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
Dioceses But however the D. may at his pleasure wholly leave out the age following or wander for his proofes beyond that coÌ„passe to Constantines daies and the ages following his time yet his Refuter must be bound to the stake precisely to conclude that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times but also in the age following Parishes properly not Diocesâ—s Yea even then when he discerneth pag. 100 that two rancks of Instances are produced to prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth the former taken out of the scriptures the later out of the fathers he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200 years A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude then by direct answer to infringe that which is objected But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall of multiplying of parishes in cities of combyning many congregations in one diocesan body I will therefore with the Doct. leave first take a view of that which is objected answered touching the state of the Churches which were of greatest note in the Apostles times To begin then with the objection which himself propoundeth Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem pag 79. his purpose was to contradict not the maine question though he so affirmed but the conclusion of his 2. last argumeÌ„ts which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64. And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question to make it more strong for his advantage I will apply it to the point whereat he aymeth with a supply onely of those words which are by him suppressed yet necessarie to be added The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles togither with the presideÌ„ts of the Presbyteries were assigned each of them but to one particular ordiâ—â—try congregation assembling togither in one place Therefore they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese To the consequent I add these words but for a parish to make the contradiction the more full because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses And for the same cause I also add to the Anâ—ecedent these words ordâ—yned by the Apostles The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place is a parish and not a diocese Therefore what is provided but for one such congregation the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese This latter connexion cannot be impugned The consequent or conclusion is the proposition which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthymem The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their assertion against whom he disputeth serm pag. 4. and in affirming here def pag. 79. that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof Onely he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition when he saith that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations For saith he iâ— proposition have no better hypotheses to support it I may deny it seing I have proved before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes But I answere that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth I need not seek any new propp to uphold it it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter sect 9. where he may if he shut not his eyes see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning that the Apostolike Churches before the division of parishes in the city Country annexed could not any otherwise be properly dioceses then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man before his body have the distinct members so that to returne him his owne phrase the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned viz. that the presbyteries and their presidents ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned each of them but to one particular ordinarie congregation assebling togither in one place the Doctor hath no cause to blame us though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument which he framed for us for I suppose none of our side were so foolish as to deliver for the proof thereof that assertion which he tendreth to us to wit that in the first 200. yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one such congregation Wherefore till he produce his Authour from whom he received this argument I will pray leave to think he forged it for his owne advantage that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much to wit that all the members of those Churches wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place Against which proposition rightly vnderstood of the time when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination I find no just exception taken eyther in his sermoÌ„ or this defense seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes to the age following whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his mayne conclusion Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was at the time of giving presbyteries to them if we say they exceeded not one congregation is it not a frivolous cavill to answere that they farre exceeded the proportion of one congregation in the next age following and the later part thereof It is apparant therefore that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares in the age following the Apostles were inserted into this question by the Doctor both here and afterwards pa. 100 onely to give him some colour of a just exception against his Refuters reasoning and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times to the ages following But let us see how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect 4. 2d 79. 80. selfe in this Enthymem In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled
He hath courage enough to do the one but it seemeth he wanteth that grace that should doe the other And touching the proofes when he saith he cannot yeeld to all would not a man think he did allowe of some and yet snarleth at every one But if a man should ask him for his best proofes that he can pâ—oduce to justify that which he acknowledgeth scz that the most of the Churches in Pauls time did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation could he finde think ye in the Apostolicall writings any more pregnant allegations to countenance his assertion then such as the Refuter hath produced Well let us give him the hearing in his exceptions First in the scriptures alleadged he takâ—th occasion from the date of them being before the yeare 55. or 60 to weaken his argumentation for it soundeth in his eares as is he had sayd If before the yeare 55. or 60 they were but The D. is â—pilanthanominâ—s cautouÌ„ one congregation then they were no more untâ—ll the yeare 200. See how soon the Doctor forgetteth himselfe for his owne pen testifyeth lin 1. 2. of this very page 104 that both the maine argument and the proofes thereof doe speak of the Apostles time And can any matter questioned concerning the state of any Church or Churches in the Apostles time be proved from the scripture otherwise then by those testimonies that their writings affoard He that can argue at his pleasure from the condition of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time see his defense for this lib. 2. pa. 45. and 47. and lib. 3. pag. 21. to conclude all other Churches to be such as they were for the first 200 yeares and from the stare of the Churches that flourished in the third or fourth age after Christ to prove that the Churches Bishops established by the Apostles were of the same constitution doth he not shew himselfe an egregious wrangler when he wil not admit the testimony of S. Paul and S. Luke to be sufficient for the time of the Apostles because S. Iohn lived 40. yeares or more after the date of their writings especially when no alteration can be proved by any other evidence as himselfe confesseth pag. 101. lin 21. But perhaps he hath exceptions of more weight against the particulars For touching the church of Corinth he saith the thing that is testifyed for it 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20. 33. is such as might be written to the Church of England False and absurd can it be affirmed of all the people professing the gospell in England that they come or for their number may come togither en te ecclesia epitoauto in one Church or into one place to eat the Lords supper but the words of the Apostle vers 18. 20. 33. doe by consequence imply that the faithfull which then were members of the Church in Corinth to whom he writeth came togither in one church assembly and into one place or at least for their number might in dutie ought so to assemble togither to eate the Lords supper Compare the tenour of the Apostles words sunerchomenoon humoon c. v. 18. 20. with the like phrase of speach 1. Cor. 5. 4. sunachthentoon humoon c. Math. 22. 34. 41. and 27. 17. Act. 20. 7. 8. 25. 17. 28. 17. sunegmenoon vel sunelthontoon c. and it will appeare that a concurse into one place for one worke is imported by the very word sunerchomai though it had no other wordes annexed to inforce that construction Neyther can any one instance be given where it noteth such a distribution into many severall societies as must be implied in it if it should be applyed to the Church of England which cannot possibly be gathered into one place for the celebration of the Lordes supper But why doth the Doctor bury in silence that other testimony 1. Cor. 14. 23. c. Ean oun sunâ—lthe he ecclesia holee epi to auto What did he skip because he could not spell Doubtlesse his owne conscience told him the simplest of his readers would have discerned that he had spoken against coÌ„mon sense if he should haue sayd that the like might be affirmed of the Church of England viz. that the whole church coÌ„meth togither into one place And yet he was loth to acknowledge that those words evidently approve the Ref assertion touching the Church of Corinthe viz. that their number was no more then such as ordinarily assembled for the worship of God into one place Secondly whereas he saith that what is testifyed for the church Sect. 6. ad pag. 105. of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. might be applyed by a Bishop in his visitation to all the Ministers of a Diocâ—se What else is it but a direct contradiction of that truth which himseffe hath already approved pag. 75. A flat contradiction in the D. viz. that those Presbyters attendâ—d one flock in common that is coÌ„muni coÌ„cilso et mutuâ— auxilio and were not assioned to severall parishes or parts of the flock For how can that speach which importeth a coÌ„mon charge given to many Presbyters over one flock or congregation not yet distinguished into severall parts or members fitly be applyed without any change in the meaning of the words to a multitude of Ministers which have every one their particular flock or portioÌ„ of people committed to his peculiar oversight If the Doct. shall eyther here or in the for his defense that these speaches may be fitly applyed though in a differing sense to such purpose as he affirmeth it may be replyed that if he confesse the sense to be differing he discovereth his answer to be deceitfull but it is false and absurd if the construction of the words be one the same As for that which he addeth touching the word flock that it may be extended to a nationall provinciall or diocesan Church what meaneth he still to presume that his bare word will be taken for currant payment I confesse it is sometimes put for the vniversall Church as Iohn 10. 16. but he can alleadge no place in all the Apostolical writings where it is given to any visible church that comprized in her circuite many distinct congregations Wherefore he can with no shew of reason contradict his Refuter in affirming it to be a new conceite void of reason to imagine that the church of Ephesus was a Diocesan flock consisting of many congregations Moreover how can we in the interpretation of the scripture admit any word whose signification is questioned to be extended vnto a thing which at that time had none existeÌ„ce in rerum natura or how can he affirm without contradiction to the truth elswhere acknowledged that the Church of Ephesus was a nationall or provinciall Church for provinciall Churches grew up by the combinatioÌ„ of many Dioceses vnder one Metropolitan Bishop as himselfe affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 21 but as yet Ephesus had no Bishop at all if that be true which
who is your Teacher he doth affirm that Epaphroditus is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians vers 25. because he was their Byshop or Pastor In like manner touching Ambrose how loosely dooth he reason Ambrose saith that the Apostles mencioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephe. 4. 11. were Bishops Ergo in saying that Epaphroditus was by the Apostle made their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. he meaneth that he was affixed and limited to the Episcopall charge of that Church in like sort as the later Bishops were and for that cause called their Apostle Nay rather it followeth from Ambrose his wordes that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinitie with the Apostleship I meane in this that he had onely a temporarie overfight of that Church as the Apostle himself had before during the time of his aboade there And this hath confirmation from the wordes that follow which the Doctor was wise enough to conceale his whole speach is this Erat enim corum Apostolus ab Apostclo factus dum illum in exhortationerie eorum mittebat ad eos quia vir bonus erat desiderabatur a plebe Where note he was desyred of the people not because he was their Pastor but because he was a good man and was now sent vnto them by the Apostle and so made their Apostle for their present instruction or exhortation not to take perpetuall charge of them for as afterwardes he saith in vers 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss he was necessary for many other Churches as one that yeilded solisium er auxilium both comfort help to the Apostle By all which it appeareth that in Ambrose his judgment Epaphroditus by his ministeriall function was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop There remaineth Theodoret whose wordes make the fairest shewe for him yet are they not so full as he pretēdeth for that which he saith in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed c. