such as are nominated elected and presented to any Church 3. to make and ordeyn rules and canons for order and quietnes for diversities of degrees among Ministers c. And that those orders are to be made by the ministers of the Church with the consent of the people before Christian Prince and after Christian Princes with the authority and consent both of Prince and people Againe we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people comitted to their spirituall charge that wheras certeyn men doe imagine and affirme that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome power and authority over all Bishops and Preists in Christs Church c. that it is utterly false and untrue Againe it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neyther in the scripture nor in the wrytings of any authentical Doctor or author in the Church being within the times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or betwene the Bishops themselves but they were equall in power order authority and iurisdiction And that there is now since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops it was divised among the auncient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and vnity of the Catholike church and that eyther by the consent and authority or els 〈◊〉 least by the permissiâ—â— sufferance of the Princes and civill powers for the time rulinge For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees amonge Bishops and spirituall governors This it seemed the D. marked not of the Church so ordeyned some to be Patriarches some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archbishops some Bishops And to them limited not onely several Dioceses or Provinces where they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certayne bounds and limitts of their iurisdiction and power In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles it was lawfull for all Bishops certeyne of them assembling togither to constitute and consecrate other Bishops the sayd Fathers restreyned the sayd power reserved the same in such wise that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitane or Archbishop no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province likewise in other cases their powers were also restreyned for such causes as were then thought vnto them conventent Which differences the sayd holy Fathers thought necessary to enact establish by their decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed or established in the Gospel or mencioned in any canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiastical wryter within the dayes of the Apostles but to the intent that thereby coÌ„tention variance schismes divisions should be avoyded and the Church preserved in good order and concord Loe here their words now obâ—erve we among other things 1. that they joyne togither Bishops and 1. That they make Preists or Bishops all one Preists not onely in the duty of instructing but also in the power of the keyes of bearing the spirituall charge of the people coÌ„mitted to them 2. And in setting downe that headship of the Pope which they disclaime they joyne the Priests with the Bps. of Christs Church affirme his power of claime authoritie froÌ„ Christ over both to be alike false and vntrue 3. they saye that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops spiritual governours of the Church which last words spiritual governors must needs include all Preachers that have spiritual charge as is before noted 4. And as among those degrees ordeyned by them they reckoÌ„ Bishops aswel as Archbishops c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers the limitatioÌ„ of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces yea the limitatioÌ„ of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops which cannot be thought they would ever have done if they had held theÌ„ jure divino 5. And ail this was after that Christians were increased to an infinite multitude throughout the world and in an imitation of the example of like degrees in the old testament not for that any such were established in the newe c. wherfore if the D. had well perused their words with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading he mought have found that whatsoever they speak of the equalitie or superiority of Bps. amonge themselves affirming the one and denying the other to be instituted by Christ the same is to be understood not of such Bishops as had that name proper to them after the Fathers had established sundry differences of degrees but of all apostolike Bishops or spiritual governours preists or preachers which had the spiritual charge of any people coÌ„mitted to them by the Apostles Which appeareth yet more clearely as by that other booke called Reformatio leguÌ„ ecclesiasticaruÌ„ compiled by them wherein it shall appeare anone they make the Bishops in quaestion to be of no other institution then the rest of that ranck of Archbishops ArchdeacoÌ„s Deanes c. