and Pastors or that some were Apostles onely and some Apostles and Evangelists but as before he gave some to be Apostles and some to be Evangelists c. thereby signifying that such as had the calling of Apostles had not also the office of Evangelists Neyther did the Evangelists holde therewithall the office of Pastors 2. This is further confirmed by the similitude which the Apostle vseth 1. Cor. 12. 14 28. of many members in one body which haue not all one and the same but each of them his severall office The eye is not an eare neither doth it serve the body in the office of hearing or smelling c. in like manner all are not Apostles nor all Prophets c. but God hath ordeyned some to one office and some to another as first Apostles secondly Prophets c. 3. And of this distinction we haue examples For touching the extraordinarie Ministers of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists we finde them distributed to severall persons Luk. 16. 13. Act. 1. 26. and cap. 11. 27. 28. and 21. 8. And for ordinarie functions there were at Ierusalem Deacons and Elders Act. 6. 3. 6. 11. 31. at Philippi Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. but of two or moe offices combined in one person at once there cannot be yeelded any one cleare example in holy scripture All that the Doct. objecteth to infringe this is of small moment viz. that as Apostles might be Evangelists as we see in Mathew Sect. 2. Iohn so Evangelists might be Bishops as we se in Mark. pag. 95 For the name of EvaÌ„gelist by ancient or later writers given to Matthew and Iohn because they wrote those histories which are kat hexochen called Evangelia Gospells proveth not that they had that functioÌ„ of Evangelists which is distinguished from the Apostles Ephes 4. 11. The scripture is best expounded by the scripture therefore we must by Evangelists there vnderstand such as have the name given them in other partes of the new testament as Acts. 21. 8. and 2. Tim. 4. 5. And as for Mark we know him to be an EvaÌ„gelist not onely because he wrote one of the 4. Gospells but rather because he was as Timothy a companion and fellow helper to the Apostles but his Bishoprick we disclaime no lesse then Timothees and for the same reason because he was an Evangelist by his particular function neither can the Doct. herein contradict us without contradiction aswell to himself as to the truth For he coÌ„fesseth as the truth in deed is that the word Evangelist specially taken signifieth the extraordinary fuÌ„ctioÌ„ of those in the primitive Church which went up down preaching the Gospell not being affixed to any certeine place And particularly of Timothy Titus he saith they were Evangelists whiles they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his traveiles were not assigned to any certeine place From hence therefore I thus frame a 2. argument to prove that the combyning of the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors in one person at once is a confounding of offices which by their first institution were distinguished Whatsoever offices are severed by properties of an opposite nature they cannot at once be conjoyned in one person without confounding the functioÌ„s which by their first institution were distinguished But the function of Evangelists Bishops are severed by properties of an opposite nature for the one is extraordinary and not bound to any
that which he seemeth to applaud in Zanchy on Ephes 4. 11. pag. 95 viz. that the former sort of Evangelists and the Prophets also did governe the Churches nowe one then an other For how should Churches be governed by them if they had not the like power and authoritie for government that Timothy and Titus had From the Doctors reasoning in defense of his owne assertion Sect. 7. ad pag. 96. let us passe to the answer yeelded by him to his Refut who argued in this manner Timothy and Titus were to exercise their Evangelisticall function in those places For Paul biddeth Timothy after he had bin at Ephesus to do the worke of an Evangelist Ergo they receyved no new authority at their placing there which they had not before neyther laid they aside but reteyned still their Evangelisticall function The Doctor denyeth the Antecedent and contradicteth the proofe thereof Whereas Paul willeth Timothy to doe the work of an Evangelist what is thee saith he but evaggelizesthai to preach the Gospell diligently c. the word Evangelist being there taken in the generall sense Here we are put to prove that the name of an Evangelist is here taken not in a generall sense but in a more speciall for the function of an Evangelist which may appeare by these circumstances 1. First the very phrase it selfe to doe the work of an Evangelist cannot in reason be cōstrued otherwise then q. d. to doe the work which an Evangelist is bound vnto by his particular function like as in the like phrase the work of an Apostle the signes of an Apostle the commandement of the Apostles and the foundation of the Apostles 1. Cor. 1. 