Pastors Teachers the Deacons into treasurers for the poore and those which are Presbyters or Elders viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline Nicholaus Laurentius a late Superintendent in Denmark in his treatise of excommunication published Anno 1610. hath these asserrions That the right of excommunication is not in the power of any one man eyther Bishop or Pastor but in the power of the Pastors that company which Paul calleth the Presbyterie p. 62. That excoÌmunicatioÌ is eyther of the whole Church meaning the people or of certayn grave meÌ which are in stead of the whole Church so that the Pastor doe publikely in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence p. 64 That where there is no such Senate or Presbyterie except the Magistrate shall otherwise decree and provide the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish and the Superintendent and two of the Pastors in that Province wherein he dwelleth and bring the matter before them all c. ibid Many moe might be brought for this purpose if it were fitting for this place but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion and to shewe the Doct. weaknes in so overreaching as to charge that unjustly vpon his refuter which he himself is justly guilty of Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of foure other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor Sect. 1. pag. 4. of the ref and pag of the D. 4. 5. In the D. next section he chargeth his refuter to add to his former overreaching foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land because he said his doctrine was against 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs 2. contrarie to the profissed judgement of all our worthy wryters 3. contrariant to the lawes of our land 4. contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England A foul fault if true and no great credit for the D if not his refut in his sayings but himself in so saying hath vttered 4. notorious vntruthes let us therefore examine them and in this chapter the first of them The refuters words out of which the D. would extract the first of them are these that the Do. sermon is against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whome were worthy Martyrs who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Popes authority out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparity of Ministers and Lordly primacie of Bishops was but a politick devise of the fathers not any ordinance of Christ and that the government by the Minister and Seniors or Elders in every parish was the ancient discipline These be his words for his proofe he referreth us to three bookes the booke of Martyrs the booke called the Bishops booke and the booke called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious vntruth The witnesses saith he which the Ref. queteth were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops allowing the episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost incredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alledged against the same Incâedible in deed if they had been cast into the mould in which our nowe Bishops have been formed otherwise it is credible enongh that they may as I stil affirme that they doe testifye something against such a calling of Bishops as the D. mainteyneth and yet hold the function practise thereof lawfull Was it never heard of that some of our later Bishops that worthy Iewel and others allowed the episcopall function both in judgement and practise yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino which is the point in quaestion though the D. here would not see it And why may not they allowe of the Lordly primacie of Bishops jure bumano disclayme it jure divino aswell as allowe them to exercise civill authority and yet disclaime it as being lawful iure divino as may appeare they did in the places cited But 2. the D. goeth on and as if he had already said enough to prove his refuter to be as unconscionable as may be saith that he wondreth greatly at his large conscience in this behalf who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authours alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them A heavie charge if true but here it the comfort that upon due examination it wil be found to prove otherwise It is no newe thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies should be the readiest as the D. here is to laye the charge on others Let us novv trie out the whole in the particulars First concerning the testimony taken from the booke of Martyrs and the Bishops booke or booke intituled The institution of a Christian man the Doctor telleth us that he hath perused it and findeth nothing at all concerning the superiority of of Bishops over other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superiority of Bishops among themselves all whom with the ancient fathers I confesse sayth he in respect of the power of order to be equal as were the Apostles whose successors they are If it be but so as the Doct. here coÌfesseth they say enough to shewe and he hath subscribed it that the function of Archbishops is jure humano But if he had perused with purpose to find out what is there to be found he mought easily The D. caâââniââeth have found full as much as the Refuter citeth it for For it speaketh not of Bishops severed from other Preists and Preachers but promiscuously of all Bishops Preists Preists and Preachers as appeareth by diverse passages of that part of the book there sett downe to witt the chap of the Sacrament of orders amongst which consider we 1. that there should be continually in the Church militant ministers or officers to have speciall power vnder Christ to preach the word administer the Sacramentes ioose and binde by excommunication and order consecrate others in the same roome and office whereto they be called that their power was limited and office ordeyned of God Ephes 4 coÌmitted and given by Christ his Apostles to certeyn persons onely viz. Preists and Bishops That albeit the holy-Fathers of the Church succeeding did institute inferior orders and degrees c. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mencion made of any degrees or distinction in orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers That the power and authority belonging to Preists and Bishops is of 2. parts potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis to the first wherof alwayes good consent hath bene about the second some disagrement and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people that the iurisdiction committed to Preists and Bishops by authority of Gods lawe consisteth in three speciall points 1. in admonition excommunication and absolution 2. in approving and admitting
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâking of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
first to speak to his disciples vers 2 yet afterwards he spake to all the people assembled vers 13. 15. 54. Besides it is to be observed that a great number of these beleevers were strangers which were not inhabitants of Ierusalem but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost and some of them it may be not actuall members of any Church but such as are spoken of Ioh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore seing it is evident by the wordes of S. Lokes storie that all the beleevers which belonged to the Church at Ierusalem in that time were assembled togither in one place from time to time as occasion served it is sufficiently proved all the Doctors cavils not with standing that they did not for their number exceed the proportion of one ordinary congregation and consequently as the rest of the Churches before spoken of so this was rather a parish assembly then a diocesan church like to one of ours As for the Doctors exceptions sect 6. pag. 87. viz. that the Sect. 14. ad sect 6. pag. 87. Church of Ierusalem was never intended to be one parish among many but a mother Church to beget others which were to be severed from it and yet to remaine subject to it and that it was intended that all the Christians both in citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem like as the people of citie and country were all under one high-preist me thinkes that reader is straÌgely and strongly conceited of the Doctor that will enterteyne these points upon his owne meere conjecture and bare word For however it is cleare that many Churches drew their originall from Ierusalem and received the faith by their Ministerie which had bene for a time members of that Church Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. 9. 19. 22. yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection that any of those daughter churches yeelded to Ierusalem or the presbyterie there established And therefore the intention which he dreameth of concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of Ierusalem like as all the Iewes were anciently under the high preist hath neyther foundation in the holy scriptures nor can he gather it from the practise of succeding ages seing their advancing of the Church of Cesarea to the honour of a Metropolitance Church superiour in jurisdiction to Ierusalem argueth that they were altogither ignorant of it For among the many and great thoughts of the Doctors heart can this enter into it that they would wittingly depart from that order which was instituted or intended by the Apostles to follow the which was instituted or intended the Apostles to follow the course of that preheminence which the Romane Emperors that were enemies to Christ and his truth should establish in their politicall government But what need many wordes in a plaine matter This is enough for resuting so frivolous a fancie as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it Thus have we seene how well the Doctor hath proved that the Churches founded by the Apostles were Dioceses properly like to ours and not parishes It now followeth in the second book that we examine his proofes for his Diocesan Bishops THE SECOND PART THE SECOND BOOK Chapter 1. Shewing that in the 4. point of the Doctors sermon and third book of the defense thereof there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopall function IN the fourth point of the Doct. sermon he handleth Section 1. ex professo the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and in the 3. book of his defense he indeavoureth the justifying of the same And first he intreateth in generall of their superiority in degree but though he boast serm pag. 29. that all antiquity favoureth his opinioÌ yet he passeth by the Apostolicall writings as too ancient for his purpose Notwithstanding when he commeth to declare the particulars wherein the superiority of Bishops consisteth he referreth us serm pag. 32. to the epistle of Paul to Titus cap. 1. 5. there to behold that threefold superiority given by him to Bishops to wit their singularity of preheminence during life and their power of ordination and of jurisdiction not confined to a parish but extended to the whole Iland of Creete and to all the cities thereof A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop or of a nationall Primate rather then the calling of a Diocesan Prelare if he could make good the parts of his reasoning viz. that Titus not onely had such a threefold superiority but also was by his calling a Bishop as he supposeth But this later wherein the controversy cheefly standeth hath no foundation in his text onely he telleth us pag. 50. of this third book that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon by the coÌmon consent of the ancient most approved writers of the Church The which what is it but a secret confession that the text of holy scripture will not serve his turne to prove that Titus was a Bishop In like manner when to justify the singularity of preheminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese he saith serm pag. 33. that there was one Timothy at Ephesus one Titus in Creete one Epaphroditus in Philippi and one Archippus at Colossâ what else doth he but presuppose not prove that every of them was a Diocesan Bishop As if the whole Iland of Creet with all the cities thereof made but one Diocese and as if we were more bound to beleeve Mr. Doctors word then the Apostles testimoney who saith that there were other Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus Phil. 1. 1. giveth vs to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa and nothing inferiour to Archippus Colos 1. 7. 4. 12. Afterwards when the CoÌmission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus and to Titus in Creete is urged to prove the power of Bishops first in ordination and then in jurisdiction to make us a mends for his often begging he promiseth serm pag. 49. to prove afterwards that they were ãâã the which how he performeth we have heard before froÌ his own mouth for his proofes touching Timothy Titus are of the same nature as shall more fully appear hereafter Now more theÌ this here noted he hath not in his whole discourse I meane either his sermon or the defense thereof touchinge the superioritie of Bishops to prove by the scriptures that they have any such preheminence allowed then by God Wherefore if the Doctor hath found any cleare text to prove the episcopall function and superiority in question to be a divine ordinance it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermoÌ and in the fourth book of his defense where this questioÌ is at large debated and his Assertion proved as he saith serm pag. 55. and def lib. 4. pag. 4. first by consequence and then directly whither
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumeÌt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of IerusaleÌ straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and coÌmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatioÌ unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing theÌ For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatioÌ froÌ the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it loÌg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith iÌmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out froÌ Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childreÌ to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demaÌded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
the space of 30. yeares even to his death and also plainly prove that he was Bishop of Ierusalem Thus he saith and thus it seemeth his meaning is to argue The scriptures which shewe that Iames continued at Ierusalem as the Superintendent of that Church from Christs passion to his owne death doe also playnly prove that he was the Bishop thereof But his continuance at Ierusalem for so long space as Superintendent of that Church is testified Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1. Therefore the same scriptures doe playnly prove that Iames was the Bishop of IerusaleÌ And consequently their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there A Superintendent and a Bishop according to the naturall construction of the words in their originall is all one both of theÌ in a generall signification may very well be applied to that presidencie oversight which every Apostle or Evangelist had in every Church for the time of their aboad there For who had the superintendency or governmeÌt or if you will the episcopall charge of the Church at Corinthe for that space of a yeare six monthes which Paul spent there in preaching of the word among them or of the Church at Ephesus during the space of 3. yeares wherein he ceased not to warne every one night and day and to teach them both publikely and from house to house Acts. 18. 8. 11. and 20. 17. 20. 31. But as this superintendencie proveth not S. Paul to have been the Bishop eyther of Corinthe or Ephesus in the function of a diocesan or provinciall Bishop so neyther doth the like superintendencie in Iames at Ierusalem argue him to have the function of a diocesan Bishop or Archbishop although it could be proved that he continued in such a SuperintendeÌcie there for that whose space of yeares before mencioned For it is not the continuance of 3. or 30. yeares that distinguisheth the function of a Bishop from an Apostle but an ordination and assignement to the perpetuall charge of one particular Church The proposition therfore of the Doctors argument is not true vnlesse he limiteth the superintendencie whereof he speaketh vnto this sense to wit that Iames was the Superintendent of that Church of Ierusalem in the speciall function of a diocesan Bishop But then his assumption is false not onely in regard of such an episcopall superintendencie but also in respect of that length of time which he ascribeth to him therein for the scriptures alleadged by him doe not prove either the one or the other Sect. 6. ad sect 6. p. 56 sect 8. pag. 60. For to weigh the places first severally then jointly what superintendencie other then Apostolicall can the Doctor discerne in Galath 1 S. Paul there testifieth that imediately upon his coÌversion he went not up to Ierusalem to them that were Apostles before him but 3. yeares after he went up thither to see Peter and found there no other of the Apostles save Iames the L. brother vers 17. 18. 19. beholde here a manifest approbation of his Apostolicall function for he equally honoureth him and Peter with the name of Apostleâ but of any episcopall superintendencie wherein he should differ from Peter there is altum silentium no inckling at all nay rather of the two there reasoning is more probable which give preheminence vnto Peter because Paul went up to Ierusalem of purpose to visit not Iames but Peter and abode with him 15. daies 2. As for Gal. 2. he that peruseth the text may verie well think the Doct. had neede to have skill in Alchymistrie as well as in Divinitie if he vndertake from thence to extract for S. Iames an episcopall superintendencie at Ierusalem yet beholde how he pag. 56. attempteth it in this manner Iames Peter and Iohn gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselves would be for the circumcision Gal. 2. 9. And for asmuch as Peter Iohn traveiled to other partes Iames alwaise abiding at Ierusalemâ it is more then probable that the Church of Iurie was peculiarly assigned vnto him But how proveth he that Iames did alwayes abide at Ierusalem when the rest traveyled abroadâ doth it appeare in Gal. 2. that any such agreement was made betwene him and them no he saith it is very probable that so it was but there is no likelihood that Iames was forbidden to goe out of Ierusalem seing the rest were not debarred from returning thither I but it is more then probable that the Church of Iurie was peculiarly assigned to him seing Peter Iohn traveiled into other partes By the Church of Iurie he meaneth as I suppose all the Churches in Iudea mencioned Gal. 1. 22. 1. Thess 2. 14. and perhaps the rest that were in Galile Samaria Acts. 9. 31. for who fitter then he to have the oversight of these Churches also Now I grant that in their absence and during his aboade in those coasts it is probable he vndertook the care of those Churches like as Peter had the cheife oversight of the Iewes that were scattered throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia c. 1. Pet. 1. 1. during the time of his stay in those parties But as Peter remeined still the Apostle of the Circumcision became not properly their Bishop which the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 57. 97. so neither doth it followe that Iames had any episcopall but rather onely an Apostolicall Superintendencie over the Churches of Iurie But passe we forwardes the Doctor addeth it is not for nothing that both in Acts. 15. he is noted as president or cheife in that Councel and in Gal. 2. 9. Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giveth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn I graunt that Iames was President in that Councell held at Ierusalem Acts 15. and that he hath a prioritie in nomination before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. neyther are these things recorded for nothing but for our learning aswell as all other parts of holy writ Rom. 15. 4. But will the Doct. be pleased to discover vnto us the depth of that learning which he findeth to lie hid in these places yea he hath done it serm pag. 68. and Def. pag. 60. next following In the former he saith It appeareth Acts. 15. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior though not in degree yet in order vnto the rest of the Apostles when whiles they were at Ierusalem And in the later he quoteth Acts. 15. Gal. 2. to shew that because he was set over the mother-Mother-church of Christendome to be the Apostle or Bishop of that people which had sundry prerogatives above al other natioÌs in respect of that place he had precedence before the other Apostles In which words there are some cleare truthes which must be divided from other more doubtfull pointes Of the former sort not to mention againe the presidence priority before acknowledged in S.
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 coÌfined 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 assignemeÌt 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 coÌmitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames coÌmitted 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 coÌmitted 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 governmeÌt 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 âo 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 iÌmediately Mark 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops it is farre otherwise they were not called iÌmediately 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 wheÌce 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 rationeÌque hanc reddidimus quia Apostolici officij âines 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 diocesâs and provinces Which reason seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at as being vnable to answer it I hope the
at Rome and renewing of his former traveiles for 9. yeres after And when this is proved how will he demonstrate eyther from Pauls epistles or any other monumeÌts of antiquitie from whence himselfe saith serm p. 78 the Actes of those 9. yeares must be gathered that Paul made a newe voyage into Macedonia and in that traveile passing by Ephesus lefte Timothy there And if he could prove this is he not singular in his conceit that this was the time of placing Timothy in his Bishoprick For did not Paul himfelse tell the Elders of Ephesus wheÌ he parted from them at Miletum Act. 20. 25. that he knew that they all among whoÌ he had gone preaching the kingdom of God should see his face no more And hath the Doctor forgotten that himselfe teacheth us serm pag. 70. 88. and pag. 63. of this defense that the Apostles did substitute Bishops in their roomes when they were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted and that for the avoiding of factions in their absence No reason therefore he should thinke that Paul would neglect to give them a Bishop at or before so solemne a departing from theÌ specially seing as he knewe he should see their face no more so he foresawe that after his departing there should greivous wolves enter in and perverse Teachers spring up from amongst themselves Act. 20. 29. 30. To conclude therefore this question thus I argue If Timothy had any ordination at all to the Bishopprick of Ephesus the same must be at one of those journeys which he tooke into Macedonia Actes 20. 1. 3. But he had no ordination to his Bishopprick at any of those journeys Therefore he had none at all The consequence of the proposition is apparant by thinges last touched viz. that at Pauls last parting from those coastes he knew he should see them no more and that no monumentes of Antiquity doe ascribe this worke to any latter voiage And in the first whereof mencion is made Actes 16. 10. 12 Timothy was his companion as appeareth vers 1. 3. c. neyther was the Church at Ephesus then planted much less fit to receive and mainteine a Bishop as may be gathered from Actes 18. 19. 25. 26. 19. 1. 7. c. As for the assumption though the Doctor acknowledgeth the truth of it yet we relie not on his conceites but on farre surer groundes For it is also shewed that he was not affixed to the permanent charge of that Church neyther did he long stay there but followed the Apostles call aswell after as before To all which I adde this one reason more peculiarly fitting the time mencioned in the assumption If Timothy had not as yet received the episcopall charge of the Ephesian Church when Paul took his leave of their Elders Act. 20. 25. 28. then was he not ordeyned in any of his iourneyes into Macedonia mencioned Act. 20. 1. 2. 3. But the antecedent is true Ergo also the consequent The assumption or Antecedent I prove as followeth At what time the Church of Ephesus enjoyed many Bishops to whome the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did apperteine in coÌmon by speciall charge given them by St. Paul and that without any intimation of any superiour set over them to whose direction they should yeeld obedience at that time Timothy had not yet received such an episcopall charge as giveth him a singularitie of preheminence above all other ministers in that Church But at the time of Pauls taking his leave of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. the Church of Ephesus had many Bishops to whom the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did apperteine in comon c. Therefore at that time Timothy had not received such an episcopall charge c. The assumption is manifest by the wordes of the Apostle Actes 20. 28. and the proposition is moste apparant by the manifest opposition betwixt the singular regiment of one Bishop and the joint charge of many Moreover it is justifyed by the Doctors secret allowance serm pag. 18. 69. and very plainly by him that gave the Doctor best satisfaction in this whole controversy perpet govern pag. 223. There was saith he a time when the Church was governed by the coÌmon-advice of the Presbyters as Ierom affirmeth In this time spake Paul to the Presbyters at Ephesus Act. 20. 28. Neyther let the Doctor think here to stopp our mouthes with the shifting answer which he elsewhere useth viz that these Presbyters governed onely in private as under the Apostle who kept in his own hands the episcopall authoritie for this is to coÌtradict the Apostle himselfe who plainely resigneth to them the whole charge of that Church as knowing that he should see them no more vers 28. 32. with 25. 26. It is a cleare truth therefore that Timothy not having then any sole preheminence in the government of that Church was not their Bishop and consequently he was not at all ordeyned their Bishop as is before shewed His allegations follow from diverse authors which report of Sect. 6. ad sect 10. p. 91. Timothy and Titus that they lived and died the one at Ephesus the other in Creet His Refuter told him that he might credit the report of his authors yet deny them to be diocesan Bishops and good reason he had so to tell him because an episcopall function cannot be concluded from their living dying in that place He now telleth us that it sufficeth his purpose to wit to prove that they held their ordinary residence there which the objection denieth therefore againe I tell him that vnlesse he will fit the objection to his owne strength and so contend with his owne shadow he must prove more then an ordinary residence even a band of coÌtinuance there as their proper charge For till this be effected his proofes are to as little purpose as those that many papists alleadge for Peters Bishoprick at Rome because towards his later time he there lived for his ordinarie residence and at length there died I adde this to provoke the Doctor to a better examination of his owne witnesses that they doe not prove such an ordinarie residence as he would justify by them For some of them are worthy of no great credit as Vincentius Antonius and Nicephorus authors on whom the leaden Leagend is grounded And Dorotheus one of the most ancient that he alledgeth is much abused For he reporteth thus of Timothy in Synopsi Evangelium Iesu Christi Ephesi exorsus Illyricum usque et in vniversa Hellade praedicavit ubi mortuus et honorifice sâpultus est That beginning at Ephesus he preached the gospell of Iesus Christ to Illyricum and through all Greece where he did and was honourably buryed doth not this directly contradict that which the Doctor alleadgeth him for and plainely argue that he was an Evangelist as we affirm Come we now to the second objection Chapt. 10. Concerning the second obiection against
not the writing of the Apostles Acts make a second and the writing of the Evangelicall or Canonicall epistles a third and the receiving and penning of the revelation a 4. And as for the. 72. or rather 70. For Luke mencioneth 70. not 72. chosen by Christ cap. 10. 1. how confident soever the Doct. be in assigning to them an Evangelisticall function yet we cannot hastilie subscribe to him therein much lesse can wee graunt that which he affirmeth of Philip that he layd aside the evangelisticall function to take a temporary Deaconship Act. 6. and so returned to it againe but these are parerga by-controversies about which we will not contend Let us therefore attend to the reason urged by the D. to prove Sect. ãâã ad pag. 95. 96. that Timothy and Titus were advanced and not debased when they were made Bishops For saith he whereas before they were but Presbyters though called Evangelists in a large sense they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of handes ordeyned Bishops Behold here quot axiomata totidem paradoxa as many paradoxes as axiomes For how will he prove 1. that they were before but presbyters The D. beg geth 3. times together and contradicteth himself in one sentence c. 2. called Evangelists in a larger sense 3. now made Apostles of those Churches 4. and by imposition of hands made Bishops The two last are nakedly sent forth without any one ragge to cover their shame the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth before acknowledged by himselfe pag. 94. where he comprizeth Timothy and Titus no lesse then Philip and some others under the name of Evangelists specially taken for the extraordinarie functioÌ of those that went up and downe preaching the gospell being not affixed to any certain place And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertioÌ of a palpable falshood For how could they be but presbyters seing they stood in the extraordinary function of Evangelists Forsooth he saith thââ what the fathers say of the 72 disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery the same may of Timothy and Titus much more be verifyed But doth he noâ abuse the fathers in making them the authors of his owne paradoxe For doe they match the 72 disciples or any other Evangelists with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise then they doe the Apostles with the degree or place of Bishops Neyther is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops or to lift up Bishops above Prophets but to countenaÌce that superioritie which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters by a comparison of the like difference which they apprehended betweene the Apostles the 70. disciples Wee haue therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superiour to all ordinarie presbyters for besides that already gathered from Ephes 4. 11. it is apparant by that honour which the Apostle and by that obedience which the Churches to which they were sent gave unto them whiles they were his fellow-helpers and companions in his traveiles 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16. 10. 16. 2. Cor. 1. 1. 7. 13. 15. 8. 23. Philip. 1. 1. and 2. 20. 22. Wherefore I conclude once againe that to make them Pastors or Bishops when they were Evangelists is not to advance them but rather to throw them downe from a higher degree of Ministerie to a lower In the second place whereas the Doctor had sayd that Timothy and Titus were furnished with episcopall power at the time of Sect. 6. ãâã pag. 9â their stay in Ephesus and Creet by S. Pauls appointment and the Refuter denied that they received any new authoritie which before they had not c. the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner If they received no new authoritie why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of handes whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Tim. 4. 14. 2. Tim. 1. 6. and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop I graunt that Paul mentioneth hands-imposition on Timothy that some of the fathers doe thereby understaÌd his ordination to be Bishop Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove eyther from those words or any of the fathers writings that the imposition of hands mencioned by Paul was a second ordination to a new office or a furnishing of him with any new Ministeriall authoritie which before he wanted What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop may be construed as is before noted coÌcerning Iames their speaches are which say that Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem of a new or differing imployment in the work of the Ministerie for the temporarie charge he received which argueth no new authoritie or office imposed on him 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands his owne pen hath given him a direct answer pag. 94. lin 32. where he saith that Timothy and Titus who were of the later sort of Evangelists and therefore in an extraordinary function lin 15. of the same page were ordeyned Ministers of the gospell by imposition of handes which I would fayne know how he can prove by any testimony divine or humane vnlesse he carry those wordes of Paul 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. to his first ministeriall function 3. Againe he asketh may we think that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to severall Churches had that authoritie wheresoever they became which Timothy had at Ephesus Titus in Creet And he addeth verily Philip the Evangelist had not authoritie to impose handes for the furnishing of men with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent to Samaria for that purpose Act. 8. 5 -17 If it be his drift thus to argue Philip the Evangelist had no authoritie to give graces fit for the Ministery by imposition of handes Therefore besides the Apostles none but Bishops had that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Creet I answer his reasoning is many wayes faulty For he cannot prove eyther that Bishops have or that Timothy and Titus had that authoritie by imposition of hands to give such graces Neyther is it true which his words import that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and Iohn Act 8. 17. were graces fitting the persons that received them to the work of the Ministerie Wherefore although it should be graunted that the Evangelist Philip had no authoritie to give those peculiar graces yet he might haue as great authority wheresoever he came as Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet so that his assertion implyed in his quaestion viz. that besides the Apostles onely Bishops had the like authoritie to that which Timothy and Titus had hath no colour of any sound reason to uphold it Yea it is strongly confuted by
viz. that Bishops jure divino are equall among theÌselves 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. coÌtradicteth himself or the truth truth himself if he mean that the equality of Bishops amonge theÌselves 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 coÌmitted vnto them and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministery of the 72. was to be coÌtinued 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. slauÌdereth 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 Pastâr 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 coÌmitted any publike wickednes to the coÌmon offence of the Church are to
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌt of the coÌgregatioÌ was coÌmitted 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 governmeÌt 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 coÌmend 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 keâe 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 excoÌmunicated 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 thââ 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
Gods word or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors 2. It is to be noted that our CHVRCH acknowledgeth that though there be dâvers degrees of Ministers as Bishops Preists Deacous in the Church yet that one onely manner of word is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all and that there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting This assumption is the Confession now froÌ hence I may be bold to make one note more with this conclusion 3. Therefore it is to be noted that wheras our Churches practise is otherwise in the government that our Bishops now exercise it is net a matter of fâith conteyned in Gods word or grounded thereân but onely of poliâiâ and humane tradition for the power of the keyes and discipline of the Church is one onely and given to all Ministers aswell as to Bishops by the word of God And consequently the doctrine of the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of The D. hath slaundered his Refut his owne testimonies produced for advocates being judges the Church of England and consequently that the Doctor hath here slandered his refuter his owne testimonies produced for Advocates being Indges But we have not yet done the D. as a man that will have somewhat to saye if the worst come to the worst asketh that if the Bishops being now better informed concerning their functions had nowe reformed their judgements according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity whether it would follow that their later thoughts which are comonly the wiser were false and worthy to be confuted I answere that it maye be asked whether he was more foolish or presumptuous in making that questioÌ For who is so foolish as to affirme that any mans later thoughts are false and worthy to be confuted because they are reformed according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity 2. Presumeth he not that if the Bishops be now of late grown to another judgement concerning their hierarchie then the Bishops their predicessors have bene in the dayes that are past that these later are wiser then the former and have reformed their judgments according to the holy scriptures c Doth he not thereby censure the former of error and ignorance concerning the truth in this behalf howsoever as it seemeth by his former note they made it a matter of faith conteyned in Gods worde or grounded thereon I will not here question the probabilities whether the thoughts of the nowe and late Bishops or their predicessors be the wiser this without comparison I dare saye that those Bishops that made not this title of superiority authoritie over their brethren and fellowe Ministers were men both godly and learned zealous lovers of sincerity wrote as against the coÌmon adversarie so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed and against ignorant Ministers nonresidents pluralitans many things of like sort nowe not onely tollerated but defended also let the Doctor advance the Prelates of these dayes above them if he will I will make no comparison Thus much shall âuffice to acquite the refuter of the false and slaunderous imâutations of such notorious vntruthes as the Doctor hath layd vpon him in his answere to the first reason Chap. 5. Concerning the hurt like to come to the Church by the D. sermon and namely of advantaging the Papists We are nowe to handle the D. answere to the Refuters second reason as he calleth it though it be in deed but a member of the Sect. 1. Refut pag. 5. 6. D. pag. 11. 12. former in reply wherevnto I wil be more breife touching but here and there vpon a word or two most materiall the most parte of the Doctors speach being in deed nothing but sarchasticall and by-speaches The Refuter thought his sermon the more needfull to be confuted because though it was utterly failse yet he had caried the matter so handsomly smoothly and confidently that it caried appearance of truth and therefore discerned that much hurt was like to come to the Church of God by it Herevnto to let passe the D devised divisioÌ of the words he answereth by charging his refuter againe to crosse contradict himselfe saying that however his refut had sayd in the former reason that it is evidently false so not dangerous yet now he saith the doctrine is so by me handsomly and likely handled that it is so farre from being evidently false that every word hath an appearance promise of truth But the fight is here betwixt the Doctor and his owne shadowe not betweene the Refuter and his speaches Not the Refuter but the D. fighteth against himself Thinges evidently false are not dangerous in deed where and to whom the evidence appeareth yet dangerous enough to them that see not or will not see the falshood of them Thinges evidently false to one may have an appearence and promise of truth to another The Apostle 2. Cor. 11 3. c. feared leaste the Corinthââ were beguiled as Eve was by Satan through the false APOSTLES that transformed themselves into an ANGELL of light and tolde theire tale so handsomely smoothly and confidently that it had an appearaunce and promyse of truth to the Corinthes why else was he affraid they would be beguiled by them though they scarce uttred one word of truth themselves being the Ministers of Satan and their doctrine utterly false even the doâââine of Divills And if the D. here reasoneth well who seeth not that he confuteth that reverend Bishop Iewell whom his Ref. as he saith in that speach imitateth Hardings doctrine was utterly and evidently false surely and yet dangerous too or Bishop Iewell said not well and yet he carried himself so smoothlie likely and confidently that to many it had shewe and appearance of truth why else doth that reverend Bishop bestowe so much labour in confuting it I could agayn say as much concerning the Ref. answer the D. defence but we must passe on The Doctor thinketh that he told his tale so smoothly in his sermoÌ that he had almost perswaded his refuter to be of his mind we cannot let him to think so nor he me to think that that imagination of his hart among others was vaine It may be he is now feeding himself vpon this fancie that as his sermon had almost perswaded him so this his defense hath altogither perswaded him to be of his mind but I suppose the refut or his freind will tell him that he haâh an ill stomach that feedeth fatt with such winde As for the rest of his speaches to the end of that section let the reader judge of them as they deserve The Refut proveth the hurtfulnes of the Doct. sermon 1. froÌ Sect. 2. the advantaging of the Papists and 2. from the scandalizing of others thereby Touching the first The Papists saith he would be much advantaged thereby seing that Antichristian doctrine even after the renewing