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall Stokesley two others of them and therefore fittest to interprete their own meaning writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole S. Ierom say they aswell in his CoÌ„mentary on the Epistle to Titus as in his Epistle to Euagrius sheweth that those primacyes long after Christs ascension were made by the device of men where as before by the coÌ„mon agreement consent of the Clergie every of the Churches were governed yea the Patriarchall Churches The words of S. Ierom are these sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Praesbyteris esse majores And in the margin this note is sett Difference betwixt Bishops Preists how it came in What caÌ„ be more plaine then this to shewe that those Bishops did acknowledge as the ref saith the disparity of Ministers the primacie of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops c. was but a politik divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ Iesus This shall suffice for that testimony before we come to the next it shall not be amisse to speak a word or two coÌ„cerning the D. confession touching the parity of Bishops among themselves but yet restreyning it to the power of order for feare of offending cutting off his Archbishops head But so it falleth out that when men are affraid to what is truth for offending one side they often speak to the offeÌ„ce of the other that so farre as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papall authoritie whiles he denieth what they affirme
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
episcopall preheminence vnto the Presbyters or Bishops there spoken of why may not the Refuter return him the same answere viz. That all his proofes produced to confirme his opinion touching the diocesan jurisdiction and preheminent superiority of the Bishops which governed the ancient Churches doe neyther directly nor necessarily conclude that such diocesan Bishops are to be vnderstood by the Angels of the Churches Apoc. 1. 20 For is not the holy Scripture sufficient to interpret it selfe Or are the rules which divines doe generally imbrace for the interpretation of any text as by waying all circumstances of the text it self comparinge other Scriptures with it where the like wordes or phrases are used are these rules I say too weake or too short to make good that large and powerfull preheminence which he assigneth to these Angels If so may we not justly suspecte his explication to be forced and vnfitting If otherwise why doth he not indeavour to shewe that his constructioÌ„ of the text he handleth is consonant to the circumstances and to other scriptures There be many words in the scripture which may be drawne as the Canon-lawe sayth dist 37. relatum to that sense which every one for the nonce will frame to himself But it should not be so for we must not from without them seek a foreigne and strange sense that so we may as we can confirme it with the authority of the text but the meaning of the truth must be received froÌ„ the scriptures themselves It was the fault of the Manichees as Augustine noteth against Faâ—stus a Manichee Tom. 6. lib. 32. cap. 19 that every ones minde was his authour what to allovv or dissalovv in every text so he vvas not for his faith subject to the scripture but made the script subject to himself that vvch he held did not therfore please him because he found it vvritteÌ„ in so high authority but therfore he thought it vvritteÌ„ because it pleased him But the reader saith Hillary de Trinit lib. 1. is he who rather expecteth the vnderstanding of things from the things themselves then froÌ„ himself imposing it upon them who taketh the exposition from thence rather then bringeth it thither and inforceth not upon the words that sense which before his reading he presumed Which course if the D. had observed he would never have given us this exposition of his text that the angels of the Churches there mentioned were Diocesan Bishops such as ours are or if he had he would have indeavoured to justify it from the text it self and some other scriptures compared and not have boasted so confidently as he doth that the explication of his text is sufficiently proved because he hath shewed undeniably as he supposeth the like Diocesan jurisdiction and superiority to have bene in the Bishops of the primitive Churches that lived in the succeeding ages But that we may yet see how impertinent and superfluous not Sect. 6. ad pag. 58. 