those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
Church-governmeÌ„t 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 â—ect 4. pag. 6. 7. of a Church as it is used in the scriptures attend we now to his coÌ„clusion All this saith he I have the rather noted because some having first strongly coÌ„ceited 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. coÌ„tradicteth 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 â—mediately 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 governmeÌ„t 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 coÌ„science 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 signifiâ—th according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit which iÌ„magine there is no true Church but a parish Wherein he doth neyther rightly The D. in one Enthymem saniteth 2. set downe their assertion nor assume a cleare truth to refute it The first appeareth by H. I his table pag 6. of his book whereto the Doctor pointeth in that besides a particular congregation of Christians meeting for religious exercises which the Doct. calleth a parish he acknowledgeth the name of Church to be given in the scriptures vnto some other societies viz. the Catholike militaÌ„t Church on earth the invisible society of Gods elect absolutely Catholike the people of a particular coÌ„gregation considered without and besides their Ministers and the company of a Christian familie The truth is he holdeth the onely true visible Church indowed by Christ with the spirituall power of order and government in it selfe to be none other then a particular congregation Neyther is the truth hereof infringed by that which the Doctor assumeth seing the name of a Church given at large to any company of Christians in regard of their profession of the true faith cannot prove the power of Ecclesiasticall government to belong vnto every such company of Christians or to any other society then one particular congregation 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth that The D. reasoneth ex non coÌ„cessis which he shall never be able to justify when he saith that the word ecclesia signifyeth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians great or small For he cannot shewe any one place of scripture where the word Church in the singular number is giveÌ„ to such a multitude of Christians in an whole Nation Province or Diocese as was distributed into many particular congregations Yea his own table page 4. sheweth that when the scripture speaketh of the Christians in an whole nation it calleth them Churches plurally and not by the name of a Church singularly as Churches of Galatia Asia Macedonia 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. t. Gal. 1. 2. And the like phrase of Churches is used for the Christians of one province Act. 9. 31. the Churches had rest throughout all Iudea Galile and Samaria Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches c. I will this once tender him this argument The word ecclesia in the singular number doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese nation or province Ergo the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine that the Christians of an whole Nation Province or Diocese though distributed into many congregations may not with standing by the warrant of the word be rightly termed one Church Yea it serveth rather to confute then to coÌ„firm the point now in questioÌ„ viz. that the 7. Churches meÌ„cioned in this text were properly Dioceses not Parishes As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words Eeclesia Paraecia Diaecesis coÌ„monly translated Church Parish Diocese how they are taken in the ancient writers I see not what advantage he can make by it to conclude the question The summe of all that he saith is this In ancient writers Ecclesia paroecia Dioecesis having refereÌ„ce to a Bishop his whole charge doe signify a Diocese and not a parish Which how true it is I cannot now enquire vnless I should digresse into a new controversy For the present it shall suffice to observe that though it were granted to be true yet it will not justify his assertion that the 7. Churches of Asia mencioned in his text were properly dioceses not parishes for in the consequence of his reasoning if he shall so argue he beggeth the question in two particulars which he should The Doct. beggeth the question in 2. particulars but cannot make evident by good demonstration viz. that in his text the word Ecelesia hath reference to one Bishop and his charge and that it carrieth the same signification for the singularity or plurality of particular congregations comprized within it which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth Leaving therefore this whole discourse and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as apperteyning to another question viz. how ancient that distribution of Dioceses and Parishes is which in later ages preveiled and passing by his whole 3. Chapter concerning the 7. Churches being handled in the former part lib. 3. I will now proceed to his 4. Chapter and the argument there concluding that the first Apostolike Churches were properlie Dioceses because the presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities countries that is to dioceses Chap. 2. conteyning an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolicall Churches were properly dioceses not parishes because the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses Sect. 1. ad sect 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64. We have already heard in the former part how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia to be great and ample citie togither with the countries adjoyning when he saith it cannot be denied but they were such because our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7 and nameth the principall some whereof were Mother cities He addeth imediately after For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation they first preached to the cheise cities thereof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had converted some their manner was to ordeyne Presbyters hoping by their Ministery to convert not onely the rest of the citie but also the countries adjoyning so many as did belong to God Which words the Refuter answ pag. carried as the 2. reason to conclude the point before questioned because finding the former argumeÌ„t to be so obscure and vnfitting as it is before shewed to be he judged it in effect all one to say It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great ample cities c. for it is evideÌ„t that the Apostles in the cheife cities of any nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine Presbyters by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie and country adjoyning and to transpose the sentences in this manner It is evident that the Apostles in the cheife cities of every nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine presbyters c. Ergo it cannot be denyed but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities
was upon the scope of the Doctors sermon so is the D. eye vpon the scope of the Ref. preface the former I suppose looking right forwards the later quite awrie For what can an eye not evilly affected see in that preface that should charge the Refuter in the scope therof like an Orator in his proeme to drawe and withdraw his reader as he sayth from the D. to the Ref. if he would be ledd by shews when without any oratoricall shewes at all he plainly declareth the reason that moved him to answer the sermon 2. Where the refuters whole preface is but as a prologue the D. divideth it into a prologue and an epilogue as if one should divide a Lions head into the head of a Lion and the taile of a Lion But if it were not all a prologue yet to divide an entire speach into a prologue an epilogue without any protasis or epitasis coÌ„ming betweene is as if one should divide a mans body into head and feete As for his nice division and subdivision folowing I mind not to trouble the reader with them 3. Where the refuter professeth that he deemed the D. sermon as needful to be answered as any book written of that subject The D. first premiseth a scoffe which I here passe by then by way of analysing maketh his refuter to tell his reader how there weee two motives that moved him to vndertake it Strong opinion and vnquiet desire which is in deed to torture and not to analize words His strong opinion was that he deemed it as needful to be answered as any book c. which as the D. telleth us though the refuter confirmeth with divers reasons yet they are such as he that shal compare them either with the truth or his opinion or one of them with another he shall see a pleasant representatioÌ„ of the Matachinâ— every one fighting with another he shall see that is to say if he hath the D. spectacles on But first his logick faileth him for a man that looketh with his right eye may easily discerne that the ref brought but one onely reason for that his opinion the other reason or reasons as it pleaseth the D. to number them for it seemeth he had on those spectacles that maketh a man to see gemmae obiecta geminos soles doe but prove the consequent of that reason 2. as for the Matachine fight I perswade my self it will upon due examinatioÌ„ of particulars prove onely but some spectrum arising out of that strong imagination which many times maketh any thing seeme to be what the fantastick desireth it should be The Refuwordes in which the Doctor seeth these marveils are to this effect That when he saw how his sermon tended directly to prove that the calling of our Lord Bishops as they now exercise it in the Church of England is not onely lawful and good but to be holden jure divino not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure but by divine right as the very immediate ordinance of Christ he demed it as needful to be answered as any book of that subject c. For that notwithstanding the D. commendation of it it is evident the doctrine thereof is utterly false very huriful and obnoxious and therfore necessary to be confuted Would not any man think him driven to goe nere the wind that rayseth up such tragedies and logicall clatterings upon these words or cannot he trow we see farr into a milstone that can see a matachine fight in them Well let us see how the D. proveth it ¶ The Refuters first reason sayth he is because he sawe the Sect. 2 0. 2. of the D. 3. of the ref sermon tended directly to prove that the calling of our Lord Bishops as they now exercise it c. The first reason Nay it is the onely reason why he deemed the book so needfull to be answered what saith the D. to it In which sayth he there were divers untruthes But whosoever with an indifferent eare shall enterteyne the answer following may I doubt not easily discerne that this saying of the D. is an â—njust slaunder that he himself hath delivered diverse untruthes The D. first â—andereth his Ref then delivereth divers untruths to colour it to colour it Let the reader now heare what the one and the other hath to say and give upright sentence First sayth he with what eye did he see that directly proclaymed in the sermon which directly and expresslly I did disclaime pag. 92. where I prosissed that although I held the calling of the Bishops c. to be an apostolicat and so a divine ordinance yet that I doe not mainteyn it to be divine jurâ—â— as intehding therby that it is generally perpetually immutably necessary as though there could not be a true Church without it which himself also acknowledgeth pag. 92. of his book With what eye did he see it even with the same eye that was upon the truth Let the Doctor deale plainly and answere to the point directly Is it an untruth in the ref to say that his sermoÌ„ tendeth directly to prove that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden jure divino by divine right and not as an humane ordinance by Godâ— lawe Why then dooth he not directly contradict this assertioÌ„ and say that his sermon tendeth ro prove that their calling is to be holden jure humano by humane right and not as a divine ordinance Or if they hold their calling by another right which is neither humanum nor divinum jus why is he ashamed plainly to professe what it is hath he preached a whole sermon in defence of their honourable function published foure books in defence of his sermon and yet dareth not directly proclaime quo jure they hold their superiority But let us touch a litle some points of his sermon and of his defence therof Was not the callings of these 7. angels of which the text speaketh of divine right and doth he not affirme pag 2 and profess plainly to prove that the reverent fathers of our Church for the substance of their calling were such 2. Are not the true proper Pastors of the Church the lights and starres of the Church of divine right and doth he not pag. 3. 93 affirme our Diocesan Bishops to be such their calling therfore that honourable function of theirs must eyther be of divine right or the Churches of God themselves are not of divine right 3. Doth he not in divers places of his seÌ„rmon call it an apostolicall ordinance affirme it to be from heaven from God alledging divers scriptures for the proof therof 4. Yea is not the doctrine which he rayseth from his text in the explicatioÌ„ and applicatioÌ„ wherof his whole sermon is spent set dovvn by himself pag 94 in these very words sc that the episcopall function is of apostolical divine institutioÌ„ And doth he not def lib. 1. cap. 3. pa.