upon this ground we may safely affirme that the function of DiocesaÌ Bps. is truely ascribed to the institutioÌ of that monkish Pope Dionisius 266 yeares after Christ or therabouts For however Bishops were ordeyned of the Apostles and sett over particular Churches as parish Ministers are at this day yet there could be no Diocesan Bishops till Dâoceses were distributed and parishes multiplyed in each Diocese Wherefore it is neyther error nor blasphemy to affirme that the function of Diocesan Bishops is Antichristian if that may be rightly termed Antichristian which had the first institution from the Bishops of Rome in the third centurie of yeares after Christ If the Doct. shall contradict this position it will easily be made good from the grounds of his owne manner of disputing For in The Ref justified by the D. own grounds affirming pag. 12. of his praeface that the function and discipline of our Bishops though truely Catholike and Apostolicall is of his opposites termed Antichristian he offreth us this disiunction The functions and government of Diocesan Bishops and Provinciall Arch Bishops are eyther truely Catholik and Apostolical or else rightly termed antichristian He cannot weaken this disiunctive proposition vnlesse he will overthrowe his owne reasoning lib. 1. pag. 60. 61. and confesse himself to be as ignorant in logick as he would make his refuter to be If therefore it may appeare that the functions and government of Diocesan Bishops and Provincial Archbishops are not truely Catholike and Aposticall it wil then inevitably followe that their functions govermeÌt are justly termed AntichrstiaÌ But the function and government of Diocesan Bishops being first instituted by the Pope Dynosius cannot be truely Catholike or Apostolicall much lesse can the function and government of Provinciall Archbishops be truely catholik or apostolicall if that be true which himself holdeth for a truth not to be denied viz. that there were Diocesan Bishops such as ours be before there were any Metropolitans or Provinciall Primates because they followed upon the combination of Dioceses subordination of divers Churches togither with their Bishops in the same province vnto the metropolitane as their Primate lib. 3. p. 20 21. lib. 4. p. 7. Wherefore the Doct. hath no just cause to blame his ref if he shall hereafter hold the calling of DiocesaÌ provincial Bishops to be AntichristiaÌ 4. Especially seing he hath not at all touched the main grouÌds which prevayle with those who have affirmed the degrees functions of Diocesan Bishops Archb to be Antichristian viz. 1. that the bringing in of these degrees by litle and litle made way for the man of sinne to climbe up to the top of his greatnes to seat himself in that chaire of Luciferian pride wherein he sitteth at this day as shal be seene in the answ to his lib. 4. cap. 5. sect 10. 2. And as he stil leaneth on their shoulders so his kingdome cannot stand without them for they are his assistants without them they can have no preists so no Church as the D. acknowledgeth pa 7. 12. of of his preface wheras on the contrary the true Churches of Christ may as the Doct. also holdeth as he sayd before page 2. and 7. of his preface very well want them as they did in the purest times viz the first 200 yeares as shall appeare in answere to his lib. 4. cap. 1. sect 4. and 5. and doe in some places at this day florish in more peace and sinceritie witnes the broiles of the Church after the first 200. yeares and the peace of the reformed Churches at this day then those Churches which formerly did and now doe imbrace them 3. But specially this is to be noted that sole ruling Bishops such as are ours diocesan and provinciall Lords for which see the state of the question lib. 2. chap. 3. 4. could never gaine any generall applause or place in the Church till Antichriste having first gotten possession of his vsurped vniversal headshipp to proportionate their estate in some degree like to his owne did procure for some of them principallities and for all of them Baronnies and allowed every one of them to domineire as petty Monarches in the exercise of their spirituall jurisdiction as shal be proved in the proper place hereafter To goe on therefore vnto that which remayneth The D. thinketh Sect. 7. D. pag. 13. 14. it strange that the doctrine of his sermon concerninge Bishops alone should vpholde the Popishe Hierarchie from the highest to the lowest aswell as our owne and calleth it a shameless vntruth because the Papists reckon 5. orders vnder Deacons But we with the primitive Church reckon but. 3. onely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But intreating him The Doctmust take his shameless vntruth to himself to take the shameless vntruth to himself as his owne proper in this point aswell as in the rest I wish him witt that it is not strange to them who see and knowe that many arguments now vrged in our Church for the popish ceremonies reteyned by us as crosse c doe by a like coÌsequeÌce plead for oile salt c. which we have abolished And therefore we have more cause to thinke it a strange thing that the Doctor should be ignorant that many of his arguments intended for the defence of his Bps alone with the change of an AssumptioÌ may serve as fitly to justify those inferior degrees which are vnder the Deacons in the Romish Synagogues And yet it is more strange that he should challenge conformitie with the primitive Church in reckoning 3. degrees of Ministers and neyther more nor lesse seing the same authors that he alleadgeth for that purpose serm pag. 29. c. doe reckon other degrees which wee have refused and the Papists reteyne though in a more corrupt course as all other Church functions are and some more ancient doe reckoÌ two onely as his refuter in answere therevnto shewed Lastly it is more then a wonder in the Dect eyes that the very same reasons which are brought to justify the Apostolical goverment of our Church should also serve to prove their Antichristian Hierarchy because their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope and receive jurisdiction from him but ours not so But if his reasoning be of any worthe it may well be more then a wonder to his readers if the example of the auncient Apostolical Presbyters should justify our parish Ministers at this day For the former were all one with the Bishops in the Apostles times received their jurisdiction aswell as their function from Christ or the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28 but ours now are subordinate to Bishops and receive their jurisdiction from them Nowithstanding if the Doctor had advisedly considered that the question is of functions onely and not of accidentall circumstances he would have The D. exciption both idle and frivelous spared this exception of his as judging it both idle and frivolous As for his
not And as for that other vntruth which M. Doctor is pleased to call an error where he saith they were called angels in respect of their generall calling of the Ministery it shall rest sub judice vndecided for a while till a fitter occasion calleth for the examination of it In the 5. next sections viz. 13-17 there are many words Sect. 12. ad sect 13. 14. 15. 16. Def. from page 47. to 52. D. spent to litle purpose the Doctors cheife drift is to cleare himself of some vntruthes which the Refuter chargeth vpon him in his affirmation that the wise and learned disciplinarians doe grant 1. that the Bishops which in his text are called Angels were Bishops of whole cities and the countreies adioyning that is to say Dioceses 2. That the Presbyters which were no Ministers were lay and annuall 3. That these angels were nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries 4. That their presidentship was onely for a week or a month and that by course as being comon to them in their turnes Now the Doctor to manifest the truth to be of his side in all these points appealeth to the writings of Calvin and Beza And touching the first the sheweth from their words that in the primitive Church Bishops had the oversight of Dioceses and therefore in some places where their circuit was very large they had vnder them such as were called Chorepiscopi countrey-Bishops he might have added Lectores Acoluthes c. that they had also above them Metropolitanes as we may see in the places whereunto he sendeth vs. Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. section 2. and 4. Beza de Minist grad cap. 24. pag. 167. c. But how doth this prove that which he was to prove that the The D. freeth not himself fro the untruthes charged upon him Bishops which in his text are called angels were Bishops of Dioceses or set over whole cities and the countryes adjoyning Doth it not prove as strongly that these angels had both country-Bishops diverse other inferior degrees of clergie-men vnder them and Metropolitans above them Which if the Doct. should affirme his best freinds would see very evidently that he abuseth these grave and The Doct. changeth the quest concealeth that which would covince him of 2. evils learned divines most grossely to make them the authors of those vntruthes which himself broached and will not recall His hope was it seemeth to blinde his readers eyes by a crafty changing of the question as almost every where he doth and concealing that which serveth to convince him both of mainteyning an vntruth and abusing their testimonies to mainteyne it For it is manifest that they both do speak neyther of these Angels nor of the Apostles times but of that forme of government which by humane ordinance tooke place after their daies wherein the ordinances of Christe and his Apostles which should have bin kept inviolable according to 1. Tim. 6. 14. began to be violated and so on to the time of the Papacie Let the D. read againe the title of that 4. cap. with the 1. 2. sections therof togither with that 24. chap. of M. Beza pag. 165. 166. c. and though he be a partie yet I will at this tyme make him judge how substancially he hath proved the first pointe Nether are the Testimonies alledged for the 2. point so direct or The D. testimonies prove not the point fit for his purpose as he would perswade for where he should prove that they teach that those ancient governinge Elders which they hold were parâs of the presbyterie in the Apostolike Churches are laie and annuall he sheweth out of Beza in his former book pag. 60. cap. 11. that at Geneva there are yearely either new chosen or the old confirmed And out of Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 3. sect 8. and Beza againe cap. 11. pa. 64. and de presb and excom pag. 105. that they are or must be chosen out of the laiety The reasons why they are there annuall doe clearely shew Beza dicto libro pag. 68. that it is a matter of conveniencie in regard of persons place time and sondry other circumstances so estemed and not a thing necessarie And though they account them not of the Ministery because they are not chosen and ordeyned to the Ministery of the word and sacraments yet is their office merely ecclesiasticall not civil because of the choise and ordination by the publike prayers of the Church And therefore if the word laiety or laie-persons be opposed to such as are persons ecclesiasticall they cannot properly be sayd to remaine laye during their office Neyther doth Calvin any where say that being chosen out of the laiây they still remaine lay Nay his very phrase chosen from among the laitie sheweth that after the choise during the time of their office they are not of the laiety But the D. saith that being chosen they doe not become to be of the Clergie therefore Mr Calvin must needs meane they still continue to be of the laiety But when by the Clergie Mr Calvin meaneth as he saith vsitato nomine all such as exercised any publik Ministery in the Church all being so called from the Doctor to the dore-keeper what can he else meane but that they by that election being called to beare publick office of government with the pastors became thereby to be of the clergie that is as the generall definition of the word clergie sheweth ecclesiasticall persons In deed he calleth them âie because they be not of the Clergie in the stricter sense viz Ministers of the Sacra functio jurisdictionis word and sacraments but yet he calleth their function an ecclesiasticall order and sacred function As idly and evilly alleadged is Mr Bezaes testimoney for as litle Bezaes testimonie is both idly and evilly alleadged by the D. doth it speak to the purpose he may doâ wel to look vpoÌ his book againe see whether it be Beza that calleth them annuall in the title of that chapter it may be the title itself will prove none of Bezaes but Saraviaes his adversaries who by that term in the title seeketh to disgrace that function which I the rather beleeve because where they are sayd in that title to be such as are ad docendum inâpti Beza disclaymeth it and saith they must in some sort and measure be ad docendum apti and that it is a fault if others be chosen and chargeth Saravia to do litle better then calumniate in so terming them And that however new may be chosen at the yeres end yet that temâre nec ipsi sâse deponunt nec deponuntur yea rather summo studio retinentur qui fidem suaÌ et diligentiam in suo praesbyteratu probarunt And that whereas by the order of the consistory a time is prescribed whether annum vel longius it is done in discretion for diverse causes set down by him not for that eyther they did not
an heap of untruthes compiled to colour his slaunder And the untruth of his second is no lesse evident for as the distribution of his sermon the transitions vsed therein doe wholly dissagree from his whole analysis here propounded as is before observed so they doe justify his refuter against himself not onely in the premisses of his first syllogisme which agree with his two assertions serm pag 9. but also insecluding the first and the last of his 5. pointes froÌ all interest in the proving of the assumption of his first syllogisme For as the Refuter rightly observed answer pag. 8. from the D. owne wordes serm pag. 61. that the proofe of his first assertion is to be searched for not in the last of the five but in the 4. former so it is plaine by the transitions which he useth serm pag. 17. 22. 52. that the direct proofe of the like function vnto our Bishops either in those Angels or any other Angels or pastors of the primitive Churches hangeth vpon the three middle points and not vpon the first which concerneth onely the persons of whome the ancient presbyteries consisted And though now he make a faire shewe of reducing the first of his 5. pointes to prove his first assertion anaskevasticos by disproving the presbyteries which we desire yet even this very defeÌse he maketh for himself clearely justifieth his Refuter that sayd he could not see how it did directly prove that assertion the proofe whereof he searched after For if in his first point concerninge lay Elders he indeavoureth as himself acknowledgeth both in the 54. pag. of thiâ and 61. pag. of the next chapter first and principally to disprove the presbyterian discipline that so by consequence the disproof therof might be a proofe for our Bishops with what face can he affirme that this first point is a direct proof of the assumption of his first syllogisme which saith that diocesan Bishops were in his text meant by Angels 3. Wherefore for an answere to his question which he tendered for his first reason it may suffice to demande the like of him that is how he could perswade himselfe that his analysis here delivered was answerable to the genesis or first composition of his sermon when he sawe or at least wise mought have seene that 4. parts of his five doe not conclude his first assertion and that the fift could not be brought to his frame without a change of the doctrine first propounded in his sermon But it seemeth the D. is so well conceited of his owne Genesis that he is perswaded that if his Refuter could have discerned it he would have acknowledged every poinâe to be vâry pertinent and direct the whole so perfect that nothing is superfluous or wantinge A straÌge fancy when his owne Analysis maketh one of his foure pointes to be a superfluous excrâscens and more then needes which before semed to be of necessary vse For in reducinge his 4. pointes to this conclusion That the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Churches were diocesan Bishops his third point which himself as we have heard maketh but a consequeÌt of the secoÌd can yeeld him no better argumâ then this Those ancient Pastors or Bishops were Diocesan Bishops Therefore they were Diocesan Bishops Wherefore when he hath advisedly vpon his second thoughts compared his owne Analysis with his Genesis I nothing doubt but winke he never so hard he will The D. him felte makes a forced analysis against conscience see though I feare he wil be loath to confesse that it is his owne self that deserveth much more then his Refuter to beare this imputation of a forced analysis devised against the light of his owne conscicence Notwithstanding I deny not but that his 5. points are all of them some way pertinent to the purpose though none of Sect. 7. them directly conclude his first assertion which he saith is proved by 4. of them For his owne words doe shewe that when he first set downe those five points in the proofe whereof the body of his sermon standeth he minded not so much the explication of his text as the confutation of the Elder and later sort of disciplinarians as he calleth them whose odious opinions he had interlaced serm pag. 6. 45. in the proposing of those questions which served to cleare his first assertion I will prove saith be pag. 6. 1. Agâinst both sortes that there were no lay-governiâg Elders in tâe primitive Church 2. And then more particularly against the former that in the first 200. yeares the visible Churches were dioceses c. 3. And consâquently that the Aâgels of the Churches were not pââishonall but diocesan Bishops 4. And agâinst the later That the Bishops being advanced to an higher degree of Ministerie were set above other presbyters not onely in priority of order but also in majorâây of rule To the same purpose he speaketh here in his defence pag. 54. affirming as before that he indeavoureth the proofe âf thos pointes agâinst the new and âlder disc plâarians And though he pretende to drawe all these particulars âo one conclusion which he saith is the explâcation âf his text yet this appea eâh to be a mâere The Doct. preteÌdeth without truth and shaketh hands with his text pretence voide of truth seing the explication of his text lieth not in this conclusion here set downe scz that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were diâcesan Bishops c. but in this assârtion propounded serm pag. 2. scz that by the Angels mencioned in his text we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of their callâge as our reverend Fathers are It is apparant therefore that in the handling of these 4. pointes he shaketh hands with his text and layeth by both it and the explication thereof and as if he were now not in the pulpit to explicate a text of scripture but in the schooles to dispute or rather declaime pro forma he wholly mindeth the justifying of our hierarchy and the confuting of their opinions which favour the presbyterie Neither can any man otherwise judg that observeth his wordes before set downe and compareth togither both his three first pointes with those 3. opinions which he texeth pag. 4. and the fourth with that which he reprehendeth pa. 6. In which respect also it shal be no great error to thinke that his 5. point is in his principall intendment rather opposed against their opinion which holde that episcopall superiority which he pleadeth to be vnlawfull and as he sayth pag. 5. Antichristian then proposed for the proof of his 2. assertion as he now pretendeth pag. 54. 58. Add herevnto his owne wordes in the next chapter pag. 60. 61. where he affirmeth the question discussed in his sermoÌ to be two fold The 1 De facto whether the primitive churches were governed by D Bishops as they say or by presbytertes of such Elders as we speake of The second
it hath no foundation in the word of God 2. Though that first point of his 5. concerning the Elders be as hath bin proved to this question impertinent yet will I take the like course with him therein 3 and lastly though he casteth of all the testimonies of the new divines either as incompetent being parties as he âaith or as misalledged by him I will prove them both truely and rightly alledged and as competent as any he bringeth THE FIRST PART THE THIRD BOOKE Chap. 1. Conteyning an answere to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. booke wherein he laboureth but in vayne to mainteyne the first argument in his sermon viz. That the seven Churches of Asia whereof his text speaketh were Dioceses VVEe are nowe at the length come to see how artificially and soundly he collecteth from his text Sect. â the Doctrine which he principally insisteth on viz. That the function or calling of diocesan Bishops such aâ ours are is of Divine institution He saith pag. 94. of his sermon it is proved by the explication of his text which standeth in this assertion that the Bishops here meant by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are His argument therefore in an Enthymem runneth thus The Bishops meant by angels Apââ â 20. were such Bishops as ours are Therfore the function of Bishops such as ours are is of divine institution And in a playne syllogisme according to the course of his owne reasoning Def lib 4. p. 2. 3. thus The function of such as are meant by the angels Apoc. â 20. is of divine institution Bishops such as ours be are meant by the angels Apoc. â 20. Therefore the function of such Bishops as ours be is of divine institution Here I willingly subscribe to the proposition because the name of angels Starres holden in Christs right hand doth argue his sending and approbation but I flatly deny the Assumption or AntecedeÌt of his Enthimem as having no foundation in his text nor any one sound reason either in his sermoÌ or in the defense thereof to make it good For though he will at no hand indure to heare of any solo power of rule eyther for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops and that he doth vnderhand give such a power vnto them and that iure apostolico if he will strongly conclude the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. to be such Bishops as ours are he must clearly prove which he can never doe nor as yet ever attempted to doe that the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops But that his owne conscience may be the better convinced of the weaknes of his reasoninge and of his abusing the text which he handleth he is to be put in minde that himself serm pag. 52. 53. doth thus vnfolde the substantiall partes of the callinge of ouâ Bishops to wit that they are Di cesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a peerâlesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction For hence it followeth that if he have not proved the Bishops ment by Angels in his text to be 1. some of them provinciall and and other some diocesan Bishops 2. all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power of ordination 5. and of jurisdiction if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified then it followeth that he hath left naked the main point which he should have coÌfirmed namely that the Bishops here meant by Angels were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are Now it is apparant to all that peruse his sermon and the defense thereof that he never indeavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mencioned in his text to be a provinciall Bishop or in the power of ordination to have a peerelesse preheminence above others For though he tell vs serm pag. 18. that some of the 7. Churches were mother cities and deâ lib. 2. pag. 63. that some of the succeeding Bishops were Metropolitanes yet all his strength is spent in proovinge every of those Churches to be a diocese and consequently their Bishops to be diocesan Bishops And though he speak some what for a preheminent power of jurisdiction in these Angels serm pag. 49. def lib. 3. pag. 135. yet in all his dispute of ordination he is silent of them altogither It remaineth then that we examine how well he hath proved the Bishops which are called the Angels of the 7. Churches to be like vnto our Bishops in those particulars sc that they were 1. Diocesan Bishops 2. Superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life 4. a peerelesse power of jurisdiction or as he expoundeth himselfe Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. a corrective power over other Ministers To prove the first sâ that those Angels were diocesan Bishops Sect. â that is to say in the large extent of their authority over an whole diocese like to our diocesans the onely argument that he hath either in his sermon or defense is drawne from the forme or constitution of those Churches whereof they were Angels which he peremptorily affirmeth but very weakly proveth to be dioceses properly The Doct. onely argument to prove the Angels to be DiocesaÌ Bishops is unsound in both propositions and not parishes he should say that those Churches were dioceses such as ours are over which our Bishops are placed wherefore to conclude his purpose he must reason in an Enthymem thus The 7. Churches whereof those Angels were Bishops were Dioceses such as ours are Therefore those Angels or the Bishops there ment by Angels were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans The Antecedent is an erronious fancy forged by the Doctor and hath nether testimony nor reason to support it as shall appeare by by In the meane while be it knowne to him that his câsequence also is to be rejected as weak and vnsound And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogisme he shall soone discerne it for to make a supply of the proposition which is presupposed in the consequence of his reasoninge he must argue thus The Angells or Bishops of such Churches as are Dioceses properly and nââ parishes are Diocesan and not parishonall Bishops But the 7. Churches in Asia were Dioceses properly and not parishes Therefore the Angels or Bishops of those 7. Churches were diocesan properly and not parishionall Bishops In which proposition so supplyed if there be a necessary truth then must the Doctor confesse though against the haire and contrary to his former perswasion that the Bishops of whome mencion is made Acts. 20. 28. phil 1. â were diocesan Bishops because the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi in his opinion were properly dioceses
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌtry had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌs and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâiculars which he hearâ assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâmens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâle before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌmeth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌtry then such as were already brought to
in the prosyllogisme or confirmation therof when he said that our Saviour writing to the Churches in Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall c. For taking it for graunted that there were more Churches in Asia then those 7 and that our Saivour in writing by name to these did intend vnder their names to write to all the rest could the D. imagine that any man which denie those other Asian Churches to be writen vnto would upon his bare word imbrace that which now he affirmeth sâz that our Saviour in writing to all the C hes of Asia comprizeth all vnder these seven as being the principall and conteyning within their circuite all the rest This later I graunt is more direct for his purpose I meane to prove that those 7. churches at least some of them if not all were Dioceses in asmuch as other Churches were conteyned as he supposeth within their circuite but he as often before sheweth himself a notable trifler in begging the question when he taketh this for graunted which he The Doct. beggeth could not but know without good proof would never be yeelded yet he dealt wisely in not attempting what he could not effect for if those Churches of Colossa Hierapolis Troas mentioned in the scripture were not within Asia as he mainteyneth pag. 61. and if those of Magnesia Trallis recorded in other writers cannot be 12. A contradiction iâ the D. proved as he saith p. 62 to have bene Churches in S. Iohns time all the world may wonder what records he wil bring to prove that there were any other Churches in Asia then these 7. which his text nameth And yet unlesse he prove also that those other Churches how many or fevve soever vvere conteyned within the circuite of those 7. or some of theÌ he must be much beholding to his reader if he wil take his naked affirmation for sufficient warrantise in this behalf 3. And since he rejecteth that connexive forme of reasoning which his Refuter gathered naturally from his owne words he might have done well to have practized here the lesson which he gave his Refuter pag. 44. for finding out of the right hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposition But it was some what an hard taske and therefore he would not put one finger to it notwithstanding that he may sâe how willing his Refuter is to learne and how readie to give him contentment in framing his arguments to his best advantage the connexive proposition shall first be disposed in an Enthymem thus Our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and nameth the principall Ergo those 7. Churches were great and ample cities c. or since he will needs have it conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning To bringe this Enthymem into a Syllogisme some little change of words must be made either in the Antecedent or in the consequent thus Whatsoever Churches are specially nuÌbred or named as principal by our âav Christ when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia those Churches did conteine each oâ them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning But the 7. Churches mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20. are specially nombred and named as principall by our Sauiour Christ when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia Therefore the 7. Churches mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20. conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyninge Or thus whosoever writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall he thereby signifieth that those 7. Churches conteined in their circuite each of them the citie and countrie adjoyninge But our Sauiour Christ writing to the Churches in Asia nombreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall Ergo he hereby signifieth that these 7. Churches conteined in their circuite each of them the citie countrie adjoyning Now to give the D. his choyse of these arguments not forbidding him to make a better if he can since there is no certeine or manifest truth in the The D. disputeth by begging ãâã proposition which conteineth the Hypothesis of his Enthymeme we may from his owne rule conclude that he disputeth sophistically and taketh that for graunted which he cannot make good while he hath a daie to live Thus have we seen how well he argueth to prove his assumption Sect. 19. ad pag. 43. joyntly let us now atteÌd a little how he coÌfirmeth it severally 1. The Church of Ephesus saith he conteined a great and ample citie in deed metropolis or mother citie the countrie subject to it 2. the Church of Smyrna a mother-citie and the countrie belonging to it c. so proceedeth froÌ one of them to another to Thyatira Philadelphia with their territories But where are his severall proofes for these severall assertions It seemeth he is fallen in love with the trade of begging and The D. beggeth and is in love with the trade of begging else he would not begg 7. times to gâther is growne past shame in it so as we may be past hope of dryving him from it els he would never produce 7. false positions to confirme his assumption before atteinted of falshood For since everie of those cities remeined for the greater part heathenish in the Apostle Iohns tyme it cannot be that any of them did conteine the whole citie much lesse citie and countrie The truth is each of these Churches was conteined within those cities as a small heape of corne is conteined in a great and large barne 2. And why doth he here also depart from the words of his sermon which were that some of those 7. Churches were mother-cities doubtlesse he sawe it was a verie slight and feeble consequence to reason as he should have done in this manner Some of those 7. Ch were mother-cities Ergo they The D. departeth froÌ the words of his sermon were everie of them great and ample cities c. And had his Refuter thus analysed his words it is likely the D. would have bin more offended then he is with that forme which he used in putting all his speach into one connexive argument 3. But to take his argument as he hath set it downe what meaneth âe by the countries which he saith belonged to every one of those mother-cities Is it his meaning that the Ch of Ephesus Smyrna c. did conteine togither with their cities the whole provinces subject to those mother-cities or doth he limit the countrie to that part onely which made a particular diocese The later best fitteth his first purpose sc to prove that every of the 7. Ch was properly a diocese but the former agreeth best both with his own interpretatioÌ of his words p. 63. when he saith that some of those Churches were Metropolâis that is not onely mother-cities but also metropolitan Churches and with his former speach which affirmeth all the Churches in the cities and countries
have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy such as other reformed Churches have restored then with a Monarchy which our diocesans holde The D. argumeÌt therefore may be thus retorted against him The Presidents of the auncient Apostolâk Presbyteries were no diocesan Byshops such as ours The Angels of the 7. Churches were the presidents of such Presbyteries Therefore they were no diocesan Byshops such as ours Or thus Diocesan Byshops such as ours are not presidents of such presbyteries as âhe ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaeÌts of such Presbyteries Therfore they were no diocesan Byshops The assumption of both is the same that the D. maketh use of for a contrary conclusion The proposition of the former if it be denied wil be thus confirmed Diocesan Byshops such as ours doe governe monarchically by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbyterie as the ancient aposâolike Churches enjoyed But the presidents of those ancient Presbyteries did not governe monarchically or by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of theire Presbytery Those presidents therefore were no diocesan Bps such as ours Both parts of this argument are acknowledged by the D. for the assumption appeareth by that which he affirmeth in particular of Iames his presidencie lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all Byshops in former ages sârm pag. 15. and dâf lib. 1. pag. 191. where he saith that in Churches causes nothing almost was done without the advice of the Presbyters and that their was great necessitie that the Byshop should use their advice and counsell because otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a lawe c. And touching the proposition as he intimateth serm pag. 97. and def lib. 4. pag. 102. the government of our Byshops to be monarchicall so he confesseth that Byshops now have not that assistance of Presbyters which the ancient Byshops had lib. 1. pag. 190. And this confirmeth also the truth of that other proposition of the later argument For if diocesan Byshops such as ours have not any such Presbyterie associated to them for advice and assistance in government then they are not presidents of such Presbyteries as the ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the former is an apparant truth and confâssed by him serm pag. 16. 17. def lib. 1. pag. 190. where he saith that the assistance of those Seniours that directed the ancient Byshops is long since growne out of use Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedrall Churches be a resemblaÌce of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189. since they have another president then called Archi-presbyter now Deane how can the Byshops of our daâes be their presidents vnlesse he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads But let us see the D. owne defence of his proposition before contradicted If sayth he the Refuter wil be pleased to take notice of that Sect. 3. which he hath elsewhere proved that there was but one Presbytery for an whole diocese the proposition wil be manifest vz. that the presidents of the Presbyters provided for whole dioceses whoÌ the Fathers call Byshops were diocesan Byshops The argument is thus digested by himselfe in a connexive sylogisme pag. 122. If the Presbyteries were aloâted to whole diocesâs and not to severall parishes theÌ the Bps. who were presideÌts of those Presbyteries were not parâââonal but D. But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption whose proofe is laide downe viz. chap. 4. I reserve to be handled hereafter now I refuse his conclusions for the weaknes that I find in the proposition if he speak as he ought of diocesan Byshops such as ours for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesaÌ as he supposeth the Apostolick Presbyteries were viz. to worke out their conversion cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church therefore cannot argue their president to be properly a diocesan Byshop Nay rather if it may appeare that the flock already converted was but one onely congregation of christians howsoever the Presbytery might be set to indeavour the conversioÌ of the rest of the diocese yet to speak properly there was a parishonall Byshop and not a diocesaÌ because the flock or congregatioÌ already converted was more like to a parish then to a diocese Yea say he coulde prove that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses that is for many particular congregations in each diocesâ why might not their president be a parishionall Byshop in regard of his particular Church which he fedde with the word and Sacraments although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes For it is cleare that Mr. Beza of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Byshops he boasteth lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127. doth hold it as necessary that the president of the pastors of a diocese should have as the rest his particular parish to attende vpon as it is esteemed fit that a provinciall Byshop should be more specially interessed in the oversight of one diocese De Minist grad cap. 20. pag. 123. and cap. 4. pag 168. And such were in deed the first diocesan Byshops after parishes were multiplyed and Presbyters assigned to them the pastorall charge of the mother-Church the cheife Presbyter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to theÌ Neyther might he remove his seate from it to any other Church though within his own Diocese Concil Carthag 5. can 5. 3. If the D. shall here tell us as he doth lib. 2. p. 117. that the cathedrall Churches which were the Bishops seas Mother churches to the whole Diocese were never Parishes nor the meetings there parishionall but panigyricall it wil be but a frivolous exception in this place for there will still remayne a difference of that moment betwixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries our diocesans that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops of that kind that ours are For besides the forenoted disagrement that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling as they were by the D. owne confession the truth therevnto inforcing him lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158. to preach the word to administer the âacraments in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick By this time therefore I hope the reader may see that although we should graunt the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses yet that will not warrant him to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops such as ours and consequently though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries he cannot necessarily inferre that they were diocesan Byshops like