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist seing they had a temporary charge of some one or moe Churches committed to them Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properlie episcopall and such as now is controverted Yea the Doctor himself doth so vnderstand Theodoret when he faith in 1. Tim. 3. that those who now are called Bishops were at the first called Apostles and that thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the philippians c. For he gathereth from Theodorets testimony conferred with some wordes of Ierom Def. lib. 4. pag. 72. that the first Bishops so reputed were Apostles and Apostolike men that is Evangelists and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remained none were chosen our of the Presbyters to the office of a Bishop whence it followeth that Epaphroditus in Theodorets judgment is called an Apostle not because he was a Bishop but for that he was an Apostolicall man or Evangelist Wherefore it is but a vayn bragge of Mr. D. 1. to conclude as he doth pag 67. that all the Authors which he cited give testimony with his exposition And 2. to ask with what face his Refut could deny it For although he hath face enough to affirme whatever may seem to advantage his cause and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed yet the truth will discover it selfe to them that with an upright eye search after it to their shame that seek to deface it Now whereas he addeth that his authors before mencioned Sect. 7. ad sect 13. p. 68. doe all goe against the interpretation of the word Apostolos which his Refuter bringeth he saith no more but what his Refuter had before acknowledged His Authors were produced not to confute his Refurer before he sawe his answer but to justify his owne collectiō from the words of the Apostle which since he cannot effect he shal doe best not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions especially seing in such a case as this when Interpreters doe varie about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture the judgment of the indifferent Reader must be swayed neyther by the number yeares or learning of the parties but by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they doe best accordeth with the circumstances of the text it selfe and with the use of the word or phrase in other places Wherefore the Refuter though he mencion the names of some which imbrace his interpretation yet grounded himselfe rather upon the probability of reason then the creditt of their testimony Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himselfe to reject so lightly as he doth the judgment of Mr. Beza and Piscator in saying they are asmuch parties in this cause as the refuter himselfe For if it be true he hath wronged Beza in affirming that in the question of Diocesan Churches and Bishops he goeth with him and against his Refuter Lib. 1. pag. 48. and Lib. 2. pag. 140. Lib. 3. pag. 11. and that he is so farr from condemning the A contradiction government of Bishops reteyned in other reformed Churches that he wished withall his hart that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva the episcopall government had bin reteyned for so he sayth Lib 4. pag. 161. 166. but it is no strange thing to the observant reader to find the Doctor very often in this contradicting fault amongst others Let us see what he answereth to the reasons that were delivered to prove the Refuters construction the more likely viz. that Epaphroditus is called their Apostle or rather Messenger because he was sent by the Philippians in their stead to minister unto the Apostle Paul The first reason hath two braunches 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. doe shewe how he ministred unto him 2. the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthes benevolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuitie frō the Philippiās to Paul c. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians 2. but he saith it is vnlikely that eyther he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard And why unlikely is not that interpretation mostly likely which best agreeth both with the parts of the same scripture and with the vse of the word or phrase in other places And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct Let them be compared together and sentence given with the truth First touching Epaphroditus that he was their Imbassadour or Messenger to the Apostle Paul the evidence alleadged by the Refuter from the same verse and cap. 1. 18. is so pregnant that the Doct. cannot deny it yea he
he knew not the signification and use of the words aggâ—los and Apostolos he bewrayeth his owne and that in diverse The Doct. discovereth his owne errors while he offereth to shew his ref ignorance particulars For to let passe now the repetition of any thing formerly spoken for the use of this phrase the angels of the Churches he had need to have a very favourable interpreter that shal excuse him of errour in saying the word Angels absolutely spoken as a title given to all Ministers sent of God for not to heap up places where it is put for the celestiall Angels I have before shewed that it is referred to messengers sent of men laÌ„ 2. 25. 2. And surely that text of RoÌ„ 16. 7. which saith that Andronicus and Funia were men of note among the Apostles cannot prove what he affirmeth viz. that besides Paul and Barnabas and the 12. Apostles there were sundry other Embassadours sent from God with authoritie Apostolicall 3. Neyther can he make good generally his last assertiÌ„on that the word Apostle used with reference to particular churches signifieth their Bishops For besides the places before questioned phil 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8. 23. it is apparently used with such reference 1. Cor. 9. 2. when S. Paul who was no Bishop over any particular church or Churches saith If I be not Apostle unto others yet doublesse I am unto you 4. As for the conclusion which he inferreth viz. that in the Scriptures the word Apostolos is not used to signifie Messengers sent from men nether is it to be translated otherwyse then Apostle I have already shewed sect 5. how much he wrongeth our owne Church governours besides many other worthy and sound divines who have taken the word for any messenger from men and so translated it Phil. 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8 23. Iohn 13. 16. And 2ly I have sufficieeÌ„tly discovered the falshood of his conclusion having mainteyned against all his exceptions the Refuters construction of the 2. former places and the reasons which he propounded in that behalfe Neyther is it hard to remove that which he objecteth touching the later all that he saith is this though our Saviour do seeme to speak indefinitely Iohn 13. 16. of the Apostle he should say any Messenger and him and that sendeth him yet it is evident that he meaneth himself who sent and the Apostles who were sent Doth he seeme onely to speak indefinitely And is it evident that he meaneth himselfe onely c What seeming reason or evident demonstration hath the Doctor to justifye this since he hath none it might be a sufficient answere to tell him eadem facilitate rejicuur quâ—asseritur the Refuter maie as easily deny it as he affirme it But for the Readers satisfaction this I adde The coherence of the text both here and elswhere where the like speach is used as Cap. 15. 20. Math. 10 24. clearly sheweth that Christ intendeth to teach his Apostles that they ought to imitate him in subjecting themselves both to beare the like afflictions which is the scope of the other 2. places and to performe the like services which he aymeth at in this place vnto another To effect this his purpose he argueth a genere in this manner no servant disciple or messenger is greater then his L. and Mr. or him that sent him But ye are my servantes disciples messengers and I am that Lord Mr. and he that sendeth you in Embassage Ergo you are not greater then I and consequently you ought to subject your selves both to doe and suffer what ye have seene in me I could alledge Interpreters old and new that thus understand the words of Christ in the generall and largest sense but it shal not be needful to them that consider how absurd it is to restreine so generall a sentence vnto one onely particular For if I may use the Doct. words Lib. 1. pag. 226. who shal dare to doe this without very good warrant The Doct. conclusion being thus removed out of the way I here again inferre as the Ref. did once before that he is deceived seeketh to deceive by the equivocation of the word apostolos which sometimes in a coÌ„mon and generall sense is given to any one that is sent as a messenger though usually ascribed to those that were imployed as were the 12. Apostles in an high extraordinary Embassage from Christ In the next place Mr. D. labour is to remove this objection that though it should be admitted that he was a Bishop yet it followeth not Sect. 11. ad sect 15. pa. 70. 71. that he was a diâ—cesan Bishop like to ours in the substance of his office therefore be dâ—ceyveth his reader with the like equivocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his owne confession was coÌ„mon to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons ans p. 136. This is saith the Doct. as if he should have said I grant that which here you prove but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were dioceses the Bishops diocesan c I proved before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or proving it that I presupposed it as sufficiently proved before Wherevnto I cannot make him a better answer then to returne him his own a litle before spoken to the Ref. with a litle change This is written as the most of his 4 volumes to bleare the eies of the simple For I cannot think that the D. which vndertooke this course was so void of judgment as here he would shewe himself to be if he wrote syncerely What is the point I pray you which here he had in hand was it not to prove that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops doth not the title upoÌ„ the head of every page of this chapter shew it what Bishops did they ordeyne in his vnderstanding were they parish Bishops or temporary overseers as were the Evangelists can he justify the caling of our Bishops to be of divine or Apostolicall institution vnlesse he prove that the Bishops or Pastors to whom the Apostles committed the care of particular Churches were like to ours for the substance of their office And to discend more particularly to the question which himselfe affirmeth to be debated in all this discourse pag. 65. viz. whether Bishops be mentioned in the scriptures vnder this name the Apostles of the Churches is it not to be vnderstood of such Bishops as ours are If he doe neyther prove this nor intend it but presuppose it or rather take it for granted without proofe and if he prove no more in this discourse touching Epaphroditus The Doct. trifleth deceiveth shifteth poorely then that which this objection admitteth to wit that he was a Bishop in the generall construction of the word doth he not shew himselfe to be a trifling deceiver and what else doth he but bleare the eyes of the simple when he saith it is
Ierome and to make him the more gracious with the Disciplinarians he saith it is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost they rely in this cause the like words he hath p. 61 following and lib. 3. pag. 45. and 58 but this is I say not almost but altogither a malicious slander For he is not ignorant that his refuter every where calleth for proofes from the scripture as others have done before him that his testimonie is then onely regarded of them when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth But it well appeareth by his citing Ierome so oft in his sermon 40. times at least well nigh twice as oft as he alleadgeth any other that he relyeth very much on his authoritie To him here he addeth Eusebius Epiphanius some others whose testimonie in his conceit should suffice to perswade for such a matter as this now in question But his Refuters exception is just such a ioynt act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church as the ordeyning of Iames to the episcopall charge of Ierusalem how should it be proved but by the scripture and who could better testify it then the Evangelist Luke who wrote the historie of their actes If then he hath not recorded it it is a strong presumption he was never Bishop there The Doct. replyeth saying as though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers such as he of best credit reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the actes As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses I overpass that consideration to sect 15. c. I am here to advertise the Reader the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought to releeve the weaknes of his argument For unlesse he can make sure and certein Proof of this among other partes of his induction that S. Iames was ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem how shall he justify his conclusion before set down to wit that the episcopal function is without quaestion of apostolicall institution And howe shall certeine and sure proofe of Iames his ordination to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem be made from such witnesses as the Doctor hath produced Are not the canonicall writings of the newe testament penned partly by the Apostles and partly by Evangelists which were their companions best able to testify what function Iames and other faithfull servants of Christ did beare and exercise in the Churches that injoyed their presence We find many things recorded by Luke concerning the Ministerie of Paul and Barnabas Philip and others by whose labours the kingdome of Christ was inlarged Acts 9. 15. 27. 13. 2. 3. 14. 14. 15. 22. 31. 8. 5. 40. 21. 8. Neyther are the scriptures silent touching Iames and his imployment at Ierusalem Act. 1. 13. 15. 13. 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9. 2. 9 why then should this ordinatiō of Iames to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church be wholly buried in silence if it had bene the joynt-act of the Apostles before their dispersion and an act of that moment wherein they gave the first president of a new function of greatest use highest place for all churches in succeeding ages Was it not as worthy more necessarie to be recorded then the first institution of the Deacons office Act. 6. 2. 6 Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption that Iames never had any such ordination seing there are no footsteps of it in the Apostolical writings and seing the Doctors defense is so slight as it is mark it I pray first he asketh whether the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Acts a frivolous question No man denyeth that as Christ did many things which are not written Ioh. 20. 30. 21. 25 so also did his Apostles but will he argue thus They did something not recorded in the scriptures Ergo they did this now in question How doth the Doct. forget himselfe thus to open so wide a dore unto the Papists to bring in all their superstitions under the name of vnwritten traditions Can he give us any one instance of an Apostolicall ordināce or of any Apostolike actiō of like momēt and necessarie use for all Churches that is not mentioned in their writings neyther can be proved otherwise then by the stories and writings of the Fathers And this may serve for answere also unto his second question whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers c. reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the acts In some matters of fact credit is not to be denied to their report as that Iames the Iust was martyred at Ierusalem and that Mark the Evangelist preached the gospel at Aleandria but there are many matters of fact testified by many ancients and those of the best credit as the D. speaketh which notwithstāding many worthy mē nothing inferior to the Doctor esteem worthy of no credit I wil instance only in Peters Bishoprick first at Antioch then at Rome which is contended for not onely by Papists but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacie let the testimonies be wel weighed which are brought for the maintenance of Peters episcopall chaire in both Churches Rome especially even by Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 227. 262. and 264 and they wil be found to be neyther in number nor in credit inferiour to those that the D. alleadgeth for Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalē yet as many other men of singular learning pietie doe deny credit to their report so the Doctor also as one nothing moved eyther with the authoritie of those fathers or with the judgement of his great Mr that gave him so good satisfaction in the studying of this controversy utterly secludeth the Apostle Peter from the office of a Bishop in any of those Churches as we may see serm pag. 81. 82. and in the 7. section of cap. 3. def If the Doctor shall say he hath reason to beleeve the testimony Sect. 5. of the Fathers for the one and to denie credit vnto them in the other know he that we haue reason also to withdrawe approbation from this which he alloweth But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question Although saith he the acte of making Iames Bishop be not set downe in the Actes yet the stori◠so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem Acts. 15. 21. of his assistance of presbyters of his presidencie in that Councill where Peter and Paul were present that it may appear their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there To the same purpose afterwards sect 9. pag. 61 he saith That the same scriptures togither with Gal. 1. 2. doe shew Iames his continuance as Ierusalē as the Superintendent of that Church not for a short time but for