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ„ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâ—lea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bâ—â—e had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâ—ster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a â—everall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possâ—â—e that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌ„ding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ„ is not the denial of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ an evidence that the answerer is coÌ„founded is not coÌ„fusioÌ„ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâ—ctâ—d Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ— sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ„ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
things and to hold fast that onely which is good 1 Thes 5. 21. yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them 1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13. to marke such as teach contrarie to the doctrine that they have received and to avoide them Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the generall bande of love binde everie one freely to rebuke his neyghbour not to suffer sinne upon him Leviâ— 19. 17. and doth not the Apostles sharpely taxe the Corinthians for suffering the false Apostles to domineare over them 2. Cor. 11. 20. Wherefore if it be a cursed confusion subversion of ecclesiastical power to subject every teacher to the jurisdiction or corrective power of everie private hearer and to coÌ„mit the managing of the keies or Church Censures to everie meane Artisan then the D. may see how grosse an error it is to think that the dutie of examining or trying and not suffering false teachers doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiasticall censurâ—â— vpon them And the indifferent reader may perceive that while the D. laboureth to vphold the preheminent suprioritie of Byshops he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Ministeriall authoritie and to bring in a mere Anarchy Perhaps the D. wil reply that besides this trial or judgement of Sect. 4. discerning which is coÌ„mon to all Christians needfull for their preservation from seducers there is another and an higher kind proper to the guides of the Church and necessarie for the preserving of the whole â—lock from haereticall infection This wee acknowledge to be true but withall we say it is none other then a judgement of direction as Doctor Feild calleth it in his treatise of the Church lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222. which endeavoureth to make others discerne what themselves haue found out to be the truth And this is coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word Elders of the Church as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth coÌ„mon to all the Elders of Ephesus viz. to attend on the feeding of the flocke and to watch against the danger both of wolves entring in and of false teachers springing up amonge them Act. 20. 28 -31 For how should such danger be prevented by theire watchfulnes if it were not theire dutie to trye out the leawde behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits and not to suffer them to spreade the contagion and poyson thereof in the Church committed to their oversight This is yet more manifest by sundry canons prescribed elswhere by the same Apostle as when he requireth of every Presbyter an abilitie to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine Tâ—t 1. 5. 9. and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add herevnto the practise of the Aposties admitting the Presbyters of the Church of Ierusalem to consultation for the trying determining of that question touching circumcision c. which had troubled the mindes of many beleevers at Antioche Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparant therefore that in the triall and examination both of teachers and their doctrine the scripture knoweth no difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters so that if Bishops will challendge to themselves a jurisdiction and power of correction over Presbyters because it belongeth vnto them to trie or examine not to suffer false teaching Presbyters then for the same reason it being the dutie of every Pres byter to trie the doctrine of Bishops not to suffer them to spread any errour without resistance Bishops also must subject theÌ„selves to the corrective power of every Presbyter But he will alleadge as some others have done that there is a third kind of triall and judgement proper to them that have cheif authoritie in the Church to wit a judiciall examination of persons suspected in open coÌ„sistory with power to censure such as are found faulty which as it is now exercised of our Bishops so it was then practised by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus Indeed if this were true he might with some colour inferre that the angels function was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops but who seeth not that this plea is none other then a mere begging of the question For they that deny these angels to Still the D. beggeth be Bps. such as ours doe not acknowledge any such prehemineÌ„ce in one Minister above another for the trying and censuring of offenders Moreover by this reply the cause is as litle relieved as if a shipmaster to stop one leake in the one side of his shipp should make two or three on the other side more dangerous then the former For to cover the falshood of the proposition a double errour or untruth is discovered in the AssumptioÌ„ viz. 1. that by the triall which the Angel of the Ephesian Church tooke of the false The D. to stopp one leake maketh two Apostles is meant a judicial coÌ„venting of theÌ„ in open Consistorie and proceeding vnto censure against them being found lyars 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative of that one which is here intituled the angel of that Church The falshood of the former doth appeare in part by some things already spoken it being before shewed that the triall and examination Sect. 5. both of teachers and of theire doctrine appropriated vnto Ministers in the apostolicall writings is none other then that judgement of direction whereby themselves and their people are informed guided in this cariage towards those teachers I add 1. that the Doctor cannot paralell the words or phrases here used ou dune bastasai kâ—kâ—us ' kai epeiraso c. Apo. 2. 2. hoti eas ten c. ver 20. with any other text of holy scripture where the same words do imply such a judiciall triall as he supposeth to be infolded under them 2. And since the persons which are sayd to be tryed not indured professed to be Apostles and therefore such as challendged an authoritie and calling superiour to that Angel what likelihoode is there that they would yeelde themselves subject to his judiciall examination and censure 3. Againe the text saith onely that they were tried and found lyars now if they were in open Consistorie judicially tried why were they not upon the discovery of their false dealing enjoyned to give open testimonie of their repentance And if they refused so to doe why did they not beare the sentence of suspension and excommunication or degradation Or if any such proceeding was held against them why is it not recorded in the text seeing it woulde have made much more for the angels commendation then that which is expresly mentioned 4. Nay that is recorded which soundeth rather to the confirmation of the contrary for that bearing which is commended in the same angel vers 3. is by good Interpreters and amongst other by Mr Perkins construed of his groaning under the burthen of those false Teachers
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 graÌ„ted 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 AntecedeÌ„t 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 meÌ„tioned 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 coÌ„mon 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 coÌ„gregatioÌ„ but also the govermeÌ„t 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 affectâ—th 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
had coÌ„mitted to them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches I answer that he mingleth and that deceiptfully truth and falshood togither For thought it be true that the epistles doe presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction coÌ„mitted to them yet is it false and he but beggeth the question in assuming it for truth that the authority of ordeyning and censuring is an authoritie episcopall that is proper to Bishops onely and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction was given them eyther then and not before when they were appointed to stay in those places or there and no where else to be exercised by them A bare deniall of these particulars falsly presupposed by the Doctor is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Pauls epistles that they are by him presupposed in them His second argument in his owne Analysis is the same which Sect. 2. ad pag. 75. sect 2. p. 75 76. 57. his Refuter tooke to be the first and it standeth thus If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Tim. and Tit. were Bishops But the Antecedent is true Therefore the Consequent To discover the weaknes of the consequence or proposition the Doct. was told answ pag. 137. that the consequent dependeth not upon the Antecedent but with this supposition which is false that the Apostle by describing in these epistles the rules to be observed in ordination and jurisdiction intended to informe Tim. Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops how to carry themselves in those matters And if the Doct. had bin as willing to apprehend his right meaning as to pick occasioÌ„ of quarreling without any just cause given he might have discerned that the supposition whereof he speaketh is not of the naturall hypothesis of the proposiâ—ion impugned but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption as is necessary to be supplyed if he will have the proposition or consequence to passe vncontrouled Wherefore as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref Alas good man you know not what the supposition of an hypotheticall proposition 〈◊〉 so had he weighed his owne rules lib. 2. cap. 3. sect 3. for the fynding out of that hypothesis which in a coÌ„nexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogisme perhaps he mought have perceived the weaknes of his consequence which he would seeme not to see For the true hypothesis which is implyed in this connexive argument and must be supplyed to make it a perfect simple syllogisme can be none other then this They must needs be Bishops and ordeyned to that function to whom such epistles are directed as are patternes and presidents of the episcopall functioÌ„ c. Or more generally thus Every persoÌ„ to whom an epistle or speach The Doct. discerning the weaknes of his arguments exchangeth it is directed which conteyneth the patterne or precedeÌ„t of any function or directions how to exercise it is vndoubtedly invested in the same function And why now I pray you good Mr. Doct. may not this proposition be denyed or doubted of I will spaâ—e labour in refuting it for I suppose your self perceived the weaknes of it and therefore gave us the exchaunge of an other argument though you pretend another cause of the exchange And since you will not argue with T. C. to whose answerthe Ref directly pointed as with the finger but are willing to let him rest in peace neyther will I argue against Doctor Whitgift but affoard him the like kindeness Onely whereas you aske the Refuter how he could be so ignorant or without judgment as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop conteyned in those epistles did meane onely that description of a Bishop which is set downe 1. Tim. 3 to requite your kindnes I demaund how you could be so ignorant or void of judgment as to think that when Doctor whitgift said that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim declareth him to be a Bishop seing therein is conteyned the office and duty of a Bishop diverse precepts peculiar to that function he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop that Ministery which is comon to all Ministers for so you seeme to interprete his wordes when you affirme pag. 76. this to be his meaning that directions were given to Timothy throughout the epistles for the discharge of his office eyther in respect of the Ministery coÌ„mon to all Ministers or of his episcopall function cheifly in regard of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ And herein you tender his credit lesS then you would seeme when you make him to argue in this fashion The epistles written to Timothy doe give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function Ergo they doe declare that he was a Bishop for this were to make him guilty of your owne fault in begging of the question The Doct. beggeth the question as you doe when you add to your assumption or Antecedent that supposition before examined for if that be as you say it is the playne meaning of the assumption then your second argument beggeth the question in pittifull manner thus The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim and Tit was to informe them as Bishops how to exercise their episcopall functioÌ„ Ergo those epistles shew that they were Bishops No merveil therefore if the Doctor were desirous to cover the beggery of his reasoning with the Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. 78. sect 3. shredds of a new shaped syllogisme which disputeth thus Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ doth plâ—inly describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of Bishops he presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creete But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus describing unto them their office and authorittie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet c. doth plainely describe the office and prescribe the dutie of Bishops Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Into this new frame he casteth his argument as he pretendeth because the Refuter had confounded himself with his owne hypotheticall proposition but the reader is rather to judge that a false supposall of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze that he hath confounded himselfe in his owne The D. coÌ„foundeth himselfe in his owne reasoning reasoning For where he should according to his own project sect 1. of