congregation were not the congregation divided 3. vpon this division was there a Bishop and Presbyterie assigned to every congregation or onely one Presbyter c. Because these questions are fitted as also the former were not so much to be informed what we hold as to shewe what himselfe would have to be imbraced let us first consider to what issue he driveth the matter which is discovered in the words following pag 68 where he saith That the parish disciplinarisns doe shew themselves to be of shallow judgement their parish discipline to consist of undisgested favcies in that they imagin the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the division of parishes and after that now every congregation shall have her Bishop and Presbyterie like as that one Church had before Parishes were divided in the Diocese and that as now Ministers are appointed to atted their severall Charges so also then it was the proper office of the Bishop and his Presbyterie to attend the flock already converted No merveile if the Doctors stomach which afficteth nothing but that which favoureth the Diocesa discipline cannot digest these points yet will it be hard for him froÌ the resolution of his questions to gather any well digested argument to prove them vndigested sancies In the two former he presumeth as it seemeth vpon an agreement with his Refuter in these two points viz. that of those many presbyters which the Apostles ordeyned in any one Citie one onely was properly the Pastor or Bishop and the rest his Assistants And 2. that when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinary congregation the congregations were divided But in the fââst of these he grossely forgetteth himselfe For how could one of those presbyters be a Bishop if that be true which he peremptorily holdeth serm pag. 69. def lib. 4. pag. 63. viz. that the presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles to labour the conversion of the people had not any Bishop among them Moreover in denying the presbyters which assisted the Bishop to be properly Pastors of that flock which they fedd in coÌmon doth he not at vnawares weaken one of his best arguments framed by him against Lay-Elders lib. 1. pag. III. for the governing Elders in the church of Geneva are Pastors improperly as Beza sheweth de grad Minist cap. 9. If therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus consequently the presbyters mencioned 1. Tim. 5. 17 being the same with those of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. as he professeth lib. 1. pag. 108 If I say these Presbyters were none otherwise Pastors then improperly why might they not be Lay-Elders or how could they be properly Ministers of the word as he mainteyneth if they were not properly Pastors In the answer which himselfe maketh to the last of his questions lieth the weight of all that yeildeth him any advantage And since it inquireth altogither de sacto what was done and not de jure what in right ought to be done vnlesse he had kept himselfe within the times of the Apostles and grounded his assumptioÌ upon such records as may assure us of their approbation he argueth overweakely to conclude as he doth 1. that our parish assemblies at this day ought to have one onely Presbyter and not a Presbyterie to assist their Pastor because such an order was taken for those Churches which were multiplied upon an increase of converts in cities and villages adjoyning 2. that the first Presbyters were not as Ministers now are set over the flock converted onely but over the whole citie and countrie to labour their coÌversion because upon the divisioÌ of coÌgregations in the diocese when each congregation had her Presbyter to attend it the Bishop of the citie and his Presbyterie had a generall superintendencie over all not onely to govern them and their Presbyters but also to labour the conversion of the rest And doth not himselfe weaken the consequence of his owne reasoning when he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 1. sect 9. that the Churches of former times before Constantines daies were not in all things established and setled according to their desires for in time of persecution their government was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto But how proveth he that which he assumeth for a truth not to be contradicted viz. 1. that upon the first division of congregations the ancient mother-Mother-Church onely had her presbyterie to assist the Bishop the rest of the Churches having each of them one onely Presbyter and 2. that the Bishops Presbyterie in office and charge differed from the rest of the Presbyters in this that the presbyters were restreyned to the feeding of their particular Churches the Presbytery assisted the Bishop in procuring the conversioÌ of such as yet remained in infidelity It is a knowne truth confessed by the Doctor that when churches Sect. 11. were multiplied in Asia after S. Paul had preached placed Presbyters at Ephesus and that with an intent as he conceiveth to work out the conversion os all Asia by the labour of those Presbyters each Church was made equall with the Mother-Church of Ephesus in this that as she so they had not one onely presbyter but a presbyterie togither with a Bishop or President to governe them For he teacheth out of his text Apoc. 1. 20. that the 7 churches of Asia had each of them her Presbyterie and a Bishop entitled by the name of an Angell moreover he acknowledgeth Def. chap. 7. pag. 23. that Timothy and Titus who were as he faith Bishops the one of all Asia the other of all the Churches in Creete were to ordeyne Presbyters in the severall cities and that by Pauls direction aswell by letter as example and addeth that he no where readeth that they assigned severall Presbyters to their severall Cures eÌyther in citie or countrie So then it is cleare by the Doctors own confessioÌ that how many Churches so ever were multiplied within the episcopall charge of Timothy Titus they all had by Pauls direction ought to haue a presbyterie and not a single presbyter in any place to attend them Wherefore for the better manifestation I say not of the Doctors wiâdome but of the truth or falshood of his 2. assertions mentioned in the end of the former sectioÌ though I presume not to oppose him yet I crave his resolution in these sewe quaestions Were not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to informe all Bishops even Diocesan Bishops if there were any such ordeyned by the Apostles and their successors unto the worlds end how to exercise their function aswell in respect of ordination as of jurisdiction see this mainteyned lib. 4. Def. pag. 75. 83. 85 if then these epistles gave theÌ no direction for the placing of a singular Presbyter but rather for the ordeyning of a Presbyterie or company of Presbyters for those Churches that were or should be multiplied in their charge doth it not
as with Arrians as ours be with men of another language 3. And here by the way observe how the Doctor at vnawares pulleth downe with the one hand what he setteth vp with the other For against this comparison between those churches that lived among the Arrians and the French Churches among us alleadged to prove that the later are as he saith the former were models of diocesan Churches I may returne his owne exceptions thus The French Churches cannot be Models of diocesan Churches like as he supposeth the other were because their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of lay-men and wanteth a Bishop which they had neither are they placed and reâeined for the the conversion of the citie and countrie to them as in the Doctors conceit the ancient Churches among the Arrians were for otherwise how should they be converted as he argueth pag. 67. And this also by the way weakneth his arguing to shew that Sect. 6. the French and Dutch Churches among us are no parish assemblies For if they be neither diocesan nor models of diocesan Churches what else can they be then parishes such at least as the Refuter in this question esteemeth to be parishes or parishonall Churches 2. But in this point he sheweth himself what he is when knowing as is before noted sect 3. in what sense the Refuter holdeth those The Doct. knowing the Refut to speak in one sense ââieth to an other Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches to be parishes he doth notwithstanding flie to another sort of parishes viz. such as ours now are deprived of the power of ecclesiasticall government and subordinate to an other Church as members thereof to his exceptions therefore in this behalfe this reply may suffice That which is one Church among many in one citie is one parish or one congregation such as in this question we define a parish to be But the French Church in London is one Church among many in one citie as the Doctor acknowledgeth p. 7. 1 It is therefore one parish as wee understand a parish in this question Againe That which hindreth not the french and dutch Churches among vs fro being each of them one ordinary congregation assembling to one place for the worship of God doth not hindââ them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question But the Doctors exceptions viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches doe dwel in many distinct parishes according to the circuite of our English division of parishes in London and other places aâd that their Churches are indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof these exceptions I say doe not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them one ordinarie congregation assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God Therefore neyther doe they hinder them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question As for that one speach inserted touching the French and Dutch Churches when he saith they have a Presbyterie as the Church ââ Geneva hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might have in an imitation of the ancient Christinians me thinks it scarce savoureth of truth or at least argueth forgetfulnes in himselfe For if that he speaketh of having a Bishop once in eââe and still in possâ The Doct. speach either is vntrue or else contradicteth himself be referred to the French and Dutch Churches here in England where doth Alasco say that they once had a Bishop and how knoweth he that our Bishops would suffer them to have in each church a Bishop of their owne If to the Church of Geneva as he needeth not Alascoes testimonie to prove that they once had a Bishop so in saying that they now might have a Bishop what else doth he but contradict here what he earnestly pleadeth for lib. 4. pag. 166 viz. that the Churches of France and Geneva neyther in the first reformation could neyther now can obteyne the government of Bishops to be sâtled among them though they would but it is no new thing to meet with the Doctors slippings this way We come now to the Refuters regestion when he striketh at the Doctor with his owne weapon in this manner ââ there were no parishes Sect. 7. ad P. 70. lin 8 in the Apostles times how could there be Dioceses seing every Diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes The Doctor telleth us it is but a floorish and a kind of answer that best fiâteth him that is at a non-plus But it is well knowne that this kind of answer is very usuall with divines nothing inferior to him eyther in schoole learning or divinity that to contradict any assertion belonging to the question aswell as the conclusion principally contraverted doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theologicall scholasticall disputations yea it is in deed of speciall use to put the adverse part to a non-plus or at least to let the indifferent Reader see the weaknes of his argument and therefore no mervâile though the Doctors patience be not a little troubled with it But see we how he bestirreth himselfe to escape the stroak of it Good Sir saith he what is this to my consequence Againe to what end is this spoken to deny my consequence or the maine conclusion And a little after Therefore when he would sââme to denie the consequence of the propo-ââtion he doth not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against the assumption he dâniâth the principall conclusion Good Mr. D. with your patience is there no difference betwixt the deniall of the conclusion and the retorting of an argument against it And is it nothing to you if your maine conclusioÌ fall to the ground so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand uprightâ but it is a fault in the Refuter when he would seeme to impugne your consequence to passe by it and to set upon your conclusioÌ when you thought it had been sufficiently garded Belike you looked not for such a stratageme at his hands whom you tooke to be amazed at the fight of your argument as you say pag. 71 and so shallow conceited when he is in his best wits that if we may beleeve you pa. 80. he can see no further then his nose end Yet perhaps if you had seene your consequence touched by the former part of his answer you would not have blamed him â for running out against your conclusion before he gave the onset to your assumption But to let your scoffs alone tell us in good earnest doe you think your consequence is altogither out of the reach of this his regestion as you call it doth it not rather fall with the conclusion for how could Presbyteries be appointed to Dioceâes when there were none If therefore the want of
take an ell was his Refuters liberalitie nothing worth wheÌ he was content to annexe unto the citie the towns adjoyning that had any distinct Church in them Did the Doctor at first find himselfe able to confound the former Antecedent which spake onely of the Christians that were within the citie and to prove it not onely false but also unreasonable and incredible And is he nowe too weak to consute that assertion which for his advantage is tendred to him in stead of the former viz. that all the Churches in any great citie and such townes adjoyning as had not any distinct Church in them made but one particular congregatioÌ must he haue all the townes annexed to the citie and this also freely graÌted that in some of those townes there were distinct Churches blame him not though he affect this well for he findeth himselfe man good enough to incounter with such an assertion as this if his Refuter would mainteyne it against him viz. that all the christians in a great citie and the townes adjoyning though there were distinct Churches in some of those townes made but one particular congregation Meane while to case his hart of that foreconceited feare which the sight of the parenthesis in his Refuters AntecedeÌt cast him into 1. he sporteth himself with some unsavorie jests which argueth that the ridiculum caput he speaketh of cleaveth close to his owne shoulders and at length full soberly he undertaketh to shewe that the inclosure before meÌtioned bewrayeth both weaknes in the consequence and falshood in the Antecedent First touching the consequence he judgeth it as weak as the Sect. 6. former because he seeth not to what purpose the townes are added because the parishes be excepted The former overmuch mirth of the Doctor hath as it seemeth marred his memorie for he sawe well enough before to what purpose the townes were added namely to strengthen the consequence of the first Enthymem framed by himself against one branch of his answere which affirmed the Presbyters to be divided aswell for the country as citie For the Refuter desirous to come as neere to the Doctor as the truth will give leave acknowledgeth that the Christians which inhabited the townes or country round about the citie made their repaire vnto the citie there to joyn with the inhabitants thereof in the publick worship of God till their number so increased that they might conveniently enjoy a distinct Church in some one or moe of those townes And as it was meet the Refuter should yeeld so farre to the Doctor so is it absurd and against coÌmon sense he should be denied to except those townes that had a distinct Church seated in them But will you see how strongly the Doctor impugneth the consequence as it now standeth with this inartificiall argument q. d I cannot see to what purpose that addition serveth Therefore this later consequence is altogither as weak as the former Had the Refut at any time argued so loosely to infringe any of the Doctors consequences he had been worthy to beare this censure that his facultie is better in denying consequences then in proving them But the Doctor not being yet returned to his right temper at this time is to be borne with not onely for this fault but also for a worse in charging the Antecedent of falshood when he hath nothing to alleadge that directly impugneth it yet let us give him the hearing By this inclusure saith he the Antecedent it bewrayed of falshood for The D. to charge his Refuter with falshood delivereth a double untruth and yet to no purpose if there were in the citie and countrey more distinct Churches or Parishes as here is supposed and these all subor dinate to one as I have manifestly proved then all these will make a Dincese Behold here a double untruth propounded to conclude a falshood in his Refuters Antecedent yet all wil not serve the turne when he hath done the most he can For first the parenthesis in the Antecedent doth not necessarily suppose that the townes round about every citie had distinct Churches in them onely it holdeth the matter in suspense touching some one or moe townes in some countries because as the Doctor remembreth Cenchreae neere unto Corinth was a distinct church and in such a case it excepteth such townes and annexeth to the citie church the rest Neyther is it true that he hath manifestly proved the subordination of many Churches unto one within the Apostles daynes no nor yet within the first 200. yeares after Christ But say there were a truth in both his untruthes and graunt him also that which he inferreth to wit that many Churches subordinate to one will make a Diocese how doth this convince the refuters Antecedent of falshood Did not his passions blinde his judgement when he imagined there is strength enough in this cosequence for thus he reasoneth Many Churches in citie and country subordinated all to one do make a Diocise Ergo all the Christians in a citie and the townes adioyning which have no distinct Church in them must needs make more then one particular congregation But perhaps he correcteth his owne errour in the words following when he faith I say therefore againe that though their Antecedent were true yet the consequence were to be denied The which what is it but to run from one errour to another For it is before observed that the conclusion which the Refuter slandeth here to mainteyn is no other in effect then this that the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned not to the overfight of many Churches but to one onely congregation Now if there be a truth in his Antecedent which affirmeth that at that time the Christians in any citie and townes around it such namely as had no distinct Churches in them made but one congregation the consequence of the argument cannot be infringed otherwise then by shewing that the presbyters received from the Apostles not onely the charge of that one coÌgregatioÌ but also the govermeÌt of some other churches established in some other eyther more populous or more remote townes Which to demonstrate it sufficeth not to assume this that many churches subordinate to one doe make a Diocese but good proofe must be added also that this subordination of many Churches in countrey townes to the Church of the citie tooke place in the time of the Apostles and was ratified by their allowance Having thus freed the Refuters Enthymem from the Doctors Sect 7. frivolous exceptions I will once againe produce it to his viewe but in another forme which shall not affright him as the former parenthesis did in a plaine syllogisme therefore which kinde of argument he best affectâth thus I reason All the Christians which in the Apostles tymes dwelt in and about any great citie and were called the Church of that citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place But all those Christians were
Ergo also the second To make good the consequence of the Proposition he said that it standeth upon the foundation which the Doctor himselfe layd in the first argument drawne from his text neyther was he therein deceived for in this defense cap. 2. sect 2. he confesseth that he presupposed all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government to be like to those 7 because it is not to be doubted but the primitive Churches indued with that power were of like nature and constitution But the Doctor burieth all this in silence and as if the Refuter had intreated that the consequence might passe without controulment he seemeth vnwilling to yeild him so much favour vnlesse it may be lawfull for him to use another which he saith is like viz. that if the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishonall Churches in the first 200 yeares he meaneth unto the full end of that terme then neyther were the Churches of other cities And then telleth us But they were not parishonall churches as for Rome he had proved and for Alexandria would prove therefore concludeth so of the rest Well let us reason a little with him is the consequence indeed the same so he saith but doth he speak as he is perswaded if not why setteth he such a face of truth upon a lie If yea why inwrappeth he his owne feet in the snare that he layeth for another for whether he disclaime or allow the consequence and the hypothesis whereon it is grounded will he nil he he must beare the blame of a foule contradiction To disclaime it is to overthrow as before is noted the foundation of his owne argument pa. 42. To allow it is to make way for the utter ruine of A foul cotradiction in the D. that assumption which he urgeth for a double advantage p. 69 122. lin 1. for if that may be verefied of all other Churches which he avoucheth here and pag. 124 for certeinty of Alexandria and elsewhere pag 50 and 122 denieth probable in some others then by the like consequence alike grounded on the same hypothesis we may conclude that all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were also divided into diverse parishes even in the Apostles times deserveth not the D. now to be beaten with his owne cudgell pag 73. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction that he should not care so he may gainsay his adversaries present affertion how shamefally he contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with the Doctor Notwithstanding I can easily free the Refuter from that disadvantage which the D. conclusion threatneth For we can and wil hold our owne consequence for a truth on both parts already assented to till we heare him directly contradict the hypothesis whereon it is grounded as himselfe acknowledgeth viz. that all churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were at the first of the same nature and constitution but the later shall hang in suspence till he hath proved that it is grounded on the same hypothesis For in our apprehension his consequence presupposeth that all Churches were alike not in that nature and constitution wherein they stood at the first but in this alteration wherein Alexandria Rome went before others namely to be distinguished into many parishes whereas all at their first planting were vndistinguished as himselfe confesseth To passe therefore forwards to the Assumption because the Sect. 2. ad sect 2. pag. 102. Refuter saith it appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars Mr. D. asketh whether his syllâgismes are so soone come to an end and perceiving that his cheefe proofs are that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one congregation he further asketh whether this was his Assumption whereto I answer that for brevity sake the Refuter omitted the contriving of his proofes into forme of syllogisticall reasoning presuming as the Doct. saith elswhere in his owne defense pag 79. that any man might from that which the Doct. observeth to be his cheife drift conclude his assumption thus The Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalem were each of them in the Apostle Pauls time no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore they were each of them at that time but one parish But the Doctor having wronged his Refuter before by stretching his assumption beyond the age of the Apostles to the full term of 200 yeares holdeth on and doubleth the wrong by reteyning the same addition of 200. yeares that he might have the more colour to cavill with the consequence of the argument to charge his Refuter with playing the Sophister in taking that for graunted which he did not so much as dreame of viz. that each of those Churches continued one congregation and so one parish for 200. yeares because they were but one congregation in the Apostles times Wherefore what he objecteth to infringe this consequence I overpasse as unworthy the answer seing he forged it for the nonce to cavill with True it is that the consequence of the Entoymem before set down presupposeth a truth in this assertioÌ scz that those Churches are parishes whose people are no more then such as ordinarily assemble in one place And the Refuter deemed it a vame of time and labour yea meere folly to call into question that which was of the Doctor assented unto serm p. 4 viz. that when we affirme and he denieth every visible Church to be properly a parish by a parish is meant a particular ordinary coÌgregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God Wherefore in denying nowe the consequence of the argument before delivered what else doth he but play the wrangler For he that meaneth truely to bring the matter controverted to the right issue will never offer to gainsay what is certaine and confessed And because he saith that the reasons of his deniall are set downe at large cap. 3. sect 5. 6. I must tell him that I finde nothing there that directly controuleth the hypothesis of our coÌsequence here to wit that every Church which maketh but one ordinarie congregation is a parish And whatsoever is there sayd touching the point then in hand it is sufficiently to use his owne words overthrown already Wherfore let us hear those 2. ReasoÌs which for a surplussage as he saith he now addeth The first is this If these Churches because they were each of them one congregation were parishes Sect. 3. ad pag. 103. before the division of parishes then they were such Churches as after the division parishes were But they were not such Churches I will adde the conclusion Ergo neyther were they parishes before the division of Parishes because they were each of them one congregation First I praye the Doctor to tell us what moveth him to tumble into the conclusion and consequent of the proposition this clause before the division of parishes Where
hath his Refuter sayed that those Churches of Corinth Ephesus c. were parishes before the division of parishes or why doth he father on him such a senslesse assertion as this is For in his owne understanding it is all one as if a man should say that those Churches were parishes before they were any parishes at all as appeareth by his descanting upon this point pag. 69. and 70. But let us see how the Doctor fortifyeth each part of his argumentation First touching his assumption to prove that those churches were not such as were the parishes that followed the division he urgeth 3. differences betwixt the one and the other 1. parishes after their division had not a Bishop and a Presbyterie as those Churches had but onely one preshyter assigned to them 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a Superintendent as was the Bishop of those Churches over other Pastors 3. neither was any of them intended as each of those Churches was to be a Mother-church These differences being nakedly affirmed The Doct. argueth like a Sophister may with a bare deniall be repelled but the answere at this time shal be rather this that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter For say that he could as he cannot mainteyne these differences those Churches might be yea were notwithstanding such churches as the parishes were after the division that is alike in the point which himselfe taketh notice of pag. 4. of his sermon as the substanciall point of the agreement intended the former being aswell as the later each of them one ordinary congregation assembled in one place But if his meaning be that they were not such in all points we may well demurre upon the matter till the question be debated which belongeth to another tract what manner of parishes they were which received their originall from the division of one citie Church into many parish-assemblies In the meane time to come to the consequence of his proposition whereas he saith it may not be denied specially by them that would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches I wil be so bolde as utterly to contradict this speach and say the contrary to it that it may very well be denyed even by such as would have the parishes so framed For in as much as they desire not the abolishing of parishes but the reducing of them to the patterne of the first churches it is evident that they in their judgment hold two kindes of parishes the one differing from the other agreeing with the forme and constitution of the first Churches And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defense of that conclusion which the Doctors argument throweth upon his Refuter he must needs distinguish in some respect or other betwixt the parishes that had their being before and those that began after that division of parishes whereof he speaketh and therefore must of necessitie contradict the Doctors consequence say that the first Churches which were parishes in asmuch as they were but one congregation before that division of parishes which followed when those Churches by reason of their multitude hugely increased were parted into more particular congregations were not in all points such Churches as the later parishes were Thus is the stroake of his first reason warded let me come now Sect. â to encounter with the second If saith he that assumption was false which denied Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But the Refuter sayd before that that assumption had no truth in it here also must I adde the conclusion Ergo those Churches were not onely many congregations but also many parishes Vnderstand this to be meant of each Church severally q. d. Ergo each of them was not one onely congregation or parish but many And marke what followeth These two just exceptions saith he I have against his consequence So you may discerne how just cause he giveth me to take up against him his owne fashion of reply pag. 72. Good Sir what is this to the Refuters consequence Where doth he say that each of these Churches was but one congregation and not many and where that each was but one parish Is not the former his Antecedent or assumption and the later the consequent or conclusion Therefore to use his owne words pag. 73. when you would seeme to deny the consequence you do not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against some other assertion of his you deny the principall conclusion I might proceed therefore to rowse him up with the sweet sound of his owne bâlls pag. 47. and ring this peale into his cares Is not the deniall of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded c but I spare him the rest of his speach and return to the matter His argument is no other then such as he before objected pag. 73. and 76. and is already answered cap. 3. sâct 10. and 15. to this purpose viz. that the refuter in affirming parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times cannot contradict his owne assertion which mainteyneth the Apostolike Churches to be parishes because in his understanding every particular congregation is a parish And if it be not so also in the Doctors perswasion why doth he so often use the wordes indiffârently viz. severall parishes or congregations for one and the same thing Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togiâher in this very argument of his to contradict his conclusion and so to justify our owne I tender him for reqâitall this that followeth If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles tâme then the Churches oâ Corinth Ephâsus c. Were in that age each of them but onâ onely congrâgation or parish But that âssumpâion âs by the D. maintâyned to be true pag. 69. and 73 let him therefore disclaime that AssumptioÌ or give way to this conclusion Therefore the Churches of Coriâth Ephesus c were each of them in the Apostlâs âimâs but one onâly congregation or parish and not many But let us heare what it is that withholdeth his aâsent from the Antecedent or assumption of the Refuters bâforâ set downe Though I deny not saiâh he bât âhat ât the first and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect 3. pa. â04 time of the Apostle Pâul the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a pâpulous congregation yet â cannot yeild to all his proofes Even so but why doth he not answere directly to the point by approving or contrarying that which is sayd of those three churches Corinth Ephesus and Antioche If it be false in his pârswasion what maketh him affrayd or abâsht to dâscover the falshood thereof if true why doth he not plainly acknowledge it
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 pâoduce 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 takâth 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 âpilanthanominâs cautouÌ one congregation then they were no more untâll 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 sunâlthe 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 coÌmon sense if he should haue sayd that the like might be affirmed of the Church of England viz. that the whole church coÌmeth 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 Diocâse 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 attendâd one flock in common that is coÌmuni coÌcilso et mutuâ auxilio and were not assioned to severall parishes or parts of the flock For how can that speach which importeth a coÌmon 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 existeÌce 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
this chapter haue given us a second reason for his first conclusion scz that Timothy and Titus were ordeyned Bishops by S. Paul he now tendreth us a second prosyllogisme to confirme the antecedent of his first argument But to let him goe free with this fault I will answer this argument as it standeth first to the proposition which although it never sawe the Sun before his defence came abroad he taketh for graunted because T C and his Refuter have assailed it in vaine So he flattereth himself in his owne conceite but all in vaine For a meaner Scholler then T. C. or his Refuter eyther may easily discerne the inconsequence of his proposition although he may seme to have fortified the presupposall which he concludeth with a double bulwark both of describing the authority and of prescribing the duty of Bishops For S. Paul in his speach to the Elders of Ephesus Acts. 20. 18. c. describing his owne office and authority as he was the Superintendent of that church president of the presbyterie there plainely describeth the office and authority of all Superintendents or presidents in particular churches consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed by all such as should succeed in the like office till the comming of Christ Notwithstanding it were absurd froÌ hence to inferre that the Apostles speach there presupposeth his ordination to the office of a superintendent or President of the Presbytery in that Church of Ephesus wherefore neyther doth it follow that the Apostle in his epistles to Tim Titus presupposeth their ordination to the office of Bishops in the churches of Ephesus and Creete though it should be graunted that in describing their authority as they were governours of those churches and in prescribing their duty such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christs comming he both described the office and prescribed the duty of Bishops But this which he assumeth for a truth I reject as an assertioÌ no lesse voyd of truth then the main coÌclusion now in question for it is grounded upoÌ this false suppositioÌ that none other then diocesaÌ Bishops had in those times or could have by succession the government of particular Churches Now let us heare what he can say in defence thereof The Assumption I prove saith he by those particulars wherein the episcopall Sect. 4. ad sect 3. pa. 78. authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of iurisdiction they being the censures of other Ministers doctrine 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. 3. 9. Iudges oâ their person and conversation 1. Tim. 5. 19. 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofes he answereth nothing Answered nothing no merveile if he had no answere to these proofes as they are now fitted to the assumption of his new shapen argument if this be his meaning his best friends I think wil scarce coÌmend his honesty or discretion But if his meaning be that these proofes before layd downe in his sermon received no answer at all dooth he not too much forget himself since he taketh notice in the next page following of this reason yeelded for the denyall of his assumption viz. that those instructions comprised in the places alleadged were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops but particularly to them as Evangelists and in generall to the Presbyters c. But since this answere is in his eyes no answer at all let us trie whether it may not be sayd with more truth that his proofes whereof he boasteth are no clear proofes eyther of the principall points before denied or of those which he now assumeth He knoweth full well that his refuter flatly denieth that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assumption both before and now to wit that S. Paul had any intention to informe Timothy and Titus as Bishops or any other Diocesan Bishops by them how to demeane themselves in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction hath he any argument to prove this or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mencioned At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumptioÌ why are not the proofs thereof if he have any contrived into form of arguments are his syllogismes so soon at an end Me thinks he should not expect any help in this case from his refuter whom he judgeth to be but a very bungler in the art of Syllogising Yet if it must needs be done to his hands I will doe my best to give it the best coate I can and that is this Whosoever describing vnto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christs coÌming doth describe their office prescribe their duties in those particulars wherein episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth he doth in so describing prescribing plainly describe the office and prescribe the duty of Bishops But S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus describing their office authoritie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christs comming describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth For he describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in the power of ordination and jurisdiction as the places before quoted doe shewe And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth Therefore S. Paul in so describing the authoritie and prescribing the duty of Timothy and Titus doth plainely describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of Bishops Behold here good Reader how the Doctor after many windings in and out is retired back to that which he assumed as you may see sect 1. for the proofe of his first argument viz. that episcopall authoritie standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdiction This was then taken for graunted and so inforced to prove that Timothy Titus their ordination to the function of Bishops was presupposed by S. Paul in his epistles to them in as much as they had that authoritie coÌmitted to them Here it is againe produced to justify the same coÌclusion because if episcopal authority coÌsist in those particulars theÌ S. Pauls describbing of their authority and prescribbing of their duty in the same particulars argueth the authority duty of Bishops to be describbed in those epistles c. So to make a shew of some variety of arguments one assertioÌ must come twice upon the stage for one purpose that with an impudent The Doct. beggeth stoutly face to begge rather then with âound reason from Gods word to coÌfirme what is well known to be one of the main points controverted For his adding the authority of Gregorie Nazianzen Chrysostome
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 â3 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 maÌner 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 coÌmitted 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 EvaÌgelist 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 EvaÌgelist 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 coÌfesseth as the truth in deed is that the word Evangelist specially taken signifieth the extraordinary fuÌctioÌ 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 functioÌs 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