59. onely the first and last of his 5. points but the first and last of his 4. brought for proof of his assumption are it shall not be amiss to take a generall viewe of them togither before we come to handle them in particuler even for this purpose to see their impertinencie and thus they lie If there were no other presbyters in the Church but Ministers 2 If the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels were Dioceses properly not parishes 3. If the Angels or Bishops then were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops 4. And â—f the Bishops then were superior to other Ministers in degree c. Then Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But all these 4. pointes in the Antecedent are true Ergo the consequent is true also First I pray the Doctor to tell vs whether the first and last of these 4. pointes doe adde any force or weight at all to the consequent for if there were in the primitive Church no Presbyters but Ministers and the Bishops then were superiour to other Ministers in degree yet will it never a whit the more thence followe that these angels were Diocesan Bishops might they not be parish Bps. onely and have other Ministers or Presbyters under them inferiour in degree unto them which might make a Presbyterie in a Parish Doe they which make the Pastour a degree above the Doctor thereby make the Pastour a Diocesan Bishop Secondly as for the third point is it not a consequent of the second Doth not the D. himself confesse it pag. 3. of his serm might it not therefore well have bin spared Thirdly if the secoÌ„d or third of his foure be granted him doth not the grant thereof putt the fourth out of question It appeareth therefore that the Refuter may still affirme and Two of the D. 5. points are idle and the first 4. conclude another questioÌ„ whatever they conclude two of them at least might be spared that with advantage that the first and last of the D. five pointes are superfluous and idley produced But which is more seing as hath bin shewed all the foure doe conclude another question and not that assumption of his owne syllogism which he saith is proved by them doth he not offer his Refuter the greater wronge in charging him so oft as he doth with aforced analysis yea and that divised â—gâ—inst the light of his conscience to put the partes of his sermon out of the frame For as for the reasons which he urgeth to justify his accusation they are too light and vaine to prevayle with any stayed minde 1. He asketh the Refuter how he could perswade himself that his analâ—ysis was answerable to his genesis when he sawe too partes of the 5. could not be brought to his frame the other three not sutable to it 2. he saith that his owâ—e distribution of his sermon and the transitions which he useth doe wholly disâ—gree with his analysis 3. he addeth that the analysis here propounded by himself and his defense of the severall partes doe manifestly prove that neyther the first was impertinent nor the â—â—st superflous nor the other 3. concluding besides the purpose To begin with the last first I saie that it is already shewed how his owne analysis here propounded doth in many pointes disagree from the project of his sermon in as much as he hath changed both the assertions which he first set downe to be proved and the doctrine which he laboured to confirme whence it fâ—lloweth also that his sâ—cond Syllogisme framed to shewe that his 5. point was not superfluous is it self superfluous and idle In like manner hath bene manifested and that from his owne words that his 4. points doe conclude another question and not that assertion which he saith is proved by them and that whatsoever they conclude two of them at least might have bene spared so that his last too which I The Doct. heapeth up untruth to colour his slander first answere is but
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
be fitly called and was in deed the Bishop of that one nation And he is no lesse deceived in avouching that the charge of that one Church or nation was peculiarly allotted vnto him iÌ„mediately after Sect. 12. Christs passion or at least about the time of their generall dispersion from Ierusalem For besides that these two cannot stand togither there being a good space of time betwixt them as many appeare Act 1. 14. and 9 27. and 11 1. and 12 2 3. he that deligenly observeth the tenour of S. Lukes storie touching the state and government of the Church at Ierusalem shall meet with many presumptions which stronglie argue that for many yeares after Christs passion Iames had no such prerogative eyther of superioritie in order above his fellowe Apostles or of Superintendencie over the presbyters and people of that Church as is thought to be annexed to his episcopall function The first act of note after Christes ascension was the choyse of Matthias into the roome of Iudas wherein the text sheweth that Peter stood up in the middest of the Disciples and proposed the matter to the Assâ—mblie Acts. 1. 15. 26. whence as the Fathers Chrysostome Oecumen in Actes 1. doe gather so our owne writers doe acknowledge that Peter and not Iames had the presidencie Whitak de Pont. pa. 288. Chamier de Oecum pont p. 431. Reynold Conf. cap. 4. Divis 1. 2. In like manner on the day of Pentecost after they had all received the Holy Ghoste Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice Acts. 2. 14. and as the mouth of all answered for all see Chrysost Oecum Marlorat on the place to wype away that infamous slander of drunkennesse wherewith they were all charged At which time he also poured forth those gracious words of reprehension and exhortation which gayned in that day 3000 soules to God Act. 2. 