60. reduce this his doctrine to a question de jure If then in teaching that their function is of divine institution his purpose be to shew that they hold their preâ—minence iure by good and lawful right can he mean any other then divine right 5. And doth he not ayme at the same right when he sayth it is the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles lib. 3. pag. 24 35. 44. 48 59. and that many of his allegations doe justify the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de jure and give testimonie to their right espetially when he sayth pag 26. that his allegation of those fathers which adjudged Aerius an heretick doth therfore prove the superioritie of Bishops de jure because there is no heresy which is not repugnant to Gods word 6. Neyther can he otherwise warrant their calling and function to be an holy calling an high and sacred function as he affirmeth it to be in his epistle dedicatory to the King pag 3 4. unles the right and title they have unto it be divine and from God who sanctifieth whatsoever is holy 7. Lastly seing he denieth in his second page of his answere to the preface their auncient tenure to be jure humano and for proof thereof affirmeth that their function was in the ptimitive CHVRCH acknowledged to be an ordinance Apostolicall yf there be any strength in his reasoning it will followe that he esteemeth their tenure to be jure divino seing he mainteyneth their function to be a divine ordinance For if an ordinance Apostolicall will conclude their tenure to be jure apostolico and not jure humano onely then a divine ordinance wil prove their tenure to be jure divino and not Apostolico onely Wherefore as it is an evident truth in the Refut to say that the D. sermoÌ„ tendeth directly to prove that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden jure divino by divine right and not as an humane ordinance so it is a mallicious slander in the D. to taxe him for an The D. slaunder untruth in so affirming But let us look on and see with what untruthes he covereth this slander First he faiâ—h he did directly and expresly disclayâ—â— it pag. 92 of his sermon The which if true will he thence inferre that his Ref assertion is an untruth nay rather let him coÌ„fess that he hath contradicted himself and in one page of his sermon expressly disclaymed what he directly proclaymed laboured to prove in the principall scope of the whole But is it not a The Dâ—â— first untruth to colour his slander gross untruth in him to say that in that 92 page he directly and expressly disclaymeth the point in question for doth he not plenis buccis as if he were sounding of a trumpet proclayme it Let us view his words and referre them to his purpose vidz to shew what was Ieroms meaning when he sayth that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of divine disposition If sayth he Ierom meant that Bishops were not set over Presbyters by Apostolicall ordinance he should be contrary to all antiquity and to himself But if his meaning shal be that their superiority though it be an Apostolicall tradition yet is not direrectly of divine institution there is smal difference betwixt these two because what was ordeyned of the Apostles proceeded from God what they did in the execution of their Apostolicall function they did by direction of the holy Ghost But yet for more evidence he sayth he wil directly and breiffly prove that the episcopall function is of divine institution or that Bishops were ordeyned of God And as he sayth so so he assayeth to doe so from the instances of Timothy and Archippus especially from his text from whence he sayth it may evidently be proved 1. for that they are called angels which not onely sheweth their excellencie but also proveth that they were authorized sent of God 2. for that they are commended vnder the name of starres to signify both their preeminence of dignity in this life that they are the crowne of the Church Revel 12. 1. and their prerogative of glorie which they shall have in the world to come Dan. 12. 3. 3ly for that they be the 7. starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand both for approbation of function protection of person And so concludeth that he hath thus proved the doctrine arising out of his text that the episcopal function is of Apostolicall and divine institution If these be his words how dooth he directly expressely disclayme that the calling of Bishops is to be holden by divine right is he not a man of strange conceit that thinketh with outfacing to add credit to so evideÌ„t an untruth Yet he blusheth not to mainteyne it by another The D. 2. untruth to colour his slander wch if it were true concludeth not the point untruth which though it were as true as it is false concludeth not what he indeavoureth to make good I did profess sayth he pag. 92. that although I hold the calling of Bishops in respect of their first institution to be an apostolicall so a diviue ordinance yet that I do not mainteyn it to be divini iuris as intending therby that it is generally perpetually immutably necessarie From hence if he wil conclude that therfore he did directly and expressly disclaime in the same page what his Refut sayth he laboured in his sermon to prove scz that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden by divine right and not as an humane ordinance shall he not shew himself a weak disputer and not wel advised what he speaketh For which of the D. friends that advisedly compareth the partes of his reasoning togither seeth not that a man in his right witts will never take the professing of the former to be a direct and express disclayming of the later yea he that is not over partiall may see by that which is already shewed that the same pen which now professeth that he doth not mainteyne the episcopall function to be divini juris as intending therby a perpetuall immutable necessity therof doth notwithstanding underhand by necessary consequence proclaime that it is to be holden jure divino by divine right and not as an humane ordinance I add for the present that this wil be concluded from that which here he professeth For he that holdeth the calling of Bishops to be an Apostolical and so a divine ordinance doth in effect affirme it to be divini juris as meaning thereby that it is a divine not an humane ordinance But there is less truth then he presumeth in that branch of his profession which sayth that he did profess pag 92 that he doth not mainteyn the calling of Bishops to be divini iuris as intending therby that it is generally immutably necessary For he hath no one word in all that page that
thinkes he answereth it in the third part by his own practise when he sayth he shall make all cleare in his book c. the which how well he hath performed wil appeare in the examination of the particulars in the meane time it seemeth his sermon made not all cleare So much for the first argument A second the Doct frameth of the Ref words thus The doctrine is vtterly false because it is contrary to the judgement practise of the primitive Churches next after Christ and his Apostles To let passe the wrong he offreth herein to his Refut The D. againe wrogeth his Ref. in making more arg of his Ref. words then he ment in making it by it self an argument contrary to his meaning let us heare his answere to it I cannot tel saith he whether to wonder at more the blindnes or the impudencie of the man And why so because saith he I have made it manifest that the government of the Church by Bishops hath the ful consent of antiquity and not one testimonie of the auncient writers for their iudgement or one example of the primitive Churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie c. I am sory I shall trouble the D. with so many questions where I pray hath he made this so manifest in his sermon or in the defence of it hath not the refuters as much if not more reason to wonder at the D. blindnes and impudencie seing if he made it cleare in his sermon is he not blind in not seing that he hath made this his own defence needlesse is it not his owne argument that things manifest need not be disputed nothing needeth to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident But his excessive The D. practyce coÌ„tradicteth his speach travell in mainteyning that sermon and the strange fitts he falleth into in his defence thereof doe shew that in his sermon he made not the matter so cleare as he talketh of Where then in his defence so it seemeth he meaneth And be it so yet was it not so before no not in his owne eyes for then this defence by his owne reason had been needlesse What reason then hath he to argue his refuter eyther of wonderfull blindnes for not seing that which was not then to be seene or of impudencie for affirming the contrary which if he hath not clearely proved is yet in quaestion May we not rather wonder and wonder in deed at the Doct. that counteth it woderful ignorace or impudencie for any to deny or disprove whatsoever he sayth seemeth to himself manifestly to prove though in saying as he sayth here he doth but crave the questioÌ„ And yet out of the same passioÌ„ he proceedeth asketh his ref The D. againe beggeth the questioÌ„ forgetteth him self and the part in question how he durst mention the judgement and practise of the primitive Church for the triall of the truth in question seing there is not one testimonye nor example in all antiquity for the pretended discipline c and offreth that if his Ref. shall bring any one pregnant testimony or example he will yeeld in the whole cause Not to tell him agayn that he is still in begging the questioÌ„ I praye him to tell his Ref. what should feare him from mentioning that which he vndertook to justify and proove and whereto his large defense serveth if his Ref. hath not at least in shewe proved as much as he mencioneth or not brought so much as one testimony or example to the purpose the D. in his passion forgatt himself and the point in question surely he could not els but knowe that diverse testimonies of the Fathers are brought to prove the function of the Bishops in question to be jure humano not divino As for his offer to yeild in the whole cause yf but any one pregnant testimony or example be produced by pregnant he meaneth certeinly such as are subject to no wresting or cavillation but pregnant in his owne judgment not in the judgment of all or the most sound orthodoxall divines in the world otherwise testimonies pregnant enough have bin already produced But what so pregnant that Cavillers such especially as have the sword by their side cannot with some colours or others elude and thereby delude the eyes of the simple which is all they care for In the next place where the Ref sayth that his doctrine is contrary Sect. 3. pag. 4. of the ref 4 of the Doct. to the iudgement of all the reformed churches since the reestablishment of the gospel by the worthies in these latter times the D. chargeth with an vntruth saying It is not a strange thing that a man professing sincerity should so overreache seing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents then by the Presbyterian discipline as I have showed in the later ende of this book How the Doct. hath proved his assertion here shal be sene when we come to that later ende of his booke but if he there proveth it no better then he here proveth his Refut to have overreached I will turne the Doctors owne words one or two exchanged vpon him saye Is it not a strange thinge that a man of the Doctors title should so overreach Nay may I not apply it to him before I proceed any further For how proveth he that his refuter hath so overreached in this place Forsooth becaâ—se a farr greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents c. The which for the time present let vs suppose to be true though by reformed Churches the Ref meaninge as he elswhere sheweth soundly reformed Churches it is not true But graunt it yet that which the D. saith is false viz. that The D. untruely char refuter to overreach is himself too ready to over-reach therefore his refuter overreacheth here For may not reformed Churches be governed by Byshops or Supreintendents and yet the same Churches denie that the calling of our L. Bishops is jure divino which is at least as the Ref. vnderstandeth it the maine doctrine of the sermon and that whereto all other particulars doe homage and service When the D. hath proved that the Bishops and Superintendents of all reformed Churches are such for the substance of their calling as ours and doe hold or exercise their functions jure divino not positivo lett him charge his Refut with overreaching In the meane time he sheweth himself too ready to overreach for if he looke over his Bishops and Superintendents mentioned in the later ende of his book he maye see if he shutt not his eies that they held not their Bishoprickes or SupreinteÌ„dencie by the D. new-found claime and tenure to whom at this tyme onely I will add one or two more not mencioned by him Iodocus Naum vpon Rom. 12. distributeth the Church-officers ordeyned by GOD into Prophets and Deacons the Prophets into
Pastors Teachers the Deacons into treasurers for the poore and those which are Presbyters or Elders viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline Nicholaus Laurentius a late Superintendent in Denmark in his treatise of excommunication published Anno 1610. hath these asserrions That the right of excommunication is not in the power of any one man eyther Bishop or Pastor but in the power of the Pastors that company which Paul calleth the Presbyterie p. 62. That excoÌ„municatioÌ„ is eyther of the whole Church meaning the people or of certayn grave meÌ„ which are in stead of the whole Church so that the Pastor doe publikely in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence p. 64 That where there is no such Senate or Presbyterie except the Magistrate shall otherwise decree and provide the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish and the Superintendent and two of the Pastors in that Province wherein he dwelleth and bring the matter before them all c. ibid Many moe might be brought for this purpose if it were fitting for this place but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion and to shewe the Doct. weaknes in so overreaching as to charge that unjustly vpon his refuter which he himself is justly guilty of Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of foure other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor Sect. 1. pag. 4. of the ref and pag of the D. 4. 5. In the D. next section he chargeth his refuter to add to his former overreaching foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land because he said his doctrine was against 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs 2. contrarie to the profissed judgement of all our worthy wryters 3. contrariant to the lawes of our land 4. contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England A foul fault if true and no great credit for the D if not his refut in his sayings but himself in so saying hath vttered 4. notorious vntruthes let us therefore examine them and in this chapter the first of them The refuters words out of which the D. would extract the first of them are these that the Do. sermon is against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whome were worthy Martyrs who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Popes authority out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparity of Ministers and Lordly primacie of Bishops was but a politick devise of the fathers not any ordinance of Christ and that the government by the Minister and Seniors or Elders in every parish was the ancient discipline These be his words for his proofe he referreth us to three bookes the booke of Martyrs the booke called the Bishops booke and the booke called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious vntruth The witnesses saith he which the Ref. queteth were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops allowing the episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost incredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alledged against the same Incâ—edible in deed if they had been cast into the mould in which our nowe Bishops have been formed otherwise it is credible enongh that they may as I stil affirme that they doe testifye something against such a calling of Bishops as the D. mainteyneth and yet hold the function practise thereof lawfull Was it never heard of that some of our later Bishops that worthy Iewel and others allowed the episcopall function both in judgement and practise yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino which is the point in quaestion though the D. here would not see it And why may not they allowe of the Lordly primacie of Bishops jure bumano disclayme it jure divino aswell as allowe them to exercise civill authority and yet disclaime it as being lawful iure divino as may appeare they did in the places cited But 2. the D. goeth on and as if he had already said enough to prove his refuter to be as unconscionable as may be saith that he wondreth greatly at his large conscience in this behalf who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authours alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them A heavie charge if true but here it the comfort that upon due examination it wil be found to prove otherwise It is no newe thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies should be the readiest as the D. here is to laye the charge on others Let us novv trie out the whole in the particulars First concerning the testimony taken from the booke of Martyrs and the Bishops booke or booke intituled The institution of a Christian man the Doctor telleth us that he hath perused it and findeth nothing at all concerning the superiority of of Bishops over other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superiority of Bishops among themselves all whom with the ancient fathers I confesse sayth he in respect of the power of order to be equal as were the Apostles whose successors they are If it be but so as the Doct. here coÌ„fesseth they say enough to shewe and he hath subscribed it that the function of Archbishops is jure humano But if he had perused with purpose to find out what is there to be found he mought easily The D. caâ—â—â—niâ—â—eth have found full as much as the Refuter citeth it for For it speaketh not of Bishops severed from other Preists and Preachers but promiscuously of all Bishops Preists Preists and Preachers as appeareth by diverse passages of that part of the book there sett downe to witt the chap of the Sacrament of orders amongst which consider we 1. that there should be continually in the Church militant ministers or officers to have speciall power vnder Christ to preach the word administer the Sacramentes ioose and binde by excommunication and order consecrate others in the same roome and office whereto they be called that their power was limited and office ordeyned of God Ephes 4 coÌ„mitted and given by Christ his Apostles to certeyn persons onely viz. Preists and Bishops That albeit the holy-Fathers of the Church succeeding did institute inferior orders and degrees c. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mencion made of any degrees or distinction in orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers That the power and authority belonging to Preists and Bishops is of 2. parts potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis to the first wherof alwayes good consent hath bene about the second some disagrement and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people that the iurisdiction committed to Preists and Bishops by authority of Gods lawe consisteth in three speciall points 1. in admonition excommunication and absolution 2. in approving and admitting