certeine place the other is ordinarie tyed to one certeine place Ergo the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors cannot be conjoyned at once in one person without confounding the functioÌs which in their first institution were distinguished And by this it may be seene that the Doctors comparison halteth when he would perswade that Timothy and Titus might be Bishops although they were Evangelists like as the Apostles Matthew and Iohn were also Evangelists for that Evangelistship given to Matthew Iohn by that name of Evangelists is farre differing from the Evangelisticall function of Timothy and Titus neyther is there such an opposition betweene their Evangelist-ship and the Apostleship as there is betwene that Evangelistical function which he giveth to Timothy Titus their episcopall office For Matthew and Iohn ceased not to be Apostles when they became Evangelists but concerning Timothy and Titus he plainely affirmeth that they laid aside their former office when they vndertook the later For he saith pag. 95. that after they were placed Bishops they traveiled not up and downe as in former times but ordinarily remeyned with their flocks To come then to the latter braunch of the Refuters argument Sect. 3. ad sect 12. p. 95. which affirmeth that they were deprived of an higher calling thrust into a lower if they ceased to be Evangelists when they were made Bishops the truth of it dependeth upon this assertion that the Evangelists were in degree of ministery superior to all ordinary Pastors or Bishops which is so generally acknowledged for a truth that the Reader may well admire at the Doctors boldnes that shameth not to set an Evangelist in equall ranck with presbyters and so in his apprehension in a degree below his Bishops For herein he swarveth not onely from the coÌmon Tenent of the best in other reformed churches see Calvin in Ephes 4. 11. Beza de grad minist pag. 133. 134. which give to all the extraordinary functions of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists a preheminent degree above all the ordinary offices of Pastors or Bishops but also from such as have pleaded the same cause before him D. Dove Def. of Church-government pag. 17. lin 18. and perpet gover pag. 50. 51. And therefore as the D. will have Iames to remeine an Apostle though he were Bishop of Ierusalem so will Bishop BilsoÌ have Timothy and Titus to be both Evangelists and Bishops perpet gover pag. 233. 234. But to leave the mencion of men however famous for learning and esteemed in the Church can we have any better line whereby to measure out the preheminence of each ministeriall function then that priority of place order wherein the Apostles hath set them Ephes 4 11. from hence therefore I thus argue All the ordinary functions of ministery comprised vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers are in degree inferior to the extraordinary functions of Apostles Prophets Evangelists as the order of their standing Ephes 4. 11. sheweth But the function of Bishops which the Doct. ascribeth to Timothy and Titus is an ordinary function of ministery such as himself comprizeth vnder the name of Pastors pag. 95. Ergo it is also inferior in degree to the extraordinary functioÌ of Evangelists aswell as to Apostles Prophets Now to reduce to this argument the Doctors discourse pag. 94. and 95 the summe is this First he maketh 4. sorts of Evangelists viz such as taught the Gospell by writing as the 4. Evangelists Math. Mark Luke and Iohn 2. any one that doth Evangelize or preach the Gospell 3. the. 72. disciples imediately called of Christ and sent by him to preach the gospel of which number was Philip Act. 21. 8. 4. Some others assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their traveiles and assistants in the Ministery and of this sort were Timothy and Titus whiles they accompanied Paul in his traveiles and were not assigned to any certeyne place Secondly to apply this distribution unto the Apostles meaning Ephes 4. 11. he acknowledgeth no other there comprized under the name of Evangelists then the 4. Evangelists so called kat hexochen and perhaps the 72 doubtfully he speaketh of them pag. 95. as being loath it seemeth to acknowledge that they had any preheminence above his diocesan Bishops because the Fathers say of them as he observeth pag. 94. that they also had but the degree of the presbyterie And therefore I guesse he will award the stroke of the former argument by this distinctioÌ thus viz. that the ordinary functions of ministery comprized vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers are not inferior in degree to the later sort of Evangelists which attended on the Apostles but onely to the 4. Evangelists and perhaps to the. 72. because these onely and not the other are meant by the name of Evangelists in that place And to joine issue with the Doctor I affirme the contrary viz. Section ãâã that by Evangelists in Ephes 4. 11. we are to vnderstand all those and those onely which in an extraordinary function distinct from the Apostles and Prophets traveiled too and fro preaching the Gospell whether they were imediately called of Christ as Philip is supposed to be or were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions and assistants as Timothy Titus Mark and many others And first to prove that which he denyeth viz. that the later sort of Evangelists are comprized vnder that name in Ephes 4. 11. aswell as the former for brevity sake in stead of larger syllogismes I tender to him and to the judicious Reader these several arguments nakedly propounded 1. the D. confesseth that vnder the name of Evangelists specially taken the later sort in which number Timothy and Titus were are no lesse comprized then the former because this was coÌmon to them all that they went up and downe preaching the Gospell not being affixed to any certeine place It seemeth therefore he was not well advised when he admitted the one sort and denied the other to be understood by the word Ephes 4. 11. unlesse he could yeeld as he cannot some sufficient reason for the difference he putteth betweene them 2. Againe he confesseth that the later sort were in an extraordinary function Either therefore he must deny all extraordinarie functions of ministerie to be comprized Ephes 4. 11. or he must referre one sort of Evangelists to an other name as of Apostles Prophets or Pastors c. both which are absurd and I doubt not but to make good the censure if the Doctor require it Now whereas he referreth the word Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. principally to those 4. that wrote the gospels this is not easily proved to accord with the meaning of the Apostle seing that work of penning the Evangelicall history maketh them not to stand in a differing function of Ministerie froÌ all others For the Ministeries there mencioned are all distinct functions of preachers And if the writing of Christs historie made a different function why should
he saith specially in ordinatioÌ and jurisdictioÌ if he take it personally for that which was invested in them by the ministeriall functioÌ which they there exercised then I reject the assumption also in that behalfe but if it be taken simply and at large for any authoritie to exercise the like works eyther in the same Churches or in any other then I disclaime his proposition For we are so farre froÌ affirming this authoritie to be proper vnto Evangelists that we hold it rather coÌmoÌ to every Pastor in his owne congregation Let the reader see what the Doctor observeth for this purpose pag. 79. 84. and what we have added cap. 8. sect 12 touching their preheminence above other Ministers and the continuance thereof in the presidents of Synods Now to come to his Argument first set downe and to passe by that fault of mencioning function onely in the proposition wheras Sect. 2. ad pag. 98. 99. authoritie is also joyned with it in the assumption and conclusion the Assumption which was denyed by the Refuter must for the clearing of his true meaning be divided into two meÌbers the one serving properly for the plaine naturall assumptioÌ viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors the other serving eyther for the Medius terminus of a prosyllogism to coÌfirm the former or at least for an explicatioÌ of his meaning therin viz. that the functioÌ authoritie which they had or exercised in those Churches was such as assigned them to the particular care thereof and consisted specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction the refuter for brevitie sake omitting to distinguish these two differing propositions infolded in one fitted his answer to the later affirming as the truth is that therein he doth but begge the question in asmuch as he assumeth for The Doct. beggeth truth these two points before convinced of falshood viz. 1. that they were assigned to the perpetuall charge of those Churches 2. And that their authoritie was such a preheminent power in ordination and jurisdiction as he ascribeth elswhere to Bishops If prejudice or rather malice as it may be feared had not blinded the Doctor he might have aswell discerned this as some others have done that borrowed no light from the Refuter by any private coÌference with him to finde out his true meaning and then he might have spared that outragious calumniation He roves and raves as men use to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answer somewhat But to answere his Assumption as he hath now nakedly propounded it viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be coÌtinued in their successors I answer with the distinctioÌ before used to wit that their personall authoritie perished with their function and therefore in that respect the assumption is false howsoever there remayned unto perpetuall succession an authoritie to performe the same ministeriall works which they exercised by vertue of their temporary function So that if he will prove the assumption in that sense wherein it is denyed then must he prove the perpetuitie not onely of their authoritie in generall and for the works sake which they performed but also of their particular function and of that personall authoritie which they there exercised so as neyther the one nor the other did end with their persons but was continued in their successors the proofe therefore of his assuÌption must thus runne That function and authoritie which is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus Creet is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authoritie which they there exercised was not to end in their persons but to be continued in their successors Here the Assumption was denied because however the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet there is no necessitie that there should be in every Church an Evangelist that is to say one indowed with that peculiar function personall authoritie which Timothy and Titus had for the good ordering and executing of that power The Doctor saith he did not affirme that which is denyed scz that there must be an EvaÌgelist in every Church neyther is he willing to see that his assumption doth both in effect affirm as much plainely avouche what he dareth not to justify to wit that the very function which Timothy and Titus exercised is perpetually necessarie not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches To avoid this grosse absurditie he will needes now divide their Sect. 3. ad sect 14. pag 100. 101. function from their authoritie which hitherto he hath conjoyned For thus he explaineth his Assumption The function which Timothy and Titus exercised was ordinary and their authoritie perpetually necessary c. of which two points he saith his Refuter graunteth the later doth not touch the former as if the former branch could escape his touch when his whole assumption is rejected as false or there were no difference betwixt that power of ordination and jurisdiction in generall which the Refuter graunteth to be perpetually necessary and that peculiar authoritie which was invested in Timothy and Titus by reason of their particular function which was before denied to be continued in their successors But in truth as he hath O sweet D now distributed and construed the parts of his assumption in the second he idly affirmeth what was never denied and so leaveth untouched the point which he should have proved And in the first he offendeth more grosly for he borroweth the conclusion of his first argument to make good the Assumption of the same Before he proved the function of Timothy Titus to be ordinary episcopall because it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall And now to prove that their function was coÌtinued in their successors and therefore not extraordinarie and Evangelisticall he telleth vs that it is an ordinarie function and the same which the Bishops that succeeded them did exercise And to make a mends for this The Doct. beggeth impudent begging he multiplyeth his default by heaping up many assertions whereof some are apparantly false and the rest no lesse doubtfull then the point which he indeavoreth to justify For first it is false which he saith of Timothy and Titus that in them there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certain churches so is that which he addeth to prove it viz. that their calling to the Ministery was ordinary and their gifts attayned
Could the Doctor be so simple as to imagine that his refuter had any meaninge to charge him or his doctrine with vpholding the popish Hierarchie in any of those maine differences which here or afterwards he mentioneth to distinguish theÌ from our Clergie Or could he perswade himself that none of his The D. disputeth a dicto secuÌdum quid ad simplicitor Opposites would discerne the weaknes of his defence when he disputeth a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter in this manner My doctrine tendeth not to vpholde the popish hierarchy quatenus it is properly Antichristian Therefore it tendeth not to give them any supportance at all The Refuters meaning is playne that the tenour of the Doctors disputing for our prelacie tendeth by consequence to vpholde those functions and degrees in the popish Hyerarchy which other reformed Churches have rejected as vnlawfull at least vnecessarie and superfluous Which is a truth so apparant that the Doctor doth in part closely acknowledge it though with The Doct. closely acknowledgeth what he fairely but falsely excuseth a faire but false pretence he seeketh to excuse it when he sayth wee are content to observe the auncient government of the primitive Church though reteyned by them for what is that governement wherein we agree with them Is it not the government by ARCH BISHOPS LORD BISHOPS ARCH DEACONS CHANCELLORS COMMISSARIES c. assisted with Proctors and Apparators Wherefore since the functions of the popish hierarchy serving for CHVRCH-government are none other then such as we reteyne in our Churches the Pope and his Cardinals excepted the D. cannot disclaime the defence of the rest of their hierarchy vnlesse he will leave our owne naked and destitute of due protection And if that be true which the refuter hath in many parts of his answer obected viz that the Papists doe and may with as good colour of truth alleadge the same reasons for the Popes primacie over Archbishops that the D. urgeth for the superiorty of Bishops or Archbishops it is no wrong at all to affirme that the D. sermon tendeth to vphold the popish hierarchie aswell as ours even from the Pope to the Apparitor But let vs go on and trace the Doctor in the stepps of his answere 1. Who can excuse him in this that professing as he now doth the Pope to be properly Antichrist in regard of that vniversall government which he assumeth he should notwithstanding reare vp a pillar in his defense following to upholde what he would seeme The Doct. vpholdeth what he seemeth to pull down to pull downe For to justify the government of Metropolitans who were at the first as he saith lib. 2. p. 114 autochephaloi heads by themselves of their Provinces he thus reasoneth page following It was convenient or rather necessary that there should be consociation of Churches within the same Province and that that governours of the severall Dioceses should meet for the coÌmon good and that the wrongs offred to any by the Bishops within their Dioceses might be remedied By consequent therefore it was necessarie especially before there were Christian Magistrates that one in every Province should be held as cheefe or primate who should assemble the Synods moderate them being assembled see the decrees executed have a generall superintendencie over the whole province By the like conseq it is well knowne that the Popes proctors doe plead for his vniversall primacie and the D. doth very frankly offer them the antecedent lib. 3. p. 4. The whole Church saith he is governed by the mutuall consociation of their governours for the coÌmon good and the concurrence of them to an Occumenical Synode For the whole Church being but one body there ought to be a Christian consociation of the governours therof for the common good of the whole body If there ought to be such a consociation of all Bishops and governours of the whole Church then there is no lesse conveniencie or rather necessity of this consociation of the whole then there is of the former in one Province Wherefore the Doctor cannot forbid any freind of the papacie in an imitation of his former argument to inferre this conclusion By consequent therefore it is necessarie specially now that there is not a Christian Magistrate to whose civil regiment all or the greatest part of Christian Churches are in subjection as formerly they were to the Romane Empire that among the ecclesiastical governours of the whole Church one should be held as cheife to assemble and moderate generall councels to see the decrees executed and so to haue a general superintendencie over the whole Church Thus in traveiling The D. traveyling with an Archbish bringeth forrh a Pope And so doth Sta pleton charge ouâ Bishops by their arg for their hierarchy to doe Relect adver whit cont 2. q. 3. art 3 with an Archbishop the Doctor bringeth forth a Pope But if he will infringe this later consequence and say as he seemeth to imply lib. 3. pag. 4. that the necessity of a Christian consociatioÌ among the Bishops of the whole Church cannot inferre a necessity of one Pope or cheefe Bâshop because Christ our King Monarch for the government of the whole Church hath no Vicar general but the holy Ghost who appointeth governours vnder him to governe the several parts in some respect Monarchically and the whole by concurrence in one Oecumenical Synode aristocratically then for the like reasoÌ to witt because Christ our King hath no Vicar provinciall but the holy Ghost who appointeth governours vnder him in every Church throughout the Province the necessity of a consociation of all the Churches in one Province and of provinciall Synodes for the coÌmon good of those Churches cannot conclude a necessity of one Metropolitane primate to assemble moderate those Synods and to have a generall superintendencie over the whole province Wherefore it is evident that by the Doct. reasoning the Popes Vniversall headship the Archbishops provincial primacie do stand or fall togither 2. Shall we say also that the same reason which proveth the one to be Antichristian will prove the other to be Antichristian Is it not proper to Christ to be the head of every particular Church aswel as of the whole 1. Cor. 12 27. 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ephes 2. 22. cuÌ 1. 22. 23. 5. 23. Colos 1. 18. And is not the title and office of Archipoimen proper also to him alone 1. Pet. 5. 4. 3. But I hasten to examine the grounds which he hath layd to Sect. 5. ad D. pag. 13. cleare himselfe from patronizing the popish prelacie He affirmeth as we heard before that their government is justly termed Antichristian who are assistantes to the Pope in his vniversal government Loe here the proposition I wil make so holde as to add an assumption But Archbishops L. Bishops Archdeacons Chancelors c. in their several functions are assistants to the Pope in his vniversall government Whence any man may make the conclusion
answere with the Doctors defence that he may ten times yea ten tymes ten tymes say Tirpe est Doctori c. with that of Ierom regula Monach per dit authoritatem docendi cujus sermo opere destruitur But thirdly when he chargeth his Refuter after the manner of other malefactors therfore to hide his head because he put not to his name what else bewrayeth he but that he is one of those Doegs I might say doggs that hunt drie foot thirsting after blood I wish him well would The Doct. thirsteth for blood have him knowe that lett the termes be equall as they ought to be his refuter wil shewe his head when and where he will But the Doctor is wise though he here danceth in a nett in that he is desirous to see his Refuters head he knoweth well he shall shortly after see his body in the Clink or Gatehowse or some such swete place for disputatioÌ In the mean time if he be a malefactor let the The Doct. calumniaâeth D. beare witnes of the evil but let him not bear false witnes against him as a malefactor as every where almost he hath done throughout his defence As in the next words where he chargeth his ref with wilfull falsifycations depravations forged caluÌniations sophistical shifis evasioÌs to elude the light of truth coÌvicting his conscience and whereas his ref simply ex animo coÌfesseth his weaknes wants in the answere he chargeth him to speake it by an Ironie so reproaching all that is sayd of what kinde soever He disdeyneth that his refuter should say there is not a syllable of any Sect. 2. Ref. p. 8. 9. D. p. 16. 17. sound proofe in his sermon prayeth God to give him grace to repent of his blasphemy against the truth he delivered I imbrace his charitie but see not the refuters blasphemie However the note of blasphemie against the truth maketh a loud crie in the eare of the simple yet doth it never the more prove the doctrine of his sermoÌ to be true The Doct. slandereth his Refut with blasphemy proveth it not I affirme with the Ref stil that the foundation whereon he built his sermon will not beare it the building is ruinous and weakly underpropped in telling vs he taketh God to witnes that the proofes alleadged in his sermon are such as satisfy his owne conscience and that he trusteth he may without any great boasting assume as good skill to himselfe to judge of an argument as his Refuter c. I feare me it will appeare by that time all be layd togither that he hath often fallen fowle vpon his ancres and that neither his conscience nor his skil however assumed are fitt Iudges in this case my sight hath fayled me and I am much mistaken if I have not seene some men of as much note for conscience and skill as the Doctor here assumeth to him selfe who yet have foyled both when they have once undertakeÌ a badd cause But to proceede it is worth the noting that he calleth all to consider of the blasphemie saying And what was it that he hath thus censured A sermon vttered in the presence of God in the roome of Christ before a most honourable Auditorie by a Minister of the Gospel shall I say as sound and faithfull as himselfe no I disdeyne the comparison for by his fruites in his booke he hath to my seeming bewrayed an vnsound judgement an evil conscience and an vnsanctified hart I trust I maye say by a Minister of the Gospell as sound and orthodoxall as his betters as conscionable in all his sermons and writings and as carefull to deliver nothing but the truth of God Me thinks he should rather have trembled to think of confutinge a sermon of such an one c. then have dared thus to confute it Is this the reverend estimation that you would work in the peoples mindes of the word preached c What shall I saye to this DOCTOR Oh quam elatus profectò satis pro imperiolo suo What woulde he have sayd and how would he have disdeyned and disdeyned agayne if he had bin but a degree higher but a DEANE aswell as a Doctor But to answer this great charge what if I should instance for an assumption to his proposition but a fewe sermons preached at Pauls Crosse as famous a place as Lambithe by meÌ that take themselves to be as good divines as he that yet have in the D. conscience delivered vnsound pointes of doctrine will he mainteyne the coÌsequence of his proposition that we should rather tréble to think of the confuting of them then once to dare to censure them I appeale to his conscience whether Bishop Bilsons sermon concerning Christs suffrings and discension was in all points sound or no and yet he taketh himself to be as sound a divine as the D. and it may be will disdeyne the comparison too But to speake ad idem lett the D. suppose that if a discipliarian as the D. calleth them if any may be found comparable to him with great plenty of Argumentes and Testimonies truely and faithfully alleadged did deliver that there is no such preheminence and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and the D. should have excepted against it and refuting it have given the same censure on it that the Ref. hath done on his sermon and he replyed as the D. here doth And what hath he thus censured A sermon uttred in the presence of God in the roome of Christe before a most honorable Auditory c. would the D. have demed this speach reasonable Knoweth he not that it is possible enough for as faithfull Ministers and as sound and orthodoxall divines as himself ever was or is like to be notwithstanding their soundnes in other points of divinitie to preach and print as well as Mr. D. that which hath if we may beleeve him scarce one word of truth or syllable of sound proof in it What saith he to Calvin Bâza and other worthy divines admirably sound and orthodoxall in all substantiall pointes of religion by his owne confession Have they not both preached and printed the cleane contrary doctrine to his sermoÌ concerning the governmeÌt of the Church How often doth he in his sermon centure their sermoÌs writings and all that is sayd by them to be but pretty and witty proofes mere colours no sound arguments c. the discipline to be pretended their owne devises yea and vpon his second thoughts in his defence doth he not charge a fresh all that is sayd by them or any other to be false counterfeit novelous and affirmeth he not that if their can but one proofe be brought for it he will yeild c. Mought not a man now turne the D. speach vpon him and saye what is that which by his sermon he hath so censured even sermons and writings uttred in the presence of God c. me thinkes he should rather have
of his consequence viz. that though it were granted that those 7. were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoyninge yet their might be diverse other as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16. which were small and bounded within the walleâ of some small Towne See you not saith the D. how he secketh about for starting holes what if there were other small Churches what is that to this consequence If thâse Ch conteined each of them not onely the City but the Country adjoyning then they were not parishes properly but Dioceses his answere if it be well weighed is an exception against the conclusion c. I answere â if he grant there were other small Churches he then justifyeth his Ref ceÌsure both in denying that to agree to all other Churches which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities c. and in rejecting the consequence of his first Enthymem which in concluding all Churches to be Dioceses because those 7. were great and ample cities did presuppose as himself acknowledgeth that what he affirmed of those 7. is verified of all the rest 2. And therefore he slaundereth his refuter in charging him to seek about for starting holes and his answere to be an exception The Doct. slaundreth his Refuter against the conclusion For his answere is a strong engine to bâtter the consequence of his argumentation and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himselfe crept into for safe harbor when he saith that what is verified of those 7. Churches the same may be truly affirmed of all others 3. Moreover he much forgetteth himselfe in affirming both here and pag. 44. that his argument concludeth nothing else then this that the 7. Churches were Dioceses For as the conclusion which he proposeth in his sermon pag. 17. to be proved was more generall of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following so he doth expresly affirme pag. 45. of this defense that in this argument now controverted he concludeth A flat contradiction in the D. from those 7. churches to all others As for his conclusion or closing up of this point wherin he calleth his Refuter a froward adversary because here he findeth fault that he concludeth what these Churches were and yet in other places accused him for not concluding what they or the angels of them were it argueth the D. himselfe to be a froward adversary and a false witnes His falshood appeareth in this that as he cannot alleadge one word to prove The Doct. not the Refuter is a froward ad versary a false witnes his accusation so he himselfe acquiteth him thereof when he saith pag. 45. that he is here blamed for concluding from these 7. Churches to all others And since he knoweth the fault which his Refuter findeth to be a naughty consequence which falsly presupposeth all Churches to be such as he saith those 7. were to wit great and ample âities c. what is it else but frowardnes in him that will rather justify a lye then acknowledge a truth which he knoweth But since he will nowe restreyne his argument to the 7. Churches Sect. 5. to conclude them Dioceses I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem before set downe sect 3. in fine and set it thus as followeth The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes yea Dioceses such as ours are For unlesse their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authoritie like to our Diocesans Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any directioÌ for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism I would advise him to remember that the Medius terminus which never entreth into the conclusion must needes be here the predicatum in the antecedent to wit great and ample cities c. and to make up the proposition which is wanting there must be joyned to it the predicatum of the consequent to witt Dioceses c. because it hath no place in the antecedent Wherefore the proposition to be supplyed must be this Great and ample cities togâther with their countries adioyning are Dioceses properly and not parishes yea Dioceses like to ours Then follow the partes of his Enthymem in order as they lie But the 7. Churches whoâe Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities togither with their countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly c. In the assumption of A double vntruth in the D. assumption this Syllogisme or antecedent of the former Enthymem there is a double untruth which the Doctor in his second thoughts discerned for himselfe pag. 45. restreyneth the name of great and ample cities to 5. onely of those 7. and that which he graunteth of Ephesus pag. 62. must be acknowledged also of all the rest viz. that the whole citie was not the Church vntil it was wholly coÌverted to the profeâsion of Christianity Wherefore to free his argument from both these vntruthes first he quite shuâteth out this clâuse great and ample cities secondly whereas before he had said that the 7. Churches whose Bishops are in his text called angels were not onely the cities but also the countries adioyning now he saith his meaning was that those Churches conteined in their circuite not onely the Cities but the Cuntries adjoyninge Wherfore he contriveth his argument in this forme pag. 42. 44. Churches whose circuite conteyned both Cities and countryes adjoyning were Dioceses The circuite of the 7. Churches conteyned the Cities and Countries adjoyninge Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses The assumption he hath made good as he supposeth with necessary proofe And the proposition which he tooke for granted will stand as he saith pag. 43. vnmoveable when the foundation of our discipline will be razed But the issue will shew I doubt not that the foundatioÌ of our discipline will abide firme when his proposition is shaken into shivers and that his assumption hath not so much as one probable argument to support it To make his meaninge a little more plaine in both the premisses as himself doth explaine his assumption thus that the Circuite of every one of those Churches conteyned both the City the Country adjoyninge so to holde proportion therewith his proposition must cary this sense that every Church whose circuite conteineth a City and the Country adjoyninge is a Diocese And because he must conclude as we have before observed that every one of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese such as are the dioceses subjected to our Bishops his proposition must affirme every Church conteyninge one City and the Country adjoyning to be such a diocese as these are which we beholde at this day in the Church of England But admit a truth
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâlea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bââe had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a âeverall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possââe that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ is not the denial of the coÌclusioÌ an evidence that the answerer is coÌfounded is not coÌfusioÌ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâctâd Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllogisme with the maine argument which himself contrived and is before set downe sect 5. and if they can finde any such materiall difference in the medius terminus and the premisâes as may give the D. a discharge froÌ begging the questioÌ let them shew it Meane while I doubt not but every unpartiall reader will perceive his povertie in this dispute especially seing he supporteth the Assumption of his principall argument with the same answere pag. â4 For who that denieth any of the Apostolike Churches to comprehend the whole citie and country adjoyning as Dioceses in succeeding ages did will beleeve that the circuite of those Churches was the same when there were but fewe that it was when many yea all were Christians and who that denieth as the Refuter doth the circuite of a citie and country adjoyning to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese vnlesse it be divided into many congregations will not take him for a very trifler which to make good the contrary shall yeeld him none other argument then this that a Church not yet divided into severall assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese If the founder thereof did intend that her circuite should include citie and country as a divided Diocese doth Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and Both premisses of the Doctor argument are vnsound downeright answere to his argument last contrived I at once reject both the promisses as erroneous and unsound First touching the proposition since the Doctor placeth the very essence and life if I may so speak of a Diocesan Church in her circuite including both citie and countrye adjoyning so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable as it doth with the Refuter who accounteth such a circuite the materiall cause onely estemeth the very forme that giveth being vnto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies as meÌbers of one body a meane logician may see that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding he should have yeelded us some one or other Medius terminus which might have served to prove that such a circuite maketh a Diocesan body although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof But nowe in arguing as he doth that the ancient Churches though yet vndivided were Dioceses because their founders intended that their circuite should extend over citie and countrie as the later Diocesan Churches did the errour of his reasoning is no lesse grosse and absurd then if he had said Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally Therefore they were Dioceses properly or The D. reasoning is grosse and absurd actually For all men knowe that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese as he saith all the first Apostolicall Churches were the same is actually and in very deed a Diocese and therefore hath actually and in deed the circuit of a Diocese but if it have the circuit of a Diocâse onely in the intention of the founder and not actually it is impossible it should be a dioceâe actually or properly but intentionally onely especially in their opinion who place as the D. doth the very forme and being of a diocesan Church in the circuite of her jurisdiction conteyninge both City and Country adjoyning Let the D. here call to minde what he sayd pag. 18. of his sermon mainteineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the cheife Cities of any nation they intended the conversion of the whole nation and that when having by Gods blessing converted some they placed presbyters in any of those cheife Cities their intent and hope was by their ministery to converte aswell in the Countries adjoyning as in the City so many as did belong vnto God He addeth in his defence that they whose ministery was intended for the conversion of the City and Country he should have-sayd of the whole nation to their care or charge the people of that City and Country or nation belonged both for the first convertinge of them and for the government of them being converted Whence it is also that he saith lib. 4. pag. 131. that it was from the beginninge intended that the Bishop of the mother City should be the cheif in the Province notwithstanding he constantly holdeth lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 21. lib. 4. pag. 7. 31. that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over Mother Cities were at the first actually but Bishops of their owne Dioceses not actually Metropolitanes vntill diverse Churches being constituted and Bishops ordeyned in the severall Dioceses of the province there was a consociation and subordination of them vnto one cheefe primate Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intendinge the conversion of the whole nation and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops as the light of the Gospell should spread it self into the severall Dioceses if this intention I say cannot perswade the Doctor to take the firste Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches or Metropolitan Bishops Surely then he might think us very Idâotes if we should take his bare word wheÌ he disagreeth with himselfe for a fit proofe to perswade us that the like intention of erecting a Church in any citie or Diocese vnder an hope of subjecting the people thereof to the obedience of the gospel can make that Church actually or properly a Diocese till there be distribution of particular assemblies subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Church and ministery first erected in the citie Secondly to come to the Assumption if there be any truth in it his Refuter may make more advantage by it to conclude those Sect. 9. Churches not to be Dioceses properly or actually For No Church whose circuite includeth the citie wherein it is seated the Country adioyning onely in the intention of the first founder but not actually or in execution is a Diocese actually and properly if therefore the 7. Churches were Churches whose circuit included the cities wherein thây were seated and tho countryes adioyning onely in the intention of the first founders but not actually or in execution Then it followeth that The 7. Churches were not Dioceses actually or properly The Proposition is grounded upon that difference which the Doctor himselfe putteth betwixt the actuall being of Metropolitane Bishops or Churches and the intention of those that first foânded Churches in Mother-cities And the Assumption is in effect the Doctors owne assertion as he explaineth himselfe pag. 69. 73. 128 for in the last place quoted he saith expresly that the Counâries subject to the civill jurisdiction of any citie were actually under the Bishops charge after theire conversion and intentionally before wherefore without contradiction to himselfe he cannot rejecte the conclusion So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches shall holde proportion with the groundes of his disputation he must The Doct. in his next must
change adde detract as here he doth or else c. in his next first change his maine tenâât or conclusion and plainely professe that howsoever he vndertooke to prove that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses properlâ yet that was not his meaninge but rather this that they were Diocesâs intentionally that is that it was their founders intention that in time to come after all the people of city country were converted they should become Dioceses actually and properly And sâcondly as he hath already to colour the falshood of his antecedenâ with an Index expurgatorius wiped away this clause great and amplâ cities and by a Metonimie or some other trope as we shall heare an one turned his laying they were the cities and countries to this meaning the circuite of the Churches conteyned both cities and countryes adioyning so now he must once againe limit the word conteyned to an intentionall conteyning as if he had sayd it was the intention of their ââunders that in time they should conteyne such a circuite But to passe forwardâs this position is in truth more absurd and incredible then the former The Doct. propositioÌ more absurd then before For in affirming before that the circuite of every of those Churches conteyned both the citie and country with a favourable construction being vnderstood to speake after that vsuall Meâonymie which he noteth pag. 52. of the Christian people in citie countrye his assertion might the more easily gaine his Refuters assent and allowance to passe vncontrolde so long at least as he should remaine constant in his judgement touching the multiplying or distinguishing of parishes in such a circuite which in his sermon pag. 18. 22. he denieth to be done in the Apostles times and when the Apostle Iohn wrote the Revelation But now in avouching the circuite of each Church to be the same from the beginning that it was after the division of parishes thoughout the whole Diocese his reasons must be very pregnant and demonstrative before he can drawe any judicious reader that opposeth to him in this controversie to subscribe to his assertion But let the Doctor speake I praye Even as saith he pag. 49. the subiect of the leaven is in the whole Bache in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpâ though the loaves be not yet divided yea though but a litle of the Dough be yet after it is newly put in seasoned So it is with the Church and the circuit thereof If the Doctor himselfe had made the application of his comparison we should more easily have discerned how fit or unfit it is for his purpose The pointe which he would at least should illustrate by this similitude is this that the circuite of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same aswel before the division of parishes as after Me thinks therefore to make the protaâis of his comparison answerable to the apodosis he should have rather said Even as the subiect of the leven in the intentioÌ of him that put it into the lump is the same while the leaves are undivided that it is after But if he had so proposed it then it had rather darkned then lightned that which he indeavoureth to perswade Because it is better knowen what the subject of the leven is before the lumpe be divided then after whereas in his assertion before expressed the state or constitution of the Church after parishes were multiplyed in city and country and subordinated to the jurisdiction of one consistorie is brought as better knowne to shewe howe fatte the circuite of the Church and spirituall jurisdiction stretched when as yet but an handfull of people in comparison of the rest was seasoned by the Ministery of the gospell Perhaps his meaning is that as he which putteth a little leven into an whole bache of breade intendeth that the leven should in time spreade her vertue over all and so the whole masse of meale made one body of a well levened lump so also the Apostles and firste founders of Churches when they first planted a Church and placed Presbyters in any citie or Diocese did intend that the leven of their doctrine being conveyed into the hartes of the whole multitude all might be made one body of a Diocesan Church If this be so seing in this comparison the Church is as the leven or that part of meale which is first leavened we may by his owne comparison discover the absurdity of his former assertion For as the circuite of the leven or meale leavened is at the first putting in and for a while after farre lesse then when all is leavened so also the circuite of the Church at the first erecting of it in any city for some ages after was farre lesse then when the whole people of the Diocese imbraced the faith Againe as it is contrary to the intent of him that putteth in the leven that the loaves being once divided should any longer remâine partes of one lumpe or that among the loaves more regard should be had to that litle portioÌ of meale that was fiâst sowred to make of it a Mother-loafe vnto wââ the rest of the loaves should owe any homage so it may seeme by this coÌparison to be contrary to the intent of the Apostles first founders of Christian Churches that when an whole Diocese became seasoned and distributed into many congregations there should be any such combination or suborâination of those Churches that all should be subject to the jurisdâction of one Caâhedâall Church seated in the citie But to leave his comparison to his his second thoughtes if he can make any more advantage of it hereafter I now demaund how he knoweth that the intention of the Apostles was such as he immagineth viz. that all the people of City and Country after the conversion of the whole should continue parts of the Church which at the first consisted but of a few Master D. supposing as it seemeth it were but reason to answere Sect. 10. ad sect 6. p. 49 therevnto doth aforehand prevente it and will have us to vnderstand that he knoweth it And therefore goeth on and saith If you aske me how I knowe this I answere First because the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuite of every Church having from the beginning included not onely the City but the Country thereto belonging I must here demaund againe how came it that the Church of God did vnderstand the Apostles intention to be such And how commeth the D. to knowe that they had any such vnderstandinge 1. Did the Church of God receive their vnderstanding in this point from the mouthes or pennes of the Apostles If they discovered their intention by writinge be the Doctor intreated we pray him to shewe us where we may reade it for our learninge If not by