22-41 3. Within a while after the taking a new occasion to preach Act. 3. 12. had such successe that many of his hearers imbraced the faith cap. 4. 4. And this he did when Iohn was in companie with him cap. 3. 1. 4. 11. like as afterwards when they both stood as prisoners before the rulers of the Iewes he so clearly maynteined their innocencie that they were both set at libertie cap. 4. 8. 21. 4. Likewise when the Apostles were all at once brought into question for their preaching Christ Peter as the prolocutor or cheife-speaker maketh the apologie for himselfe the rest cap. 5. 18. 27. 29. 5. Moreover when Ananias Saphyra kept back part of the price of the possession sold and layd downe the remaynder at the Apostles feet their lying and dissimulation was discovered and punished not by Iames but by Peter for at his word they both fell downe dead to the great terrour of all that heard the report thereof cap. 5. 3-10 If therefore this corporall punishment stood then in place of excommunication as some affirme See D. Dove Def of Church-govern pag. 21. it will follow that as before in preaching so here also in censuring of offenders which is deemed one principall part of episcopal prehemineÌ„ce Peter as yet caried a greater stroke theÌ„ Iames or any other the Apostles in the Church at Ierusalem 6. Yea he was had in so high estimatioÌ„ or rather admiratioÌ„ among the multitude for many other miracles wrought by his haÌ„d that they brought their sick layd them down in the streetes that at least his shadow when he passed by might shadow some of them cap. 5. 15. 7. Adde hereunto his râ—sidence at Ierusalem â—o well knowne abroad that Paul 3 yeares after his conversion came thither of purpose to visite Peter and found him there Gal. 1. 17. 19. and though after this he spent some time in other parts of Iudea as at Liâ—da Ioppa Cesarea in every place winning many to the faith cap. 9. 32. 35. 42. 10. 24. 44. yet he returned back to Ierusalem cap. 11. 2. and not long after was there cast into prison cap. 12. 3. 5. Neyther did this drive him after his deliveraÌ„ce thereout wholly to forsake Ierusalem for though for a time he went into an other place cap. 12. 17. yet repaired he thither againe and was there before the Synode that determined that controversy mentioned chapt 15. 7. Wherfore until this time which was about 18. yeares after Christs passion see D. Whitak de pont pag. 345 if any of the Apostles had any standing preheminence above the rest eyther in the ordering of their meetings or in the government of the Church of Ierusalem we haue better warrant to give it unto Peter then the Do can alleadge for Iames or any other So that if we should take as the D. doth this superioritie or superintendencie for a sufficient proofe of an episcopall function wee might hence inferre that Peter had it and not Iames at least for 12. yeares after Christs passision see Doct. Whitak vbi supra pag. 341 that is till the second yeare of Claudius the Emperour But I purpose not to inforce any such conclusion it shall suffice from the former premisses to conclude that S. Lukes storie contradicteth their testimonie which report Iames to be ordeyned by the Apostles Peter Iames Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem imediately after Christs passion For it were absurd to think that Peter should consecrate him to the office of a Bishop in that Church and reteyne in his owne hands for so many yeares after such consecration the cheefe power and preheminence that is supposed to belong to that function Wherefore as the Refuter had reason to except against the Doctors evidence first alleadged being altogither humane not divine so I doubt not but himselfe will see if he wink not too hard that he abuseth the scriptures which he cited to grace their testimonie on whom he principally relieth But to passe forwards let us now see what successe the D. hath Sect. 13. ad sect 4. pag. 31. in answering the rest of the refuters exceptions And first that objectioÌ„ which himselfe setteth downe sect 4. p. 51. in this manner If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem then they gave him the episcopall power But they gave him no power which the Lord had not before invested in his person as an Apostle Therefore they did not ordeyne him Bishop With the Doctrs leave I will change the assumption and distinguish it from the confirmation thereof which lieth more cleare in the Refuters owne wordes answ p. 131. The argument therefore must stand thus If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem then they gave him the episcopall power But they gave him not the episcopall power Ergo they did not ordeyn him Bishop The assumption as it now standeth is thus fortified The power of ordination and jurisdiction was not given to Iames by the Apostles for both were invested in his person by the Lord himself so as he being an Apostle might use eyther of them freely as