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
conclusion that there is but one small agreement with the Romane Church concerninge the superioritie of Bishops over praesbyters out of which the Ref. would builde a totall consent and conformitie to their Antichristian government may it not be wondered at 1. That he can find but one agreement betwene the Protestant and the Popish government Are there not the same degrees Primates Archbishops Suffraganes Archdeacons Deanes c. Are there not the same seats of dignitie The same authoritie and government The same lawes and procedings The same inferior Officers The same rites and ceremonies The same change of names The same civill jurisdiction and titles The same pomp and glorie in the world setting aside the truth of doctrine and subordination to the Pope non ovum ovo similius 2. That because the Refuter said the doctrine of his sermon tended to the vpholding of the popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparator he chargeth him to build a totall consent and conformity as if it may not tend to the vpholdinge of the Hierarchy though with some differences Chap. 6. Concerning the hurt like to come by the D. sermon to the scandalizing of Protestants Sect. 1. reâ— pag. 6. 7 8 def of the D. pag. 14. 15. 16. The Refuter shewing how many were like to be scandalized by the Doctors sermon viz. some being to farre in love with their owne ease were likely to imbrace it without examination others whose hartes were upright before God would be made doubtfull disquieted c. The D. answereth for the most parte by calumniation and sarcasme from which I briefly pass wishing the reader 1. to consider whither many have not bin brought to stagger and doubt in religion as upon the sight of that strife and pleading for the Hierarchy and ceremonies with such arguments as will serve for the whole dose and recipe of verie many if not all the rable of Romish ceremonies so upon the readinge of such sound doctrine as the D. here layeth downe against all sound writers for the justifying as from the words of God all degres of Ministery in the Church the Popes and Cardinals onely excepted and foreprized I will not answere his sarcasme with Bishop Iewels speach against Hardinge and the like popish proctors The peace which they would have is onely the rest of idle bellies But I wish the D. to knowe that we hate division and schisme and are the sonnes of peace desyring peace with all men asmuch as is possible wil stande with holynes And I say to him and the rest of his fellowes as the Apostle did of his Accusers you are not able to prove those things which for profitt advantage or preferment or of anger and in heate of contention which worketh not the righteousnes of God you speak and wryte and suggeste against us Facile est maledictum ex trivio arripere et in optimum quemque jacere but si accusasse sufficiet nemo erit innocens I doubt not the reader wil remember that aliud est madedicere aliud accusare c. and that the D. hath used many calumnniations more fitt to be spitt at then spoken to As for his conclusion following after them that his Ref. resolution in answering his sermon though guilded over with glorious words was naught els but to publishe and disperse a mallicious diffamatorie libell and so after the manner of other malefactors The Doct. calumniareth to hide his heade I must touch vpon it alittle and wishe it be considered whether he sheweth not himself as full of splene and spite as he is empty of good reason First he therefore calleth it a libell because the Author putt not his name to it Wherein as he jumpeth with the Papists so he is answered already in the answers to them I passe over Bristowes challenge mencioned by Doctor Reynoldes in his preface to the Vniversity of Oxford vpon his Theses of the Holy scriptures and Church where Bristowe required the Author to putt his name to it c. Bellarmine excepting and objecting certeine treatises and resolutions of Iohn Gerson translated for that the translator putt not to his name saith against him that the saying of Christ is verified Iohn 3. qui male agit odit lucem and crieth that he was ashamed to make his name knowne as the Doctor doth against his Refuter charging him as a malefactor to hide his head But Pryar Paulus in his Apologie shall serve the Doctors turne aswell as Bellarmins who answereth page 3. I see no reason sayth he why of necessity he was to putt to his name vnlesse it be taken from a rule that every translator is to doe the like we rather blame them that think to winne themselves creditt by making praeface or Table c. Diverse workes extant of the Greek Fathers translated into Latin carry not the names of the translator c. Christ approved not the advice of his kinsfolkes transi hince et vade in ludaeam but answered as in many cases his servants may answere and the Refuter at this time Tempus meum c. my time is not yet Surely saith he page 4. the glorious lustre of the authors titles is net a matter of such prejudice as should over throw the cause of him that proposeth it with out manifesting his name according to the course holden in the councell of the Areopagites Hardinge also calleth the Apologie which Bishop Iewell wrote amongest other reproachfull termes a famous libell and a slanderous writt because it was printed without priviledge and no mans name sett to it c. To whom Bishop Iewell giveth an answere Defenc. part 1. cap. 4. divis 2 that will sitt as close to the Doctors backe as the coate that is made for it Must it need followe sayth he that all bookes not subscribed with the authors names are libells To beginne with the scriptures saith he who wrote the bookes of Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Denteronomy Ioshua Iudges Kinges Chronicles Iob c. What name hath the Epistle to the Hebrewes puit to it c. And so reckoning up diverse other parts of the scriptures with the Apostles Creed and other wrytings of men that subscribed not their names to them asketh him whether he would make his brethren beleeve that all these be but libels slaunderous writts c. and so concludeth that it is neyther necessary nor commonly not to doe it c. as the reader may see at large Secondly whereas the Doct. calleth the Refuters answere a maâ—â—ious diâ—â—amatory libell I apeale to the reader to determine 1. whether it be not a malicious slaunder of him so to call it and what honesty there is in him seing as I suppose there can no one sentence be produced thereout deserving that censure much lesse the whole booke 2. Whether in what measure soever the refuter be guiltie of that crime the Doct. hath any reason to argue him of it it being apparant to any that will compare the refut
termes Spirituall and temporall then the difference must be this that Bishops have besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies common to them with the Lords temporall an ecclesiasticall Lordship or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall However it be since he denyeth them to be civill Lords and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them in regarde of the same government which is implied vnder the name of the angels of the Churches he should in reason derive the Lordship of Byshops rather from Christs Lordship which is spirituall then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil For if that be true which he conceiveth Byshops have no more affinitie with noble personages in the name of Lords then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors Both may be called Pastors of the people as he saith serm of the dig of Min. pag. 53. but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies the Ministers of their soules In like manner our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes but the one are civill Lords the other not so but spiritual Wherefore as he affirmeth serm pag. 62. Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors because as he is the Pastor of our soules so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes but of their souls so he maketh or at least might from the like ground affirme Bishops to have the name of Lordes coÌ„mon to them with Christ seing as he is a spirituall Lord so are they also Lords spirituall and not civill Wherefore if wee may measure the greatnes or smallnes of that honour which any titles convey vnto Ministers by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons with whom they in those titles are compared then have wee good warrant to conclude the honour included in the name of Lordes attributed unto Bishops to be by so much greater then that which is implied in the other title of the Churches Angels by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels But no staied building standeth upon so â—andy a foundation for as men shall please to vary the things with which they may by any title compare the Ministers of Christ so theire honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure and that vnder one and the same title For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers Ephes 4. 11. with Christ the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 4. Heb. 13. 20. then is it a name of farr greater honor then the name of Angels or Angels of the Churches but it is by many degrees more base if it be referred to the shepheards that watch attend on their flocks in the feilds from whence in truth it was at the first derived Wherefore it must be confessed that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed Sect. 4. scz that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord being coÌ„mon to Bishops with Lords temporall to be a title of lesse honour then the name of the angels of the Churches that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels We may with much more probabilitie affirme that by how much it is a greater honour to have a Lord-like government in any Church then to have a tutorship or Guardianship therein by so much the name of Lorde given to Bishops in respect of their government is a title of greater honour theÌ„ the other which expresseth their Guardianship which in some respect is allowed to the Churchwardens of every parishe For why should we not measure the height of that honour which titles doe imply rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the names import then by the condition of the persons or things with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled To end this dispute let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor for whereas nowe he graunteth the name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire government and authoritie a little after pag. 153. he denieththe title to be given them with relation but as a simple title with honour revereÌ„ce For how can it be a simple title of honour used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them if it be given them in respect of their government And thus much for answer to the argument drawen from the name of Angels in his text to justifie those honourable titles of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops like to ours There remayneth some what alleadged by the D. to shew that â—â—e 7. angels were Byshops for the substance of their calling like to ours as yet vnanswered but it is from humane and not divine evidence He promiseth indeed serm pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence that the government by Byshops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them His scripture proofe is nothing but this The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse and for the substance of their calling like to ours as I sayth he have proved Which proofes because his Refuter had removed before he came to that part of the sermon he therefore tolde him that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion but what was already answered now the D. telleth us that this is vntrue For saith he I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Byshops That they were Byshops why that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed he should therefore say and make his saying good that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours but so to affirme were to avouch an vntruth wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing but what was before answered Which wrong is the greater because he could not but see by his Refuters words following answ pag. 128. that in so saying he had an â—ie to the D. proofes from scripture which was the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wel againe be once tolde that â—ayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna
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