which was last examined in the former section And if he doe here also vnderstand it why doth he conceale it Is it because in those places he had not directly to dealâ with his assumption as now he hath and he would not so plainely discover to his reader how farâ he goeth in this defence from the wordes of his assumption as he first layd it downe in his sermon For for this cause it seemeth he chose rather to reject that clause of great and ample Cities whiles he was yet in examining the consequeÌce of his argument And it had bene too much to lay before the eies of his reader at once all three changes or alterations that one of The D. hath 3. alteratioÌs but cannot defend one of them turning were into conteined when in stead of this they were cities he saith they conteyned the cities c. is more then he can well defend But before I come to trie the strength of his defence I must a litle better âifte the chaungling he giveth vs in steed of the former assumption viz. that the circuite of every one of these 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and countrie adjoyning First therefore I demaund what he meaneth by citie and countrie whether those parts of the ancient diocese which he calleth paroikian kai choran serm pag. 25. and def pag. 13. and 36. that is the citie with the suburbs and the whole countrie subject to the citie If so then this whole circuite in his vnderstaÌding was the circuite of every of those 7. Churches But then I demaund againe did those Churches containe in their circuite only the walles dwelling houses and feildes and not also the people inhabiting within that circuite if he should either exclude all the people or include all the state of those times being such that the generall multitude in all cities and countrey were Pagans as he confesseth pag. 54. he should contradict both himselfe the truth which he delivereth p. 3. 5. where he saith that ecclesia in all places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. is appropriated to the companie of the faithfull and signifieth a companie of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say a companie of Christians Wherefore as I will not doe him that wrong to think he meaneth by citie and countrey the houses and feildes onely so if question be made what people he incloseth within the circuite of those Churches or of the cities and countries which he saith they contayned vnlesse he will depart from the truth and that with contradiction to himself he must acknowledge that he meaneth none other then the Christian people of those cities the countries adjoyning And yet if he limit every Church to so narrow a compasse for the people which it conteined who will beleeve him or how will he perswade and prove that the whole citie meaning Vrbs to use his owne wordes and the whole countrie belonging to the citie was conteyned within the circuite of the Church for since the Church of any citie or place is nothinge else but the company of Christians there If it be absurde to say that a small companie of Christians not an handfull to a great heape in comparison of the heathen that filled citie countrie did containe in their circuite an whole citie with the whole countrie adjoyning then is it no lesse absurd to affirme the same of any Church which is intituled the Church of this or that citie yea take all the people of any citie or countrie who is so simple but he knoweth that the citie and countrie containeth them and not they the citie Wherefore though all the people had bene converted to Christianity yet had it bene a grosse error both in logick and philosiphie to say that the Church did contayne the citie and the countrie To leave then the naturall and proper signification of citie countrie and to carrie the words by an usuall metonymie vnto the people q. d. they coÌteined citie countrie that is the people of citie countrie I desire to be informed from his owne mouth whether he meane those people onely that had already receyved the fayth or those also that were in time to be converted The former doth beste agree with that foundation layd by him in this defence chap. 2. sect 2. and 3. where he restreyneth as before is observed both the name and nature of a Church vnto a company of Christian people but so small a companie as at that time imbraced Christianity will fall farr short of his purpose not onely of concluding the Churches to be properly dioceses but also of inclosing within that whol flock or Church over which the Presbyters were made Byshops Act. 20. 28. the whole number of such as belonged to God in citie and countrie even those that should afterwards imbrace the faith as well as those that made present profession therof for so he vnderstandeth that scripture serm pag. 18. def pag. 66. and therefore inferreth serm pag. 19. that the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed to whole cities and countries annexed that they might both convert them feed them being converted as a litle after he saith were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the Countries adjoyninge which were converted or to be converted Which words doe clearely shewe that by the Cities Countries which at first he said were the Churches now he saith were conteined in the circuite of the Churches he meaneth all the 11. A contradiction in the Doct. understanding of the worde Church a childish errour people in generall and not those fewe onely that were already converted But in this construction of his words besides an apparant contradiction with himself in a maine principle of Christian doctrine which restraineth the name of a Church to a companie of Christian people he falleth into a childish error farre vnbeseeming a Doctor in divinitie in breaking downe that partition wall which all sound divines have set betwene the visible Churches of Christe and the invisible company of the electe not yet brought home vnto the faith For howsoever such as God appointed vnto life and intendeth in time to call are in his account members of his The D. assumption sensles absurd his defense of it much more invisible Church yet it is against coÌmon sense as well as the grouÌds of true divinitie to reckon them for parts of the visible Church which as yet have had no manner of entrance into Christianity In this sense therefore which his sermon and the defence thereof aymeth at I reject his assumption as an absurd and sensles positioÌ And the defense which he tendreth is much more absurd when Sect. 17. he saith that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were few when there were many yea when all were Christians For vntill countrie townes were converted and subjected to the over sight of the
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâd Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌmendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌmended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌmendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌtioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to ââvill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌdly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâes of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
that the great kingdoms of Asia major and the many famous Churches of Asia minor were but dependants on those 7. Thirdly to teach him if he doe not knowe that none of those countries were conteined in that Asia whereof the Ho. Ghost speaketh he saith that by comparing Act. 2. 9. 10. 6. 9. 16. 6. 7. and 1 Pet. 1. 1 he may find that manie parts of Asia minor are reckoned as diverse countries from that Asia which is mentioned in the scripture Fourthly he addeth that if the Ref. would needs have shewen his skill in Geography he should have done well to have set downe the bounds and limitts of this Asia whereof we spake And because the Ref. should not prevent him that he might have all the praise for skill herein he vndertaketh to doe it Fiftly he coÌmeth at length to refute that which his Ref. objected coÌcerning those Ch which he mentioned to be either in Asia properly so called or nere there abouts Now come we to our answer and first concerning the crimes wherewith he chargeth his Ref. I appeale to the indifferent reader whether the D. himselfe be not guilty of them I meane of labouring to dazell the eyes of the simple The D. is guiltie of what he imputeth to the ãâã and of cavilling against the light of his conscience seing it is cleare the Ref. mentioneth the two first acceptions of the word Asia not as though he were ignorant how it is to be taken nor yet to perswade his reader that the D. doth so largely streach it for he professeth the contrarie as before appeareth but onely to fortify his argument whiles he sheweth that which way soever the word be taken it cannot be that all the Churches of Asia should be reputed as parts of those 7. or subjected vnto theÌ Next touching the bounds of Asia properly so called because it is a point of skill and cannot easily be determined the D. to shew his varietie of reading indeavoureth to reconcile the scripture and those that write of Geography who varie from him as he confesseth in this point According to the scriptures in his account Asia includeth Ionia Mysia Pergamene Lydia or Maeonia and perhaps Caria The ancient Geographers include within the limits thereof all Phrygia both the greater and the lesser wherein Troy stood and all Mysia even the greater called Olympina and the lesse called Pergamene which excludeth from that Asia whereof Iohn speaketh because Phrygia and Mysia Olympina are reckoned apart from Asia Act. 16. 6. 7. For we are not to merveil he sayth pag. 60. that a lesse circuite is assigned to it in the scripture seing within a lesse compasse then that which the scripture assigneth therevnto it is circumscribed by others which seclude from Asia both Lydia and Caria as he sheweth out of the subscriptioÌs in the Nicen councel from the speach of Eunapius in Maximo But what if Saint Iohn and Saint Luke followe different accounts for the bounds of Asia whereof they speak A worthy writer Ioaâhimus Vadianus who traveiled much in searching after the true and right situation of those townes and countries which are mentioned in the new Testament in his Epitome triuÌ terrae partiuÌ intreating of Asia minor properly so called affirmeth that Peter 1 Pet. 1. 1. Iohn in those 7. Ch of Asia doe follow the most usuall partitioÌ in that age received the same which Ptolomy Pâiny set down that Luke Act. 16. 6. 7. being lead by another division which some also theÌ enterteyned restreineth Asia within narrower limits His words are these in that epitome pag. 467. Ptolomeus lib. 5. Asiam propriè dictam includit a Sâptentrione Bithynià a meridie Pamphylia et Lycia ab ortu Galatia ac occasu Aegeo mari Quam partitionem vt receptam haud dubiè et eo seculo vulgatam secutus videtur Petrus Apostolus 1. epist 1. 1. vbi Bithyniam et GalatiaÌ ab Asia sejungit nimiâum hanc ipsam intelligens quam Ptolomaeus Vaeterum enim more harum tantum regionum quae cis Taurum in Aegeum Euxinum patent meminit viz Cappadocie Ponti Galatie Bithyniae Asiae ut intelligatur Asiae propriè minoris esse quicquid reliquum cis Taurum est a predictis regionibus divisum Enimverò et Plinius quinti libri fine initium Asiae de qua jam loquimur a Lycie fine quondam sumptum esse testis est Idem et Iohannes secutus videtur Apocalypsim suam septem ecclesijs Asiae inscribens viz. Ephesinae Smyrnaeae Pergamenae Thyatirenae Sardyanae Philadelphenae et Laodicenae quae vniversae Bithynia Galatia Pamphilia et Lycia includuntur At verò Lucas terras quae minoris Asiae sunt paulo arctius definivit et terminis contraxit angustioribus haud dâbiè et ipse conceptam aliquam et usitatam loquendi consuetudinem suae aetatis secutus And then setting downe the words of Luke Act. 16. 6. 7. he addeth Ex quibus verbis manifestum fit aliter Asiam accipere Lucam quam Petrus aut Iohannes acceperit Palam enim et Phrygiam et Misiam Asiae demit cum per cas se profectum testatur qui tamen Asiam ingredi veâitus fuerit Intelligimus ergo Lucam eam peninsulae partem propriè Asiae tribuisse quae ad occasum proxima mari in Mediterraneis Aeoliam et Lydiam supra Ephesum et Smyrnam coÌplectitur quam certè et Hieronymus specialiter Asiae nominè vocari tradit Hujus partes erunt Ionia Aeolis et Lydia fortissimae et cultissiâae omnium Asiae regionum quae intra Maria Euxinum et Cilicum prominent To this testimony I referre the Doct. because I hope he will reverence his gray-haires and great reading though he lightly esteeme the Refuter for his small skill in Geography And withall I pray the reader to take notice of this that the Doctor presumeth all men will take his word for the limitts which he giveth to that Asia whereof S. Iohn speaketh for he disagreeth with both those accounts which himselfe mentioneth in giving to Asia a lesse circuite then the former which include both Phrygia Mysia major in it and a larger then the later which seclude both Caria and Lydia from it And though he seeme to grounde his opinion on the testimony of S. Luke in his story of the Actes of the Apostles yet in truth he departeth also from him and so standeth singular in his conceit without any to support or second him therein For as he hath rightly observed Phrygia and Mysia to be distinguished from Asia by S. Luke Acts 16. 6. 7. so he might by a better search have found that Caria also is in his account divided from Asia For it is recorded by Luke Act. 20. 15. 16. that Paul having determined not to spend any time in Asia sayled by Ephesus and therefore from Trogillium he came to Miletum and from thence sent for the Elders of Ephesus to come to him which sheweth that Miletuâ was not within
to dazell the eyes of the simple or to shew some smal skil in histories He addeth one slender propp borrowed from Theodoret to prove that Colossae was no part of Asia Theodoret saith he being of opinion that Paul had bene at Collossae proveth it because it is said that he went through Phrygia Neyther lât any man object that Paul was forbidden of God Act. 18 for Luke speaketh of Asââ and Bithyniâ not of Phrygia I graunt that Phrygia was not within S. Lukes Asia and I have proved that it was within S. Iohns Crambo bis imo sepius poââta Asia and therefore the Doctors oft bringing in of his lame consequence cannot make him any better but the more loathsome rather And to confute Theodoret if he were more direct for him then he is I could send him to Hierome who in his prologue to the epistle to the Colossians saith Collossenses et hi siââ Laodicenses sunt Asiani Some other authorities also might be added to sway the ballance with the Refuter which accounteth those Churches of Collosse Hierapolis and Troas within the limitts of Asia properly and in Saint Iohns vnderstanding so As touching Magnesia and Trallis his answer is it appeareth not that they were as yet converted to the faith and when they were converted Sect. 23. ad p. 61. 62. they were inferiour to those 7. which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subiect to Ephesus If the Doctor had remembred nowe upon his second thoughts what he spake upon his first or at least wrote in his sermon pag. 62. he would never have vsed this poore shift to make it a quaestion whether A poore shift in the Doctor Magnesia and Trallis were converted to the faith when Iohn wrote his Revelation for there to proove that Onesimus was that Angel of Ephesus to whom Iohn directed his first Epistle he thus reasoneth When Ignatius wrote his Epistle he testifieth that at that time Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus Now he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome as appeareth by his first epistle ad Marium Cassob that is to say betweene the 90. yeare of our Lorde and 99. in the middest of which time the Revelation was given Therefore it may well be supposed that the Angel of the Church at Ephesus to whom the first epistle was directed was Onesimus Yea he buildeth so confidently on this supposall that without any staggering he sayth he is able to shewe that Onesimus was at that time Bishop of Ephesus as the very man whom the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church Defenc. lib. 1 pag. 34. and lib. 4. pag. 40. With a little change the Doctors premisses will serve to justify the Ref against himselfe in this manner When Ignatius wrote his Epistles the Churches of Trallis and Magnesia flourished and enjoyed their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons neyther were any thing inferiour in estimation and honour unto other Churches as appeareth by his Epistles written to them and placed before others Nowe he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome that is betwixt the yeare of our Lord 90. and 99. And S. Iohn wrote his Revelation in the yeare 97. Therefore it may well be supposed yea it is so evidently proved that the Doct cannot contradict it that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were flourishing Churches when S. Iohn wrote his Revelation 2. But we will not make an advantage to our selves by the D. errour For that which he now affirmeth sc that Ignatius wrote his Epistle a litle before his death is more agreable to the truth if we may beleeve Eusebius to whom the D. in his sermon referreth us for the better confirmatioÌ of his assertioÌ seing Eusâbi Lib. 3. cap. 35. affirmeth that the epistles of Ignatius to the Churches of Ephesus Magnesia Trallis c. were written in his journey towards Rome as he passed through Asia when he was sent thither to be martyred there which fell out by the D. owne account pag. 72. of his serm in the yeare of our Lord 107 but as others think was later to wit in the yeare 109. or 111. See Bucholcer Ind Chrono log Euseb in Chron. yet Nicephorus lib. 3. cap. 2. referreth it to the 3. yeare of Trajane which was at the utmost but 6. yeares after Iohns writing the Revelation Wherefore since it appeareth by Ignatius his epistles to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis that they were at that time not newly converted as the Doctor intimateth but perfectly established and furnished aswel with Bishops as with other officers as is before noted Let the reader judg whether it be not more likely that those Churches had a beginning at least of their standing at that time then that they were not converted to the faith as the D. would perswade especially seing they were within the Province of Ephesus as he affirmeth which had so many helps to spread the faith of Christ thoughout all the corners thereof that he thinketh it absurd as we sawe before in answ to his 6. section pag. 61. that any man should make any scruple to yeeld that many particular coÌgregations were settled before that time within the Diocesan circuite of that Ch of Ephesus For is it not much more likely that Churches should be erected rather in some cities within the Province theÌ in some villages within the Diocese and if in any cities what are more likely then these wherof we speak But what shall we say to the last branch of his answere viz. that if they were Churches at that time yet they were both of them subiect to Ephesus These are his words heare we now his proofes and then give him his answere it appeareth saith he by the subscriptions in the councell of Calâedon and by the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperor Why doth it there appeare that Magnesia and Trallis at their first conversion were subjected to the Church and Byshop of Ephesus No but it appeareth there that in time of the councill held at Chalcedon and in the dayes of the Emperour Leo both which were at least 350. yeres after Iohns death the Byshops of Magnesia and Trallis were subject to the Byshop of Ephesus as their Metropolitane And he taketh it for granted that what soever Churches were subject to any Metropolitan citie or the Bishop thereof in those times of the Chalcedon councell and of Leo the Emperour they were subject to the Church and Bishop of the same citie from the tyme of their first imbracing the fayth But what The Doct. beggeth of his Refuter in one place what he denieth to himselfe in an other he now taketh for a knowne truth in the next page 63 he sheweth to be an apparaÌt falshood for there he affirmeth that Thyatira was in S. Iohns time subject to Pergam ' but in the time of the couÌcel of ChalcedoÌ subject to Synada in the Emperor Lâos dayes subject to Ephesus And in the same Emperours
dayes Pergamus which anciently had bene a Mother-citie was now subjected also unto Ephesus Wherefore he himselfe hath said enough to infringe the consequence of his owne reasoning viz. that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were froÌ the first erection subject to the Church of Ephesus because they were so subjected 350. yeares after S. Iohns dayes Perhaps he expâcteth as it seemeth by his conclusion in this section pag. 62. that his Refuter should prove the coÌtrary but he is forgetfull and must be remembred that in all this controversie he is the opponent and his Refuter the respondent therefore without reason expecteth it yet to let him see that his Refuter was ledd by reason and not by idle conceits I will tender him these probabilities 1. In the civill distribution of provinces and administrations for government Philadelphia was subject to Sardis Thyatira to Pergamus as he noteth pag. 63. out of Plinie lib. 6. cap. 29. and 30. but in ecclesiasticall government the Churches of Philadelphia and Thyatira were nothing inferiour to Sardis Pergamus for they were all honoured with the name of candlesticks and Churches in the middest whereof Christ walked Apoc. 1. 11. 20 and their Angels equally dignifyed with the name of starres held in Christs right hand vers 16. 20. and equally saluted by a severall epistle directed to them Cap. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. 3. 1. 7. 14. none is reproved for the defaults of the other but his own none admonished to oversee the other or to be subject to an other Wherefore unlesse some other reason can be alleadged then the D hath yet found out it may be esteemed for a truth not to be doubted of that the Churches of Magnesia Trallis were not subjected to the jurisdiction of the Church or Bp. of Ephesus although for civil government they were within that Province 2. And if there had bene any such subjection or subordination in these Churches who shall better knowe it and who more ââtt to have intimated it then Ignatius who wrote to every of those Churches I meane to Trallis Magnesia Ephesus But there is not the least shadow of any such thing to be gathered from his writings nay the contrary rather seemeth firmely to be collected froÌ that preeminence which he giveth to the Bp. of each Church as the highest Church-officer under Christ even in those words which the D. urgeth for his superiority above other Ministers Epist ad Trall Quid episcopus nisi principatuÌ omnem supra omnes obtinens And ad Philadelp as he injoyneth the whole clergie and laitie even the Princes Câsar to obey the Bishop so he subjecteth the Bishop to none other then to Christ Episcopus Christo obediat sicut Christus patri et ita unitas per omnia servetur Which wordes doe prove most clearely that in his time no Bishop yeelded subjection to another as his Metropolitan or head And therefore neither was Demas theÌ Bishop of Magnesia nor Polybius of Trallis any more subject to Onesimus the Pastor of Ephesus then he was to eyther of them So that the Refut confident conclusion standeth firme against all the D. attempts to shake it that our saviour did not under the name of these 7. Churches write unto all the Churches of Asia in as much as those famous Churches of Troas Colossae Hierapolis Miletus Magnesia and Trallis which then flourished in Asia did no way depend on any of them Thus the former part of his assumption remaineth guilty of that Sect. 24. 2d sect 12. p2 62. 63. untruth wherewith the Refuter charged it And so will the later also lye still vnder the burthen of that falshood which is ascribed to it For if none of them were cities as hath bene sufficiently mainteyned already against the Doctors allegations how could any of them be Mother-cities Yet he vndertaketh breifly to declare that some of them were Metropoleis that is not onely Mother-cities but also Metropolitan Churches Where first we are to marke the Doctor his not onely but also as if it were a small matter to affirme and prove that some of those 7. Churches were Mother-cities he can easily mainteyne that and for an overplus he will prove which is a matter of more difficultie and not so easily enterteyned that they were Metropolitan Churches Well let his proofes be heard they are absolutely denied to be Mother cities and though some of them may be graunted to be Metropolitan Churches if thereby nothing else be meant then that they were such Churches as were seated in a Metropolis or mother-citie yet in the common-vnderstanding of our age which esteemeth them onely for Metropolitan Churches that have diocesan Churches subjected to them they may also be denyed to be Metropolitan Churches and it may be held as false as the former Those cities saith he which were capita dioikeââân the heads of the civile jurisdiction where the presidents of the Romane Provinces held their assemblies and kept their courts were mother-cities to the rest which were vnder the said jurisdiction But such were 5. of these c. May I aske him what he meaneth by these what the cities after-named Which way soever the D. turneth either he concludeth not the question or is absurd viz. Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Sardis Laodicea or the Churches seated in those cities If cities then he concludeth not the question for it never entred into the Refuters thought to deny the cities of Ephesus Smyrna c to be mother-cities If he meane that the Churches in those cities were heads of the civill jurisdiction c. he is absurd who will beleeve him and he abuseth Pliny for he speaketh of the cities and not of any Churches seated in them His argument therfore is none other then this The cities of Ephesus Smyrna c. were heads of the civill jurisdiction as Pliny testifieth But the Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna were the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna c. Ergo thâ Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna c. were the heads of the cities jurisdiction and consequently mother-cities Thus he justifieth one falseshood with another a lesse with a greater and for The D. justifieth one falshood by another so well performeth he his first promise his second he forgat want of better proofe he recoileth back to his first assumption before confuted to wit that the Churches of Ephesus Smyrna c. were the verie cities And thus we have heard all that he can say to shew that some of these Churches were mother-cities he promised also to prove that they were metropolitan-Churches but either he forgot it or he thought it better in policie to overpasse it then to meddle with it For vnlesse he could prove that the Angel and Church of Thyatira were subject to the Angel and CHVRCH of Pergamus and likeweise that the Church of Philadelphia and her Angel were subject to the Angel and Church of Sardis which were to controwle and contradict the text
angels of the Churches thought it not fitt to suffer him with begging to carry that away which he ought to have proved to witt that the BISHOPS which are intituled the Angells of the CHVRCHES were so called in respect of that preheminence which he fancied to be in them above other Ministers and therefore telleth him that they had the name of Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie and not because of any sovereigntie or supremacie over other their fellow Ministers as the Doctor implieth here and plainely though vntruely affirmeth afterwardes In these fewe wordes the DOCTOR findeth as he supposeth to say no worse of him two vntruthes the former he saith is an errour the later a plaine-lie because though he give to Bishops superiority over other Ministers yet neyther sovereignty nor The Refut cleared of the Doct. slaunder supremacie Concerning the lie which the Doctor slaunderously chargeth on his Refuter I shall have fitter occasion to speak hereafter here onely will I cleare him of that errour ascribed to him for sayinge that the Bishops of those Churches are named Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie Let vs therefore heare how worthily the Doctor disputeth to convince him of errour Though sayth he to be called Angel generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one amonge many Ministers in one and the same Church to be kata hexochen called the Angel of the Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regarde of theire generall callinge but a peculiar stale belonging vnto ââe who hath singular preheâânence above the rest that is to say a BISHOP Beholde here how he disputeth nowe 1. Can any judicious reader that compareth this speache with that which he delivered before pag. 34. finde in this latter any one materiall point more then in the former When he referred us hither to see more of this matter we had reason to expect some new argument and that of more weight to prove the point which was before but nakedly proposed But if my sight deceiveth me not nothing else is here to be seene but the selfesame sentence varied in a few words that carrie the same sense A thing which everie novice in grammer schooles that hath but read his copia verborum might have done in the turning of a hand as they say This slight dealing becommeth neyther so great a logician nor so grave a divine much lesse so censorious a Doctor yet beholde The D. âwisteth a 3. fould cord of vanyty a greater fault or rather two other greater defaults to make vp a threefoulde corde of vanitie For he hath neyther convinced his Refuter of error nor justified his own assertion by him reproved 2 To convince his Refuter he reasoneth thus No coÌmon title belonging to all Ministers in regard of the generall calling of the Ministery is given kat hexochen to one onely among many Ministers in one Church But the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given kat hexochen to one onely Minister among many in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of angels Apoc. 1. 20. is not a coÌmon title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling to the Ministery Both propositions are false for it is already proved that vnder the name of Angels or the Angels of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 20. all the Ministers of the word how many soever are comprized wherefore the D. bare affirmation that one onely in each Church is kât hexochen so intitled is no better then a bare broaching of an vntruth his owne The D. contradicteth himselfe delivereth an vntruth beggeth the question sermon of the dig and dutie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. which directly contradicteth this being judge with the begging of the question And to evince the falshood of the former proposition it is easy to give instance of sundrie titles belonging in coÌmon to all Ministers which yet are sometimes kât hexâchen given to one singular person as when Iohn is intituled The Elder 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Ioh. 1. Paul a Minister of the Church or a Minister of Christ and of his gospell Colos 1. 24. 25. Rom. 15 16. Ephe. 3. 6. 7. Also when he giveth the name of a fellow-workman felow-souldier or Minister of God vnto some one among many 2 Cor. 8. 23. Phil. 2. 25. 1 Thes 3. 2. Wherefore vnlesse there were more truth then is in his reasoning he hath small reason to charge his Refuter with error for affirming that the Bishops of whome his text speaketh are named Angels in regard of their generall calling of the Ministery 3. See we now whether he hath any more strength of truth to mainteine his owne assertion to wit That they are called the angels of the Churches in respect of a prehemineÌt superiority in power and jurisdiction over other Ministers His argument must be framed to this effect Whatsoever title is given kat hexochen to one onely amoÌg many Ministers in one Church the same is a particular stile beloÌging to one that hath singular preheminence above the rest that is to adioce san Byshop But the name âf Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given to one onely among many Ministers in each of the 7. Churches Therefore the name of angels Apoc. 1. 80. is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath singular preheminence above the rest of the Ministers in those Churches that is to a diocesan Bishop And consequently the name of Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is given to diocesan Byshops in regard of theire episcopall superioritie above other Ministers in the same Churches whereof they were Angels Here the assumption being the same with that in the former arg may receive the same answ vz. is false hath no breath of life in it except to begg the questioÌ As for the proposition the falshood of it is more grosse palpable The D. beggeth in the assumption and delivereth a flat falseshood in the proposition then the former For besides that which is before delivered to shew that some titles belonging in common to all Ministers are and may be given kat hexochen to one onely among many which argueth that the giving of a title kat hexochen to one doth not prove the same to be a peculiar stile beloÌging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others this may be added which was also before observed that if it should be graunted that such a title is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others yet from hence to inferre that it is a stile peculiar to a diocesan Byshop to use the Doct. words againe is as ridiculous as if a man should say it is a bird therefore a black swan or thus Mr. Dow. amonge many Ministers is a Doctor therefore he is a Duke a Deane a Byshop or Archbyshop Wherefore since both the premisses aswell in this as in the former argument are false the reader may safely reject
Ministers and thus he layeth it downe Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselves Apostles and were not or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers had a corrective power over other Ministers The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the lâtter Apo. 2. 20. Therefore these Angels which before I proved to be Byshops had a corrective power over other Miniâters The conclusion which the D. first aymed at serm pag. 49. when he laid downe the parts of this assumption as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48. was this that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct even those Presbyters which assisted them as parts of theire Presbyterie in the government of the Diocese Wherfore the Refuters answer pag. 101. knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephesâs for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles were not And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra for suffering the Teachers of the Nicholaitan hâriây then Byshops âad majoritie of rule for correction over diocesan Presbyters And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops nor those persons with whom they dealt Diocesan Presbyters To this the D. replyeth The D. reply is ârivolous false and slandâââus that the answer is frivolous because he hath before proved the former his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shiââ Wherevnto my rejoynder is that the first part of his reply is frivolous or rather false and the second a maâââcious slaunder 1. For to say he hath proved and not to shewe where is meere trifling And if he have not eyther in his sermon or any part of his defence before-going any one âyllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point which he faith he hath before proved what truth can there be in his saying 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters since the Doctor confesseth pag. 124. the word to be used in some Councels graunting the word may be used in a sense and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. 104. of his answere is it not a malliâious slaunder to say he devised it aâd that for a shift espetially seing in the rest of his answere to this argument he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan But the Doct. saith pag. 124. that he neyther vsed the worde at all neyther if he had would he have used it in The D. understaÌdeth not his owne testimony that sense scz for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government for in his vnderstanding the country Ministers are called Diocaesani Concâl Agath cap. 22. Tolet. 3. cap. 20. and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop were called Civitatenses But to our understanding it seemeth that the Praesbyters called Diocesani Concil Tolet. 3. cap. 20. being opposed to another sort there termed Locales were not country Ministers affixed to particular places but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyterâe which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese The words of the Councell are these Hâ verò clerici tam locales quam Diocefani qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint querelas suas ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters as the Doctor would perswade but rather giveth both names to the same persons Id statuinus quod omnes jubent ut CivitateÌses sive Diocesani Presbyteri vel Clerici salvo jure ecclesie rem ecclesiae sicut permiserunt episcopi teneant ât vendere aut donare penitus non presumant But to leave this quarrell about words and to come to the matter seing it is cleare that the Do first intended by this argument to prove that Bishops had corrective power over those Presbyters which assisted them in they re Diocesan charge is not the Refuters answere very direct and pertinent to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning when he telleth him That the Teachers against whom those angels eyther did or shoulde have sât themselves were not such Presbyters Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne to prove that they were such Presbyters nor removed the presumptions which the Refut alleadged for his denyall doth not the blame of a weak consequenceâly still heavy upon his shoulders Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one and the defense of the other and then give upright sentence First touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined the Refuter asketh pag. 102. Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop should call themselves Apostles And addeth any mans reason will give him that these false Apostles were men who coÌming froÌ some other place would have thrist theÌselves into the Church there to have taught with authoritie and by right of Apostleship And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira he saith that they also might be such intruders or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach having no calling thereto but however it no way appeareth that they were Ministers and members of the presbytâââe assisting the Angel of that Church Now what saith the Doct Doth he make the contrarie appeare viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie No for he will not determine whether they were Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops Presbyterie or not and whether of the Diocese originally or come from other places Onely he saith it is playne they were Teachers that being in their Diocese the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. Wherein observe we 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere scz that it no way appeareth that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers it is more then he can prove his bare avouching that it is plaine doth not plainely coÌvince it yet will it nothing advantage him nor disadvantage his Refut to grant it 3. Moreover in saying that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. eyther it is frivolous if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then is common to every Pastor or Minister in his owne charge since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbidd such companions or else it is a begging of The D.