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 secuÌ„dum 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 coÌ„mon 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 coÌ„mon 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 Bâ—shop 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 coÌ„mon 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
of those reverend and learned divines Calvin Beza c. as he confidently but falsly avoucheth Wherefore take he also to him these two vntruthes and add he a third likewise to the former where he saith in his margin pa. 47. that the Refuter mistaketh his reason vnlesse he had rather acknowledge that his reason is impertinent and frivolous For the question being What manner of preheminence those Bishops had which are in his text termed the Angels of the 7. churches that which he addeth of the wiser more learned disciplinarians their granting that they were Bishops of whole cities c. that their presbyteries consisted partly of annuall or lay Elders and that the Angels were nothing else but presidents of those presbyteries cannot in reason rightly be reduced to the question vnlesse it be vnderstood of those Bishops and Churches which are mencioned in the text which is to be explicated And if he be as it must be so vnderstood he falsly chargeth his Refuter with an ignorant mistakinge of his reason and lett him learne the lesson he elswhere taught his Refuter say ou manthano I vnderstand not my owne reason or else against his vnderstandinge he did both trifle in the one and slander in the other Chap 3. Concerning the residue of the Doctors defence of his preface or first part of his sermon from pag. 54 to the end Proceed we on now to the next section pag. 54. where he telleth us that hitherto his two assertions conteyned in the explication have bin Sect. 1. ad sect 18. pag. 54. propounded to be discussed and that now there is way made for the proof of eyther by enumerating distinctly the severall points which he proposed to handle c. And I wish the reader to remeÌ„ber how he saith before sect 1. pag. 28 that the points to be handled are first deduced out of the text from pag. 2. to pag. 6. of his serm lin 16. and secondly that they are enumerated The Doct. changeth the points of his sermon and distinctly marshalled pag 6 and 7. Now can any man that heareth him thus speak judg otherwise then that himself holdeth the points distinctly enumerated to be the self same and neither more nor fewer then those which are before deduced out of the text Yet he that wel examineth the matter shall find that neither is the number of the points the same neyther are the pointes eadem numero the same in number We have already heard what are the two principall assertions which he proposeth serm pag. 2. For the deciding of the former he layeth downe two questions which are inlarged into three viz. 1. whether the Churches whereof they were angels were parishes or Dioceses 2. And consâ—quâ—ntly whether those angels were parishional or Diocesan Bishops 3. What was the preheminence in regard wherof they were called angels whether onely a priority in order above other Ministers that for a time and by course or a superiâ—itie in degree and maiority of rule for terme of life In the direct answering of these three questioÌ„s togither with the later assertion which must be take as is before expressed the summe of his preface lieth as himself confesseth Defen pag. 29. Wherefore the points deduced out of the text cannot exceed the number of foure so that in the Doctors enumerating of 5. conclusions to be more at large prosecuted the nomber of these later excedeth the nomber of the former by one as every childe knoweth that can tell his 5. fingers And the reader may easily discerne that this One which is now marshalled into the feild and was not before appointed to serve in the battell is the first of the 5. which sayth there were not lâ—y governing Elders in the primitive Church for this cannot carry the face of an answere to any of the three questions before mentioned Now to compare the rest and to trie whether they be one and the same 1. His direct answere to the first question touching the churches must be this The Churches whereof they were Angels were diâ—ceses properly and not parishes But the second of the five for the first is shewed to be an intruder affirmeth that in the first 200. yeares the visible churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall goverment were dioceses properly and not parishes and the presbyteries which were in those times were not asigned to parishes but to diâ—â—eses Wherefore 2. That which followeth as a consequent of this viz. that the Angels of the Churches and presidents of the presbyteries were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops must be referred to the Bishops that lived in the first 200 yeares after Christ whereas the answere of the second question hath peculier reference to the Angels of the 7. churches that they were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops 3. In like manner the answere to the 3. question determineth the preheminence of those Bishops which are called the Angels of the Churches to be not a prioritie in order for a time and by course but a superiority in degree above other Ministers and a majority of rule during life But the fourth point amonge the five with a larger reference to the Bishops of the primitive Church for many ages affirmeth that every Bishop being advanced to an higher degree of Ministerie was sâ—t above the other presbyters not onely in priority of order but also in majority of rule for terme of life 4. And the last of the five having an eye vnto the function of Bishops described in the forenamed positions whose Churches are Dioceses and their Presbyteries assigned for the whole Dioceses whose preheminence also is a superioritie in degree and majoritie of rule promiseth to shewe and by evidence of truth to demonstrate that the calliâ—g of such Bishops is of divine and apostolicall institution But the last assertion proposed pag. 2. promiseth this onely and no more out of the wordes of the text to shewe that the office and function of Bishops there ment by Angels is in this text approved as lâ—wfâ—ll and commended as excellent Wherefore since there is so apparant a difference betwene the one and the other me thinkes the D. should sooner be drawne to confesse that the pointes first deduced out of the text to be handled doo differ both in nomber and nature from these which are secondly enumerated then to vndertake the mainteyninge of the contrary and the reducing of the first of his 5. conclusions to one of those 3. questions which he propounded for the triall of his first assertion As for that faire florishe which he maketh for the bringing of the first foure to the proofe of the first assertion and the laste of the five to the fortifyinge of the second how vainly he striveth therin the very change of both the assertions before named and here continued doth sufficiently declare yet his defect herein shall more fully be layd open hereafter vpon just occasion offred In the meane time I will first examine the scope of
meant by angels in his text were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as are our Bishops at this day And thus we may see what moved the Doctor to change his first question and how litle he gaineth thereby seing he cannot compasse his desire of dravving the first point of his five to conclude that assertion to which he referred the first part of his sermon Wherefore seing his disiunctive argumentation will not serve his turne and he will yet once againe for it seemeth he is vnweaâ—iable attempt the effecting of his purpose let me advise him to peruse his owne advise given to his Refuter lib. 2. 44. namely to set downe his Enthymem and to supply thereto that proposition which is implied in the consequence so to make vp a perfect syllogisme His Enthymem is this In the primitive Church there were no other presbyters but Ministers Therefore the primitive Church was governed by diâ—cesan Bishops such as ours are Here now the Doctor is wise enough to perceive that the propositioÌ„ implied in the consequence of his Enthimem and therefore needfull to be supplied is this viz. whatsoever church hath in it none other Presbyters but Ministers the same is governed by such Diocesan Bishops as ours are but his wisdome foresaw that if he brought this propositioÌ„ into the sunne to be looked on his Refuter yea I may say the simplest of his readers would easely have discerned that it needeth no lesse proofe then the conclusion it self or the assumption which he would so faine reduce to his purpose Yea as the falseshood of it was discovered aforehand by the Refuter and that vpon good and sufficient reason which the Doctor baulked as he passed by so it may evidently be convinced from his owne wordes aswell in his sermon pag. 69. 70. as in this defense lib. 4. pag. 36. where he confesseth that 〈◊〉 the apostles dayes all the Churches which they planted that at Ierusalem onely excepted wanted Bishops and yet had each of them a coÌ„pany of Presbyters which as Pastors fedd them in coÌ„mon and laboured the conversion of others Onely when they were to leave the Churches altogither by death or final departure into other places c. then they ordeyned them Bishops and not before and this saith he is that which Ierom cap. 1. ad Tiium affirmeth that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed over them were governed by the coÌ„mon counsell of Presbyters Wherefore the injoying of a Presbytery coÌ„sisting of Ministers onely doth not necessarily argue that the Church which hath such a Presbyterie is governed by a Diocesan Bishop as the Doctor without truth or reason taketh it for graunted even at their handes who with good reason flatly denied it Wherefore I hope he will at length acknowledge his passage concerning governing elders to be altogither impertinent for to pay him with his owne coyne pag. 60. coÌ„mon sense requireth that what he seeth impertinent he should acknowledge so to be charitie would though selfe-love would not that if he discerned not the untruth and inconsequence of his reasoning he should rather have suspected his owne analysis to be forced then have blamed his Refuter for his owne want of judgement Wherefore not following him any longer in his outwandrings it is high time that we come to examine his other question de iure Section 5. which standeth on two feet as the former on this manner whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as he holdeth or must be governed by their Presbyteries as they affirme The deceites couched in this question as it is proposed are in part touched before sect 1. and shall more fully be deciphered hereafter wee are now to see how well it suteth with the later part of his sermon and the defense thereof where he saith pag. 60. it is handled By the later part of his sermon he meaneth the last of his 5. points which affirmeth the function of Bishops he meaneth such as ours are to be of apostolicall and divine institution In the handling whereof there is nothing to be found against the presbyteriaÌ„ government save one onely naked syllogisme serm pag. 60. which concludeth the government of the Churches by a paritie of ministers and assistance of lay Elders in every parish not to be of apostolical institution because it was no where in vse in the first 300. yeares after the Apostles And now in his defense lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. he giveth no other proofe to justify the assumption which the Refuter denied but this that it is proved in the former syllogâ—sme set to justify the government by Diocesan Bishops For if saith he the government by Diâ—cesan Bishops was generally and perpetually received in those 300 yeares it is manifest that this government which they speake of was not in use Here therefore he like as he did before taketh one part of The D. againe taketh one part of the question to prove the other the question to prove the other Shall I againe answere him in his owne wordes This doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause Verely he had litle reason to tel us that he hath handled this question in the later part of his sermon viz. whether the Church must be governed by these Presbyteries vnlesse he had more orderly disputed against the assertion of his Opposite Yea if he had as largely reasoned against their Presbyteries as he hath for Diocesan Bps yet the question is not directly fitted to the points which he concludeth since he insisteth wholly upon the triall of this issue whether of those two governments which he or his opposites do commend be of apostolicall and divine institution And though he joyne togither apostolicall divine both in the first propounding and also in the winding up of this point serm pag. 7. 54. yet when he addresseth him self to the confirmation thereof pag. 55. he chiefly aimeth at this to prove the function of Bishops to be of divine institution and taketh apostol call iâ—stitution for his Medius terminus to conclude by consequence that it is a divine ordinance Wherefore it is evident that the maine argument of his whole sermon is the proofe of this assertition that the function of Bishops such as ours are for the substance of theâ—â— calling is a divine ordinaunce for this he pretendeth to drawe from his text in as much as the name of Starres and Angels is there given to such Bishops And to this he reduceth all the arguments layd downe by him in the handlinge of his fift position which he calleth the later part of his sermon and from this he inferreth those three vses which he would have us all to make conscience of viz. To acknowledge their function to be the ordinance of God and in that regard both to reverence their persons and to obey their authority as we are exhorted Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17.