by them Ergo none other forme of Church-government save that which the Apostles ordeyned is lawfull and good The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same and it is justified by these Apostolicall precepts 1. Thes 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. 3. Ioh. 11. which allowe the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing and deny them the use of nothing but what is evill The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctors allowance of the Presbyterian discipline when he affirmeth it serm pag. 95. 97. to be good as silver and next to the best though he deny it to be of Apostolicall institution And the later assumption is the conclusion of his answere before set downe wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the coÌ„clusions of these arguments how soever the former conclusion is contradictory to the assumption of the later and the later conclusion directly contradicteth the assumption of the former argument Thus the reader may see that whiles the Doctor laboureth to A dubble contradiction in the Doctor winde out of one contradiction he sticketh fast insnared in two for fayling Neither let him think here to evade as before by saying that he affirmed not simple the presbyterian discipline to be good but only then when the episcopall government cannot be had for Mr. Doctor were simple if he could perswade himself that so slight an answere might free the reformed Churches that want Byshops from the obloquies of caviling papistes which he professeth to be his charitable intent in pleading so as he did for them and their discipline And since silver is simply good and at all times good though inferior in goodnes to golde he dealt deceitfully not simply or syncerely with his reader in comparing these 2 kindes of governments for their goodnes vnto silver and golde if he meant not to allowe the presbyterian government any other or larger goodnes then for those times or places where the episcopall regiment cannot be had But to look back once againe to the Doctors answere before set downe what if I should contradict his assumption and make use of his proposition to cut in sunder the windepipe of his conclusion in this manner ' Where that government which the Apostles ordeyned cannot be had there some other government might be admitted But whiles the Apostles lived in some Churches that government which they ordeyned could not be had Ergo whiles they lived in some Churches an other forme of government might be admitted The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his owne Th'assumption is fitted indeed to contradict his in the sense that he imbraceth vnderstanding by the government ordeyned by the Apostles the government by Byshops so that whereas he saith it might be had whiles the Apostles lived I on the contratie affirme that in some Churches at that time it could not be had And this I suppose will be made good by his owne words elswhere serm p. 69. The D. contradicteth himself Def. lib. 4. pag. 62. when he alledgeth the want of sit choise for one reason why all other Churches besides that of Ierusalem wanted Bishops for many yeares in the life tyme of the Apostles For how could Bishops be had to governe every Church when there was not sit choise of persons fit for that function The same reason is more plainly delivered by others that plead the same cause Bishop Barloe serm on Acts. 20. 28. fol. 6. saith that after the conversion of many people even in setled Churches the Apostles hasted not to place a Bishop because a presbyter fu to be made a Bishop is hardly found which the Doctor also acknowledgeth serm pag. 54. where he saith If a worthy Minister be amonge men as one of a 1000 as Elihu spukith Iob. 33. 23 vndoubtedly a worthy Byshop is as one of a millioÌ„ verie hardly therefore will he escape the bryars of another palpable contradiction And it will be no lesse hard to avoyde the stroak of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ which if he cannot turne aside then his propositioÌ„ now in question will lie in the dust overthrowne not by anie of our weapons but by the turninge of those upon him which he put into our hands As for the Arguments which he addeth to put new life and strength into his proposition though just exception may be taken against them for there is oddes betwixt the use of government not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches and the reteyning of it in all Churches or the altering of that government which they had once established yet will I not prosecure such advantages seing we are no lesse perswaded then he that there is a manifest truth in it The assumption followeth which hath two parts the one that Sect. 3. ad sect 2. c. p 38-44 the government by Bishops such as ours are was used even in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them both paâ—ts he indeavoreth to prove first by scripture then by other evidence His scripture proof for the former is nothing else then a naked repetition of the explication of his text scz that the 7. angels were the Bishops of the. 7. churches and for the substance of their calling like to ours which as he saith he hath proved for I may as confidently avouch we have disproved But for the proofe of the later besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint Iohn or rather by our Saviour Christ he alleageth section 6. Epaphroditus the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians commended by Saint Paul as his funergos kai sustratiotes copartner both in his function affliction the Philippians commanded to have in honor such Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem approved of all Acts. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 19. Archippus the Bishop of Colossa in respect of his function approved of Paul Colos 4. 17. And Antipas who had been Bishop of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost Apoc. 2. 13. His argument standeth thus In the Apostles times Epaphroditus was the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians Iames the just the Bishop of jerusalem Archippus the Bishop of Colossa and Antipas the Bishop of Pergamus But Epaphroditus was commended of Saine Paulas his Copartner infunction and affliction Iames the juste generally approved Archippus in respect of his function approved by Saint Paul and Antipas commended by the Holy Ghost Ergo the function and government of Bishops was approved and not contradicted by the Apostles Here the Proposition if vnderstood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours is altogither false and the D. doth but begg the question in taking for granted what he should have The Doct. beggeth proved if he could But if it be vnderstood of such Bishops as the scriptures testify to have bin in the Apostles times seing they were no Lordly governors but Pastors or Bishops in another function eyther higher as was Iames the Apostle or inferior as Pastors of one
congregation I demaund againe as the Refuter did once before what need there was that the Doct. should spend so many words to prove their approbation For the approbation of such Pastors can never conclude the approbation of Diocesan Prelates such as ours He must therefore beare the blame of equivocating in the word Bishop or of begging the question vntill he prove The Doct. equivocateth or beggeth that Epaphroditus Iames the iust Archippus Aniipas were Diocesan Bishops like to ours The best defence that the Doct. maketh for himselfe is this Til he can disprove saith he sect 6. pag. 43. the former part of my sermon and of this Treatise he must give the Reader leave to think they were such as they have bene manifestly proved to be If he have manifestly proved in any part of his serm or defense before delivered that the four meÌ„ he speaketh of or any of them were Diocesan Bishops like unto ours good reason his reader should have leave to think they were such but if hitherro he hath not as it is most certaine he hath not delivered any one word that carrieth the least shewe of any such proofe then the reader I hope whither he have leave or no will think that the D. is too forward to say he hath proved that which he never till now proposed viz. that these foure men were Diocesan Bishops The proofe of this Proposition both his Refuter and Reader will call for till they see it And I still say that the proofe of the Assumption which in a generallity affirmeth that they were approved of the Apostles in respect of their function might well have bene spared And the Doctor assuredly doth flatter himselfe in vaine while he conceiveth that there is somewhat in this point which his Refuter could wish had bene spared or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answer For what should he have answered more then he hath touching the scriptures which the Doctor allegeth to prove that the persons before mentioned were approved of the Apostles in respect of their function for no man doubteth but their functions were approved all the doubt is whether their functions were such as our Dioccsans are and this the D. wittingly overpasseth NotwithstaÌ„ding among the scriptures quoted for the approbatioÌ„ of their Ministerie the Ref answ p. 130. giveth one note touching Sect. 4. ad sect 6. pag 44. the word sunergos Phil. 25 which the Doctor interpreteth a copartener in function he saith the Apostle meant not to signify thereby that Epâ—phroditus was a Diocesan Bishop for the Apostle himselfe was none neyther meant he to equall him to himselfe in the Apostleship for Epaphroditus was none but because he laboured in the Ministerie of the word as the Apostle did therefore he calleth him sunergos fellow-workman as he doth Timothy and others 1. Cor. 16. 10. 16. The Doct. answer runneth thus Though that word doth not prove it to wit that Epaphroditus was a Diocesan Bishop neyther was it alleadged to that end but as one of the â—â—â—les of commendation given to him yet the word Apostle which he alleadged doth prove it Neyther should the Refuter have balkâ—d that to lay hold upon another unlesse it were to deceive the simple And then addeth that it was malipertly sayd by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle Behold here 1. a free acknowledgmeÌ„t that the word sunergos proveth not E paphroditus to be a diocesan Bishop nor import a Copartenership with S. Paul in that function I ask then in what function his copartenership with the Apostle is commended by that title if in the Apostleship why doth he not as freely acknowledge it if in any other why doth he not expresly declare it may he not be justly censured in his owne words he would never have balked this point to lay holde upon another unlesse it were to deceive the simple But he cannot thus deceive a judicious reader who observeth that in contradicting his refuter for saying that Epaphroditus was not an Apostle he secretly insinuateth that he was copartener with S. Paul in the function of an Apostle though he dareth not plainely avouch it And 2. since the simplest that hath perused the Refuters answer pag. 130. may easily perceive that in denying Epaphroditus to be an Apostle he meant that he had not that function of Apostleship which under that name is given to S. Paul I nothing doubt but every indifferent reader will judge that he is over malipertly and very injuriously censured by the Doctor when he saith it was malipertly sayd by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle Nay it were a malipert speach for the Doctor to say simply and without addition that he was an Apostle seing he cannot shewe any one text in the newe Testament that giveth that title simplie vnto any other then unto Christ and his Apostles 3. And wheras he saith that the word Apostle which he alleaged doth prove that Epaphroditus was a diocesan Bishop I demaÌ„d why he never alledged the word for that purpose and shew his reader how to discerne a diocesan Prelacie in it In deed in his next argument serm p. 71. he bendeth his speach that way his Refuters readines to apprehend his purpose and to join issue with him therein may and doth I doubt not perswade the indifferent reader that if the Doctor had as plainely discovered any such proof here he would never have balked it he plaieth therefore an egregious The Doct. calumniateth calumniators part in saying that the Refuter balked the word alledged to prove the diocesan Bishopprick of Epaphroditus of purpose to deceive the simple 4. But I merveile what giddines hath taken hold on the Doct. that he runneth in and out this way and that way at his pleasure before we heard touching the word sunergos that he placed that copartnership in the function which Epaphroditus had with S. Paul in the Apostleship and not in the office of a diocesan Bishop yet now he saith that the name of an Apostle given to Epaphroditus proveth him to be a Diocesan Prelate I demaund therefore if Epaphroditus had none other Apostleship then a diocesan Byshopprick how could he be a copartner in function with Paul by reason of his Apostleship vnlesse Saint Paul also had bin a Diocesan Byshop by his Apostleship And againe yf his Copartnershipp infunction with Paul proveth him not to be a Diocesan Bishop how should it prove him to be his copartner in the Apostleship vnlesse his Apostleship were a function diverse from the calling of a diocesan Byshop The truth is as the Apostle had no copartnership with Epaphroditus in the function of a diocesan Bishop so neither had Epaphroditus any copartnership with the Apostle in the Apostleship The word sunergos signifieth a companion in labour or a fellow workman not a copartner in office or functioÌ„ for it were absurd to imagine that all were copartners with the Apostle in function whome
he honoureth with the name of his sunergos fellow-workmen or helpers in the work of the gosp ll seing it is given not onely to Titus Timotheus Marcus and others which were Evangelistes 2. Cor. 8. 23. Rom. 16. 21. 1. Thes 3. 2. Colof 4. 10. Philem. 24. but also to some of whome it may be doubted whither they had any publique ministerie Rom. 16. 9. Philem. 1. yea vnto some which question-lesse had none at all as vnto Aquila and his wife Priscilla Rom. 16. 3. In like manner he giveth vnto divers women this commendation that they laboured much in the Lord Rom. 16. 12. and did wrastle or fight togither with him in the Gospel sunethlesan moi Phil. 4. 3. yet I hope the D. will not say that those weomen were coparreners in function with S. The Doct. misinterpreteth conâ—oundeth Paul It is therefore cleare that the Doctor mâ—sinterpreteth the word sunergos and confoundeth things that differ in putting no difference betweene a companion in labour and a copartener in function And touching the diocesan Bishoprick of Epaphroditus as the Sect. 5. Doctor rightly acknowledgeth it hath no reliefe in the word sunergos so he falsly averreth that the word Apostle doth prove it The proofe which here he tendereth is not worth the mentioning save to let the reader still see how the Doct. holdeth on in his trade of begging It is to be noted saith he that the twelve Patriarches of The Doct. still beggeth Christs Church which were sent into the whoâ— world were called the Apostles of Christ and not the Apostles of any Church in particular excepting lames who was the Apostle of the Iewes so those Apostolicall men who were set over particular Churches as the Bishops thereof were for a time called the Apostles of the Churches So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians c. If the Doctor could yeeld us as pregnant testimonies from the Apostolicall writings to shew that Diocesan Bishops were called the Apostles of the Churches as there are to prove that those 12 whoÌ„ Christ sent into the whol world were called the Apostles of Christ we should as willingly subscribe to the one as to the other But when to justify his former assertion that the very word Apostoâ—â—s given to Epaphroditus proveth him to be a diocesan Bishop he bringeth no other proof then this that the Bishops set over particular Churches were called the Apostles of those Churches And to mainteyne this he hath nothing to alleadge but that So Epaphroditus is called by S. Paul the Apostle of the Philippians who can beare with his so shamelesse begging But more of this he saith wee shall heare hereafter and I finde in the next Chapter sect 12. 13. 14. whereto he sendeth us some humane testimonies to prove that Epaphroditus was the Pastor or Bishop of the Philippians an answer to the reasons alleadged by the refuter for the justifying of an other interpretation of the word apostolos viz. that he was their messenger to S. Paul But touching the question of his Ministeriall function which the Refuter sayd could not be proved to be a Diocesan Bishoprick when he should handle it he flattly refuseth to enter vpon it yea sect 15. pag. 71. he saith that there he is so farre from inferring or proving it that he presupposeth it as sufficiently proved before and yet in his whole volume concerning diocesan Churches or Bishops Defence lib. 3. he hath not a worde that particularly toucheth Epaphroditus Wherefore it is apparant that the Diocesan Bishoprik ascribed to Epaphroditus is presupposed onely but not proved to be infolded under the word Apostle And consequently the commendation which Paul giveth him Phil. 2. 