things and to hold fast that onely which is good 1 Thes 5. 21. yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them 1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13. to marke such as teach contrarie to the doctrine that they have received and to avoide them Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the generall bande of love binde everie one freely to rebuke his neyghbour not to suffer sinne upon him Leviâ 19. 17. and doth not the Apostles sharpely taxe the Corinthians for suffering the false Apostles to domineare over them 2. Cor. 11. 20. Wherefore if it be a cursed confusion subversion of ecclesiastical power to subject every teacher to the jurisdiction or corrective power of everie private hearer and to coÌmit the managing of the keies or Church Censures to everie meane Artisan then the D. may see how grosse an error it is to think that the dutie of examining or trying and not suffering false teachers doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiasticall censurââ vpon them And the indifferent reader may perceive that while the D. laboureth to vphold the preheminent suprioritie of Byshops he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Ministeriall authoritie and to bring in a mere Anarchy Perhaps the D. wil reply that besides this trial or judgement of Sect. 4. discerning which is coÌmon to all Christians needfull for their preservation from seducers there is another and an higher kind proper to the guides of the Church and necessarie for the preserving of the whole âlock from haereticall infection This wee acknowledge to be true but withall we say it is none other then a judgement of direction as Doctor Feild calleth it in his treatise of the Church lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222. which endeavoureth to make others discerne what themselves haue found out to be the truth And this is coÌmon to all the Ministers of the word Elders of the Church as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth coÌmon to all the Elders of Ephesus viz. to attend on the feeding of the flocke and to watch against the danger both of wolves entring in and of false teachers springing up amonge them Act. 20. 28 -31 For how should such danger be prevented by theire watchfulnes if it were not theire dutie to trye out the leawde behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits and not to suffer them to spreade the contagion and poyson thereof in the Church committed to their oversight This is yet more manifest by sundry canons prescribed elswhere by the same Apostle as when he requireth of every Presbyter an abilitie to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine Tât 1. 5. 9. and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add herevnto the practise of the Aposties admitting the Presbyters of the Church of Ierusalem to consultation for the trying determining of that question touching circumcision c. which had troubled the mindes of many beleevers at Antioche Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparant therefore that in the triall and examination both of teachers and their doctrine the scripture knoweth no difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters so that if Bishops will challendge to themselves a jurisdiction and power of correction over Presbyters because it belongeth vnto them to trie or examine not to suffer false teaching Presbyters then for the same reason it being the dutie of every Pres byter to trie the doctrine of Bishops not to suffer them to spread any errour without resistance Bishops also must subject theÌselves to the corrective power of every Presbyter But he will alleadge as some others have done that there is a third kind of triall and judgement proper to them that have cheif authoritie in the Church to wit a judiciall examination of persons suspected in open coÌsistory with power to censure such as are found faulty which as it is now exercised of our Bishops so it was then practised by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus Indeed if this were true he might with some colour inferre that the angels function was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops but who seeth not that this plea is none other then a mere begging of the question For they that deny these angels to Still the D. beggeth be Bps. such as ours doe not acknowledge any such prehemineÌce in one Minister above another for the trying and censuring of offenders Moreover by this reply the cause is as litle relieved as if a shipmaster to stop one leake in the one side of his shipp should make two or three on the other side more dangerous then the former For to cover the falshood of the proposition a double errour or untruth is discovered in the AssumptioÌ viz. 1. that by the triall which the Angel of the Ephesian Church tooke of the false The D. to stopp one leake maketh two Apostles is meant a judicial coÌventing of theÌ in open Consistorie and proceeding vnto censure against them being found lyars 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative of that one which is here intituled the angel of that Church The falshood of the former doth appeare in part by some things already spoken it being before shewed that the triall and examination Sect. 5. both of teachers and of theire doctrine appropriated vnto Ministers in the apostolicall writings is none other then that judgement of direction whereby themselves and their people are informed guided in this cariage towards those teachers I add 1. that the Doctor cannot paralell the words or phrases here used ou dune bastasai kâkâus ' kai epeiraso c. Apo. 2. 2. hoti eas ten c. ver 20. with any other text of holy scripture where the same words do imply such a judiciall triall as he supposeth to be infolded under them 2. And since the persons which are sayd to be tryed not indured professed to be Apostles and therefore such as challendged an authoritie and calling superiour to that Angel what likelihoode is there that they would yeelde themselves subject to his judiciall examination and censure 3. Againe the text saith onely that they were tried and found lyars now if they were in open Consistorie judicially tried why were they not upon the discovery of their false dealing enjoyned to give open testimonie of their repentance And if they refused so to doe why did they not beare the sentence of suspension and excommunication or degradation Or if any such proceeding was held against them why is it not recorded in the text seeing it woulde have made much more for the angels commendation then that which is expresly mentioned 4. Nay that is recorded which soundeth rather to the confirmation of the contrary for that bearing which is commended in the same angel vers 3. is by good Interpreters and amongst other by Mr Perkins construed of his groaning under the burthen of those false Teachers
and their haereticall doctrine of which he laboured what he could to disburden the Church But however this be taken there is little reason for any man to thinke that those false Apostles were in open consistorie convânted and censured as the Doctor imagineth And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe how will the second point be manifested which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers was the peculiar right of one Bishop here called the angell of the Church To tell us that he hath before proved that by the Angel of each Church one onely Bishop is meant will be no sufficient defense seing his proofes are already disproved cap. 3. sect 1. 2. 3. c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie viz. that under the name of one Angell the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned Apoc. 2. 2. 20 we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters in this manner They who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring or reproved for suffering false Teachers in their Church had a corrective power over other Ministers But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira was reproved for the later veâs 20. Ergo those Angels which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church had the corrective power over Ministers And since it appeareth by the commandement which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 11. that the praise oâ dispraise of every angel belongeth in part unto the whole Church a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters Calvin Beza Marlorat Aretius Perkins c. though it should be graunted that one Minister to wit the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie is principally aymed at in the name of the angel of each Church yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction was his pâculiar right nay rather it will follow that so farre as his fellow angels and not they onely but the whole Church did partake with him in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him so farre also they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding Wherefore if the Doctors meaning be in his assumption to restreyne the praise or dispraise mentioned Apoc. 2. 2 20. vnto The D. wresteth the text or must yeeld the cause one onely person whom he reputeth to be the Bishop his Assumption is to be rejected as an erroneous wresting of the text contrarie to the true meaning thereof But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption viz. that in the praise or reproofe of the angel the rest of the Ministers or Elders and the whole Church did partake with him then must he subscribe to this conclusion to wit that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch did partake with the Angel of each Church in the power of administring the Church-censures And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text or any part of the holy scripture in defense of the explication of his text viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. Bishops for the substance of their calling such as ours are We are in the next place to see what strength there is in that argument whereby from the title of Angels in his text he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text handled by him Lib. 3. pag. 150. c. against the Refuters answere pag. 105. 106. LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title The angels of the Churches to justify Sect. ãâã the titles of honour which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates his argument is this The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title in calling them the angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therfore we should not think much that they are called Lordes The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositioÌ That vnto whoÌsoever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour which is not vniversally true as the D. I suppose wil confesse in many particulars For the name or tiâle of Maior Bayliffe Alderman Constable c. I might say King Dukâ Earle c. must needs be in his understanding by many degrees inferiour to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in coÌmon to all Ministers of the word sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62. such as are Co-workers and Stewards of God c. But to give the former unto Ministers were to bringe confusion into the Church to overthrow that difference which the lawes of God man have set betwene civill eccles functions And though a man should offer to salve this mischeife with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings c. by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops yet I perswade my selfe he would not easylie admit of this disorder yea doubtlesse he would thinke it a great disparagement to his reverend Fathers spiritual Lords that everie painefull Minister of Christ should be equalled with them in those honorable titles which doe now lift them vp above their brethren And yet by his owne confession pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned they have all right to those titles of Doctors Fathers Pastors and Saviours of their brethren which are more glorious then that name of Angels of the Churches which he now appropriateth vnto Byshops We may take it therefore for an evident truth that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq is not true argument no not though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature I meane such as declare the same kind of honor either civill or ministeriall For I make no question but the D. would judge it as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops to beare the name of Archdeacons Officials or Curates c. as for Kinges Emperors to be called Dukes Captaines or high Constables And I judge it much more absurde to argue as he doth from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers to shew the dignitie of their function vnto titles of civill honour apperteyning vnto great personages that excell in externall pompe and worldly glorie And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument when to shewe the inconsequence thereof he said that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither
L. nor what he hath done for Israel before they would be embraced As for the scripture proofes which are gathered by him the foundation or principall corner-stone of them which he deemed to lie in his text that is utterly dashed in the former part Which being done the rest that dependeth on that were ready to fall of themselves Yet it hath pleased his adversary for their more thorough scattering in this second part to give every one his severall knock A labour not necessary were it not that the insolent confidence wherevvith they are avouched hath I knovv not how amazed and scared some vveak and fearfull mindes but for the better bringing both of him them to themselves againe that course is taken then which there is no shorter or directer For when the question is vvhat Church Bishop is Apostolicall the next vvay is to search the scriptures hear vvhat they say of themselves before vve regard what fathers or councels doe make them say D. Dovvname therefore hath no reason to take it unkindely which yet I knovv he vvill at his adversaries hand that he hath for evidence divided the house causing holy scriptures to goe by themselves in this second part of his Reply remitting the voices of men to the last place that they also may speak by themselves When divine humane suffrages are shuffled togither in one the simple hearer perceiving a sound which seemes glorious to him though they be men that speak yet he is presently ready to cry as the people did to Herod the voice of God and not of man In confidence of this stratageme the beggerly ceremonies which we borrowed of Papists have been lately mainteyned as Apostolical The methode therefore which this writer hath followed is for the readers good His answers are such as wil speak for themselves Onely this I may forespeak in their behalf that if they seem as in the former part I feare they will in the logicall termes and formes of reasoning to be over troublesom for the coÌmoÌ reader the greatest part of that blame must rest vpon the defense which they were bound to follow For the defendant taking it too much in scorne that his logick wherein of all other thinges he would be thought to excel was somewhat impeached by his Refuters analysis be did so vehemently strive to maintaine that part of his credite that his Refuter was forced to give him that triall which such logicians trust to The studious reader will beare with this necessity and seek out the truth though it lie among thornes THE SECOND PART THE FIRST BOOK Chap. 1. Concerning the word Church handled by the Doct. in his Def. lib. 2. cap. â sect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of the 2. point of his fermon viz. that the Apostolicall Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes IN the Doct. first section I find nothing but a vaine Sect. 1. ad âect 1. 2. D. floorish and therefore will overpasse it without answer In his second section he telleth us that at first he intended onely a light skirmish and therefore finding that his adversary brought a maine baâtell into the feild against him he thought good to bring in a new supplie before he put a new life into his former arguments to make them returne upon his Refuter a fresh And for asmuch as he was to intreate of Churches Parishes Dioceses he resolveth first to begin with the names that are diversly taken and first with the word Ecclesia which he telleth us is in all places of the new Testament excepââng Act. 19. appropriated to the companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darknes conteyning many particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Satan the other the kingdome of God this later is called Ecclesia signifiing a company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the grâ word importeth And so concludeth with his definition of a Church thus Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say more briefely thâ Church doth signify a company of Christians To all which I for my part most willingly subscribe and from thence doe inferre that in the Doctors vnderstanding for the present the 7. Churches of Asia meant by the 7. candlesticks in his text were none other then so many companies of Christians called out of the world divided from all the companies of Infidels or Idolaters which were Satans Synagogues in any of the cities or townes of Asia And therefore he contradicteth the truth wherevnto he now beareth The D. coÌtradicteth the truth himself witnes when he indeavoureth to perswade pag. 36. 42. 54. that every of those 7 Churches conteyned in their circuite the whol citie couÌtry adjoyning although the ChristiaÌs at that time were but a very few in coÌparison of heathen And that the church or flock which in those and other cities was coÌmitted to the care of the presbyters there ordeyned was not onely the number of Christians already converted but the whole number also of such as were in time to be converted Whereof we may see serm pag. 66. 69. and 88. As for the Doctors table following in the next page wherein he presenteth to his Reader in one viewe the diverse significations of the word Ecclesia reduced by him unto certaine heades his reader The D. table of ecclesia is erronious in some particulars hath reason to think that he is deceived in some particulars namely 1. in carrying Act. 2. 47. and Colos 1. 24. unto the catholike company of Gods elect which is the invisible Church For 1. all that were there and then Act. 2. called by the Ministery of the Apostles were called to a visible coÌmunion and when their number was much increased so many of them as dwelt at Ierusalem remayned members of that Church as himselfe by and by acknowledgeth in referring unto it Act. 5. 11. 2. And why should we not take that Church whereof Paul was made a Minister Col. 1. 24 25. for the same unto which the rest of the Apostles were ordeyned 1. Cor. 12. 28. that is the catholike militant church as himselfe understandeth the later place 3. And to let passe his referring Act. 8. 3. to the whole militant Church dispersed whereas it appeareth to be meant of that Church of Ierusalem which was not yet scatterd abroad as vers 1. 3. 4. compared doâ shewe it is 4. more to be wondered at that he should also carrie to the catholike militant church that of 1. Tim. 3. 15. seing he holdeth Timothie to be the Bishop of Ephesus affixed to it to live and diâ there And 5. not to tell him how those two agree not wel togither how 2. contradictions in the Doct. will he accord his understanding Mat. 16. 18. of the militant part of the Church
professing the same religion yet were they not one but many churches as appeareth Gal. 1. 22. and 1. Thes 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Wherefore the Doctor taketh that for an evident truth which is evidently The D. taketh for truth that which is false false in affirming that the Iewish Church was one because they were one coÌmon wealth c. 2. Neyther doe they affirme who hold the Church of the Iewes one that their vnitie depended onely upon the person of one high preist but upon Gods ordinance which combined them all say they in one body of a church in binding them to assemble at times appointed unto one tabernacle or temple there to performe the parts of his worship in one vniforme order under the oversight of one high preist assisted by inferiour Preists and Levites But 3. how will the Doctor prove that they were as he saith one coÌmon-wealth ruled by the same lawes before they had one high-preist Is not the law of their high preisthood as ancient as any of the lawes given by Moses to settle them in one forme of a coÌmon-wealth Exod. 28. Levit. 8. cum seq And 4. when through corruption there were two high-preists Luc. 3. 2. which executed the office by their courses one after another as other preists did in their order was not the whole administration exercise of the office in the hands of that one which was the high-preist for his yeare Iohn 11. 49. with Act. 4. 6. What great difference then of one high preist between the time of this corruption and that which went before it To the the second I answer that it is an idle feeble flourish Sect. 3. leaving the maine point of the objection untouched and weakly performing what he undertaketh 1. It is observed before that they who in this point concurre with the Doctor viz. that the Iewish Church was but one doe hold their vnitie to arise from Gods ordinance The D. maketh an idle and feeble flourish who conjoyned the whole nation in one societie not onely under one high-preist but also in regard of one tabernacle at the first after that of one Temple vnto which they were all bound to resort 3. times in the yeare there to worship God in such sort as he had prescribed Which ordinances viz. of one high preist of one tabernacle or temple for the whole nation are now ceased because they were figures and types which had their end in Christ That their one high-preist was a figure of our one high-preist Iesus Christ is a truth so evident by the scriptures especially Heb. 3 1. and 4. 14. 5. 1. 5. 8 1 2. 9. 7. 10. 1. 9. 20. that the Doctor cannot but subscribe to it And it is no lesse evident that the same Christ was also shadowed out by their tabernacle temple Heb. 8. 2. and 9. 8 9 11 12 24. Ioh. 2 19 21. In another respect one tabernacle compact togither of many parts and one temple composed of many stones was a figure of that one catholike church which as one temple or howse comprehendeth all the elect as living stones and parts of the building 2. Cor. 6. 16. Ephes 2 21. 22 Heb. 3. 6. 1. Pet. 2 5. And their assembling togither in that one temple under the Ministery of that one highpreist was a lively type of the gathering togither of all the elect unto the heavenly Ierusalem to the generall assembly Church of the first borne written in heaven and unto Iesus the Mediatour of the new covenant Heb. 12 23 24 25 as sheep which come into one folde under the oversight of one cheefe Shepheard Iohn 10. 16. Heb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 2 25. There is an apparant truth therefore in that which the Doctor proposeth as a frivolous allegation viz. that these legal ordinances were figures and therefore are ceased especially seing it is held that there is neyther any one nationall Bishop answering in degree of office and preheminence unto their one high preist nor any one nationall temple unto which the generall body of the people doe resort for the practise of Gods evangelicall worship And though the Doct. may perhaps give allowance unto the former yet I suppose he will not easily acknowledge the later to be fit for the times of the gospell 2. All that the Doctor saith is no more but this he denieth the high Preist to be a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence government over the Preists and people What meaneth the Doct neyther in respect of preheminence noâ yet of government belike then he was a type of Christ quatenus a Preist but not as a high Preist yet as the scripture Heb. 9. 7. 8. 11. 12. 24. so the D. acknowledgeth that the high Preist figured Christ by his entraÌce alone into the sanctuarie which none other Preist might doe how then can he deny that he prefigured Christ in the respect of his preheminence which was peculiar to his office and why not also in respect of his government over Preists and people in things perteyning to God what meaneth else that name of great high-Preist and great Preist set over the house of God Heb. 4. 14. and 10. 20. But 3. let us heare the D. reasons why he thinketh that the high-Preist was no type of Christ in respect of preheminence or government Forsooth then had he aswell as Melchisedeck been a type of Christs government and Kingly office aswell as of the Preisthood and consequently Christ might have been a Preist of the order of Aaron aswell as of Melchisedech And a little after Christs government apperteineth to his kingdome and not to his preist hood As if all preheminence and government were peculiar to princes inseparably annexed to the kingly office Surely if Christ have no preheminence nor government in his Church as he is our Prophet and Preist but onely as he is King then is he in these Offices considered a parte inferior to all other Prophets and Preists that had their part in ecclesiasticall government But how can he be a great Preist over the House of God Heb. 10 21 and sit not onely as a King but also as a Preist upon his throne Zach 6 13 and yet have no manner of government by his preistly function Wherefore the government now invested in Christ might be yea undoubtedly was figured a part aswell by the ecclesiasticall government of the high-preists succeeding AaroÌ as by the civil government of David and the Kings that sate on his throne I conclude then that the Leviticall high-preist was a type of Christ in respect of his ecclesiasticall preheminence and government although his principalitie and regall government joyning in one with the preistly function was rightly figured not in AaroÌ but in Melchisedek And although the conjoyning of both these preheminences togither in Christ was also praesigured in Iehoshua The D. pro poseth a weak consequence and a false antecedent to
justifie an untruth an high preist of Aarons line Zach. 6 11 13. yet it were grosse ignorance in the groundes of divinitie from hence to inferre that therefore Christ might have bene a Preist after the order of Iehoshua or Aaron aswell as of Melchisedeck It is apparant then that the Doctor hath proposed both a weak consequence and a false antecedent to justify the untruth of his frivolous exception Thus have we seen what successe the Doctor hath had in his indeavour Sect. 4. to prove that the name of a Church in the singular number is to be given vnto the people of an whole nation professing the faith though divided into many thowsand particular Churches He proceedeth to tell us that likewise the Christian people of any Citie or country adjoyning whether that which we call a province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregatioÌs is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardis Philadelphis c. I confesse that this latter hath a like right and title to the name of a Church with the former to wit by the custome of speach humane ordinance subjecting the particular Churches of an whole countrie or nation to one Diocesan or Provinciall Bishop or to one nationall Synode But I deny that the scripture doth give any more allowance vnto the one then to the other I doubt not but his proofes for the later will be found as weak as the former To drawe his wordes before set downe into an orderly forme of reasoning they must run in this fashion or the like Such a company of Christians as answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the Scriptures is rightly termed a Church But the Christian people of any Citie Country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the scripture Therefore the Christian people of any Citie and country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese is rightly termed a Church Here the assumption is a meere begging of the question for he is The Doct. beggeth the questioÌ not ignorant as appeareth in the beginning of his 4. sect that they against whom he contendeth doe hold that the visible Churches instituted in the new testamâ were none other then parish asseÌblies coÌteyning one coÌgregatioÌ yet he assumeth for graÌted as if they were bound to take his word for sufficient warrant that the Christians of an whole diocese or province distributed into many severall congregations or parish assembles doe carrie the same Church-constitution with the first Apostolike Churches as of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. The contrary whereof may be gathered from his owne positions in his sermoÌ the defense thereof For he affirmeth and mainteyneth serm pag. 18. and 22. def âib 2. pag. 69. and 121. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times And as here in the next section pag 6 he acknowledgeth that at the first conversion of Cities the whole number of people converted were able to make but a small congregation so he granteth afterwards cap. 6. pag. 104. that the most of the Churches during the time of S. Paul did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation Yet in Pauls time they were perfectly constituted seing in his opinion they had many of them their Bishop their Presbyterie and Deacons which as now he saith pag 7. doe make an accomplished or fully constituted Church Wherefore still there remayneth this difference betweene our diocesan and provinciall Churches and those Apostolike Churches mencioned in the scriptures as the Church at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like that congregations or parish assemblies were not multiplied in them as now they are in ours so that the name of a Church given in the scripture to the one doth not prove that it may be also rightly allotted to the other But proceede we on the Doctor at length discendeth lower and Sect. 5. ad pag. 6. saith That in like manner the Christian people of any one towne or village conteyning but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a Church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And further that the company of faithfull in one familie doth deserve the name of a Church as hath bin shewed to wit in his table pag. 4. where he citeth for that purpose Rom. 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19. Colos 4. 15. Philem. 2. Adding that to make any particular Church of a whole nation citie and country towne parish or familie familie I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but an entire church or parish by it selfe to be a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Christian consisteth the Ministerie of the word and sacraments and eutaxie or some good order of government not that all governours are to be placed in every societie or church but that the effect and benefit of the government is to redound to every particular What shall the reader say to all this Doth not the considerate beholder hereof evidently see an hoâch potch of some self-conceited fancies mingled with some The D. maketh an hotch potch truthes soundly grounded Of the later sort are these viz. that the name of a Church is given in the scripture both to the Christian people of one towne or village conteyning but one congregation and to the company of faithfull in one family 2. that that which we call a parish is such a company of Christian people as make but one congregation 3. and that the Church at Cenchrea was such a parish For though he speake here doubtfully with a perhaps yet afterwards he saith certeinly it was a parish pag. 104. following 4. And there is required besides the profession of the true faith the Ministery of the word and sacraments and some good order of government to make the Christians of any citie towne or family a true visible Church Of the former sort are these supposals âcz 1. that the people of an whole nation and citie with country adjoyning may make one visible Church aswell as the company of one towne or familie 2. and that all Church government are not to be placed in every visible Church His meaning is as afterwards he sheweth that a Bishop and his presbyterie may not be had in every parish it sufficeth if they be seated in the citie and that particular parishes in citie and country doe partake the effect and benefit of their government Which he speaketh not because he findeth in the scripture any such difference between Churches seated in cities and those that were in smaller villages but because he would perswade the simple that will take his words for payment that there ought to be the like difference for
Church-governmeÌt which is for civill policie betweene cities and other villages Notwithstanding I deny not but it were as absurd to desire a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish that is to say such a Lord Bishop as ours are and such a Presbytery as are the Deane and Prebends of our cathedrall Churches as to require for every village a Major and Aldermen of that state that they beare at this day in the citie of London For wee may well say with Musculus in Mat. 9. 35 Deus bone quis ferret sumptus tot equitum reliquorum de comitatu episcoporum si nostri episcopi quales eos habemus episeopatus suos circuire cogerentur c. Who goeth on and sheweth how base and unfitting a thing it is for the great pomp and state of Bishops at this day to visite poore villages and how unable such places are to beare the charge of their expences in their visitations No merveile therefore if it be too great a but then for every parish to mainteyn an whole colledg of cathedrall Clercks togither with the retinew of the Lo. Bishop 3. But herein the Doct. deceiveth his reader in conveying into his The D. deceiveth his reader by a false conceit hart this false conceit that the state of the ancient Bishops their presbyterie was no lesse unfitting in regard of their pomp and charge for a countrie towne then their condition is that pretend to be their successors at this day Thus have we heard to what particulars he stretcheth the name Sect. 6. ad âect 4. pag. 6. 7. of a Church as it is used in the scriptures attend we now to his coÌclusion All this saith he I have the rather noted because some having first strongly coÌceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish have haled the places of scripture where ECCLESIA is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit c whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleadged out of the scriptures I hope the indifferent reader will discerne by the answere alreadie made that the Doctor deserveth to be censured in The D. deserveth to be censured in his own terms his owne termes viz. that having first strongly conceited all the differing formes of visible Churches which are now in use scz nationall provinciall diocesan and parishionall to be lawfull hath haled the places of scripture where ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of his conceit whereas in very truth he cannot alleadge any one testimony out of the scripture which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to such a multitude of Christians distributed into many particular assemblies as we esteeme a nationall or provinciall or diocesan Church And as for parish assemblies which conteyne one congregation though he caÌ scarcely affoard us any one testimony yet it is already shewed that besides the Church of Cenchreae which he acknowledgeth to be a parish he graunteth that the most of the Churches in the greatest cities during Pauls time did not exceed a populous congregation And in his own table page 4. for a Church congregated into one congregation he giveth us all these scriptures Act. 11 26. The D. coÌtradicteth himself 14 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 22. 14. 5. 12. 19. 23. 28. 34. 35. 3. Ioh. 6. which are so many testimonies to justify the congregations which we call parishes But we need not to goe further then to his words âmediately following for in graunting that at the first conversion of cities the whole number of the people converted being sometimes not much greater then the number of presbyters placed amongst them were able to make but a small congregation he doth acknowledge every of the ancient Churches to have been at the first such as wee call parishes That which he addeth viz. that those Churches were in constituting and not fully constituted till their number being increased they had their Bishop or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons is but a renewing of his old suite or begging of The D. renueth his old suite oâ begging the question if he understand by the Pastor or Bishop such a diocesan Prelate as he pleadeth for And yet if by constitution he meane that forme of a Church which maketh it properly a Diocese and not a Parish he overturneth the foundation whereon he first builded his diocesan Churches in his serm pag. 18. where he affirmeth the apostolike Churches to be Dioceses properly because the Presbyters first ordeyned when as yet they had no Bishop were trusted not onely with the feeding of those few already converted but also with the care of indeavoring the conversion of the rest both in citie and country therefore he applyeth to their Ministerie that comparision of a little leaven which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe now used in the wordes following to shewe what was the office of the Bishop and Presbytery Which point how true or false it is and how fit or unfit for his purpose shall have fitter occasion to shew in the answere to his 4. chapter and to the 6. section of his third where also I shall meet with that which followeth touching the intent of the Apostles in planting Churches in cities to wit that when parishes were multiplied as was fit and necessarie upon the increase of Christians in the cities and countries adjoyning they should all remaine under the governmeÌt of one Bishop or superintendent seated in each citie Meane while the reader may see that the Doctor hath little cause to boast of his conquest before he hath put on his harnesse for the conflict Wherefore he but bloweth the trumpet of insolent vanitie when he faith avain blast of the D. that all the disciplinarians to the world shall never be able to shew that there were or ought to have bene after the division of parishes any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for an whole Diocese He should remember that he being the opponent in this controversie the burthen of proving lieth on his shoulders and therefore it had bene his part to have demonstrated from the scripture that which he affirmeth touching the intent of the Apostles in the first constituting of churches for one testimony from holy writ to shewe that they intended and ordeyned that the citie Church should spred her wings over the whole diocese and cover vnder the shadow thereof all the people after their conversion and distribution into many parishes writings to justify this assertion will easily draw us to acknowledg that diocesan Churches were instituted by the Apostles But til this be done though he write ten volumes more and each of them ten times greater then this yet he shall never be albe to convince the coÌscience of his indifferent reader in the point which he vndertaketh to prove to wit that the Apostolicall Churches were properly and if not actually yet at least intentionally dioceses
not parishes But though he cannot fortify his owne assertion yet will he assay Sect. 7. ad sect 5. pag 7. to throw downe their hold that oppugne it with this jolly Enthymem The word Eeclesia signifiâth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit which iÌmagine there is no true Church but a parish Wherein he doth neyther rightly The D. in one Enthymem saniteth 2. set downe their assertion nor assume a cleare truth to refute it The first appeareth by H. I his table pag 6. of his book whereto the Doctor pointeth in that besides a particular congregation of Christians meeting for religious exercises which the Doct. calleth a parish he acknowledgeth the name of Church to be given in the scriptures vnto some other societies viz. the Catholike militaÌt Church on earth the invisible society of Gods elect absolutely Catholike the people of a particular coÌgregation considered without and besides their Ministers and the company of a Christian familie The truth is he holdeth the onely true visible Church indowed by Christ with the spirituall power of order and government in it selfe to be none other then a particular congregation Neyther is the truth hereof infringed by that which the Doctor assumeth seing the name of a Church given at large to any company of Christians in regard of their profession of the true faith cannot prove the power of Ecclesiasticall government to belong vnto every such company of Christians or to any other society then one particular congregation 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth that The D. reasoneth ex non coÌcessis which he shall never be able to justify when he saith that the word ecclesia signifyeth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians great or small For he cannot shewe any one place of scripture where the word Church in the singular number is giveÌ to such a multitude of Christians in an whole Nation Province or Diocese as was distributed into many particular congregations Yea his own table page 4. sheweth that when the scripture speaketh of the Christians in an whole nation it calleth them Churches plurally and not by the name of a Church singularly as Churches of Galatia Asia Macedonia 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. t. Gal. 1. 2. And the like phrase of Churches is used for the Christians of one province Act. 9. 31. the Churches had rest throughout all Iudea Galile and Samaria Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches c. I will this once tender him this argument The word ecclesia in the singular number doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese nation or province Ergo the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine that the Christians of an whole Nation Province or Diocese though distributed into many congregations may not with standing by the warrant of the word be rightly termed one Church Yea it serveth rather to confute then to coÌfirm the point now in questioÌ viz. that the 7. Churches meÌcioned in this text were properly Dioceses not Parishes As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words Eeclesia Paraecia Diaecesis coÌmonly translated Church Parish Diocese how they are taken in the ancient writers I see not what advantage he can make by it to conclude the question The summe of all that he saith is this In ancient writers Ecclesia paroecia Dioecesis having refereÌce to a Bishop his whole charge doe signify a Diocese and not a parish Which how true it is I cannot now enquire vnless I should digresse into a new controversy For the present it shall suffice to observe that though it were granted to be true yet it will not justify his assertion that the 7. Churches of Asia mencioned in his text were properly dioceses not parishes for in the consequence of his reasoning if he shall so argue he beggeth the question in two particulars which he should The Doct. beggeth the question in 2. particulars but cannot make evident by good demonstration viz. that in his text the word Ecelesia hath reference to one Bishop and his charge and that it carrieth the same signification for the singularity or plurality of particular congregations comprized within it which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth Leaving therefore this whole discourse and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as apperteyning to another question viz. how ancient that distribution of Dioceses and Parishes is which in later ages preveiled and passing by his whole 3. Chapter concerning the 7. Churches being handled in the former part lib. 3. I will now proceed to his 4. Chapter and the argument there concluding that the first Apostolike Churches were properlie Dioceses because the presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities countries that is to dioceses Chap. 2. conteyning an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolicall Churches were properly dioceses not parishes because the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses Sect. 1. ad sect 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64. We have already heard in the former part how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia to be great and ample citie togither with the countries adjoyning when he saith it cannot be denied but they were such because our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7 and nameth the principall some whereof were Mother cities He addeth imediately after For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation they first preached to the cheise cities thereof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had converted some their manner was to ordeyne Presbyters hoping by their Ministery to convert not onely the rest of the citie but also the countries adjoyning so many as did belong to God Which words the Refuter answ pag. carried as the 2. reason to conclude the point before questioned because finding the former argumeÌt to be so obscure and vnfitting as it is before shewed to be he judged it in effect all one to say It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great ample cities c. for it is evideÌt that the Apostles in the cheife cities of any nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine Presbyters by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie and country adjoyning and to transpose the sentences in this manner It is evident that the Apostles in the cheife cities of every nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine presbyters c. Ergo it cannot be denyed but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities
conversion of the residue eyther in citie or countrey For howsoever we deny not but that it belonged to them both as Christians to use all opportunity of winning to the faith as Ministers to preach to the heaeÌ also if they were present in their coÌgregatioÌs yet it was their office to attend on the flock whereof the holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. And not like Apostles or Evangelists to imploy themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians By these fewe words saith the Doctor the deep wisdome of the parish disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a fewe converted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted c. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set was onely that number of Christians already converted c. 3. that their proper office was to attend them onely which were already converted and not to labour the conversion of the rest c. The last of these I confesse is plainly averred by the Refuter and the second by consequence implyed But the first hath no shadowe of any foundation in his words so that the Doctor his deep wisdome hath drawne it I suppose out of his owne drowsy imagination And yet if it be an erronious conceit why bendeth he not the stroak of some one reason or other against it Yea how will the D. free himself from error seing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer that doth more savour of that conceit then these words of the Doct. Def. pag. 54. that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were fewe and when there were many yea when all were Christians and those in his sermon pag 25. that vpon the division of parishes there happened no alteratioÌ to the state of the Bishop 2. Moreover if the second be an errour whose hand is deepest in it whether the Refuter who alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers or the Doctor who citeâh the same scripture serm pag. 18. to justify this speach that the Presbyters were to attend the flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments Very likely then he supposed it to be a truth A contradiction in the Doct. that the flock over which they were set was onely that number of Christians which were already converted And he had good reason so to judge because that flock onely was the visible Church which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus But now he seeth it is an error so to conceive because our Saviour calleâh the elect not converted his sheep Ioh. 10. 16. and the L. in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet converted As if men could give or take the charge of such a flock or people as they neyther know nor could be taught to discerne by any notes that come within their vnderstanding because the Lord who knoweth all that he hath chosen and appointed in time to call and to whose cies things to come are as manifest as things preseÌt doth entitle his elect though yet vnborn or at least vnconverted by the name of his sheep or his people 3. As touching the third point the Refuter hath plainely discovered his judgment how farre he granteth it and in what respect he denieth it to be the dutie of Presbyters to labour the conversioÌ of Infidels For besides the coÌmon dutie of Christians to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith they are as he faith to preach vnto them if they will come into their assemblies but to imploy their labour in traveiling to and fro in any countrie or diocese to preach vnto them where they find any concourse of people this he denyeth to be any part of the Presbyteriall function and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle or Evangelist Which plaine dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor by shewing how in what course holdeth it their dutie to labour the conversion of infidels whether by the like traveil and imployment that the Apostles Evangelists vndertooke in places where the gospell had not yet any entrance or whether in any other fashion that the Ref apprehended not But he I will not say craftily concealeth from his Reader the parts of his Refuters distinction and as if he had simply denyed them any way to labour the conversion of any that were allenated from the faith he resteth on this trifling replie as though saith he the Apostles intended by their Ministery the conversion and salvation of no more but those few that were at first converted And then for the better manifestation of their wisdome he should have sayd of his owne inhability to make good his assertion he opposeth them with a fewe questions which yet are more then needed but let us heare them they are these 1. Whether the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were not Ministers of the word 2. whether they were not many in some places more in some fiwer yea sometimes as many as those who were before converted Act. 19. 6. 3. whether they being many were onely to attend that smal number of converts 4. whether the Apostles in ordeyning many intended not the conversion of more then those few 5. whether it was not their office to labour their conversion 6. If not how they were to be converted 7. Nay if they did not labour how were they converted Of these 7. the. 3. 4. and 5. might have been spared seing they are already answered viz. that the conversion of citie countrie did not belong to their office as any proper work thereof and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordeyning them otherwise then is before expressed The rest also might have been overpassed since he knoweth his Refuters mind therein save that he would closely intimate vnto his Reader as it seemeth two arguments to justify his owne assertion for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner The Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were all Ministers of the word and were many in each Church yea in some places as many as those that were besides converted wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their Ministerie to convert the rest and that it was a duty proper to their office to labour their conversio How true it is which in the first place he avoucheth I will not here debate it belongeth to another treatise the later part of his Antecedent importeth that the Apostles ordeyned many Ministers for each Church though the number of converts were so small that in some places it scarce exceeded the number of Presbyters A matter so unlikely that if the consequent annexed must hang in