esteemeth them to be the proper pastors of the Church lib. 4. pag. 141. lin 18. and giveth vnto other presbyters seâ—m pag. 45. no other pastorall authority then what is delegated vnto them by their Bishops Wherefore like as he reasoneth to shewe the lawfullnes and excellencie of the episcopall function pag. 54 so may we to prove by necessary consequence froÌ„ his owne wordes that it is generally or immutably necessary or perpetually imposed by Christ and his Apostles on all Churches For if the office of presbyters which in his opinion are but assitantes vnto the Bishops admitted in partem sollicitudinis to seed that parte of the Church which he should commit vnto them be not onely lawfull but necessary also to be reteyned and that jure divino then the same may be said much more of the function of Bishops that are as he supposeth the cheef and principall pastors even by Gods ordinance But if their function be not divini juris nor generally and perpetually necessary for all Churches then let the Doctor also professe plainely that he mainteineth not the office of Presbyters or any other Ministers to be The Doct. saith as much for the perpetuity of Di ocesan Bishops as of any ministers of the word yea more divini juris and generally or perpetually necessarie for the feeding or governing of the visible Churches of Christ Yea let him without staggering affirme that it is a thing indifferent not de jure divino necessarie but left to every Churches libertie to accept or refuse as they shall see expedieÌ„â— those that are authorized of God as Starres Angels Pastors and guides to convey vnto them the light of his truth and the word or bread of life and to convert them in the way of salvation But 2. doth not his reasoning import the contrary when he saith pag. 55. that if every Minister be to be honoured in regard of his calling with double honour viz. of reverence and maintenance which he saith serm of the dignitie and dutie of the ministers p. 65. 73. is due to them by the word of God yea jure divino theÌ„ much more is the office of Bishops who are the cheife and principall Ministers to be had in honour Yea doth he not from the doctrine of his sermon in question inferre these vses impose them on the consciences of his hearers pag. 94 96 viz. 1. to acknowledge their function to be a divine ordinance 2. to have theÌ„ in honour as spirituall Fathers as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians cap. 2. 29. and to receyve them as the Angels of God as they are called in his text 3. to obey their authoritie as being the holy ordinance of God according to the Apostles exhortation Heb. 13. 17. For can the consideration of Gods ordinance appointing their function commanding honor and obedience to be given vnto them in the dayes of the Apostles binde the coÌ„science at this day if their function were not of necessity to be coÌ„tinued Or can the exhortation of the Apostle Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17. touch the consciences of the people of England so strictly as he pretendeth and not reach at all to the conscience of those professors and teachers of the faith of Christ that live in other reformed Churches It is true I confesse that such Leaders and Labourers in the Lords worke must first be had before they can be honoured and obeyed but doe not these exhortations and many other apostolike canons which prescribe what is required eyther of Ministers for the good of their flocks or of people for incouragement of their Teachers as Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 4. 5. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 1. Cor. 9 14. Gal. 6 6. 1. Thess 5. 12. 13. Heb. 13 17. by an equall bond binde all Churches aswell to labour for the establishing of such Elders Bishops and Leaders as to see that when they are setled they may both give all diligence to performe their duties and receive all reverence and honour due vnto them And 3 how often doth he tell us in this defense lib. 3. pag. 24. 26. 44. 48 55. 59. 63. et alibi passim that many of his allegations doe testify for the superioritâ—e of Bishops not onely de fâ—cto but also de iure as giving test mony to the right and shewing what form of government ought to be as being in the judgement of the Fathers which he approveth perpetuall And though he returne the lie upon his Refuter lib. 3 pag 57. for saying that he plainly avoucheth a necessity of reteyning the government of Diocesan Bishops when he affirmeth that as it was ordeyned for the presâ—rvation of the Church in vnitie and for the avoiding of schiâ—me so it is for the same cause to be reteâ—ned yet he confessed pag. 64. that Ieroms judgement in the place alleadged was that Bishops are necessarily to be reteyned for the same cause to wit the avoyding of schisme for which they were first instituted And from the same words of Ierom he collecteth pag. 111. that of necessity a pâ—erelesse power is to be attributed unto Bishops Wherefore if the Which way soever the Doct. turneth him he offendeth D. be not guilty of a plaine-lie and notorious falsification of Ieroms meaning in carrying his words to a necessity in reteyning Bishops surely he hath much wronged his refuter to charge him with the like guiltynes for the like collection And if he consent not in judgment with Ierom he doth too much abuse his reader in fortifying his assertion with his testimony vnlesse he had given some intimation wherein he swarveth in opinion from him But 4. he discovereth his owne judgement touching the necessity of diocesan and provinciall Bishops something more clearely when he saith lib. 3. pag. 3. that of provinciâ—ll or nationall Churches the metropolitans Bishops of dioceses aâ—e and ougâ—t to be the governors For if he had intended onely a lawfullnes and not a necessity of reteyninge The Doct. wrongfully chargeth his Refuter their functions he would have sayd they are and may be rather then as he doth they are and ought to be the governors yea in his sermon pag. 32. doth he not imply a necessity I say not an absolute necessity as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter lib. 3. p. 57. but a generall and perpetuall necessity for succeding ages aswell as for the Apostles times when he saith that vpon this threefolde superiority of Bishops scz singularity of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction there dependeth a three-fold benefit to every church to wit the vnity perpetuit e and eutaxie or good order thereof For who can deny that those things are generally and perpetually necessarie to be reteyned in every Church whereon the vnitie perpetuitie eutaxie of every Church dependeth If the Doctor shall thinke to escape by saying that the perpetuity Sect. 5. ad lib. 4 pag. 102 147. and
ordination performed by Ministers that are no Bishops doth evidently shewe it The truth is saith he where Ministers may be had none but Ministers ought to baptise and where Bishops may be had none but Bishops ought to ordâ—yn But though neyther ought to be done yet being done the former by other Christians in want of a Minister the later by other Ministers in defect of a Bishop as the one so the other also is of force the Church receiving the partie baptized into the communion of the faithfull and the partie ordâ—yned as a lawfull Minister Now if this be a truth say I then there must be a truth acknowledged also in these conclusions The D. againe saith as much for the per petuitie of the episcopall function as of the functioÌ„ af other Ministers that followe viz. That according to the rules of ordinarie Church-government as the right of administring baptisme is a peculiar prerogative of the ministeriall function jure divino by the lawe of God so eodem jure even by the same lawe the right of ordination is peculiar to the Bishops And as all Churches under heaven till the comming of Christ to judgement are bound to strive for the establishing reteyning of that Ministerie which God hath authorized to administer baptisme so are all Churches by a like band tied to contend for the episcopall function which hath right to ordeyne And consequently the calling of Bishops for ordeyning is as generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie as the office of other Ministers is for the work of baptisme I add that in the D. opinion there is as perpetuall and immutable a necessitie of the episcopal function for the ordering of every Church as there is in the opinioÌ„ of many very judicious divines of wine for the holy and pure administration of the Lords supper For whereas he alloweth not of any other forme of Church-governement then by Bishops unlesse in case of necessity where orthodoxall Bishops cannot be had and that because any government whatsoever is better then none at all serm pag. 97 In the like necessity where wine cannot be had they judge it better to take in stead of wine water or any other kinde of drinke vsuall in such places then wholly to neglect the Lords sacrament or to maime it by an halfe administration in one onely element see Polani Syntag. Col. 3213. Wherfore as their allowaÌ„ce of a change in the outward elemeÌ„t of the Lords supper being limitted to such an extraordinarie case doth rather support then contradict their assertion that the Church hath not libertie to refuse wine or to preferre any other element before it the D. his excusing other reformed Churches for enterteyning a Presbyteriall aristocracie in stead of an episcopall Monarchie onely in such a case of necessity as he pretendeth might give his Refuter just occasion to think though he affirmed no such mattet that he held the episcopall governmeÌ„t to be divini juris thereby intending that all Churches are bound to preferre it aswell in their indeavours as in their judgement before Sect. 6. ad serm p. 79. Defens lib. 4. pag. 100. 146. 148. and 167. any other forme of government whatsoever But there is an higher pitch of the necessity of this function as may appeare by some words that slipped from the D. in the penning of his sermon pag. 79. to witt that the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeyne churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very The D. did hold the episcopal function perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches being of the visible Churches For from hence it followeth by good consequence as his Refuter rightly gathereth answer pag. 145 and 138. that seing in his judgment the function and authoritie which they had was episcopall and diocesan such as ours is now therefore also in his judgement the episcopall power or government of Diocesan Bishops is perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches Now herewith the Doctor is highly offended and chargeth him with mallice want of iudgemeÌ„t and with ignorant mistaking or wilfull depraving of his sayings and that against sense lib. 4. pag. 146. 148. 167. A great charge in deed but how doth he avoide the consequence objected for sooth to explaine his meaning he dismembreth his owne speach cutteth asunder the knot which with his own tongue and pen he had knit for whereas before he spake jointly as of one thing expressed by two words of their function and authority that it was ordinarie and The Doct. plaieth fast and loose tieth vntieth but every one may see the sleight to his â—â—ame perpetually necessarie now to shew his skill in playing fast and loose at his pleasure he saith pag. 100. and 147. he meant that their function was ordinarie and their authoritie was perpetually necessary But as slippery as he is his Refuter will not suffer him thus to slip his neck out of the coller all his wit and learning can neyther unloose nor cut a sunder that chayne which bindeth him to a grosse absurdity His wordes serm pag. 79 are these The function authoritie which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creete consisting specially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wellbeinge but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches Yf the Doctor had meant so to divide the later parte of his speach as he woulde now perswade what meant he not to discover his meaning plainely It had bin easy for him to have disioyned their function from their authority in his whole speach on this manner q. d. But neyther was the function which Tim. and Tit. had at Ephesus and in Crete to ende with their persons as being ordinary neyther was their authority to dye with them as being perpetually necessary c. Therefore had he so ment in deed and truth as he now professeth since there wanted not skill there must needs be in him a wante of will to speake plainely vnto the capacity of his reader The Doct. is guilty of that imputation which he professeth to abhorr so that he standeth here guilty of that â—oul imputation which elsewhere he professeth to abhorre lib. 2. pag. 52. viz. a desyre and intent of dazeling the eies of the simple I might say the eies of all even the moste judicious as all maye see that reade with a single eie and weigh with an upright hand what he hath written But to speake what I think he rather belieth his owne heart in The D. in all likelihood belieth his owne hart saying now that he then meant that which he never dreamt of till he had set his witts a work to finde out some flie
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
it hath no foundation in the word of God 2. Though that first point of his 5. concerning the Elders be as hath bin proved to this question impertinent yet will I take the like course with him therein 3 and lastly though he casteth of all the testimonies of the new divines either as incompetent being parties as he â—aith or as misalledged by him I will prove them both truely and rightly alledged and as competent as any he bringeth THE FIRST PART THE THIRD BOOKE Chap. 1. Conteyning an answere to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. booke wherein he laboureth but in vayne to mainteyne the first argument in his sermon viz. That the seven Churches of Asia whereof his text speaketh were Dioceses VVEe are nowe at the length come to see how artificially and soundly he collecteth from his text Sect. â— the Doctrine which he principally insisteth on viz. That the function or calling of diocesan Bishops such aâ— ours are is of Divine institution He saith pag. 94. of his sermon it is proved by the explication of his text which standeth in this assertion that the Bishops here meant by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are His argument therefore in an Enthymem runneth thus The Bishops meant by angels Apâ—â— â— 20. were such Bishops as ours are Therfore the function of Bishops such as ours are is of divine institution And in a playne syllogisme according to the course of his owne reasoning Def lib 4. p. 2. 3. thus The function of such as are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. is of divine institution Bishops such as ours be are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. Therefore the function of such Bishops as ours be is of divine institution Here I willingly subscribe to the proposition because the name of angels Starres holden in Christs right hand doth argue his sending and approbation but I flatly deny the Assumption or AntecedeÌ„t of his Enthimem as having no foundation in his text nor any one sound reason either in his sermoÌ„ or in the defense thereof to make it good For though he will at no hand indure to heare of any solo power of rule eyther for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops and that he doth vnderhand give such a power vnto them and that iure apostolico if he will strongly conclude the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. to be such Bishops as ours are he must clearly prove which he can never doe nor as yet ever attempted to doe that the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops But that his owne conscience may be the better convinced of the weaknes of his reasoninge and of his abusing the text which he handleth he is to be put in minde that himself serm pag. 52. 