25. cannot conclude an approbation of his supposed episcopall function And here by the way let the reader observe what a trick the Do hath to avoid the proofe of this point though he were urged vnto it Now when he should have done it A trick of the Doct. to shift off a proofe because Epaphroditus is a principall instance brought to justify the later braunch of the Assumption which affirmeth that the government of Bishops such as ours having place in the Apostles times was not contradicted by them he putteth us off to the next chapter and there he sendeth us back to another treatise where is just nothing for this purpose and to terâ—ify his Refuter with his loud I had almost sayd leud rayling he calleth him a notorious caviller pa. 64. and saith he writeth as the most of his booke to bleare the eyes of the simple p. 70. for none other fault but this that he urgeth him to prove that the function of a Diocesan Bishop is understood in the name of an Apostle given to Epaphroditus and that such Bishops were at the first called Rulers or Apostles of the Churches Yet least the Doctor should conceive better of his discourse then it deserveth I will take a neerer consideration of all that he hath sayd And the rather because his assertion will appear to be the more absurd if he have wrested those names which he attributeth unto Bishops from the true meaning of the Apostle is the places alleadged by him Chapter 4. Declaring that the function of dâ—ocesan Bishops is not mencioned in the Scriptures vnder the titles of Rulers or Apostles that a diocesan Bishoprick is not given to Epaphroditus vnder the name of an Apostle Phil. 2. 25. as the Doctor would have it Def. lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 11. pag. 65. I Knewe saith the Doctor it was objected that Bishops are not mencioned Vide sect 1. ad sect 11. cap. 3. lib. 4. in the Scriptures the name Episeopus Bishop being given to Presbyters and therefore that it is not like they were ordeyned by the Apostles of Whome no mencion is in the Scriptures For prevention of this objection or assoyling of this doubt I declared first that the Bishops in the wriâ—nges of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes theâ—â— Rulers sometimes their Apostles If I should ask the Doctor what it is that doth second his first he would be ready to snatch at such an occasion for the renewing of his vnjust quarrell with his Refuter viz. that I snatch at wordes And if I should demaund from what wordes in his sermon the Refuter might and ought to have gathered that those names which he saith were attributed to Byshops were delivered for the prevention of that objection which he now discovereth I suppose the Reader should scarce gaine any better answere then this that his owne intent is best knowne to himself Yet had his Refuter reason to say as he did answer P. 34. that this long discourse touching the time of ordeyning Byshops should help to prove that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops for he promised serm p. 65. to explaine and prove this point by shewing the time when the place Where and the persons whome the Apostles ordeyned
the ancient â—â—nons of the Apostles Can. 39. or rather 40. in the 2. epistle of Ignatius ad Trallian the text is appropriated vnto Bishops like as also is the name Prepositi in the Latin Fathers First to answer him in his own terms in stead of appropriated he would or at least should have sayd communicated unto Bishops for I know no maÌ„ so foolish as to appropriate eyther that text Heb. 13. 17 or the name Prepositis to such Bishops as ours Ierome was so farre from appropriating this text to Bishops that he doth rather appropriate it to Presbyters which at the first governed the Church as he saith on Tit. cap. 1. communi consilio Aequaliter inter plures ecclesie curam dividit Heb. 13. 17. Parete inquiens principibus egoumenois vestris c. Augustin a principall latin Father often vnderstandeth vnder the name Praepositi all the Ministers of the word Tract 46. in Iohan Habet ovile domini praepositos et filios mercenarios Praepositi qui fili sunt pastores sunt Et sunt quidem ecclesiae praepositi de quibus Paulus dicit Sua quaerentes c. And de civitate deilib 1. cap. 9. Ad hoc Speculatores hoâ—est populorum praepositi c. And epistola 166. ad finem Quod usqâ—adeo celestis Magister cavendum premonuit ut etiam de praepositis malis plebem securaÌ„ faceret ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris cathedra desereretur c. neque enim sua sunt quae dicunt sed Dei c. 2. But if the canons fasly called the Apostles haue rightly appropriated the text unto Bishops it will follow that both by the scripture and by their judgment that first framed afterwards approved them the Pastors care of soules and consequently the dispensation of the Word and Sacramentes is proper to the function of Bishops And if it be so it will then also followe and that inevitablie that those presbyters whose office is divers from the function of Bishops in their judgment aswel as of the author of that Epistle to the Hebrewes were no teaching Elders or Ministers of the word Which to affirme directly contradicteth the Doctors assertion peremptorily mainteyned by him lib. 1. cap. 3. viz. that there were no other Presbyters in the prim Church but Ministers and that the word Presbyter noting an ecclesiasticall person doth evermore in the scriptures councels and faibers signify a Minister 3. If to avoyde this disadvantage the D. shall choose rather to Sect. 4. ad sect 12. of the Doct. pag. 65. graunt that the text is to be vndetstood of Ministers in generall as he once understood it serm of the dignity of the Ministers theÌ„ can his diocelaÌ„ Bishops find no sure footing in this text as is already shewed All his hope and help therefore must lye in the last title which he supposeth is given to Bishops to wit th' Apostles of the Churches And to make this good he telleth us that he rendred a reason why they are so called viz. because they succeaded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches and that there of he gave an instance Philip. 2. 25 where Epapbroditus who was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi is therefore called their Apastle He should rather have produced some reason to demonstrate to ei esti that Bishops such as ours are so called then to shewe to diati why they are so entitled espetially seing he taketh notice of his Refuters quelition viz. by what authoritie that title is appropriated vnto Bishops Not with standing if his meaning be as it seemeth it is by the instance which he mentioneth to fortify the reason which he rendreth I wil desire no other demonstration then a cleare proofe of those premisses which must inferr this conclusion viz. that Bishops such as ours are in the Apostles writings called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches The which to conclude from the former instance given by him he must thus argue Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle Phil. 2. 25. because be succeeded the Apostles in the government of that particular Church But Epaphraditus was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi in function like to one of our Bishops Ergo Bishops such as ours were called in the Apostles writings the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches Both the parts of this argument are contradicted by the Refut and yet the Doct. harh nothing that can give sufficient confirmation to the one or other Some testimonies he hath that may serve to uphold as farr as their strength wil stretch the one half of each proposition viz. that Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of Philippians and that he was their Bishop or pastor but he hath no shadowe of any testimony or reason to cover the nakednes eyther of the first which saith he was so called because he succeeded the Apostles in the government of that Church or of the secoÌ„d which affirmeth him to be a Bishop in function like to one of ours All his labour teÌ„deth to make good against his Refut answer an other point something differing from the former viz. that he was therfore called the Apostle of the Philippians because he was their Bishop or Pastor Which might be granted and his purpose there-by at all nothing furthered For it is a weak consequence and sophirticall thus to argue The office of a Bishop or Pastor is noted in Epaphroditus when he is called the Philippians Apostle Ergo Diocesan Bishops such as ours are in the scriptures called the Apostles of the Churches But let us see by what authoritie he is swayed to imbrace that coÌ„structioÌ„ which he giveth to the words of the Apostle Phil. 2. 25. humoon apostolon first in translating theÌ„ their Apostle and then in saying he was therefore called their Apostle because he was their Bishop or Pastor First touching the translation however the word Apostolos be Sect. 5. usually in the newe testament appropriated unto such as we call Apostles men immediately called of Christ to an universall vnlimitted Ministerie yet is it well knowne both that Epaphroditus was none of them and that the word in his most naturall signification is of as large use as our English word Messenger And in this large fense it is used by Christ Iohn 13 16. oude Apostolos c. Neyther is the messenger greater then he that sent him Wherefore as the name of a Deacon though derived from the Greek word diaconos cannot sitly be given to all those that are in the scripture called diakonoi for I suppose the Doctor would not allowe the word to be so translated in these and such like places Mat. 20. 26. and 23 11. He that wil be or is greatest among you let him be humoon diakonos your Deacon Rom. 13. 4. for he is theou diaconos Gods DeacoÌ„ for thy good Col. 1. 25. The
doth acknowledge it The word apostolos therefore signifying properly any Messenger as he must also confesse it is more then probable even necesssarie to construe those words humoon apostolon your Messenger or at least to take them in this sense that he is called their Apostle because he was their Imbassadour sent by them to the Apostle unless some necessarie reason can be produced to demonstrate the contrary Now what saith the Doctor in this case Hath he any sentence or syllable from the text it self or any other scripture to justify any one of his Assertions viz. that Epaphroditus was their Bishop that he is therefore called their Apostle no such matter What then Forsooth it appeareth by diverse of Ignatius his epistles that when the Churches sent one vpoÌ„ a ChristiaÌ„ Imbassage the Bishop was coÌ„monly intreated to take that Embassage upon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were upon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their Bishop vndertook that voyage He being therefore both their Bishop and their Imbassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that he was their Imbassadour I answere 1. may I not say that the Churches then sent forth their Bishops as the Apostles sent forth Peter Act. 8. 14. the Church Barnabas Act. 11. 22 2. Touching Ignatius Epistles will the D. stil presume upon the credulitie of his reader to take his bare word for proofe that the Churches in his time sent their Bishops in Embassage only upon intreatie There is small cause he should trust upon it when his reader shall vnderstand that he learned this evasion of BellaÌ„rmin The Doct. learnetn a shift of Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 16. who with this shift putteth off that argument which our Divines urge against Peters primacie from Act. 8. 14. where he is sayd to be sent with Iohn by the rest of the Apostles unto SamariÌ„a 3. And touching Epaphroditus seing he presumeth also that his word wil be taken in stead of better proofe that he was in like manner intreated to take the journey he deserveth to heare from me that which Bellarmin doth froÌ„ Doct. Whitakers de pont Rom. quest 2. pag. 260. Num adeum Philippenses supplices venerunt cnm eo precibus egerunt ut mitteree aliquem Romam si minus placeret ipsi proficisci nil eiusmodi habetur even this in effect there is no such matter Mr D. But be it that he went by their intreatie as Timothy at S. Pauls intreaty remayned at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1. 3. May the Church of Welles or rather of Canterburie for Philippi was Metropolis Macedonia as aferwards he telleth us pag. 71. send their Bishop abroad by the like intreatie upon the like busynes to wit to convey their benevolence unto some Bishop or person of great note that is a prisoner as Paul was at that time Who seeth not that even this Embassage argueth he was not a Bishop of that degree dignity that one of our Bishops bear at this day Moreover to pass by for the present his begging the questioÌ„ in asfirming him to be their Bp. if he were both their The Doct. beggeth againe Bishop and Embassadour is it not more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Imbassadour seing the word importeth so much then for that he was their Bp but he hath better probabilities in store to prove the coÌ„trarie let us givehim hearing It is unlikely saith he that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himself is the Apostle of our profession should be used in Sect. 8. ad pag. 66. 67. the Scriptures to signify the Messengers of men Is it vnlikely why doth he not knowe that the offices of pastors and deacons are also sacred functions and that Christ himself is intitled our Shepheard and Pastor of our Soules Iohn 10. 16. 1. Pet. 5. 25. and the diaconos minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. â— notwithstanding it is certeine that both these names poimen diaconos are given in the Apostolicall writings to Feildshepheards and servants of men Luc. 8. 8. 15. 18. 20. Iohn 2. 5. 9. In like manner though the word aggelos be the name of that sacred functioÌ„ of the celestiall spirits and communicated even vnto Christ himselfe Act. 7. 35. 38. Revel 10. 1. 5. yet it is given also in the Holy Scriptures vnto the messengers of men Iam. 2. 25. where Rahab is sayd to have received tous aggelous the messengers and sent them out another way It is apparant therefore that neyther the holynes of the Apostolike functioÌ„ nor the worthines of Christs person or office can yeild any probable argument to justify the Doctors affirming it to be unlikely that the word apostolos should be used in the scriptures to signify the messengers of men But heare we him again he addeth that in both places Phil. 2. 25. and 2. Cor. 8. 23. the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had bene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches But a small How small soever the commendation seemeth in the Doct. eyes who esteemeth basely of the church in comparison of their Bishop yet is it otherwise in their eyes see Heming Hyper in 2. Cor. 8. who concurre with us in the translation of both texts among whom are many the translators of our Church-bibles former later whom he dareth not accuse Iam sure to be parties with us in this controversie But what speak I of their judgment seing we have the Apostles own testimony that having given to one this high coÌ„mendation his praise is in the gospel throughout all the Churches doth yet enlarge his praise in saying not that onely but he was also chosen of the Churches to traveile with us with this grace which is administred by us c. 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. and therefore also he signifieth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he would not send those that were to carry the benevolence of the Corinths unto Ierusalem without their letters of commendations And by these testimonies of the Apostle we see the falsehood of that which he assumeth in his last reason specially fitted to prove that they in 2. Cor. 8. 23. were not called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their Messengers viz. that they were not sent by the Churches But let us look upon the colour he setteth vpon this vntruth it is evident saith he that Paul himself sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2. 10. so had he undertaken to procure a supply for relâ—ife of the brethren in Iudea And â—o that end having deâ—lt before with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two othersÌ„ to receive their contribution All which I graunt but hold it a very lame consequence and such as the Doctor with all his learning will never be able