9. 2. Cor. 12. 12. 2. Pet. 3. 2. Ephes 2. 20. the name of an Apostle is specially taken for the office of Apostleship 2. It is the Apostles purpose see Mr. Calvin upon the place by the honorable mencion of his office to provoke him to use the greater diligence therein thereby to gaine the greater reverence among those that should behold his zeale and faithfulnes in his calling But the speciall function of an Evangelist serveth better then the generall name of a preacher of the Gospel both to animate him vnto watchfulnes and to procure him authority amongst those with whom he conversed 3. Moreover since it is knowne and confessed that he was once an Evangelist if either he had ceased so to be or if he had borne at this time a more honorable office as the Doctor supposeth in all likelihood the Apostle would have givē him some other title least others should be led into an error by this name 4. Lastly if we looke to the use of the word evaggelistes in other places we shal find it no where carried in the Apostolicall writings to a generall signification as the Doctor fancieth but rather is appropriated to that extraordinary function of Evangelists which then was knowne by that name as Act. 21. 8. Eph. 4. 11. Wherefore since it is a firme vndoubted axiome in divinity that we are to receive that interpretation of any word or phrase which best accordeth with the scope of the place it selfe and the use of the like in other places I will hold it for a truth not to be gainsayd that the word Evangelist ought here to be takē not in the generall sense but for the speciall function of an Evangelist knowne by that name We now come to Zuinglius his testimonie alleadged by the D. Sect. 8. ad pag. 97. to prove that their being Evangelists did not hinder them frō being Bishops His case is very desperate it seemeth since he is drivē to crave releefe of one so well knowne to be a professed enemie to to the Lordly jurisdiction of Diocesan and Provincial Prelates But what Zuinglius forsooth that Philip the Evangelist who had bene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea and Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and divers of the Apostles when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certayne Churches Which saith the D may be much more verified of the Evangelists In deed if this last glose had bene Zuinglius his words his evidence had bene farre sitter for his purpose then it is and yet would it haue done him no service till he had proved that Timothy and Titus had given over their Evangelisticall traveiles which he will never be able to effect while he breatheth But now all that Zuinglius speaketh for him is such as if he rightly conceive his meaning he will be very loth I suppose to subscribe unto For he is so farre from affirming as the Doctor intimateth to his reader that Philip after his Deaconship was first an Evangelist and after that became the Bishop of Caesarea that he rather citeth those words of Luke Act. 21. 8. where he is called an Evangelist to prove him to be a Bishop for these are his wordes De ecclesiastica sive ratione et officio cōcionandi fol. 48. Quo in loco illud nobis primo notandum est Philippum hunc Caesariensis ecclesiae Evangelistam episcopum vel pastorem fuisse c. In which place that is first of us to be noted that this Philip the Evangelist of the Church of Samaria was Bishop or Pastor c. whereby it appeareth as also by the words afeerwards remembred by the Doctor constat iuxta Pauli sententiam idem esse episcopi et Evangelistae officium and by many other speaches in that treatise that he confoundeth the names of Evangelistes Prophets Pastors in one office But let us see how the D. removeth the Refuters answere First he saith that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of histories other ancient writers who take not the name of Bishop properly when they give it to Iames or any other Apostle as Doct. Whitak hath rightly observed The Doct. reasoneth from that which is no cause c. deceitfully de pontif rom pag. 303 the Doctor replyeth 〈◊〉 that if Zuinglius spake according to the phrase of histories c. then and therefore he spake according to the truth from whence I inferre that if Zuinglius have spoken the truth in this matter then the Doctor is in an errour and reasoneth deceitfully a non causa pro causa For whereas he would perswade that Iames was properly a Bishop because the Fathers so intititle him Zuinglius saith expresly of Iames Hunc Hieron et omnes simul vetusti patres Hierosol episcopum nominant non aliam ab causam quam quod in ea urbe sedem fixam posuisset Ierom and with him all the ancient farhers call him Bishop of Ierusalem for no other cause but for that he had made his fixed aboad in that citie 2. The Doctor asketh Although it be true that the Apostles could not properly be called Bishops what is that to Timothy and Titus whom he hath proved to have bene particularly assigned to the Ch of Ephesus Creet where