us to acknowledge that all the people which in an whole citie countrie belonged to God as being ordeyned to life and in time to be converted were to be reckoned one parish For it is flatly denyed that they did before their conversion belong vnto any parish or visible Church at all And it is a blind fancie in the Doctor to think that because they belonged to God in his election therefore they belonged to the Citie-church for how should they be members of any visible Church or congregation which yet were drowned in atheisme and insidelitie yet as if he had sufficiently fortified the proposition or consequence of his owne argument he leaveth it indeavoreth to take from his Refuter the ground where on he standeth in contradicting his conclusion for he seemeth to grant that at the first all the Christians in the Citie and Countrie being assembled togither could make but a small congregation but he demandeth how they could be of one parish before there was any parish at all doe you not see the Doctor is wise enough to make his bargaine well for his own advantage when he hath a foole in hand that will give him all that he asketh for in effect he saith grant me The Doct. beggeth but thus much that there was not any parish at all in the Apostles times and then I can justify my deniall of your consequence when you thus reason that all the Christians in one citie the countrie adjoyning at the first were but as one parish because they were but a small congregation when they were all gathered togither His last refuge is to tell us he hath before proved that the circuite of the Church and of the Bishop or Presbyteries charge was the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were converted but this discovereth the nakednes of his cause that inforceth him to lay hold on so bare a covering as I have shewed this to be in the answer to his third Chapter and 6. section We have seen how weak his staies are whereon his proposition Sect. 3. leaneth but for his assuption he provideth much more weakely It is that saith he which the Refuter himselfe boldeth But this defense say I is such as the Doctor himselfe contradicteth pag 74. The Doct. coÌtradicteth himself and proveth to be a soule vntruth delivered not of ignorance but against the light of his owne conscience For there he acknowledgeth that in his assumptioÌ the Refuter findeth one error repeated which was before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination chargeth also the maine points in it to be altogither void of truth But let us heare what it is which he saith his Refuter holdeth Forsooth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostlestimes Wel but can he froÌ hence conclude that his Refuter joyneth with him in his whole assumption Nay rather we may see a threefold trick A 3. folde tricke of cunning in the D. of cunning in the Doctor namely in changing the first braunch of his assumption in justifying it by his Refuters allowance and in concealing the other parts of his assumption 1. he changeth the first braunch because he could neyther challenge any allowance of it from his Refuter nor yet yeild any sufficient reasoÌ to justify it against him in that sense that he taketh parishes in this controversy For he knoweth that his Opposites define a parish to be a particular ordinarie or set congregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God see pag. 4. of his sermoÌ And that his Refuter holdeth the ancient Churches to be parishes because although their multitude were great in some places yet each of them was one distinct assemblie guided in ecclesiasticall matters by their owne Presbyters see answer pag. 58. and this Defense lib. 2. p. 74. Wherefore to say that there were no such parishes distinguished in the Apostles times is all one as to deny that in their times there were any distinct congregations or assemblies which ordinarilie if they were not by sufficient causes hindred for this exception himself taketh notice of Def. pag. 83. assembled togither in one place to the solemne service of God c. he thought it wisdome therefore to let goe this point and to tender another in stead thereof which might passe without controlment viz. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into severall parishes But this argueth against rather then for the D forseing Churches which are not divided into severall parishes or titles and cures for these are one and the same in the Doctors phrase of speaking doe make but one ordinary congregation of Christians they must needs be parishes to the Refuters vnderstanding yea to the Doct. also as he delivereth the state of the questioÌ serm pag. 4. 2. But why doth he relie for the proofe of his owne assertion upon his Refuters approbation Is it not because in his owne judgment there is no generall truth in it which may appeare by his own exception for in excepting the church of AlexaÌdria he much weakeneth not onely his assuptioÌ but his whole argument For if his study for this defense hath brought him to know what he knew not when he made the sermon as he acknowledgeth pa. 93. to wit that parishes were distinguished in Alexandria long before Euaristus his dayes whom he supposed to have been the first author of that ordinance why may not his traveile for the next bring him to find out some better evidence then he hath yet atteined to for the like distribution made in some other Churches yea he hath already told us pag 50. that it is more then probable that the 7. Churches of Asia at the time of writing the Revelation conteyned diverse congregations see for this point also sect 14. And among other reasons to make good that probability he observeth that besides the Churches and Presbyters that Paul Petâr had setled in Asia S. Iohn also preached the gospell in those parts for many yeares ordeyned Bishops and Presbyters where need was But if there be any truth in that which his argument presupposeth to wit that in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appoiÌred to parishes because there was not in any church many parishesin their daies why then should there not be some probability sufficient atleast to weaken the consequence of his argument in the contrary assertion viz. that some Presbyteries might be appointed unto Parishes seing some Churches as that of Alexandria for certaintie and those 7 in Asia in very great probabilitie were even in the Apostles times distinguished into several parishes 3. As for the rest of the branches of his Assumption when he should make proofe of them he wholly silenceth them not of ignorance or forgetfulnes but of purpose because he found it easier to wrangle with his Refuter
about some parts of his answer then to propose any sound argument for the justifying of the points impugned which is in deed the perpetuall course of this great disputer for the most part But let us see whether he hath so just cause as he suppofeth to Sect. 4. insult over his Refuter when he saith to let passe his scoffs more fit for a vice in a play then a Doctor of divinitie in re tam seria as this is that his Refuter wrangleth as a man confounded yet resolved to coÌntradict though against the light of his conscience denieth the conclusion coÌtradicteth himselfe The contradiction objected will come to be examined in his defense of the Assumption All that is sayd to weaken the consequence or proposition he taketh to be but a bare deniall of the conclusion And first he so conceiveth of his quaestion what if every one of the Churches then were but one parish c. because he cannot see how it impugneth the consequence in any respect But had he had so much charitie towards his Refuter as he would have yeelded to himselfe he might have supplied that which the state of the question and the scope of his answer requireth to be necessarily understood q. d. what if though that were granted which he supposeth every one of the Churches then were but one parish which by reasoÌ of the multitude of people had many Teachers so he might have seen that he impugneth his consequence so farre as it inferreth that the Presbyteries were not appointed unto parishes and that therfore he both wrongeth him to say that in that respect he giveth it no answer at all and sporteth himselfe in vaine with the hope of a victorie that turneth to his ruine For his quaestion rightly conceived as before is shewed doth in plaine phrase of speaking import thus much q. d. Be it granted that parishes in the Apostles times were not distinguished in any citie and the country nere adjoyning nor presbyters assigned to their severall cures this nothing hindreth but that every one of the Churches which by their ordination injoyed a presbyterie or companie of teachers might be one parish that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place And that which is added touching the French Dutch Churches serveth not to prove the maine conclusion as the Doctor supposeth therein mistaking his Refuters Analysis but to justify the deniall of the consequence by a paralel comparing those outlandish churches here in England with the ancient Apostolike Churches in this manner It is well knowne that the French and Dutch Churches here in England have first a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them 2. no parishes distinguished in any citie for them 3. nor presbyters so assigned to their several cures as our parish Ministers are Be it also graunted that the Apostolike Churches in cities had the like yet the French and Dutch Churches are neyther doth the want of distinct parishes and presbyters assigned to their severall cures hinder their being each of them one parishionall not a diocesan assembly that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place Why then might not those Apostolike Churches be yea how should the want of distinct parishes c. hinder their like being If the Doctor will needs have the comparison brought into a syllogism it may be thus framed What hindreth not the French Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly that cannot binder the Apostolicke Churches which in Cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly The want of distinct parishes and presbyters so assigned to their severall Cures as our parish-Ministers are doth not hinder the French or Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly Therefore the like want cannot hinder the Apostolike Churches which in cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly As for his cavils agianst his owne Argument framed I will not Sect. 5. say for the nonce to cavill withall but vpon a mistake of his Refuters meaning though I might passe by them as not directly touching any part of the argument before contrived yet because they contradict some pointers implied in the comparison I will remove them out of the way least any one should stomble at them First therefore whereas he hunteth after some differences between the Apostolike Churches and the French or Dutch Churches here in England thereby to shew that they are not of like condition as the Refuters comparison importeth I answer 1. the Doctor cannot be ignorant that comparisons are not to be racked beyond the purpose of the Author that produceth them neyther is he so simple but that he may see his Refuter principally intended herein to compare the Apostolike Churches with the FreÌch and Dutch Churches that as the later have so also the former had by reason of the multitude of people many teachers to attend theÌ and yet remayned one Church assembly not distributed into severall congregations vnder severall Ministers Herein therefore if the comparison holde as himselfe confefseth and argueth for his advantage pag. 74. 75. all the differences that he alledgeth were they as many moe as they are cannot contradict or infringe the truth of the Refuters speach when he saith doe you not see the like in the French and Dutch churches here in England 2. But what are the dissagreements which he hath found out For the most part such as are now questioned concerning the Apostolike Churches for he saith Their Presbyterie consisteth for the most part of Lay-men placed among us not with purpose to convert either the Ciâââ or countâââ to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrary wise the Churches in the Apostles times had a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leaven is put into the lump with purpose to convert the reââ both in Ciâââ and Countrie As if he would argue that they agree not in the points assumed by the Refuter for his purpose because they answere not his expectation in the particulars which his imagination ascribeth though his arguments cannot conveigh them to the Apostolike Churches As for that other difference viz. that the French Church in London is but one among many prosessing the same religion whereas the Apostolike Churches were not so before the division oâ parishââ but planted among heathen peo-ple though he make it a chiefe one yet is it srivolous and of no value The Doct. pulleth downe with the one hand what he fetteth up with the other especially seing himselfe pag. 72. compareth the French Churches here with those ancient Christians who dwelt in Cities replenished with men of another saith
no cheiftie or preheminence to any one above the rest neyther perpetual not teÌporarie in any Pastoral duty of feeding or governing the people depending on them seing in his conceit they had neither Bishop nor President to guide the or to moderate their meetings in the absence of the Apostles who as he supposeth reteyned all episcopall government in their owne hands Which confused paritie or rather Anarchie as it was never imbraced of any reformed Church in these last times so it cannot without wrong disgrace to the Apostles be ascribed unto their ordinance As for the Apostles wordes to the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts. 20. 28. the Doctor seemeth inconstant and at odds with himselfe Sect. 13. ad sect 7. p. 75. in the application of them For he first quoted that text serm p. 18. to prove that the Presbyters were in coÌmon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word and Sacraments where note that he limiteth the word flock and the duty of feeding to the company already converted which argueth as may well be supposed that he did not then conceive the residue of the City and Country yet vnconverted to be any part of that flock or The D. agreeth not with himselfe in the applicatio of Act. 20. 29. Church there spoken of but now he streatcheth both words to the whole nomber of all which in City and Country belonged to God and were by their Ministerie to be converted and rockoneth it as we heard before sect 7. one of the Refuters indigested fancies to restreine the flock over which those presbyters were set vnto the nomber of Christians already converted Heare we now the reasons that perswaded him to change his opinion for he useth not to doe and vndoe without reason First he urgeth the use of the word flock Iohn 10. 16. where the flock he faith is that for which the good shepheard gave his life vnto which apperteyned the sheep which his Father gave him even the elect not yet converted as he saith pag. 66. not onely among the iewes but the Gentles also even that Church which God meaning Christ who is God is sayd to have redeemed with his blood Acts. 20. 28 and that people of his which he saveth from their sinnes But how will he from his allegations inferre that the flock in which those Presbyters were set as overseers Act. 20. 28. was the people belonging to God aswell vnconverted as converted in the City of Ephesus and the Country adjoyning Doth not himselfe weaken the consequence when he faith This is spoken of the Church in generall yea but he proceedeth to say so the company of them that belong to Christ in any nation province diocese city or parish may be called the flock the Church the people of God Well then if the company of faithfull in one parish may be called the flock and Church of God aswell as a larger society of such as belonge vnto God in a nation province or diocese is not the Doctor yet as farre to seek as at the first for a found reason to perswade his conscience that the people yet vnverted but belonging to Gods election throughout the diocese or province of Ephesus were a part of the flock and Church which those presbyters were charged to attend to and feede May not a man with halfe an eye discerne that a greedy desire to contradict his Refuters assertion hath instead of better reason preveyled with him or rather as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter pag. 73. so transported him that he careth not how shamefully he contradicteth himselfe so as he may gainesay his adversaries present assertion Yet there is a worse fault that accompanieth this change of opinion in him for he absurdly consoundeth the visible Church of Christian professors knowne vnto men with the invisible Church or flock of Gods elect knowne onely to himself yea we may therevnto The D. coâradicteth himself coÌ foundeth the visible invisible Church maketh the Apostle author of a senselesse charge add a third fault no less absurd then the former when he makerh the Apostle Paule the author of a senseless charge imposed on the presbyters viz. to attende on a flock the nomber and parts whereof they neyther knew nor could know and to feede with the word and Sacraments such as were not yet begotten vnto the faith Attend we now a litle to the advantage which he maketh to his âause from this text to his removall of the disadvantage which his Refuter draweth from thence If sayth he they were to attend the whole flock in coÌmon then were they not assigned to severall parishes which were but parts of the flock to which purpose the place of the Acts was Sect. 14. quoted Before he borrowed as is observed sect 10. the first branch of his assumption to justify the second now the second is fortified by the third so that his owne pen maketh him guiltie of the fault which upon farre lesse cause he imputeth pag. 55. to Mark whethe D. be not coÌfouÌ-ded in him self his Refuter scz to bring within the compasse of one syllogism two arguments which tend to justify the mayn point of the assumption Consider this well and with all remember that the 4. point is a bare repetition of that which he urged in the former argumet as is shewed sect 1. yea observe further that the second parr of his assumption which by this reckoning is the onely maine point of his argument is made a part of the consequence of his proposition as appeareth sect 2. By all which layd togither it is evident that this argument of his separatis separandis is nothing else but a concluding of the same by the same in this manner In the Apostles times the Presbyters were not assigned to severall cures whereby he meaneth parishes Ergo in their times they were not appointed to parishes But to come to his inference deduced from the place of the Acts. which he quoted if that be true which his words intimate that severall parishes were parts of the flock which the Presbyters were charged to attend how can there be a truth in the first branch of the Assumption which denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times must he not fall an ase at least lower then before when he sayd pag. 63. sect 6. that his assertion touching Churches not divided into parishes is to be understood ââ epi to plaiston as true of most Churches I might ask him how it is possible the Presbyters should hold the charge of the flock in comon if it had severall parishes for the parts thereof how the flock could be undistinguished or attended on in coÌmon if the charge given to the Presbyters were such as upon like occasion might by a Bishop in his visitation be applied to all the Ministers of a Diocese as he afterwards affirmeth pag. 105. will it not be A contradiction in the Doct. hard think you
for Doctor to winde out of the bryars of a coÌtradiction if his speaches be well compared Neyther can he so easily as he supposeth remove that disadvantage Sect. 15. which his Refuter presseth upon him in this argument following If the word ecclesia there vsed to signify that Church and all one with the word flock doe signify any other company of men then a particular congregation onely then is there no truth in the assumption that denieth parishes to be distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their severall cures But the first is true Therefore also the second Nay sayth the Doctor the contrary rather is to be inferred thus If the word Church did signify one congregation and was in every citie but one and if such was the flock which the Presbyters were appointed to attend then it followeth that the flock was not divided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to severall cures Loe here againe how the Doctor choppeth and changeth at his The Doct. âhoppeth chageth pleasure that first branch of his assumption For whereas at the first it simply denied parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times now he maketh it to deny no other distinction of parishes then the division of one parish into many For as often before so now and againe must I ring it into his eares that when his Refuter holdeth in this question the Apostolike Churches to be parishes his meaning is as the Doctor knoweth very well that each of those Churches was but one particular congregation If then it be granted that the word ECCLESIA Church doth nor in the Apostolike writings signify any other outward coÌopany of men the such as were gathered into one particular assemblie it will follow that the visible Churches to which that word is referred in their writings must be acknowledged to be parishes and consequently there can be no truth in that assumptioÌ which denieth parishes to be distinguished and presbyters assigned to severall parishes But rather then the disgrace of any untruth shall lie upon the Doctors assumption he will reject the assumptioÌ of his Refuters argument which denieth the word ecclesia to signify any other outward company of men then a particular congregation onely For he telleth us he hath already sayd more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But for ought he hath alleadged from the scripture which is the onely guide of the conscience in questions of this nature more hath been sayd to confute his slender objections then upon his third thoughts he wil be able to produce for the fortifying of them And as for that he here addeth touching the word poimonion or poimne it discovereth his will to be more then his strength to confute any thing his refuter hath delivered First whereas he had sayd that the word to wit the English word flock for the gr word was not at all mencioned is ordinarily used of beasts fowles that heird and flock togither in one company the Doctor falsly chargeth him to have sayd that the word poimnion or poimne is so vsed and then in great modestie professeth it is beyond the compasse of his reading c which is but to fight with his owne shadowe for he should if with truth he could have sayd that he never read or heard the word flock applyed to fowles Secondly it is to no purpose to tell us that the flock of Christs sheep mencioned Luk. 12. 32 and Ioh. 10. 16. is not one onely particular congregation unlesse he could say and prove that the word in those places signifieth an outward company of men making one visible Church of larger extent to use his owne words pag. 75 then one onely assembly But himselfe acknowledgeth as the truth is that in Iohn 10. 16. the vniversall Church of Christ which comprehendeth the elect yet unconverted and therefore is invisible is vnderstood by that one flock whereof he is the great shepheard And that little flock to whom he speaketh Luc. 12. 32. feare not little flock c. is none other then that coÌpany of his disciples which then were his hearers and as a little flock or congregation cleaved to him as their Pastor and Teacher as appeareth by the text it selfe vers 1. 22. 32. 41. and besides the judgement of many worthy divines writing thereon the vse of the word to the same purpose elswhere as Math. 26. 31. Wherefore the Doctor hath nothing worth the objecting against that assertioÌ of his Refuter which affirmeth the flock and Church whereto the Presbyters were assigned Act. 20. 28. to be one onely particular congregation so that if he will stand as he seemeth to be willing to the judgement of the judicious Reader I make no doubt but he wil be found as his Refuter first tolde him to have dealt full weakly in a point of so great importance Chap. 4. Wherein is maintâyned their objection who affirme that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned to one onely congregation of Christians and therefore not to Dioceses properly but to Parishes Handled by the Doctor serm pag. 19. and Def. pag. 78. c. and Refuter pag. 60. c. IT pleased the Doctor to make answer to certeyn arguments objected Sect. 1. ad pag. 78. partly by himself and partly by his Refuter to prove that the visible Churches in the Apostles times were not Dioceses properly but Parishes they are now to be examined But first the conclusion it self is to be cleared from one quarrell made against it by the Doct. pag. 78. viz. that there must be added and in the age following because as he saith themselves include in their question 200 years The Reader therefore is to be advertized that himselfe layeth downe their assertion whom he contradicteth in these 3. members serm pag. 4 viz. 1. that properlie there is no visible church but a parish 2. nor lawfull Bishops but parishonall and 3. that for the space of 200 yeares after Christ there were no other but parish-Bishops And he which peruseth Mr. Iacobs booke intitled reasons c. proving a necessity of reforming our churches froÌ whence the D. draweth that extent of 200 yeares shall see that aswell concerning Churches as Bishops he distinctly handleth First what they are and ought to be by divine or Apostolicall ordinance and afterwards what their state and condition was for the first 200 yeares after Christ And although the Doctor in that conclusion which he tendreth to be proved serm pag. 17. mencioneth the age following the Apostles times yet he tieth not himselfe to that terme neyther in the arguments first proposed by him nor yet in this defense hitherto continued Nay his arguments doe bound themselves within the Apostles daies the later which generally concerne the ancient visible churches are directly bent against that first assertion of theirs which saith The visible Churches instituted by the Apostles were properly Parishes that is particular congregations not
he mainteyneth touching Timothy their Bishop in his account serm pag. 79. and 80. and Def. lib. 4. pag. 90. viz. that he was not ordeyned Bishop till after Pauls deliverance from his imprisonment at Rome And if the rest of the churches which were then in Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. stood in any subordination to Ephesus as the Mother-Church of the whole nation why should not Ephesus have some note of principality given vnto it above the rest of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. and 2 But himselfe reckoneth them all alike principall lib. 2. pag. 43. lin 2. at the least equalleth 4. other with Ephesus in the dignity of Mother-cities pâ 63. following Thirdly concerning the Church at Antioch rather then the D. will acknowledge that the people therof assembled togither in one Sect. 7. 2d pag. 105. place which the Refuter gathereth from Acts. 14. 27. he indeavoureth to elude the testimony by a frivolous evasion that hath no appearance of truth It is apparant saith he that not all the Church consisting of busbandes and wyues their children and servants but some of the cheese and principall perhaps not many perhaps not any besides those of the clergie were called to that meeting Thus he saith but why doth he not acquaint us with the reasons that made this apparant to his senses doth he think still to win credit by his bare word when Paul and Barnabas were by imposition of hands commended to the grace of God for that work which they had now fulfilled will he say that the laity for the greater part or at least wives children and servants were excluded from the Leiturgie fasting and prayers which were then performed Act. 13. 2. 3 doth not himselfe acknowledge the Leiturgie to be the publique service of God in the congregation serm of the dig and duty of the Ministers pag. 25. lin penult Is it not the judgment of the sound divines leitourgein significat saith Aretius upon that place talieta ergazein publica obire muniâ Collectaerat eccliaÌ saith Zanchius de oper redempt pag. 714. quta Lucas ait lcitourgoântoon autoon If theÌ the whole body of that Church without exception of age sex or outward estate joyned in prayer and fasting when they were separated to the work shall we think they disdeyned to assemble the whole or made speciall choise of few when they gathered the Church togither to relate vnto them what God had wrought by their Ministery Is it not safest most consonant to the rules of sound interpreting the text to vnderstaÌd by the church here the multitude and not the cleâgie onely or some few principall men seing in another case not long after it is expressely sayd that they which were sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioche from the Synode at Ireusalcm sunagago ntes to pâthos having gathered togither the multitude delivered the âpistle y 2 the D. himselfe quoteth both this text Acts. 14. 27. and those before handled touching the Corinthian Church 1. Cor. 11. 18. 23 as signifying the Church of a citie and countrie adjoyning coÌgregated into a congregation pag 4. of this book Wherefore it is apparant that in coâtradicting his Refuters proofes from the scriptures he doth but labour to obscure the light which himselfe discerneth well enough but is loth that others should apprehend His other testimonies are out of Eusebius Ignatius and some Sect. 8. 2d pag. 105. sect 4. of our owne writers as the D. saith of all which this is his grave censure in generall That they are soarce worth the mencioning yet he doth his best to wrest them out of his Refuters hands let us see how well he doth it First out of Eusebius it is observed that he ealleth the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch paroikias that is parishes And because the D. had inserted serm pag. 4. and 26. something to perswade that Eusebius and others take the word in a larger sense to wit for the whole diocese or at least for citie and suburbs though conteyning many particular parishes to make it appeare that Eusebius taketh the word as we doe for one particular congregation of Christians he urgeth that phrase which he asketh concerning Timothees Bishoprick which he saith was of the parish in Ephesus Now it were saith the Refuter a strange kinde of spÌach âr Eusebius to terme the Diocese or the whole citie and suburbs of Ephesus the parish of Ephesus for who would say the parish in London for the Diosese of the Bishop of London seing the whole citie is not the tenth part of the Diocise And addeth that as Eusebius calleth the Church of Ephesus one parish in Ephesus so when he speaketh of the Christians in a Province he calleth their seuerall companies assembling togither in one place Parishes or Churches as of Creete Pontus c. lib. 3. ca. 4. lib. 4. cap. 22. To all which the Doctor maketh a slight answere first referring us to that which he hath before spoken touching the ancient use of the word paroikia cap. 1. pag. 11. where there is not one word that eyther taketh notice of the maine objection touching the parith in Ephesus or giveth any colour of answer to it therefore he addeth that Eusebius as he used the proposition en so sometimes kata to the same purpose the which is false and hath nothing to cover the naked falshood of it Vnto Ignatius who witnesseth that the Church of Ephesus in his time came togither ipi to auto into one place he giveth the like answere to that which is refuted before touching the words 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20. viz. that the faubsull in London may be in like manner exhorted though they be diuided into many congregations to come ofc togither into one place But he that should so write would be thought to speak very iproperly obscurely seing it is impossible they should all meet togither in one place for the publique service of God As for word polupletheia which Ignatiu useth as the D. imagineth of purpose to note that the Church consisted of many multitudes or congregations it is but a weak conjecture unworthy to come froÌ the Doctor for popupletheia is nothing else but polu plethos a great multitude and therefore argueth not many congregations but rather one great assembly But goe we forwardes whereas Ignatius calleth the Church at Antioch sunagogen a Synagogue which properly noteth one congregation as ritch as he is he hath no other answer to give us but that it is used in the same signification with ecclesia which argueth his povertie in asmuch as he doth therin againe but begge the question Yea but he hath another shift wherein he much glorieth viz. that Ignatius entitleth himself the Bishop of Syria epist ad Magnes Rom. as if he had strook it dead willeth his adversarie to tell him what manner of parish Syrsa was and desireth that may heare also what he can object against the two epistles and so giveth
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 coÌclusions 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 coÌclusioÌ 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 paâts 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
Church whereof I am made Diaconos a Deacon verse 7. Who is for you pistos diaconos a faithfull Deacon of Christ so neyther can we sitly give the name of an Apostle to every one which in the Greek language may be rightly called apostolos So that unlesse the Doctor can yeeld us very sufficient necessarie reasons to inforce his translating the text Phil. 2. 25. your Apostle he must give us leave to reteine the usuall reading your Messenger for as this hath bene formerly imbraced of all our English Translaters the Rhemists excepted so it is still reteyned in the newest translation which with great diligence hath bene revised and published by his Majesties speciall commaundement Wherfore whereas he assumeth it as a graunted truth that Epxphrodstus was called the Apostle of the Philippians I may safely contradict him thus he is not called their Apostle but their Messenger And surely had Mr D. studied in this controversy wherein the translation allowed in our Church is called into question with the same affection and resolution with which if we may beleeve him in his preface to his sermon pag. 3. he was carried in studying the whole controversie of our Church policie viz. as one that meant to be the respondent or defendant and therefore resolved not to depart froÌ the received translation unlesse with cleare evidence of truth he might see it convicted of errour doubtlesse he would herein haue yeelded to his Refuter and not haue wounded through his sides as he doth our Church-governours and those worthy divines which in their translation doe justify his exposition of this text Wherefore he deserveth to have the same measure which he meateth to others to be returned unto him againe to wit that being as it seemeth out of love with our Church-translation and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governours he hath studied this question as an opponent and plaintiffc there-fore having sought a knott as it were in every bullrush strayned at every gnatt he hath picked to many quarrells against the Church-translation and his refuters just defence thereof that by his opposition though the Church be not deprived of his Ministery for he will rather cry peccavi then stand to the hazard yet he hath opened the mouth of papists and atheists to disgrace our translations rather then he will without prejudice and parrialitie read what is truely sayd in defence therof for he taxeth deeply the credit of their learning judgmeÌt that have given way vnto it not onely in the text principally questioned but also in two others 2. Cor. 8. 23. Ioh. 13. 16. where the word apostolos is translated a Messenger or one that is sent For this is his difinitive sentence sect 14. in fine that however the word apostolos may signify any Messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scripture it is not used to signify messengers sent from men neyther is it to be translated other wise then Apostle But his correcting Magnificat in the translation might be the better born with yf he altered not the sence signification of the word as he doth in saying that he is therefore called the Apostle of the PhilippinÌs because be was their Bishop or Pastor And even this coÌstruction were the more tolerable because in a large acception of the name of a Bishop or every Teacher none will impugne it that think his Ministeriall function to be noted by the name of their Apostle if he did not thereby vnderstand such a Bishop or Pastor whose superiority function is now in question Wherefore his refuter had reason to demaund as he did answ pag 135. Who they are thââ concurre wââh him in his interpretation of the words of the Apostle espetially seing in his viewe of the bâoââs themselues he could not fynd that any of his Authors do fully justify his assertion This putteth the D. to new labour and his slight defence enforceth me to spend a little time in discovering the weaknes thereof First therefore he is to be put in mind of his owne speach in the like case lib. 1 pag. 200. we are wont saith he to hold that scripture is to be expounded by scripture as by conference of other paralell scriptures or by inference out of the context it selfe deduced by some artificiall argument But what would you have a man to doe these helps sayling The best glosse that he can set vpon his cause and the fairest excuse for himself is that some olde and new writers are partly of his minde But now if it shall appeare that he hath abused the new writers wronged the Fathers whom he alleadgeth assuredly if he be not altogither shamelesse he will never dare to shew his face again in this quarrell 1. His new writers are Calvin and Bullinger men well knowne to be opposite to the Doctor in the maine question of the episcopall superioritie that it were more then a wonder if they should so farr forget themselves as to acknowledge that the wordes of S. Paul Phil. 2. 25. doe give the same episcopall superiority and function vnto Epaphroditus Mr. Bullinger saith in Philip. 2. that Epaphroditus was Philippensium Episcopus and Mr Calvin on the same Chap. esteemeth him to be their Pastor but neyther of them affirme him to be a Bishop or Pastor set in a prehâminent degree above other Ministers Yea the Doctor himself taketh notice of Mr. Calvins judgment touching the word Apostolus to be this that the name of an Apostle here as in many other places is taken generally pro quolibet EvaÌgelissa Wherefore it is evident that although he call him their Pastor yet he holdeth the true reason of that name your Apostle given vnto him to be not the particular function of a diocesan Byshop but the calling rather of an Evangelist preacher of the Gospel there exercised for a season 2. His Fathers are Ambrose Theodoret Hierom Chrysostom the two later say that Epaphroditus was their Teacher and so doth Aquinas But what is this to justify that episcopall preheminence which the Doct. vnderstandeth by the word Apostle here to help at a dead lift he faith that in Ieroms time by the name of Doctor or Teacher Byshop coÌmonly was signified and that they did by the word Apostle vnderstand not every comon Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specsaleÌ The Doct. shifteth but poorely doctorem as Anselme saith instructorem precipuum as saith Dionysius Carthusianus A poore shift in deed For how will he perswade that there were no other speciall Teachers or cheife instructors but Bishops doth not this rather argue that he was an Evangeliste And why presumeth he vpon the kindnes both of his Refuter and Reader freely to yeild him without any further proofe both the antecedent and the consequence of his argument In Ieroms time Bishops were commonly called Doctors Ergo when Ierom in expounding Phil. 2. 29. Have ãâã in honour faith not him onely qui vester est Doctor
to cure when he thus reasoneth Those two that accoÌpanied Titus were sent by Paul who had vndertaken to procure some releif for the poore brethreÌ 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 coÌsequence 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 agremeÌt with the proper signisicatioÌ 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 coÌmitted 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 coÌmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision to Peter the gospel or Apostleship of the circumcision that is to say to me was coÌmitted 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 ceÌsure 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
were tainted with partiall humors And though he professed he would not take upon him to speake so hardly yet the Doctor will needs have his reader beleeve that the Refuter sought to discredite all historians in generall by the mentioning of that speach Therefore to free his owne witnesses from all suspition in this case he saith the most learned Bishop truely noted what might be obiected against the historians of later times But if the Doctor uprightly weigh the intent scope of that learned Bishop he may perhaps discerne that Eusebius his ancientest witnes is not without the compasse of those stories which he speaketh of And if he in his learning judged it for that reason more safe to rely upon the authenticall records of the Conncels Fathers that were eye and eare-witnesses of the thinges which he urgeth had not the Refuter as good reason to desire also to see Iames his ordination justified by the testimonie of S. Luke or some other Apostolike man that lived in that age 2. But Eusebius as the D. supposeth is free from that imputation and much more Hegesippus Clemens And is not Ierom as free as any other belike the Doctor hath him in suspition though he be all in all in the evidence that he produceth as appeareth serm pa. 66. and 69. As for Eusebius how free soever the Doctor judgeth him in this case his testimonie standing him in good stead I suppose he wil not discharge him of that crime of framing matters to his own conceit in applying that which Philo wrote of the Iewish Essees to Christian Monks lib. 2. Hist eccles cap. 17. whereof the reader may see Reynodes and Harts Conf. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. and 492. 3. Neither is it a cavill as Mr D. in his quarrelling spirite is pleased to censure it to say that those Fathers Euseb Ierom c. finding the name of Bishop continued in the successioÌ of one Pastor after an other iudged of those that first governed those Churches according to them that lived in their times For if they speake not improperly which the Doct. will not admit for then he must yeeld himself to have played the sophister what else should move them to ascribe unto Peter the place of a Bishop at Rome and that for 25. yeares coÌtinuance see Euseb in Chron. and Ierom de script eccles in Petro unlesse the Doctor had rather say of them as one of great reading doth of Eusebius in this point D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 6. divis 3. pag. 260 viz. that the same befell them which Thucidides Hist lib. 1. saith of the old stories of the GraeciaÌs Men receive reports of things done before their time from hand to hand one froÌ an other abasanistons without examining trying of theÌ So som through a desire as it is likely of honouring the sees of Antioche and Rome and hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both devised that he sate 7. yeares in the one and 25. in the other Eusebius fell upon it and wrote it in his Chronicle but if he had tried it by the touchstone of the scripture he would have cast it off as counteryfeyt Thus saith Doctor Reynolds of that matter in like manner we may say without any wrong to Eusebius since we have before disproved by good warrant from the scripture that report of his concerning Iames his continuance for 30. yeares the Bishop of Ierusalem that his desire to magnify that See among others made him also too câedulous in countenancing those speaches of Egesippus and Clemens which by due examination might have bene found unworthy of any credit For what probabilitie is there in Egesippus his tale apud Euseb Sect. 3. lib. 2. cap. 22. concerning Iames that he was a Nazarite from his mothers wombe and never drunk wine to grave the tale he should have excepted the times of partaking in the sacrament of the Lords supper Moreover that he absteyned from eating of flesh from shaving his head and from annointing his body with oyle who would not take him by this description for a patterne of Monkish perfection rather then of the episcopall function specially seing it is added he was wont to enter alone into the temple and spent there dayly so much time in prayer that his knees Cameli instar tuberculis contractis obduruerunt Belike he forgat his Maisters doctrine Mat. 6. 6. Ioh. 4. 21. But the best is yet behind Huic vni licebat in sancta sanctorum ingredi c he only had libertie to enter into the most holy place for he used not any woollen garments but onely lynnen if this be true then as he joyned a Bishoprick to his Apostleship so he had the high-preisthood vnited to his Bishoprick unlesse we may think the use of lynnen garmeÌts to be a lawfull dispensation for any man that was no Preist to usurp the high-priests office in entring into the most holy place 2. Now to come unto Clemens how fabulous I might say blasphemous is that which Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 1. reporteth out of him that Christ after his resurrection gave knowledge unto Iames the iust to Iohn and Peter and they delivered the same to the rest of the Apostles For this tale is flatt repugnant as Doctor Reynolds obserserveth Conf. cap. 3. divis 2. p. 163 to the word of truth wherein we read that knowledge the holy Ghost was given by Christ to all the Apostles joyntly See we Luk. 24. 45. Iohn 14. 26. and 16. 13. Act. 2. 4. and 4. 31. 2. Moreover in this fable he contradicteth himselfe like as lyars are wont to doe forgetting what he had said before to wit that it was an other Iames not Iames the just unto whom togither with Peter and Iohn Christ gave preheminence above the rest of the Apostles 3. And since wee are now in hand with the reputation of Clemens and Egesippus the first reporters of Iames his Bishoprick from whom eyther at the first or secoÌd hand the rest of the witnesses have received their warrant it shall not be amisse hither to drawe the examination of the Doctors defence pag. 60. of their credit against the moderate censure of the Refut answ pag. 133. How unsavorie a speach saith he is that of Clement recorded by Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 1. that Peter Iames and Iohn would not arrogate to themselves that glorie to have the Bishoprick of Ierusalem but chose Iames the Iust unto it Why was it a greater glorie then their Apostleship or can there be any lawfull calling in the Church too high for them whom Christ vouchsafeth to make his Apostles yea cheefe among the Apostles Such speaches as this in the Fathers are like black wenns in a faire body that have more need of a cover for excuse then of setting out for commendation The like may be sayd of those he calleth good Authors Eusebius and Egesippus who alleadge so carnall a respect of the Apostles in preferring Iames