to cure when he thus reasoneth Those two that accōpanied Titus were sent by Paul who had vndertaken to procure some releif for the poore brethrē in Iudea Ergo they were not sent by the Churches whose contribution they carried He falsly conceiveth that Paul was as high-minded as some Bishops now are who scorn to associate any others with them in the choise of such as they send abroad For we learn from Pauls owne mouth that he was of an other mind he saith expressly that one of those two whom he sent was chosen by the Churches to be his fellow-traveiler to convey their benevolence 2. Cor. 8. 19. and his foredealing with the Corinthes sheweth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he meant not to send any other with theire contribution then such as they should choose and approve by letters The Refuters first reason being thus recovered out of the Doct. handes and mainteyned against all his exceptions his interpretation Sect. 9 ad sect 14. pa. 69. will stand firme enough as having both the circumstances of the text it self and the use of the like phrase also here to justifie it although his 2. reason should be found too weake Notwithstanding I doubt not but to make it good if the Refuter may have that favour which reason alloweth to every one I meane to interprete his owne meaning so as the wordes may well beare without wresting or contradiction to any parte of his writing The reason is this Is standeth not so well with the propertie of the word apostolos which signifieth a Messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to Whome as his from whom he is sent Against this the Doctor directly opposeth not for though he say that in the Scripture the word is used with reference aswell to the parties to whome as to the partie from whom the Apostle is sent yet the truth thereof argueth not the Refuters assertion to be false For he shall bewray his own ignorance or want of judgment if he presse this for a good cōsequence The word is used with reference aswell to the one as to the other Therefore both phrases of speach doe equally and alike agree with the proper signification of the word For if both phrases have a like agremēt with the proper signisicatiō of the word then in both the word may be with a like fitnes translated Messenger but that were absurd for though wee may fitly lay of Paul or any other called the Apostle of Christ 1. Cor. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 1. 1. Iude verse 17. that he was the Messenger or Embassadour of Christ yet were it a very improper and unfitting phrase of speach to say of Paul that he vvas the Messenger or Embassadour of Gentiles when he intitleth himselfe ethnoon apostolos the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. To speak properly he was not their Apostle but Christs vocatus a Christo principaliter vt esset Doctor gentium as Piscator observeth upon those words and himself sheweth 1. Tim. 2. 2. 7 2. Tim. 1. 11. Where it is sayd that unto Paul was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision Gal. 2. 7. May we with as good regard to the proper sense of the word evaggelion gospell call his gospell the uncircumcised Iewes gospel as we may call it Gods gospel from those words Rom. 1. 1. where he saith he was separated to preach the gospel of God It is cleare that in these places Rom. 11. 13. and Gal. 2. 7. as also in the verse following where Peter is sayd to have the Apostleship of the circumcision the genetive case must be interpreted eyther by the dative as in the first I am the Apostle of the Gentiles that is to or for the Gentiles as he sayth 1. Cor 9. 2. if I be not an Apostle allois unto others yet doubtlesse I am humin to you or else by an equivalent phrase as the Apostle interpreteth himself Gal. 2 8. 9. Q. d. to me was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision to Peter the gospel or Apostleship of the circumcision that is to say to me was cōmitted the dispensation of the gospell cis ta ethne vnto or towards the Gentiles and to Peter the like dispensation or Apostleship eis ten peritomen towards the circumcision What cause then hath the Doctor to insult over the Refuter saying that whiles he goeth about to discover his ignorance as if he knew not the signification of the word apostolos as well as he he bewrayeth his owne For wherein bewrayeth he is own ignorance Perhaps in saying that among all the titles that Paul taketh to himselfe to magnify his office he never calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle taking the word in his proper signification of a Messenger or Imbassadour For the Doct. himself confesseth that when the Apostle calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. he useth the word with reference unto the parties to whom he was sent which argueth the Apostles meaning to be this not that he was their Messenger but that he was Christs Imbassadour sent to them If he shall yet urge that those words may warrant him to say that Paul was their Apostle I graunt it but withall he must knowe that in so saying the word Apostle doth not now signify a Messenger but a Teacher or Minister of the word holding that peculiar function which the 12 Apostles enjoyed If the Doctor know not this it is grosse ignorance in him if knowing it he shall yet indeavour to justify his cēsure given forth against the Refut it wil be enough in the judgement of the indifferent reader I doubt not to prove himself to be but a wrangler Having sayd enough in defence of the Refuter for both his reasons Sect. 10. ad pag. 70. we are now to take notice how that which the Doct. addeth to vnderpropp his owne Assertion is too feeble to stay it up from falling Even as saith he Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all Ministers sent of God but used with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the. 7. Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same Churches so Apostoli absolutely used is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall Rom. 16. 7. though kat hexochen given to Paul Barnabas Acts. 14. 14. and the 12. Apostles but used with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops Here the Doctor deserveth to be answered with his owne words viz. that while he goeth about to discover his Refuters ignorance as though
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
in this sort If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certeyne place then neither had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certeyne place Ergo neyther had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem The Doctors answer is that he hath shewed sufficient reason why he should not graunt the consequence in setting downe the difference between Iames and the rest of the Apostles But are the differences such as he can and will mainteyne that they necessarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop and the rest nor otherwise they neyther are nor can be a sufficient reason of his deniall of the cosequence Let us therfore peruse them First he saith that Iames herein differeth from the rest that to him at the first the Church of Ierusalem was assigned I answer that an assignement to the oversight of one Church maketh not a Bishop unlesse he be also confined unto it alone and that for perpetuitie But the Doctor can never prove that Iames was so coÌ„fined to the charge of the Church of Ierusalem Moreover we have better evidence for Pauls assignement to the Church of Corinth Act. 18. 9. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9. 2. 2. Cor. 10. 13. then can be alleadged for Iames his assignemeÌ„t to Ierusalem And if we may beleeve the D. he telleth us pag. 52. that at what time Iames was assigned to Ierusalem the rest were assigned also to their circuite one to one part and an other to an other This first difference therefore is eyther none at all or not such as can give the function of a Bishop to the one and deny it to all the rest Secondly the Doctor addeth that Iames did not traveile as the rest from one country to an other being not confined to one province But it is shewed in the former section that Iames was neyther confined to Ierusalem nor debarred from traveil abroad and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth will confine some others to certeine countryes as Thomas to Parthia Andrewe to Scythia and Iohn to Asia no lesse then Iames to Ierusalem And let me aske him what proofe he can make worthy of credit that Matthew Matthias and Iames that was martyred at Ierusalem Act. 12. 2. spent their daies in traveil froÌ„ one country to an other And if Iames be to reckoned a Bishop because he rested at Ierusalem when others traveiled from place to place why he should deny the rest to be also properly Bishops when they took up some speciall place to rest in as he sayth Iohn did at Ephesus c. specially seing the fathers intitle them Bishops of those places where they rested Thirdly an other difference he noteth scz that wheras the other Apostles having planted Churches when they sawe their time coÌ„mitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames coÌ„mitted the Church of Ierusalem to no other But can he tell us to what Bishops the Churches of Iconium Lystra Derbe Antioch in Pisidia and sundry others planted by Paul were coÌ„mitted For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches which being planted by him received no other Bishop to governe them if this reason proveth Iames to be the Bishop of Ierusalem The consequence therefore of the argument abovesayd is nothing weakned by the differences which the Doctor putteth betwene Iames and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth Notwithstanding that the reader may see how grossely he erreth in combyning these two functions of an Apostle a Bishop in one person I will here propose some of the reasons which D. Sutlif a zealous mainteyner of the episcopall governmeÌ„t hath pressed against Peters supposed Bishoprick at Rome De pont lib. 2. cap. 10. The Apostles saith he and Pastors or Bishops properly so called are â—o distinguished that an Apostle is one thing and a Pastor or Bishop is another Sect. 6. He hath given us as saith Paul Ephes 4. 11. some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers What can be spoken more cleerely he hath given some Apostles others Pastors and Teachers quosdam dedit Apostolos alios autem Pastores et Doctores Wherefore as he concludeth concerning Peter so doe I concerning Iames if Iames were an Apostle he could not be a Bishop Pastor to speak properly vnlesse we will confound both the gifts of Christ and membra dividentia the members of the division set down by the Apostle 2. The Apostles had this priviledge that they were called sent by Chrst iÌ„mediately Mark 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops it is farre otherwise they were not called iÌ„mediately of God but by men Paul prescribeth lawes vnto Timothâ— what manner of men were to be chosen Bishops warneth him to lay no hands suddenly upon any man 1. Tim. 3. 2. and 5. 21. Seing therefore Iames was by Christ alone not by men called chosen and ordeyned wheÌ„ce could he have a Bishoprick given him As for those Fathers which say that Iames was by his fellow-Apostles ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem we have already Cap. sect 22. heard Doctor Sutliffs answer this onely now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop seing he saith that Iames receyved the episcopall power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo as is also before shewed cap. 5. sect 13. 14. 3. The office of Bishops is farre inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it for the Apostles ordeyned Bishops heard their causes c. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonicall scriptures and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into al truth Iohn 14. 26. 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative for there were none more greivous schismes raised in the Church neyther any more foul heresyes sprang from any then froÌ„ Bishops Wherefore seing Iames was an Apostle quid opus erat ut quasi capite diminutus ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem velut Patritius ad plebem transiret I might adde his 4. and 9. arguments but because they come nere to things already urged I passe them over onely that it may appeare he putteth no difference betwene Peter and Iames in the limitation of their ministrie as the D. doth I will close up all with that which he hath elswhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec Iohannem nec Iacobum Apostoluns propriâ— dicimus fuisse Episcopum rationeÌ„que hanc reddidimus quia Apostolici officij â—ines nullâ— eranâ— Episcopi aut em suas habuere certas dioceses et provincias Yea saith he we say not that the Apostle Iohn or Iames was a Bishop properly we have rendred this reason for it that there were no bounds or limitts of the Apostolicall function whereas Bishops had their certeine diocesâ—s and provinces Which reason seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at as being vnable to answer it I hope the