53. doth thus vnfolde the substantiall partes of the callinge of ouâ— Bishops to wit that they are Di cesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a peerâ—lesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction For hence it followeth that if he have not proved the Bishops ment by Angels in his text to be 1. some of them provinciall and and other some diocesan Bishops 2. all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power of ordination 5. and of jurisdiction if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified then it followeth that he hath left naked the main point which he should have coÌ„firmed namely that the Bishops here meant by Angels were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are Now it is apparant to all that peruse his sermon and the defense thereof that he never indeavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mencioned in his text to be a provinciall Bishop or in the power of ordination to have a peerelesse preheminence above others For though he tell vs serm pag. 18. that some of the 7. Churches were mother cities and deâ— lib. 2. pag. 63. that some of the succeeding Bishops were Metropolitanes yet all his strength is spent in proovinge every of those Churches to be a diocese and consequently their Bishops to be diocesan Bishops And though he speak some what for a preheminent power of jurisdiction in these Angels serm pag. 49. def lib. 3. pag. 135. yet in all his dispute of ordination he is silent of them altogither It remaineth then that we examine how well he hath proved the Bishops which are called the Angels of the 7. Churches to be like vnto our Bishops in those particulars sc that they were 1. Diocesan Bishops 2. Superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life 4. a peerelesse power of jurisdiction or as he expoundeth himselfe Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. a corrective power over other Ministers To prove the first sâ— that those Angels were diocesan Bishops Sect. â— that is to say in the large extent of their authority over an whole diocese like to our diocesans the onely argument that he hath either in his sermon or defense is drawne from the forme or constitution of those Churches whereof they were Angels which he peremptorily affirmeth but very weakly proveth to be dioceses properly The Doct. onely argument to prove the Angels to be DiocesaÌ„ Bishops is unsound in both propositions and not parishes he should say that those Churches were dioceses such as ours are over which our Bishops are placed wherefore to conclude his purpose he must reason in an Enthymem thus The 7. Churches whereof those Angels were Bishops were Dioceses such as ours are Therefore those Angels or the Bishops there ment by Angels were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans The Antecedent is an erronious fancy forged by the Doctor and hath nether testimony nor reason to support it as shall appeare by by In the meane while be it knowne to him that his câ—sequence also is to be rejected as weak and vnsound And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogisme he shall soone discerne it for to make a supply of the proposition which is presupposed in the consequence of his reasoninge he must argue thus The Angells or Bishops of such Churches as are Dioceses properly and nâ—â— parishes are Diocesan and not parishonall Bishops But the 7. Churches in Asia were Dioceses properly and not parishes Therefore the Angels or Bishops of those 7. Churches were diocesan properly and not parishionall Bishops In which proposition so supplyed if there be a necessary truth then must the Doctor confesse though against the haire and contrary to his former perswasion that the Bishops of whome mencion is made Acts. 20. 28. phil 1. â— were diocesan Bishops because the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi in his opinion were properly dioceses
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 thâ—se 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 ceÌ„sure 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 bâ—tter 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 â—ities 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 togâ—ther 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 whoâ—e 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 coÌ„verted to the profeâ—sion of Christianity Wherefore to free his argument from both these vntruthes first he quite shuâ—teth out this clâ—use 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
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 premisâ—es 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. â—4 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 meÌ„bers 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 Diocâ—se onely in the intention of the founder and not actually it is impossible it should be a dioceâ—e 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 Idâ—otes 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 thâ—y 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 foâ—nded 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 Counâ—ries 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 tenâ—â—t 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 Diocesâ—s 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 sâ—condly 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 â—â—unders that in time they should conteyne such a circuite But to passe forwardâ—s 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 Meâ—onymie 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 protaâ—is 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 remâ—ine partes of one lumpe or that among the loaves more regard should be had to that litle portioÌ„ of meale that was fiâ—st sowred to make of it a Mother-loafe vnto wâ—â— the rest of the loaves should owe any homage so it may seeme by this coÌ„parison 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 suborâ—ination of those Churches that all should be subject to the jurisdâ—ction of one Caâ—hedâ—all 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 consequeÌ„ce 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. alteratioÌ„s 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 â—ifte 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 vnderstaÌ„ding 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 coÌ„teined 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 coÌ„mon sense as well as the grouÌ„ds 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
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 sâ—z 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 sâ—e 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 nuÌ„bred or named as principal by our â—av 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 〈◊〉 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 atteÌ„d a little how he coÌ„firmeth 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 gâ—ther 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 â—e 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 Metropolâ—is 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
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâ—d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ— instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ„ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌ„mendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌ„mended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌ„mendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌ„tioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ„ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to â—â—vill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌ„dly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâ—es of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
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 lâ—t any man object that Paul was forbidden of God Act. 18 for Luke speaketh of Asâ—â— 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 poâ—â—ta 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 siâ—â— 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 Eusâ—bi 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 coÌ„gregations 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 Calâ—edon 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 apparaÌ„t falshood for there he affirmeth that Thyatira was in S. Iohns time subject to Pergam ' but in the time of the couÌ„cel of ChalcedoÌ„ subject to Synada in the Emperor Lâ—os dayes subject to Ephesus And in the same Emperours
rather angels of the Churches therfore to be received as angels For as herein they are like to angels p. 56. that they are sent forth unto the Ministerie for their sakes that are heires of salvation Heb. 1. 14. so they seeme to have some preheminence in respect of their Embassage and spirituall authoritie seing the preaching of the gospell is coÌ„mitted to men and not to angels as appeareth by the story of Cornelius Act. 10. 6. c. Neyther hath God sayd to any of the angels at any time that which he speaketh to his Ministers Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you â—orgive they shal be forgiven c. Wherefore as the D. cannot without check of conscience so neyther can any other without apparant gainsaying the truth eyther deny the names titles mentioned in his text to be coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations or restreyn any one of them to Diocesan Bishops Having thus layd open the strength of the Ref objectioÌ„ I come Sect. 9. now to examine the force of the Doct answere I answere saith he p. 34. that all Ministers who have charge of souls are in a generall sense called Angels Pastors Bishops because they are messengers sent from God to fâ—â—de and oâ—â—rsee his flocke But yet where there are many Ministers so called if there be one but one who kâ—t hexochen is called the Angel the Pastor the Byshop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest whereof see more in my answer sect 12. to page 6. Here let it be 〈…〉 against the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 to insinuate yet 〈…〉 â—â—pressy 〈…〉 that it is an honour proper onely to diocesan Byshops and 〈◊〉 coÌ„mon to other Ministers to be called the Angels of their Churches But it is already shewed that the honour of this name or title cannot be denyed vnto any Minister that hath charge of soules since it is a truth and so acknowledged that all such Ministers are messengers sent from God to oversee and â—eed that part of his flock whereof they have the charge 2. And whereas he câ—nningly slideth from the text which he proposeth to haÌ„dle The D. slideth froÌ„ his text to the inscriptions to the inscriptions of the 7. epistles Rev. 2. and 3. he is againe to be advertised that though he could justify the preheminence of one Minister above others from those inscriptions yet it will not follow that diocesan Byshops are onely meant by the Angels of the Churches in the text he made choyse of But 3. not to stand upon this advantage where he saith that where there is one and but one who kat hexochen is called the Angel Pastor or Bishop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest it nothing justifieth his cause but discovereth rather the weaknes thereof seing he no otherwise proceedeth then he began I meane in assuming The D. still beggeth for graunted what he should have proved and in pressing us with weake consequences to stand in stead of invincible arguments Before he affirmed there was but one in every Church called the Angel of the Church now being inforced to acknowledge that there were many other Angels or Byshops he will needs have that one to be called kat hexochen the Angel or Bishop of that Church so froÌ„ thence inferre that the same one Angel is plainely noted to have preheminence above the rest The strength of which reasoning may appeare by these goodly consequences following 1. There were others with Paul whome he might rightly call his fellowes and helpers wherefore he entitleth Titus kat hexochen his fellow and helper on the behalf of the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8. 23. and so plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest 2. In like manner seing there were others who in a generall sense might be called Apostles or messengers they whome he calleth in the same place the Apostles or messengers of the Churches were so called kat hexochen to note in them a preheminence above the rest 3 The same may be sayd of Paule when he entitleth himselfe a prisoner of Christ Phil. 1. and Epaphroditus his fellow-ptisoner Vers 23. Timotheus a brother Col. 1. 1. a Minister of God 1. Thes 3. 2. likewise of Peter intitlinge himselfe a fellow-Elder and a witnes of Christs sufferings 1 Pet. 5. 1. 4. And why then may not Bellarminargue froÌ„ Math. 16. 19. Iohn 2. 15. 16. that though others in a generall sense may be authorized to feed the sheep of Christ to guide the keies yet these things are spoken kat hexochen to Peter and doe there plainely note in him a preheminence above the rest 5 Without all contradiction the diocesan Byshopprick of Epaphroditus wil be dashed in peeces with this argument following if the D. former reasoninge have any validitie in it There were some others at Philippi who were in a generall sence yoak felowes to the Apostles wherefore when he speaketh precisely to one singular person I beseech the faithfull yâ—ke felow c. Phil. 4. 3. this one is called kat hexochen his faithfull yoake fellow and consequently this title noteth in that one an episcopall preheminence above the rest But what if we should graunt asmuch as his words doe ascribe vnto that Angel of each Church viz. that this title is given to one onely and plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest will he from hence inferre that because one angel in each Church had some preheminence above others therefore that one was a diocesan Byshop If so as he must to cleare the maine controversy now in hand surely he fayleth grosly in that fault whereof The. D. faileth in the fault imputed by him to his Refuter he accuseth his Refuter chap. 9. pag. 200. how justly let the reader judge in reasoning from the genus to a fained and Platonicall Idea or Poeticall species and that affirmativè for seing there are diverse sorts of preheminence viz. of order or oâ— dignity and in gifts or in degree of Ministerie or in charge and power of jurisdiction it is a sillie and simple argument to saie In each of the 7. Churches one Minister had some preheminence above the rest Therefore he had preheminence above them in degree of office or Ministerie But when he inferreth Therefore he had the prehemineÌ„ce of a dioâ— Bishop it is no lesse ridiculous then if he should say it is a byrd therefore it is a black swan But since he referreth vs to his answere to pag. 6. which Sect. 10. lieth sect 12. pag. 46. following there to see more of this matter I will search and see what he there hath for his purpose after that I have given the reader to understand upon what occasion he fell into the debating of this point The Refuter perceiving that the Doctor addressed himselfe to shewe what was the preheminence of these Bishops in respect whereof they are called the
have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy such as other reformed Churches have restored then with a Monarchy which our diocesans holde The D. argumeÌ„t therefore may be thus retorted against him The Presidents of the auncient Apostolâ—k 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 â—he ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaeÌ„ts 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 aposâ—olike 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 sâ—rm pag. 15. and dâ—f 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 confâ—ssed 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 resemblaÌ„ce 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 daâ—es 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 aloâ—ted to whole diocesâ—s and not to severall parishes theÌ„ the Bps. who were presideÌ„ts of those Presbyteries were not parâ—â—â—onal 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 â—acraments 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