to feed and attend upon The last therefore wil be the fittest as it seemeth every way for the Doctors purpose and if he will stick close unto it let him recall those speaches of his which make shewe of the other two gather his witts togither for the confirmation of these particulars 1. that Iames was confined or restreyned for the execution of his ministery unto so narrow a compasse as the Church of Diocese of IerusaleÌ 2. that he was affixed to that Church or bound there to abide and during life to attend on that flock For unlesse he have some sound testimony or reason to perswade his hart in these points he shall shewe himselfe to be lead by self-conceit rather theÌ by sound judgement in contradicting the assumption last proposed for it naturally floweth from the assumption of D. Whitakers argument before delivered in this manner None of the Apostles had one onely flock which he was bound to feed as his owne peculiar charge But Iames was an Apostle Ergo he had no one onely flock which he was bound Sect. 4. to feed as his owne peculiar charge And now if he will deny the proposition of this argument I must recall him to the fortifications before mencioned The first concludeth the pointes necessarily inevitablie in this manner Whosoever were by Christ commanded to goe into all the world to preach the gospell and to make disciples and being mindfull of their imbassage did according to their charge they had not any of them one onely flock unto which they were bound to feed the same as their owne But all the Apostles were by Christ coÌmaunded to goe into all the world to preach the gospell and to make disciples and they all being mindfull of their Embassage did according to their charge None of the Apostles therefore had one onely flock to which they were bound to feed it as their own The proposition is of it selfe cleare enough The assumption for the first part of it as it is grounded on the wordes of Christ Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. so it is acknowledged by the Doctor and we doe allow his interpretation of their coÌmission pag. 51. line penult and 57. line 6. viz. that Christs meaning was not that every one should traverse the whole world yet their coÌmission was indefinite and without any assignement of provinces or parts of the world to any Now if he make question of the latter part of the Assumption I referre him to that which is observed cap. 5. sect 10. out of Mark 16. 20 and I wish him to be wel advised least he be found to give that Evangelist the lie if he exempt Iames from that obedience to Christs charge which he testifieth of all without exception viz. that as Christ had before commanded so they went all forth and preached every where For who shall dare without good warrant to restreyn the generall sense of the holy Ghost in the one more then in the other Either therfore let Iames be exempted from partaking with his fellowes in their Apostolicall coÌmission or let him partake with them in the praise which is given them for obeying the charge which they received If he will needes exempt S. Iames from preaching every where as the rest did that is to say here and there in diverse provinces or countries without restreynt to any one because Eusebius and others say that Iames had the charge of Ierusalem and governed the Church there then let him also except S. Iohn togither with Thomas and Andrew because Eusebius saith lib. 3. cap. 1. that in the distribution of the world among the Apostles Thomas obteyned Parthia Andrew Scythia and Iohn Asia But though he confine Iames to Ierusalem or at least to Iurie yet of the rest he saith they were not confined to any one province but traveyled from one country to an other To come then to the 2. fortification it argueth also uncontroulablie in this sort None that knewe they ought alwayes to follow the direction of the holy Ghost and to goe forthwith whither soever he should call them might have their seates fastned to one certeyne place or flock But all the Apostles knew that they ought alwayes to follow the direction of the holy Ghost and to goe forthwith whither soever he should call them Therefore none of the Apostles might have their seates fastned to one certeyne place or flock And consequently none of them had one onely flock on which he was bound continually to attend For it were a wrong to them to thinke that they or any of them would doe that which they knewe was not lawfull for them to doe Against the proposiâion I suppose the Doctor will take no exception and if he shall pick any quarrel against the assumption he must say eyther in generall that none or in particular that some and namely Iames knewe no such dutie that they did owe to God as to attend alwayes on his call and direction for the imployment of their ministeriall paines If the former let him consider what is already said cap. 5. sect 11. to shewe that the Apostles had not before their dispersion each of them his severall circuite measured out to him once for all by the directioÌ of the holy Ghost as he supposeth For since they were to wayt for the holy Ghosts direction whither to goe as the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 57. if they had not their whole line or compasse layd out at once must they not of necessitie remaine alwayes ready to goe whither soever God by his spirit should call them And if this be apparant in any one as it is in Paul Act. 13. 2. 4. 16. 6. 10. and 18. 9. 11. 19. 21. ought we not to judge the like of all For why should any one Apostle be freed from that attendance which another is tied unto and that for the performance of his Apostolicall function And when the Doctor stretcheth in coÌmon unto all the Apostles pag. 52. that which Paul speaketh of himselfe and such as assisted him within his Apostolicall line doth he not assume it for an undoubted truth that in the execution of their Ministerie they all walked by one rule It were absurd therefore here to except Iames froÌ that coÌtinuall attendaÌce upoÌ the holy Ghosts direction wherunto his fellow-Apostles were bound And consequently absurd to give him one onely flock and to affixe him for his whole life to the service thereof when the rest were bound alvvayes to be ready to goe whither soever the holy Ghost should direct them Thus much for the justifying of the first reason against Peters Sect. 5. ad sect 7. pag. 58. Bishoprick the second reason against it is thus applyed by the D. pag. 58 unto Iames If Iames were Bishop then by the same reason other of the Apostles were Bishops But the other Apostles were not Bishops properly Therefore not Iames. The Doctor should have added D. Whitakers conclusion and applied it to Iames
at this day in the managing of Church-causes And by that which hath bene now sayd concerning Timothy Titus the same may be affirmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus Creet But he asketh whether Paul did not coÌmitt the ordination of Ministers unto Titus without mentioning eyther of Presbyterie or people And we may ask him what mention he findeth there of prayers or hands-imposition which ought to concurre with ordination if he can include them as being vnderstood in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5 wee have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters and the peoples approbation in the words following hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee Quis enim credat Paulum c. who may beleeve Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in vse Muscul loc coÌ de elect Minist Againe he asketh or rather argueth in this manner Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed onely to Titus for Creete and to Timothy for Ephesus and doth not this evidently shewe that howsoever they might use eyther the presence or consent of the people or the counsell advise of the presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in coÌmon-wealths yet the sway of ecclesiasticall government was in them If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason theÌ the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular termes vnto Peter onely both his whol speach concerning the keies of his kingdome and the power thereof Math. 16. and that precept of feeding his sheep and lambes and of confirming his brethren Ioh. 21. 15. 17. Luk. 22. 32. Wherefore however Peter might use the help The Doct. reasoneth well for Rome and assistance of his fellow-fellow-Apostles in all those workes and the presence or consent of the people in the administratioÌ of the keies yet the cheef power and sway of all was in him alone Good newes for Rome if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument but the truth is such singular speaches directed to one onely doe not argue in that one any such preheminent power as the Romanists and Prelatists doe from thence gather So that since the Doct. can not prove that Timothy and Titus had any such singular and sole power in Church-government as the Doctor judgeth to be due unto Bishops it is plaine that he buildeth upon a vayne and false presupposall when he saith it is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that they had episcopall authoritie and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops in the exercise of their function But for the proofe of this he hath another argument in store thus framed Those things which were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone Sect. 10. ad sect 7. pag 83. as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end were written to informe diocesan Bishops But those epistles were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end Therefore they were written to informe diocesan Bishops Vnto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinctioÌ thus that it is true if vnderstood of successors in authority or power of performing the same works but false if meant of succession in the same office The Doct. therefore first indeavoureth to prove what his Refuter denyeth and yet in the winding up of all would perswade his reader that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption But he is to be advertized that vnlesse he make good what his Refuter denyeth he cannot conclude what he vndertaketh For whether we look to his former assertion which he saith is here againe proved himselfe doth thus explaine it sect 3. in the beginning that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus S. Paul intended to informe them as Diocesan Bishops and in them all other Diocesans or whether wee look to the nearest scoape of his wordes in his sermon pag. 74. it is evident he there intendeth to prove that which he supposed would be answered to his former objection viz. that the things spoken to Timothy and Titus were spoken to them as extraordinarie persons whose authority he should have sayd office should die with them which cannot be removed vnlesse he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinarie function wherein their successors should enjoy the same authoritie to the worlds end Neyther is this to deny his conclusion as he falsely affirmeth but to contradict his assuÌption in that sense which is necessarie to make it good because otherwise he argueth not ad idem Let us therefore see how well his proofes are fitted to the assumption I prove it saith he first by testimonie both of Paul and of Ambrose and after by reason And first by S. Pauls testimonie that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the coÌmandements and directions which he gave him should be kept inviolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus 1. Tim. 6. 14. Ergo they were to be performed by such as should have the like authority and the same office to the end The consequence of this Enthymeme dependeth upon this proposition That the commaundements and directions given in charge unto Timothy could not be kept inviolable unto the end without a succession of such as should have not only the like authoritie but also the same office untill the end of the world The which is âlatly denyed and cannot be fortifyed by that which followeth scz that those commandements could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end seing the meÌbers of his disiunction are insufficient when he taketh it for graunted that those coÌmaundements must be performed eyther in Timothees own person or in such as succeeded him in the same function for the Doctor cannot be ignorant that the coÌmandement which Christ gave to his Apostles Math. 28. 19 20. for preaching and baptizing was to be kept inviolable unto the coÌming of Christ neyther could it be peformed by the Apostles alway in their own persons or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolike function It is performed as all the world knoweth by successors in a different functioÌ which haue authoritie to doe the same works though neither in the same office nor yet with that ample coÌmission for the extent of their jurisdiction In like manner the Refuter saith that the coÌmaundements given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction were continued in the Church by presbyters which succeeded them though in a differing office according to that ordinary course which God had appointed for his Church Thus much for S. Paul whom the Doctor now leaveth and craveth help of Mr. Calvin T. C. and others to conclude his purpose Sect. 11. ad sect 7. pag 83. 84. scz that the
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 coÌmandement 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 coÌmanded untill Christs second coÌming 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 froÌ 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 successioÌ 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 propositioÌ 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 successioÌ 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 congregatioÌ 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 meÌtion 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 peâ idem when in deed he is poore For is this argument any better then a beggerly proving of the point denyed by the self
by ordinary meanes for himself interpreteth the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee was giveÌ the by prophesie c. of his calling to the Ministery not by humane suffrage but by divine revelation by the coÌmandement or oracle of the Holy Ghost lib. 4. p. 141. his calling therefore to the Ministery by his own confessioÌ must be extraordinarie 2. Neyther can it be denied to be extraordinarie in Titus that the Apostle coÌmitted to his Church the finishing of his owne work for the first establishing of the Churches in Creta and furnishing them with Bishops or Elders to instruct them For himself confesseth that the Churches which were yet in constituting and vnfurnished with Presbyters to teach them had no need of a Bishop to govern them Lib. 4. pag. 63. 3. In like manner this large commission not confined to any one Church or Diocese but with equall charge extended over all the Churches in the whole Iland was more then ordinarie seing the ordinary Bishops and Elders were restreyned to the oversight of one onely Church or flock as appeareth by Act. 20. 28. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. and the Doctor that hath sought all records he could meet with for the next successors of Titus can finde none that had the like extent of jurisdiction till the next age after the Apostles and yet there is an apparant difference betweene him that the Doct. mencioneth and Titus as is before observed cap. 8. sect 13. next before this 4. Moreover it was extraordinarie that Timothy Titus were authorized to coÌmaund and to speake with coÌmanding authoritie 1. Tim. 1. 3 4. 11. 5. 7. Tit. 2. 15. for the auncient Bishops knewe that this was rather Apostolike then suting with the function of Bishops Ignatius in ep ad Rom. knowing his owne measure would not commaund as an Apostle but exhort c. but because these men by their daily conversation with the Apostle knew perfectly his doctrine and doings the Pastors of the Churches to which they were sent were to receive direction froÌ them and to yeeld obedience to their instructions 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16 10. 16. 2. Cor. 7 13. 2. Tim. 2. 2. 3. 10. 5. Yea even in gifts and the way of attayning them D. Downames Betters doe acknowledge this extraordinarie preheminence that they were indowed with extrordinarie gifts as the revealing of secrets and discerning of spirits and that they had their knowledge for the most part infused by revelation perpet govern pag. 88. Bishop Barlow serm in Act. 20. 28 fol. 6. And since some of these extraordinarie preheminences then shined most clearly when they were assigned to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet it followeth inevitably that their function was even at that time extraordinarie and therefore not episcopall but evangelisticall Now whereas he saith that their function was the same ordinary function which their successors all other Presbyters did exercise because 1. they were assigned to certeine Churches as the Pastors thereof 2. ordeyned thereto by imposition of hands 3. and by that ordination furnished with the power of ordination and jurisdiction what else doth he then indeavor to justify the point controverted by others no lesse doubtfull if not apparantly false To returne now to that assumption which at the first affirmed joyntly that the very function of Timothy Titus aswell as their authority Sect. 4. was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. it is most plaine by the reason added in his sermon pag. 79. before he bringeth in his conclusion that he then intended as his wordes signifyed to justify the perpetuity of their function for the wordes of his reason are these If whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy Titus furnished with episcopall power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours To this connexive proposition himselfe addeth the assumption and conclusion pag. 104. following But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed With what face now can the Doctor deny that this argument aymeth at the perpetuall necessity for all Churches not onely of that authority or power which he calleth episcopall but also of the very office or function of Bishops such as he affirmeth Timothy Titus to have bin His complaint therefore is very injurious as we have elswhere shewed to the full when he chargeth his Refuter with wronging him in saying that he maketh this episcopal power perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches that he contradicteth himselfe in another place when he acknowledgeth that where the episcopall government may not be had an other may be admitted But albeit the Doctor be loth to confesse himselfe guilty yet is it a signe of remorse that he refuseth to mainteine that necessity of the episcopall function which his argument at first directly concluded Howbeit he proceedeth in false accusation against his Refuter in saying he doth but elude his reasoÌ with a malepert speach because he wished him not to wave crave but to prove the question for doth he not crave rather then prove that which he assumeth for an The D. waveth and craveth daunceth the round evident truth when he giveth us no other argument then his owne naked affirmance that it is evident c. to justify the assumption or Antecedent of his reason viz. that it was necessary whiles the Apostles lived to substitute in the churches already planted men furnished with episcopall power therein like to Timothy Titus And doth he not wave to and fro or rather goe back againe to the first point controverted in this whole Chapter when he avoucheth in the same Assumption that Timothy Titus were furnished with episcopall power when the Apostle Paul substituted them in the churches of Ephesus and Creet Wherefore if his drift were in this division such as he avoucheth in the entrance thereof viz. by a new supply of arguments to prove Timothy Titus to have bene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet the issue of all his reasoning is no better then a plaine dancing the round in this fashion Their function and authoritie was episcopall because it was not Evangelisticall for it died not with their persons and therefore was not Evangelisticall It died not with their persons because it was ordinarie and perpetually necessary c. for if it were necessarie to have men furnished with episcopall power whiles the Apostles lived it was much more necessary after their deathes Now that it was necessarie whiles they lived it is evident by the Apostles practise in furnishing Timothy and Titus with episcopall power at Ephesus and in Creet Who seeth not by all this his discourse that we are now just where we began All this waving therefore from one
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 grouÌded 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 coÌsent 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 âkei gar kekââka 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 coÌming thither But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the coÌmon 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
which vary from him in the explication of his text 3. Lastly where 1. he would sett the newer and elder disciplinarians as he termeth them at odds about the interpretation of the text that the one should understand it of all Ministers in generall the other of the Presidents of the Presbyteries onely And 2. that against them both he proveth by the text it selfe and by other divine evidence that the calling of diocesan Bishops is in this text commended vnto vs vnder this title of the Angels of the Churches we are to knowe that for the former they agree well enough for however some understand it of the Presidents yet they meane such persons as were also of the common sort of Ministers though for the time of the assembly chosen The D. avoucheth that of both which is true in neither Presidents As for the latter I marveile he durst so boldly avouch it of both seing it is true in neyther as I doubt not but the reader will confesse with me Thus much in defense of the refuters first reason for mistiking the Doctors choise of his text viz. because it is allegoricall It remayneth that I remember the reader of an other reason urged Sect. 6. ad page 27. Def in fine by the Refuter answ pag. 2. against the Doctors choise of his text to iustify our Bishops callings viz. That whereas others deny that the angels of the Churches were as the Doct. affirmeth Diocesan Bishops he doth not once offer to prove the meaning of his text to be so by any other scripture or sound expositor of it Now as it was needfull for the backing of the interpretation of his text to have produced some so questionlesse M. Doctor had both witt will enough to have done so if they had bene to be found Wherefore I againe conclude the text chosen by him was and is vnfit for his purpose In deed he giveth vs a direct answere herevnto in that last sentence of page 27. where he sayth Though some object that by the angels are meant eyther all Ministers in generall or the Presidents of the Presbyters yet he proveth both by the text it selfe and other evidence that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is in the text comended vnder the title of the angels of the Churches But hath he done the deed indeed Is this his answere as true as it is direct Then is it to purpose in deed and this quarrell will soone be at an end But soft a while what are his proofs The Doct. promiseth double proof but produceth none at all What is his evidence where of he thus boasteth Where shall wee find them Are they here layd down to his readers viewe that they may see and judge of them Or doth he point out any one page chapter or booke where elswhere any peece of proofe is to be founde No verely this is all he saith but of this more in my answere to the 3. page where besides that which is already examined concerning the vnfitnes of his text some paynes âs taken to prove that in each church one onely was intitled the Angel thereof and that he had a preheminence above the rest which may lâ graunted and yet his Diocesan Bishoprick denied But to prove that which he sayth he proveth there is not as yet found any one line eyther in his sermon or his large defence thereof In the first he did not once offer to prove it In this next be though it enough to say I doe prove it In his third which is to come perhapps he will attempt it but till we see it effected the Refuters judgmeÌt must stand sound that the Doct. vnfitly chose this text which maketh nothing for his purpose Chap 2. Concerning the division and frame of the Doctors sermon and other materiall points conteyned in the defence of his praeface or first part of his sermon unto page 54. The D. being sett to pick as many quarrels as he could and Sect. 1. ad cap. 2. Def. sect 1. 2. p. 28. 29. 30. more by many then he had any colour for so farr misliketh the refuters division of his sermon into 3. parts viz. the preface the body and the conclusion that he will needs change the number either by inlarging it into 4 or abridging it into two To bring his whole The D. forgetteth in one place what he doeth in an other building into a just quadrangle he divideth that which his Refuter calleth the preface into these two distinct members to wit a proeme and a proposition but he forgetteth as it seemeth that himself shutteth up both these in one calling them in the very title of his Chapter the first part of his sermon And to reduce all into a perfect dichotomy he sendeth vs to his transition serm page 94. there to observe a distribution thereof into two parts viz. the explication continuing to that place and the application from thence to the end Wherein he sheweth himself not very well advised for his transition hath these words The same dâctâine which by way of explication of my text I have proved I doe now by wây of application commend vnto you Now who is so blind that seeth not here 3. distinct parts to wit the explication of his text a doctrine proved by the said explication and an application of the doctrine so proved Or rather who is so sharp The D. is very incoÌstant in the division of his sermon sighted as the Doctor to discerne the two former to be included vnder one worde explication And who so skilfull in logicall analysing and dividing as he who now reduceth vnto explication the 3. first sides of his quadrangleâ I meane his pâoeme proposition and confirmation of his 5. points proposed to be proved and againe divideth his explication into these two members viz. an explication of his text and a doctrine collected out of it But though I will not forbidd him to cutt his owne coate into as many or as fewe peeces as he will nor to alâe the frame of his owne building into what formes and as oftâ he listeth yet if he shall remaine stil angry with them that observe it and shall still revile them that like not his inconstancie I knowe none that will excuse him And since he is not ashamed wrongfully and without any just cause given to charge his Refuter Def. page 46 c. with double dealing sophisticall shifting disordering âe frame of his sermon cutting shorter and stretching longer the partes thereof and that by a forced analysis against the light of his owne conscience though I have not so learned Christ as to require him with the like termes of reproach albeit he justly deserveth it yet must he be contented to heare the truth declared and his owne shifting too and fro in changing his assertions at his pleasure more plainely discovered Of those two assertions which his explication as he saith Sect. 2. coÌteyneth the first he layeth
down in these words That the Pastors or governours of the primitive Churches here meant by the Angels were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be the second in these wordes that the function of Diocesan Bishops is lawful good And he affirmeth that these assertions are for the handling of the text first propounded to be discussed But if the Doctor had pervsed the 2. page of his sermon for it seemeth he cast not his eye vpon it when he wrote his defence he should haue seene that these are not the same assertions but changlings whosoever rocked the cradle The Doct. changeth his assertions putt in their stead For there having the words of his text before his eyes The 7. starrs are the Angels of the 7. Churches considering to what end he had choseÌ his text viz. to justify the honourable functioÌ of our English Prelates he vndertaketh in the first place plainly to prove that the Angels of those Churches were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as our Bishops are And secondly out of the words to shewe that the office and function of Bishops here meant by angels is in this text both approved as lawfull and coÌmended as excellent Will the D. say that in sense and meaning for in words they are not these are all one with the two first Nay his conscience will tel him that in each proposition both termes I meane the subiectum and the predicatum have received such a change that the two former cannot be truely sayd to be the same with the two later For in that first which he saith is an explication of the text lett him shame the Divill and speake the truth and tell us what moved him to add the word primitive to the subiect and the word Diocesan to the Predicate of that assertion Shall I help to informe the reader till his owne answere may be heard He was resolved the event declareth it to make the best defense he could for the calling of this Diocesan Bishops yet not so much by the text which he chose or by any other testimony of scripture for then fewer lines might have served his turne then are nowe the leaves of his sermon as by the authoritie of fathers councels wherof he had greater store and such as in his owne apprehension made a fayrer shewe for his purpose Hence is it that in the winding up of all that he had spoken for the proofe of his first assertion to make the conclusioÌ more sutable to the premises he brought his whole discourse to this yssue serm pag. 52. Thus you have heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as our Bishops are Where note he saith not the angels of the 7. churches in S. Iohns time were such Bps. yet that was the point he promised to prove but the angels or Bishops of the primitive church were such Vnderstanding by the primitive Church the ages succeding for 300 yeares after the Apostles dayes as appeareth by serm pag. 56. 57. and by Def. lib. 3. page 12 and 14. which when he hath made the best of it that he can is but an idle digression from his text not a right explication thereof Yet in this veine The D. digresseth from his text doth not rightly explicate it he persisteth throughout his defence giving vs for the true and naturall explication of his text the same general assertion whereof see lib. 1. pag. 54. lib. 2. pag. 41. lib. 3. pag. 22. Onely in these places like as before he addeth the word Diocesan in the predicate or later terme of the sentence to conforme this first assertion with the second of the last edition viz. the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good that he might with the better colour commend the later vnto us as the Doctrine which floweth from the former For which cause also he seemeth here to limitt his first assertion within the compasse of his text vnto those Pastors or Bishops which are here meant by angels he seemeth I say here to doe it and he doth it in deed in the last section of this chapter and page 3. lib. 4. where he seriously mindeth the collecting of his doctrine from the text yet in inclosing those words here meant by angels within a parenthesis he seemeth withall to intimate to his reader that those words may wel be spared the sentence neverthelesse stand perfect without them as it doth in the places before noted even as oft as he aimeth at the reducing of his 4. first points serm pag. 6. 7. vnto one coÌmon conclusion Thus he windeth out and in at his The Doct. windeth in and out at pleasure pleasure and vnder termes that carry a double construction hath fitted his first assertion to a double purpose What shall I say to him Would he thus have done if he had hated double dealing sophisticall shifting in himselfe as much as he seemeth to loath it in his Refuter who gave him farr lesse cause what say I yea to speake truth no cause at all so to accuse him of any such offence Let the reader Iudge But let us goe on and compare togither the 2. assertion to use his owne phrase of the newe edition with the 2. point proposed Sect. 3. serm pag. 2. In the one he roaveth at randome and affirmeth of Diocesan Bishops at large at least of all such as ours be for so he expoundeth himself lib. 4. pag. 3. that their calling is lawfull good In the other reteyning a speciall reference to his text and the angels there mentioned he saith that the function of Bishops there meant by the angels is in the text it selfe approved as lawful and commended as excellent Howsoever the Doctor be strongly perswaded that the Angels of whom his text speaketh were Diocesan Bishops for the substance of their calling like to ours yet is he not surely so farr bereaved of his senses but he can discerne a difference not onely betweene those ancient Bishops in particular and those to whom he resembleth them or Diocesan Bishops in generall but also betweene the lawfulnes of their callings distinctly considered For as he is not ignorant that his Refuter acknowledgeth the function of those Bishops which are in his text called Angels to be lawfull and good because they were Pastors of those 7. severall Churches and yet holdeth the calling of all such Diocesan Bps. as ours are to be vnlawfull so be he here remembred that we finde his owne âllogiâmes lib. 1. p. 58. lib. 4. 3 to put this difference betweene the calling of the one and of the other that the calling of such as is here meant by Angels is made the M dââs termiâus to coÌclude the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops Moreover there is so much differece betweene the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops considered at large
Iames we account these particulars 1. that the Iewes had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations 2. that the church of Ierusalem was in some respect as is before shewed sect 3. the Mother-church of Christendome 3. that Iames was an Apostle principally to the Iewes 4. and that among the Iewes those of Ierusalem and the country round about did more specially belong vnto his oversight whiles Peter and Iohn who were also Apostles for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9. were imployed in other places 5. lastly that during his presidency in the Councell Acts 15. he was superiour in order but not in degree vnto the rest of the Apostles But among things more doubtfull besides the question it selfe of Iames his election or assignement to the function of a Bishop at Ierusalem I reckon these positions 1. that a presidencie in honour or preheminence in order such as he speaketh of is intimated by S. Paul in setting Iames before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him in respect of his episcopall charge at Ierusalem 3. and that in the same respect he had the presidencie in the councell Act. 15. 4. that he was alwayes after the time of his supposed election to his Bishoprick superiour in order to the rest of the Apostles when and whiles they remayned at Ierusalem 5. that this continuance of that superioritie in him appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this superiority or precedence did growe from the prerogatives which that Church and people had above others To these particulars if the Doctor will have us to give our free assent he must first inform us by what authoritie or consequence of reason he is ledd to apprehend a truth in every of them and remove the probabilities which doe incline our judgments to the contrary For touching Gal. 2. are not the wordes of the Apostle ver 7. Sect. 7. 8. affirming that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Peter much more plaine for his preheminence above Iames and Iohn in the Apostleship of the Iewes then the naming of Iames before them vers 9. can be for his primacie above all his fellowe-Apostles Is it not then much more frivolous and ridiculous in the Doctor to extract for Iames a preheminence in honour above Peter and the rest of the Apostles from that slender prioritie which Paul giveth him in naming him first then it is in Bellarmine to ascribe vnto Peter a preheminent dignitie above the rest because he is usually named in the first place Why therfore should not that did up the Doctors mouth that hath dammed up Bellarmines Sidrac inter adolescentes qui in ignem coniecti sunt primus numeratur neque tamen Sidrac socijs suis prefuit Sutclif de Pont. lib. 2. p. 105. Quando multi nominantur necesse est aliquem primum nominari c. Gravissime Erasmus Annot. in Math. 10. ex ordine recensionis non efficaciter intelligitur quis cui sit preferendus Whit. de pont p. 27. l. Adde we harevnto that which is of all observed in their answere to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not alwayes kept Peter which is first placed Mat. 10. 2. Marc. 3. 16. Luc. 16. 14. Act. 1. 13. is set in the last place 1. Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. 9. 5. And Iames here first named being one of the Lords brethren coÌmeth after the greater part of the Apostles 1. Cor. 9. 5. when he saith the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord Cephas Levissimum igitur argumentum hoc ordinis est as Mr Whit. saith pag. 274. 2. And if no preheminence can soundly be conveyed to Iames from this precedence in nomination is not the D. strangely deluded when he taketh it for a sure truth that the Apostle intended by naming him in the first place to teach us not onely that he had a prerogative of honor above the rest of the Apostles but also that the same did arise from his episcopall charge at Ierusalem for is there any one word in the whole epistle that giveth the least intimation of any such difference betweene him Peter Iohn as the Doctor fancieth when he maketh him properly a Bishop for some and them Apostles for others of the circumcision Doth it not rather appeare by the right hands of fellowship c. mencioned verse 9. that Imaes exercised among the Iewes the same and no other Ministery that Peter and Iohn did and that they joyntly were Apostles for the Iewes like as Paul and Barnabas were for the Gentiles 3. And here by the way observe that this distribution of persons or places where these were after this agreement to exercise their Apostolicall function bred no inequalitie or disparitie betwixt them in precedence or honour For if the ancient prerogatives of the Iewes gave any preferment to their Apostles above those by whom God wrought among the Gentiles as the Do. supposeth then Paul was in this respect inferiour to the other but the whole scope of his reasoning tendeth to mainteyne the contrarie viz. that as elswhere he faith he was meden busterekenai in nothing inferiour to the very cheife Apostles 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the Iewes in generall gave not to Peter who had the Apostleship of the circumcision any preheminence above Paul the Apostle Teacher of the Gentiles how should Peter become inferior unto Iames by reason of any preheminence which the Church at Ierusalem might challenge above other Christian Churches Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge Iames his presidencie Sect. 8. to be probably gathered from the text because he concludeth the disputation adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assemblie vers 19. 20. 28. 29. so I can by no meanes allowe this presidencie to growe unto him as his right in regard of his episcopall charge in that Church much lesse can we take the presidencie for a sufficient proofe of his Bishoprick there although the Doctor should tell us tentimes that it proveth it For what strings can knit the joyntes of this argument togither Iames was president or Moderator in the Synode at Ierusalem Act. 15. Therfore he was the Bishop of that Church Was S. Paul the Bishop of Ephesus because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Actes 20. 28. pag. 2. he fate as president in the Convocation when the Clergie of Ephesus were by his call come togither Or was Peter Iames his predecessor in the Bishoprick of Ierusalem because he was president in the choise of Matthias to succeed in the roome of Iudas Act. 1. 15 Surgit Petrus non Iacobus vt is cui presidentia discipulorum coÌmissa erat Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes c. Whit. de pout pag. 288. 2. But to come to that which he saith doth appeare Act. 15. viz. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior in order to the
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 assignmeÌt 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 coÌmon 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 coÌmon he must bear the losse of all his laboâr 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 coÌmitted unto them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination and iurisdiction which in the epistles is preâupposed 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. ãâã 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 coÌmitted 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
had coÌmitted to them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches I answer that he mingleth and that deceiptfully truth and falshood togither For thought it be true that the epistles doe presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction coÌmitted to them yet is it false and he but beggeth the question in assuming it for truth that the authority of ordeyning and censuring is an authoritie episcopall that is proper to Bishops onely and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction was given them eyther then and not before when they were appointed to stay in those places or there and no where else to be exercised by them A bare deniall of these particulars falsly presupposed by the Doctor is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Pauls epistles that they are by him presupposed in them His second argument in his owne Analysis is the same which Sect. 2. ad pag. 75. sect 2. p. 75 76. 57. his Refuter tooke to be the first and it standeth thus If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Tim. and Tit. were Bishops But the Antecedent is true Therefore the Consequent To discover the weaknes of the consequence or proposition the Doct. was told answ pag. 137. that the consequent dependeth not upon the Antecedent but with this supposition which is false that the Apostle by describing in these epistles the rules to be observed in ordination and jurisdiction intended to informe Tim. Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops how to carry themselves in those matters And if the Doct. had bin as willing to apprehend his right meaning as to pick occasioÌ of quarreling without any just cause given he might have discerned that the supposition whereof he speaketh is not of the naturall hypothesis of the proposiâion impugned but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption as is necessary to be supplyed if he will have the proposition or consequence to passe vncontrouled Wherefore as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref Alas good man you know not what the supposition of an hypotheticall proposition ãâã so had he weighed his owne rules lib. 2. cap. 3. sect 3. for the fynding out of that hypothesis which in a coÌnexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogisme perhaps he mought have perceived the weaknes of his consequence which he would seeme not to see For the true hypothesis which is implyed in this connexive argument and must be supplyed to make it a perfect simple syllogisme can be none other then this They must needs be Bishops and ordeyned to that function to whom such epistles are directed as are patternes and presidents of the episcopall functioÌ c. Or more generally thus Every persoÌ to whom an epistle or speach The Doct. discerning the weaknes of his arguments exchangeth it is directed which conteyneth the patterne or precedeÌt of any function or directions how to exercise it is vndoubtedly invested in the same function And why now I pray you good Mr. Doct. may not this proposition be denyed or doubted of I will spaâe labour in refuting it for I suppose your self perceived the weaknes of it and therefore gave us the exchaunge of an other argument though you pretend another cause of the exchange And since you will not argue with T. C. to whose answerthe Ref directly pointed as with the finger but are willing to let him rest in peace neyther will I argue against Doctor Whitgift but affoard him the like kindeness Onely whereas you aske the Refuter how he could be so ignorant or without judgment as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop conteyned in those epistles did meane onely that description of a Bishop which is set downe 1. Tim. 3 to requite your kindnes I demaund how you could be so ignorant or void of judgment as to think that when Doctor whitgift said that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim declareth him to be a Bishop seing therein is conteyned the office and duty of a Bishop diverse precepts peculiar to that function he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop that Ministery which is comon to all Ministers for so you seeme to interprete his wordes when you affirme pag. 76. this to be his meaning that directions were given to Timothy throughout the epistles for the discharge of his office eyther in respect of the Ministery coÌmon to all Ministers or of his episcopall function cheifly in regard of ordination and jurisdictioÌ And herein you tender his credit lesS then you would seeme when you make him to argue in this fashion The epistles written to Timothy doe give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function Ergo they doe declare that he was a Bishop for this were to make him guilty of your owne fault in begging of the question The Doct. beggeth the question as you doe when you add to your assumption or Antecedent that supposition before examined for if that be as you say it is the playne meaning of the assumption then your second argument beggeth the question in pittifull manner thus The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim and Tit was to informe them as Bishops how to exercise their episcopall functioÌ Ergo those epistles shew that they were Bishops No merveil therefore if the Doctor were desirous to cover the beggery of his reasoning with the Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. 78. sect 3. shredds of a new shaped syllogisme which disputeth thus Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌming of Christ doth plâinly describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of Bishops he presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creete But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus describing unto them their office and authorittie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet c. doth plainely describe the office and prescribe the dutie of Bishops Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Into this new frame he casteth his argument as he pretendeth because the Refuter had confounded himself with his owne hypotheticall proposition but the reader is rather to judge that a false supposall of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze that he hath confounded himselfe in his owne The D. coÌfoundeth himselfe in his owne reasoning reasoning For where he should according to his own project sect 1. of