he supposeth Iames and his successors to be no for then he should throttle his owne answer to Doct. Whitakers first argument pag. 57. where he flatly denieth any of the Apostles Iames excepted to be properly Bishops And by his distinctioÌ„ of the times both here and page 52 he playnly signifyeth that the indefinite commission of the Apostles to goe into all the world received no limitation till by the Holy Ghosts direction they dispersed themselves some into one part of the world and some into an other What then When plaine dealing will not help an aequivocating answer must serve the turne As though saith he the charge of the Apostles is not by the Holy Ghost called episcope Act. 1. 20. that is Bishoprick And as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes As though say I the holy Ghost doth not use the word episcope when he so entileth the charge function of the Apostles Act. 1. 20. in a larger sense for an vniversall and unlimited Bishoprick then the word episcope episcopoâ— is taken eyther in other parts of the apostolical writings as 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. when it is applyed to such as had the standing charge of one Church or in the Doctors understanding when the name of Bishop or Bishoprick is given to Iames and his successors And as though Iames did not receive a great change in regard of his charge and function when being at the first an Apostle absolutely he was made the Bishop of one particular Church by his assignement to Ierusalem As though also the Doctor did not at unawares justify his refuters assumption in graunting that Iames before his assignmeÌ„t to the particular charge of IerusaleÌ„ was an Apostle absolutely For if he were absolutely an Apostle whiles he ruled the Church of Ierusalem in coÌ„mon with the rest of the Apostles then they also in that time were absolutely Apostles and consequently their charge there was not the charge of Diocesan Bishops but of Apostles as the Refuter affirmeth Wherefore unlesse he will recall that which as yet he standeth forth to mainteyne viz. that the charge which Iames had in particular for the government of the Church at Ierusalem was the same and no other then that the Apostles before had in coÌ„mon he must bear the losse of all his laboâ—r in pleading for Iames his Bishoprick for it will followe necessarily upon the premisses of the argument before set downe that Iames his charge at Ierusalem was the charge not of a diocesan Bishop but of an Apostle And thus much shall suffice concerning Iames let us now heare what the D. can say for the Bishopricks of Tim Titus Chap. 8. Answering the first 8. Sections of the Doctors 4. chap. lib. 4. and shewing that Timothy and Titus were not ordeyned Bishops as the Doctor supposeth FRom Ierusalem the Doctor traveileth to Ephesus and to Creet Sect. 1 ad sect 1. pag. 74. of the Doct. in hope to shewe the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops And that first out of the scriptures for so he promiseth pag. 72. of his sermon And to make it good he saith That it is apparant by the epistles of S. Paul to Timothy and Titus that he had ordeyned Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creete the epistles themselves being the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function For as the Apostles had coÌ„mitted unto them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination and iurisdiction which in the epistles is preâ—upposed so doth he by those epistles informe them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function first in respect of ordination as Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 2. 22 and secondly in regard of iurisdiction as 1. Tim. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 19. 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Titus 1. 10. 11. and 3. 9. These are his wordes and the very pith of his arguments Where first let the reader observe that he bindeth himselfe to mainteyne this assertion viz. that it is apparant by the epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit. that he had ordeyned the one Bishop of Ephesus and the other Bishop of Creete Which if he had as soundly confirmed as he did confidently vndertake actum esset de certamine the controversy had soone bin ended But how should this be made apparant by S. Pauls epistles when he neither doth nor can produce from thence any one word that soundeth that way Yea it repenteth him as it seemeth that he had said It is apparant by his epistles for in his defence to prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus Creet he maketh this his first reason pag. 74. because in his epistles written to them it is presupposed that they were by him ordeyned Bishops of those Churches and the Antecedent he proveth pag. 75. by this argument because it is presupposed in the epistles that the Apostle had committed to them episcopall authority both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Whereas if he had stuck close to the wordes of his sermon in dissolving as now he will needes his first sentence into a two fold reason he should have argued thus It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that the Apostle had coÌ„mitted episcopall authoritie to them both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction c. Ergo it is apparant by those epistles that he had ordeyned them Bishops But though he sawe it he was ashamed to be seene to The Doct. reasoneth loosely changeth his termes and argumentes and then taxeth his Refuter for not answering his argument argue thus loosely and as we have often done so againe must wee give him leave to change at his pleasure not onely his termes or phrases but also his very arguments But when he taketh this liberty he wrongeth his Refuter against all equitie to taxe him as he doth both here and hereafter pag. 78. lin 16. for not answering his argument For who can answer an objection before he heare it And who that considereth the tenour of his first sentence before set downe would haue dreamed a twofold reason to be infolded therein Nay who would not have judged as the Refuter did that the later clause had bene a confirmation of the former But to take his arguments as he hath nowe tendred them when he saith It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul had ordeyned theÌ„ Bishops of Ephesus and Creete if his meaning be that their ordination to the episcopall charge of those Churches is presupposed by the Apostle in his epistles written to them I utterly reject his assertion as a false presupposall or rather forgerie of his owne which hath no warrant from any line or letter in those epistles And to his proofe thereof viz. because it is presupposed in those epistles that the Apostle
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-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
commandements given to Timothy were to be performed by such as succeeded him in the same office Mr Calvin saith he vnderstandeth in the name of the cōmandement those things whereof he had hitherto discoursed concerning the office of Timothy And doe not we also understand the things or works given in charge under the name of the commandement Neyther deny we that those things belonged to the office or ministery of Timothy Yet we refuse that succession in the same ministeriall function which the Doct. would wring if he could tell how out of Pauls charge to performe the things so cōmanded untill Christs second cōming 2. True it is that T. C. and others finding among other precepts in Pauls epistles to Timothy this that the governing Elders are to be honoured as well as the Teachers doe from thence conclude the continuance of both functions and why should they not since the continuance of Bishops and Deacons is of all interpreters rightly gathered frō the rules that are layd down concerning their functions 1. Tim. 3. the former being no less ordinary and perpetually necessary then the later Yet the continuance of Timothy his office cannot be concluded vpon the same ground till it may appeare that his function was also perpetuall and not extraordinary 3. As for the testimony of Ambrose it nothing helpeth the Doctor except it be to shewe how grosly he plaieth the Sophister in thus arguing S. Paul in his words 1. Tim. 6. 14. hath regard unto Timothees successors that they after his example might continue the wel ordering of the Church So saith S. Ambrose Ergo in his understanding saith the Doct. he meant such as succeeded Timothy in the same office As though the Fathers did confound the offices of Apostles Evangelists with those Pastors Bishops which succeeded them in the rule and government of the Churches because they say the later were successors to the former 4. His reason followeth now to be examined Whatsoever authority is perpetually necessary and such as without which the Church neyther can be governed nor yet continued the same is not peculier to extraordinary persons or to die with them but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in their successors But the authority committed to Timothy and Titus was perpetually necessary and such as without which the Church neyther can be governed as without jurisdiction nor continued as without ordination Therefore the authority committed to them was not peculiar to them as extraordinary persons but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those that succeeded them Wherevnto I answer as before if he speak of successiō at large in authority onely he wandreth from the question If of succession in the same office I disclaime the later braunch of the proposition for all men knowe by the perpetuity of Pastorall authority by which the word and sacraments are still continued in the Church whereas the dispensation of these holy things was first committed by Christ to the Apostles Math. 28. 19. 20. that the perpetuall necessity of an authority to performe this or that ministeriall work doth not necessarily require any to succeed in the same function that first enjoyed that authority And this is so evident a truth that rather then the Doctor will contradict it he will become non-suite in this point and perswade his Reader if he can that succession in authority onely which was never denyed is sufficient for his purpose the contrary whereof is before sufficiently made manifest To follow him therfore in the defence of his propositiō he saith Sect. 12. ad sect 8. pag 85. it is grounded on this hypothesis that diocesan Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus and therefore reasoneth thus If the successors of Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successors were written to informe diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothy Titus were diocesan Bishops Therefore those things that were written to informe their successors were written to informe diocesan Bishops Here the Doctor is againe to be advertised that the true hypothesis of the former proposition is this that diocesan Bishops not onely de facto were but also de jure ought to have been successors vnto Timothy Titus in the exercise of their authority therefore the consequence of the later proposition which mencioneth their succession de facto onely is too weake for vnless it were certeine that S. Paul intended that diocesan Bishops should succeede them his writing of purpose to direct their successors cannot argue that he meant by them to informe diocesan Bishops It had bin fit therefore the Doctor had shewed from some wordes of the Apostle in these epistles or from some other Scriptures that the Apostle aymed at the successiō of such Bishops but this was too hard a task for him and therefore he perswadeth his reader that their succession de jure cannot be denied if their succession de facto be proved Which he indeavoreth by two arguments First by this disiunction Either diocesan Bishops were their successors or the presbyteries or the whole congregation But neyther the presbyteries nor the whole congregation Ergo diocesan Bishops As for the last member of this disiunction it is absurdly added by the Doctor howsoever he would seem to haue done it to please his Ref for although he say that the right was in the church yet he giveth the execution to the presbytery of each congregatiō neyther yet is he so to be vnderstood as if he denied a preheminence for order sake vnto some one to be the mouth of the rest in executing that which was by the whole presbytery decreed Which preheminence as it did by right belonge to Timothy Titus in regarde of their Evangelisticall function during their stay in those places so it was devolved after their departure to him that was primus presbyter or proestoos president of the presbyters that is to say in each congregation to the Pastor and in a Synode or assembly of the Pastors and presbyters of many Churches to that one which with the consent choyse of his brethren moderated the action If therefore he speak of successors vnto Timothy Titus in that speciall presidencie which they held at Ephesus and in Creete his disiunction is to be disclaimed as insufficient because it wanteth the mētion of such a president as we give to each presbyterie and Synode His second argument followeth in this forme Those who succeeded Timothy and Titus in the government of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothy Titus in the government of those Churches Therefore they viz. Diocesan Bishops were their successors Well may you see the Doct. would faine be thought to be rich The Doct. is poore proveth idem pe◠idem when in deed he is poore For is this argument any better then a beggerly proving of the point denyed by the self
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
argument to another in shewe is but to dazell the eyes of his reader that he might not discerne his grosse begging For in effect this is all he can say They were furnished with episcopall power therefore their authoritie was episcopall or S. Paul made them Bishops and therefore they were Bishops of his ordeyning As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. 16. viz whether it be perpetually necessary that the sway of the ecclesiasticall authoritie should be in one and what forme of Church-government is to be preferred as the best I forbeare to follow him in those digressions His resolution to the former being negative doth scarce accord with the conclusion of his last argument which affirmeth that such governors as were Timothy Titus in his opinion furnished with episcopall power are much more necessarie after the Apostles death then in their life time But his resolutioÌ„ to the later is grouÌ„ded on such a reason as wil put life againe into the same if there were an undoubted truth in it For could he prove the Monarchicall government of Bps to be of divine institutioÌ„ as he affirmeth it would follow not onely that it is the best forme of Church-government but also necessarily to be continued And as I nothing feare to graunt him that consequence so I knowe he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopall function He hath sought for it first in the Angels of the 7. chueches then in Pauls approbation of Archippus Epaphroditus he proceeded to Iames his presidence at Ierusalem now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordeyning Timothy Titus to the function of Bishops In all which disputations of his I have clearely shewed that the scriptures give him no colour for his assertion We are therefore now ready to listen to those testimonies of antiquity which if we might beleeve him with a generall coÌ„sent beare witnes to his assertion that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Creet Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquitie alleadged by the Doctor to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet FIrst he alleadgeth the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Sect. 1. ad sect 17. pa. 105. epistle to Titus of the second to Timothy wherein the one is sayd to have bin ordeyned the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans Being asked by his Refuter whether he thought them to be of the Canon or added by the Apostle he signifieth that he is not of that opinion Whence I inferre that their evidence can never justify his maine purpose which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution But he saith It is certeine they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter other disciplinarians would make them If it be certeine their antiquity is great their credit very good why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certeinty First for their antiquity they deserve not that preheminence which he giveth them to be heard before Eusebius the rest of the fathers which he alleadgeth for the authors of the most ancient Syriac and the old latin translations found no mencion of an episcopall ordination bestowed on Timothy Titus in the greek copies which they followed And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter imbraced doe fully accord in the subscriptioÌ„ of all the former epistles with those latter copies into which that clause of that Bishoprick was foisted in If therefore their credit have not some better support then their antiquity their evidence is little worth The Doct. greatest labour in defense of their credit is to remove out of the way his Refuters objection who saith The subscription set vnder the epistle to Titus affirming it to be written from Nicopolis is contrary to Pauls owne words Titus 3. 