answer is frivolous or a begging of the question of the question if he speake of such a judiciall licencing or silencing as Byshops in these daies exercise over other Ministers in their diocese But he will both prove that these false Teachers were subject to the censure of the Angels or Byshops remove that which his Refuter objecteth to the contrary The later he attempteth in this manner If they were not Presbyters he should say parts of the Presbyterie of that Church because they called themselues Apostles belike they were better men Is it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Byshop bycause he imagineth these who were subject to their censure were better men Is this the Refuters imagination or is not rather the D. conclusioÌ„ grounded vpon his own The D. cannot uphold his cause but by vntruthes imagination Why then may I not returne him his own wordes p. 124 Is the D. coÌ„science no better then stil to father vpoÌ„ the Ref vntruthes for his own advantage bewrayeth he not thereby what a cause he mainteineth that cannot be vpheld but by forgeries The Refuter to make good his deniall of that which the D. presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning vz. that the false Apostles were Presbyters and parts of the Angels Presbyterie affirmed that it was against sense to imagine that any such would assume to themselves the name and preheminence of Apostles and that any mans reason would rather give him that they were persons that came froÌ„ some other place Add hervnto that if they had been of the Ephesian clergie and so knowne to the whole Church to have imbraced an ordinarie calling and settled charge amongst them how should they with any colour perswade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ Doubtlesse the very consideration of the knowne difference betwixt the extraordinary Ministery of the Apostles and the ordinary function of Presbyters might have been sufficient without any further search to discover their lying forgerie which being knowne to have place among the latter should usurpe the name authoritie of the former But the text sayth Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be lyars by the wise and diligent care of the angel who examined or tried them it is therefore more probable that they were rather of the nomber of those wandring Prophets which as greivous wolves from without entred in to devoure then of those perverse teachers which springing up among them did drawe disciples after them See Aretius Beza and Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 2. And touching the false Prophetesse â—e zabell seing she is expresly said to be a woman though good Interpreters doe gather from hence that woemen were suffred to teach publikly in that Church see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20. yet were it too grosse to imagine that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers or to the charge of Presbyters And though it should be graunted that they were men not woemen which are deciphered by the name of that woman Iezabell yet the very name argueth theire greatnes theire prevayling by their subtile perswasions no lesse then Iezabel did by her coÌ„manding power to drawe many vn to their wicked wayes And the title of a Prophetesse importeth yâ— they boasted of an iÌ„mediate calling of extraordinary revelatioÌ„s Neyther doth the Doctor contradict this onely he saith If they The D. trifleth were not presbyters belike they were better men A frivolous speach and an unlikely consequence For what likelihood is there that they were better men seing some of them were found to be lyars in saying they were Apostles Or how doth the deniall of this that they were parts of the standing Presbyterie argue that they were no Presbyters at all But say they were of an higher calling to wit Evangelists or fellowe-helpers sometimes to the Apostles yet now Apostates from the faith as was Demas and some other what will this advantage the D. cause For sooth because himselfe imagineth that these who were better men were subject to the Bishops censure therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to his censure To come then at lengthe to that which he first proposed the reason I meane which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles Iezabel the false Prophetesse were subject to the Angels of the Churches wherein they usurped authoritie to teach he sayth If they were not subiect to them why is the one commended for exercising authoritie over them and the other reproved for suffring them For answere it shall suffice to ask why he assumeth for an apparant truth Yet the â—â—beggeth that which is rather apparantly false viz. that the Angell of Ephesus is commended for exercising authoritie over the false Apostles And why he pre supposeth in the coÌ„sequence of his reasoning that which he cannot justifie to wit that the false prophetesse of Thyatira was subject to the Angels censure because he is reproved for suffring her And thus wear lead as it were by the haÌ„d to see the falshood of the proposition of the arg before by himself coÌ„trived For a corrective power over Ministers cannot be firmely concluded eyther from the coÌ„mendation of the one that examined them which falsly called themselves Apostles or from the reproofe of the other that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people For put the case the D. were an Archdeaâ—on or which would please him better a Diocesan Lord that in the some parishes vnder his government corrupt teachers should â—ind free accesse to the pulpit but in other places by the carefull enquirie of the Ministers and Church-wardens finding what they are they should be restreyned me thinks in this case he should highely coÌ„mend the honest care of the one and sharply reprove the carlesse negligence of the other yet if a man should froÌ„ his coÌ„mendation or reproofe inferre that the persons so commended or reproved had the power of correcting and silencing Ministers I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicitie of such a disputer then vouchsafe him a direct answer See the loosenes of the D. reasoning But to leave suppositions and to let him see the loosenes of his reasoning by a more direct answer it is cleare that the Spirit of God doth no lesse commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Pauls doctrine Act. 17. 11. then he doth the Angel of Ephesus for examining them that falsely assumed the name of Apostles Wil the D. therefore acknowledge that they had a corrective power over that holy Apostle And who knoweth not that it is required of every private Christian to have their senses exercised in the word to discerne betweene good evill Heb. 5. 14. to trie the spirits of their teachers whether they be of God or not 1. Ioh. 4. 1. to bewarre of false Prophets and seducers Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4. to trie all
and their haereticall doctrine of which he laboured what he could to disburden the Church But however this be taken there is little reason for any man to thinke that those false Apostles were in open consistorie convâ—nted and censured as the Doctor imagineth And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe how will the second point be manifested which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers was the peculiar right of one Bishop here called the angell of the Church To tell us that he hath before proved that by the Angel of each Church one onely Bishop is meant will be no sufficient defense seing his proofes are already disproved cap. 3. sect 1. 2. 3. c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie viz. that under the name of one Angell the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned Apoc. 2. 2. 20 we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters in this manner They who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring or reproved for suffering false Teachers in their Church had a corrective power over other Ministers But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira was reproved for the later veâ—s 20. Ergo those Angels which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church had the corrective power over Ministers And since it appeareth by the commandement which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 11. that the praise oâ— dispraise of every angel belongeth in part unto the whole Church a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters Calvin Beza Marlorat Aretius Perkins c. though it should be graunted that one Minister to wit the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie is principally aymed at in the name of the angel of each Church yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction was his pâ—culiar right nay rather it will follow that so farre as his fellow angels and not they onely but the whole Church did partake with him in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him so farre also they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding Wherefore if the Doctors meaning be in his assumption to restreyne the praise or dispraise mentioned Apoc. 2. 2 20. vnto The D. wresteth the text or must yeeld the cause one onely person whom he reputeth to be the Bishop his Assumption is to be rejected as an erroneous wresting of the text contrarie to the true meaning thereof But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption viz. that in the praise or reproofe of the angel the rest of the Ministers or Elders and the whole Church did partake with him then must he subscribe to this conclusion to wit that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch did partake with the Angel of each Church in the power of administring the Church-censures And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text or any part of the holy scripture in defense of the explication of his text viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. Bishops for the substance of their calling such as ours are We are in the next place to see what strength there is in that argument whereby from the title of Angels in his text he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text handled by him Lib. 3. pag. 150. c. against the Refuters answere pag. 105. 106. LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title The angels of the Churches to justify Sect. 〈◊〉 the titles of honour which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates his argument is this The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title in calling them the angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therfore we should not think much that they are called Lordes The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositioÌ„ That vnto whoÌ„soever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour which is not vniversally true as the D. I suppose wil confesse in many particulars For the name or tiâ—le of Maior Bayliffe Alderman Constable c. I might say King Dukâ— Earle c. must needs be in his understanding by many degrees inferiour to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the word sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62. such as are Co-workers and Stewards of God c. But to give the former unto Ministers were to bringe confusion into the Church to overthrow that difference which the lawes of God man have set betwene civill eccles functions And though a man should offer to salve this mischeife with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings c. by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops yet I perswade my selfe he would not easylie admit of this disorder yea doubtlesse he would thinke it a great disparagement to his reverend Fathers spiritual Lords that everie painefull Minister of Christ should be equalled with them in those honorable titles which doe now lift them vp above their brethren And yet by his owne confession pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned they have all right to those titles of Doctors Fathers Pastors and Saviours of their brethren which are more glorious then that name of Angels of the Churches which he now appropriateth vnto Byshops We may take it therefore for an evident truth that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq is not true argument no not though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature I meane such as declare the same kind of honor either civill or ministeriall For I make no question but the D. would judge it as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops to beare the name of Archdeacons Officials or Curates c. as for Kinges Emperors to be called Dukes Captaines or high Constables And I judge it much more absurde to argue as he doth from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers to shew the dignitie of their function vnto titles of civill honour apperteyning vnto great personages that excell in externall pompe and worldly glorie And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument when to shewe the inconsequence thereof he said that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither
termes Spirituall and temporall then the difference must be this that Bishops have besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies common to them with the Lords temporall an ecclesiasticall Lordship or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall However it be since he denyeth them to be civill Lords and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them in regarde of the same government which is implied vnder the name of the angels of the Churches he should in reason derive the Lordship of Byshops rather from Christs Lordship which is spirituall then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil For if that be true which he conceiveth Byshops have no more affinitie with noble personages in the name of Lords then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors Both may be called Pastors of the people as he saith serm of the dig of Min. pag. 53. but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies the Ministers of their soules In like manner our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes but the one are civill Lords the other not so but spiritual Wherefore as he affirmeth serm pag. 62. Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors because as he is the Pastor of our soules so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes but of their souls so he maketh or at least might from the like ground affirme Bishops to have the name of Lordes coÌ„mon to them with Christ seing as he is a spirituall Lord so are they also Lords spirituall and not civill Wherefore if wee may measure the greatnes or smallnes of that honour which any titles convey vnto Ministers by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons with whom they in those titles are compared then have wee good warrant to conclude the honour included in the name of Lordes attributed unto Bishops to be by so much greater then that which is implied in the other title of the Churches Angels by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels But no staied building standeth upon so â—andy a foundation for as men shall please to vary the things with which they may by any title compare the Ministers of Christ so theire honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure and that vnder one and the same title For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers Ephes 4. 11. with Christ the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 4. Heb. 13. 