12. because of Paul had been at Nicopolis when he wrote after this charge given vnto Titus Indeavor to come to me to Nicopolis he would not have sayd â—kei gar kekâ—â—ka c. for there but rather entautha here I have determined to winter The Doctor paveth the way to his answer with this preface In deed saith he if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would have respected their censures but the Cavillations of the disciplinarians against them are to be rejected You may see how partiall the Doctor is who yet would seeme to hate partiallity and how little credit these subscriptions have with the D who therefore hath resolved to give them what grace he can because they are disciplinarians who have disgraced them The Rhemists may freely controull the subscriptions of sundry other epistles because they are not parties in this cause see their Argument on 1. Cor. 2. Cor. Gal. 1. and 2. Thess and 1. Tim. for the place whence the epistles were sent But Mr. Beza can have no indifferent hearing his reasons are but Cavillations But heare I pray how the Doctor confuteth him If you will saith he consider with me that Paul being as usually he was in peregrination Titus could not tell where he was Paul therefore being at Nicopolis wrote as any discreet maÌ„ would in the like case Come to me to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him Titus might have sayd where Paul as being vncerteine where Paul was whither himselfe was to goe It seemeth the Doctor eyther did not consider or would not take notice 1. that it was needlesse for Titus to be informed where Paul was at the writing of this epistle seing he was not to goe presently to him but to make himselfe ready to come upon a new message as these words declare when I shall send Artemas to thee or Tichicus be diligent to come to me 2. that Paul his being then in peregrination as the D. conceiveth doth very probably argue the contrarie to that which he collecteth to wit that as yet he was not come to Nicopolis were he resolved to spend the winter and to wait for Titus his coÌ„ming thither But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the coÌ„mon judgement of such as are discreet I very willingly submit the triall of this difference to the discreet reader which observeth in the writings and speaches of them that are discreet the different use of these adverbs hic illic here there whether it stand with discretion 1. for the K. Almner which followeth the court when he is at Greenewich to send for one of his followers with the like words When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee then come thou vnto me to Greenewich for there I meane to winter or rather thus for here I meane to winter 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters if
over all the Churches of any kingdome or countrie we have reason to think that Titus his cōmission was extraordinarie In deed Theodoret on 1. Tim. 3. and Chrysostom Hom. 10. on 2. Tim. doe give as large jurisdiction to Timothy as to Titus yea farre more large esteeming him to have the charge of all in Asia as Titus had in Creta But Chrysostome plainely signifyeth that this was extraordinary for of Titus he sheweth that how soever Paul cōmitted so great a charge to him because he was one of his companions a man of whose fidelitie he had good proofe in whom he put much confidence Hom. 1. in epist ad Tit. yet it was never his meaning that his burthen should lye by continuall succession on the shoulders of any one man Hom. 2. in Tit. 1. 5. Per civitates inquit neque enim voluit Insulam totam vni viro permitti sed unicuique propriam curam ac solicitudinem indici c. If then Titus his cōmission to Creta was but Temporarie when Eusebius giveth to Timothy at Ephesus the self-same Overseer-ship or Bishoprick if you will the self same I say or the like for his power and function with that which Titus had over all the Churches in Creta When also Chrysostome some others doe match them in extent of jurisdiction extraordinary doth not the Doctor argue loosely in drawing their testimony to justify that peculiar function of a diocesan Bishop which he giveth unto Timothy and Titus Especially seing it is evident by Eusebius his owne wordes lib. 3. cap. 31. 32. that he acknowledgeth the first and neerest successors of the Apostles among whom he reckoneth Timothy and Titus to be for the most part Evangelists and plainely distinguisheth them from others which were more properly Pastors or Bishops And we have before observed out of Dorotheus that Timothy had no setled continuance at Ephesus as Bishops have on that one Church whereto they are affixed Ambrose also maketh S. Paul a fellow Bishop with Timothy when on 1. Tim. 1. 3. he giveth this note Obsecrat episcopus coepiscopum suum And Hierome though he gave the name of a Bishop unto Titus allotteth to him the peregrination of an Evangelist in saying if the Catalogue of ecclesiasticall writers in his first tome be his that he preached the gospell aswell in the Ilands lying round about as in Creta it selfe and that the Apostle did therefore call him away from Creta quia eum haberet necessarium in evangelij ministerium because he was necessarie for him for the ministery of the gospell Hieron in Tit. 3. The Refuters third answer therefore viz. that the scripture calleth Sect. 4. ad pag. 120. Timothy an Evangelist even after he was sent to Ephesus 2. Tim. 4. 5. is so farre from being contradicted by the fathers that it receiveth approbation from some of those whom the Doctor would draw to his side And whereas he addeth that if they had generally affirmed him to be a Bishop properly it cannot be of force to teach us contrary to the scriptures to acknowledge his episcopall function he speaketh but the truth neyther can the Doctor for shame directly contradict him in so saying yet rather then he will faile to make a shewe of impugning this answere he perverteth it to an other purpose then was meant saying It is all one with the second objection already answered viz that the scripture calleth Timothy an Evangelist and therefore he was no Bishop but the best is if that had bene so I hope the objection is sufficiently mainteyned against the D. answer As for the newe writers whom he alleadgeth pag. 110. for a new supply to concurre with the Fathers for the justifying of that Bishoprick which he ascribeth to Timothy and Titus his friendes may wonder at his impudency that can doe this without blushing Mr Calvin he saith the authors of the Centuries doe affirm that Timothy was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesus he should have added with all proved that by the name of a Pastor they meane a Diocesan Bp such as ours But the cōtrary is manifest first by the cold allowance which the authors of the Centuries give to Timothyes Bishoprick Cent. 1. lib. 2. col 614. when they say they can finde no certeintie in any approved writer quomodo aut quamdiu after what manner and how long Ephesianae ecclesiae Doctor gubernator prefuerit he was teacher and governour of the Church of Ephesus But especially by that which Mr Calvin saith on 2. Tim. 4. 5. to prove that Paul there speaketh of the office of an Evangelist 1. that there was such a speciall function mentioned Ephes 4. 11. betweene the Apostles and Pastors that were the second helpers to the Apostles 2. that the Evangelists excelled the Pastors in degree and dignitie of office 3. that it is most probable Timothy was one of them and not of the Pastors 4. that Paull in the honourable mencion of that his office respected both his incouragement and the commendation of his authoritie to others As for that presidencie which D. Fulk giveth on Tit. 1. 5. to Timothy and Titus I most freely subscribe unto it and yet reject that episcopall superioritie which the Doctor taking part with the Rhemists in their Annotations contendeth for in them In like manner I say with Beza that Timothy was the proestoos but that a president of a presbytery is according to Bezaes language a Bishop that is to say a Diocesan Bishop such as ours as the Doct. would have the reader to conceive it is so foul an untruth that he cannot without check of conscience avouch it seing he cannot be ignorant that Beza every where disclaimeth that sole and singular preheminence which the Doctor with the Romanists ascribe to Timothy and Titus Yea he flatly impugneth Timothies Bishoprick and that in most plaine termes in his Annot. on 1. Tim. 3. voluit eum Paulus ferente necessitate Ephesi subsistere non vt illi ecclesiae tanquam episcopus addictus esset sed vt ecclesia constituta pseudapostolis occurrere◠vnde etiam postea revocatus est romam ab ipso Apostolo neque constat an Timotheus postea sit Ephesum reversus vt qui fuerit Evangelista c. Paul would have him necessity requiring it to be at Ephesus not to be fixed as the Bishop to that Church but that the Church being constitute he might meet with the false Apostles from whence also he was afterwardes called to Rome by the same Apostle neyther is it certaine whether Timothy afterwards returned to Ephesus as he that was an Evangelist c. Thus having discovered the Doct. deceitfull and dishonest dealing with his owne witnesses and his weak handling of the whole controversie I hope I may be bolde with the Readers consent to conclude that the Doctors assumption touching Tim and Titus viz. that they were ordeyned to the function of diocesan Bishops by S. Paul the one at Ephesus the other in
Creta hath as yet received no firme support no not from humane evidence much lesse from the holy scriptures Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius Linus Mark Simeon others whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient Sect. 1. ad sect 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops which if we should wholly overpasse in silence we should neyther wrong him nor the cause seing the records of men subject to error drincking in many errors through oversight or want of judgment cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand as hath bin often observed But because he glorieth though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence we will enter into a neerer search after the truth make no doubt but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader both the falshood of some of his records and his false or deceitful handling of the rest And first he beginneth with Antioche vvhich as he saith serm pag. 81. had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno 45 and Hist lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat ad Antioche I ansvver there are many parts of S. Lukes sacred â—â—ory that vvith hold us from acknovvledging any such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ and yet there is no mencion of Evodius much lesse of his Bishoprick After the death of Herod vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho and. 45. of Christ as Euseb accounteth in Chron. an 45. Paul and Barnabas returned froÌ„ Ierusalem to Antioch Acts. 12. 23. 25 at which time there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there by whose imposition of hands Paul Barnabas were seperated to the work wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there And if Peter had gone after his imprisonment to Antioch there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch they gathered the Church togither and rehearsed all that God had done by them there aboade a long time with the disciples cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there grew that dissention about circumcision which occasioned that meeting at Ierusalem to end the question Cap. 15. 1. 2. c. where was Evodius all this while was he a non-resident from his charge had he bin the Bishop of Antioch and there resident how is it that we heare nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne and of their relating to him as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ierusalem Cap. 21. 18. 19. the successe of their traveiles why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy eyther with or against Paul and Barnabas why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes then their Bishop for which part soever he tooke it was necessary for the Churches instruction in all succeeding ages that as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. 3. so he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth after the the Synode was ended Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche aâ—d letters were written not to the Bishop but to the brethren of the Gentiles and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled who rejoyced for the consolation Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time so did Paul Barnabas till they were so styrred that they parted companies vers 32. 35. 39. 40 but before Paul and Barnabas were divided Peter coÌ„ming thither was withstood by Paul to his face for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius worthy the name or place of a Bishop indovved vvith such a singularity of povver and honor above all other Teachers though of an higher degree then Presbyters as loÌ„g as they are vvithin his Diocese If vve may beleeve the Doct pag. 136. lib. 3. ought not he to have interposed his episcopall authority in coÌ„manding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles and in appeasing those contentions vvhich arose betvveene Paul and Peter and betvveene Barnabas and Paul vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction Surely vvhat ever the D. conceiveth of these matters who can perswade themselves that S. Luke and S. Paul would have buried in silence the name office and indeavours of Evodius if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul to the Bishoprick of Antioch As for Eusebius his Cronicle it doth too much discredit it selfe Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case for it saith that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius which was the. 39. of Christ placed his chaiâ—e at Antioch and there sate 25. yeares and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius he removed to Rome and there sat also 25. yeares Because both these computations cannot stand togither the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error and reduced to 7. yeares but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius cannot accord with S. Lukes storie for his continuance in Iudea and his imprisonment by Herod not long before the death of Herod see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis 3. and D. Whit. de pont Rom. quest 3. pag 346. 347. 2. that Peters removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius contradicteth the D. assertion scz that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45 which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius by Eusebius his owne account Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point avouched by Eusebius and Ignatius to wit that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius For a parish-Bishoprick that is the function of a Bishop set over one particular coÌ„gregatioÌ„ is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles but that function of a Diocesan Bishop which the Doct. contendeth for is denyed and worthyly seing it is