20. then is it a name of farr greater honor then the name of Angels or Angels of the Churches but it is by many degrees more base if it be referred to the shepheards that watch attend on their flocks in the feilds from whence in truth it was at the first derived Wherefore it must be confessed that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed Sect. 4. scz that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord being coÌ„mon to Bishops with Lords temporall to be a title of lesse honour then the name of the angels of the Churches that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels We may with much more probabilitie affirme that by how much it is a greater honour to have a Lord-like government in any Church then to have a tutorship or Guardianship therein by so much the name of Lorde given to Bishops in respect of their government is a title of greater honour theÌ„ the other which expresseth their Guardianship which in some respect is allowed to the Churchwardens of every parishe For why should we not measure the height of that honour which titles doe imply rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the names import then by the condition of the persons or things with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled To end this dispute let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor for whereas nowe he graunteth the name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire government and authoritie a little after pag. 153. he denieththe title to be given them with relation but as a simple title with honour revereÌ„ce For how can it be a simple title of honour used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them if it be given them in respect of their government And thus much for answer to the argument drawen from the name of Angels in his text to justifie those honourable titles of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops like to ours There remayneth some what alleadged by the D. to shew that â—â—e 7. angels were Byshops for the substance of their calling like to ours as yet vnanswered but it is from humane and not divine evidence He promiseth indeed serm pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence that the government by Byshops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them His scripture proofe is nothing but this The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse and for the substance of their calling like to ours as I sayth he have proved Which proofes because his Refuter had removed before he came to that part of the sermon he therefore tolde him that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion but what was already answered now the D. telleth us that this is vntrue For saith he I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Byshops That they were Byshops why that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed he should therefore say and make his saying good that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours but so to affirme were to avouch an vntruth wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing but what was before answered Which wrong is the greater because he could not but see by his Refuters words following answ pag. 128. that in so saying he had an â—ie to the D. proofes from scripture which was the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wel againe be once tolde that â—ayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna
Byshops he should say Byshops like to ours Therefore two of these angels were Byshops like vnto â—urs And the second thus From the 7. angels a succession of Byshops was continued in those 7. Churches vntill thae councill of Nice and afterwards Therefore those 7 angels were Byshops like to ours To both these joyntly the Refuter answereth thus that the Byshops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan as they were which followed in succeeding ages The D. Replyeth pag. 43. that if ever there had bene within the compasse of a diocese more Byshops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truely alledged that the circuite of the Byshops charge was inlarged from a parish to a diocese then there were some colour for this exception but these conceits sayth he I have disproved before and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these 7. Byshops were in the ende of 300. yeares diocesan Byshops then were theire first predâ—cessors such For answer wherevnto in a word I say 1. That it is besides the present question now to enquire whether there ever were within one diocese any more Byshops then one at once c. 2. since the D. upon his bare word denieth those things to be so he hath little reason to think that we will blindly subscribe to his confident conclusion inferred vpon his naked presumptions to make no worse of them For first it is no hard matter to make them false presumptions What saith he to Epiphanius cont Haeres lib. 2. haeres 68. contra Milet doth not he affirme that there were diverse Byshops in one Church or citie though not in Alexandria nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos velut aliae urbes Secondly as touching his owne testimonies which he produceth to shew that Policarpus was Byshop of Smyrna Onesimus Byshop of Ephes in S. Iohns time I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himselfe The D. contradicteth himselfe as he may easily discerne if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. 62. with serm pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. togither In the former he saith that Ignatius his epâ—stles were written but a litle before his death and therefore he denyeth the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis to have bene Churches extant what time the Apostle Iohn wrote the revelation Now if this be true as true it is then is it false to say as he doth serm pag. 62. that the epistles of Ignatius were written betwene the 90. yeare of our Lord and 99. and that his epistle ad Ephes is a pregnant proofe that Onesimus was the Byshop of Ephesus when the Revelation was written as he confidentlye avoucheth lib. 4. pag 40 For Ignatius his death fell out Anno 111. as Euseb noteth in ChroÌ„ Cent. 2. col 169. which was 14. yeares after the Revelation was written But if his epist ad Ephes wherein he mentioneth Onesimus their Pastor be a sufficient proofe that Onesimus was the Byshop of Ephesus what time the Apostle Iohn wrote the Revelation because he wrote while Clemens lived that is betwene the yeares 90. and 99. as he saâ—th serm pag. 62. then his epistles written to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis wil be as pregnant a proofe that those Churches florished when Iohn wrote the Revelation For it is evident by Eusebius his testimony Hist lib. 3. cap. 30. that these epistles and that to the Ephesians were written at one and the same time 2 Leaving him to his contradiction I must renew the Refuters answer that those testimonies are not free from suspition whatever the D. then or now hath sayd to free them The epâ—stles of Ignaâ—tus and Policarp that now goe vnder their names saith D. Fulke in answ to the Rhem on Act. 6. 7. are not authenâ—â—k but gathered out of the Apocryphall constitutions of that counterâ—â—yt Clemens And concerning Ignatius whome the Rhemists on 1 Pet. 2 13. alleadged to prove that the Byshop must be honoured above the King these words saith he shewe out of whose shâ—pp that episâ—le came he meaning Ignatius was a man of greater religion then to correct the scripture in Salomon Provb 24. 21. and Peter c. 3. Were those testimonies freer from exception then they are yet they yeild him no releefe seeing they speake not one word eyther for their diocesan jurisdiction or for their preheminent superiority above other Presbyters in their Churches But of their Byshoppricks what they were and whether such as he supposeth we shall have fitt occasion to speak hereafter there is enough already sayd to shew that his best evidence is to weake to perswade what he vndertaketh to prove viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were Bishops for the substance of their calling like to ours So that his explication of the text he handleth having no foundation in any part of Gods truth nor any humane testimony worthy of credit to support it I may well joyne with his Refuter and say he buildeth vpon the sand of his owne conceite and not vpon the rock of Christs truth when he raiseth from thence his high Turret that the calling of Byshops such for the substance of their calling as ours are is of divine institution And thus much for the first part Have patience a while Christian Reader and thou shalt God willing have the other two that are behind The faultes escaped in the printing are thus to be corrected Pag. 7. l. 16. the. p. 8. l. 14. deny p. â—0 l. 8. put out he pag. 41. l. 12. Mounte-bancke pag. 72. l. 23 put out him l. vlt. for who read how p 30. l. 2. for and reade what p 102. l. 18. put out is p. 110. l. 28. praeerant p. 118. in the title for poyntes reade poynt p. 175. l. penult put out in a connexive proposed p. 195. l. 33. for that read at p. 197. l. 13. put out no. p. 205. l. 11. put out and p. 206. l. 27. dividebantur p. 209. l. 7. put out for p. 229. l. 36. Miletum p. 227. l. 14. Mariam pag. 237. l. 20. for lacketh reade taketh p. 245. l. 1. Tuiciensis p. 274. l. 27. can p. 281. l. 25. reade not bearing p. 286. l. 5. put out that THE SECOND PART OF A REPLY Answering A DEFENCE OF A SERMON PREACHED AT THE Consecration of the Bishop of Bathe and Welles by George Downame Doctor of Divinitie In defence of an Ansvvere to the foresayd Sermon Imprinted Anno 1609. 1. Thes 5. 21. Try all things and keep that which is good Imprinted Anno 1614. To 〈…〉 THose two motives which doe most usually and not unjustly perswade the Reader to beleive his author the credit of the man the apparaÌ„t evidence that he bringeth have by many been thought to have united their forces in Doctor Downames defense For the man himselfe he hath been generally accounted judicious learned painfull religious syncere and ingenuous the defense he hath made carieth such
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 cōmon 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 cōmon-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 cōmon-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 no◠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 entrāce 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 Aarō 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 Aarō 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 congregatioÌ„s 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 asseÌ„blies coÌ„teyning one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ yet he assumeth for graÌ„ted 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 â—ib 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 hoâ—ch 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 â—cz 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
be fortified by this Enthymeme Those whole cities and countries whose people are generally so â—stranged from the faith that their conversion must be laboured are not diocesan Churches like to ours Therefore neyther they who were appointed over such cities and countries set over diocesan Churches such as ours The Antecedent is a truth so apparant to all the world that it were madnes to contradict it And the consequence is such as I verify think no man of comon sense will ever call it into question As for the Refuters exceptions against the proposition which he had framed for an other purpose they are as the Doctor saith eavils not worth the refuting and yet to shewe his valour he will needes have a fling at them though with shame to himselfe For first for want of just matter of blame he forgeth a false calumniation in in saying That his Refuter absurdly eavilleth with him as if he had sayd that all in the citie and country were in S. Iohns time converted For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this that the Apostles ordeyned Preseyters for such an end as he supposeth yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities the countries adioyning And he backeth it with this reason that the seed of the word in many places was thick sowne but came thin up and the heat of perseeution at that time burnt up the zoale and profession of many Which if it were too weak to justify the exception why doth he not take notice of confute it thinketh he his unpartiall readers will take it for a sufficient refutation to say it is a cavill not worth the refuting The second exception is of more moment because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors owne argument before set downe For the ordeyning of Presbyters for whole cities and countries to labour the conversion of all that in those places belonged to God can never prove that they were appointed to the care and charge of diocesan Churches unlesse there be a necessitie that all which in time were to be converted by their Ministerie should be and remaine members of the same Church with them It shall not be amisle therefore to stay a while upon the examination of that which the Refuter hath sayd to justifie his deniall and the Doct. to mainteyn the affirmation of this necessitie Sect. â— In defense of the negative it was alleadged answ pag. 57 that it is very likely if not certeyne that they of Cenchrea received the gospell from Corinthe for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth for it is called the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply first layeth downe his own opinion touching this matter and then indeavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea out of his refuters handes His owne opinion or rather definitive sentence quast ex cathed a satis pro imperis he delivereth in this maner I say that they whose Ministerie was intended for the conversion of the citie and countrie to their care and charge both for the first conversion of them and government of them being converted the citie and country belonged And the Doctor onely saith it and dareth the Refuter or any of his vnlearned associates contradict it No verily they will rather assent to him so farre as truth and reason grounded on the truth of Gods word will permit them that is kat â—â— in parr but not aploos and in generall for it is most true that the Apostles and Evangelists whose Ministerie was intended eyther to begin or to bring forwards the conversion of any citie and country had the care and charge of the people in those parts aswel for the governing of them whom they did convert as for the labouring of their conversion at the first But how long and how was it for a perpetuitie or for a time onely till they might be furnished with their proper Ministery And when the faith spread it self from any of those cheife cities which first enterteyned it into the townes adjoyning that with such increase that the number of beleevers in those places were sufficient to make two or moe Churches or congregations did they all remaine still parts of one Church and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversie wherefore if the Doctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative he should haue plainly contradicted the refuter and sayd there was a necessitie that all which were brought to the faith in any city and country adjoyning by the labours of any appointed for their conversion should remayn though never so many or farre distaÌ„t meÌ„bers of the citie-Church which first enterteyned the gospell Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proofe then his bare word I say it to conclude this necessitie And it was not easy for him to yeeld any sound reason for the justifying of such an assertion in wisdome therefore he judged it better to say and affirme that which though it beleffe pertinent yet might seeme more reasonable viz. that such as were converted by their labours that were appointed to indeavor their conversion should submit themselves to be governed by them and in stead of yeilding any pregnant demonstration to confute his Refuters exception to make a shewe of removing that which was alleadged by him To this purpose he addeth that though Cenchrea be called a Church yet was it not such a Church as we now speak of indued with power of ecclesiasticall government but subiect to the â—urâ—sliction of the Church of Corinthe Thus he faith but hath he any other reason then such as before I say it to shewe the subjection of Cenchrea to the Church of Corinthe No surely for though he often reiterateth this affirmation pag. 46. 105. 129. yet his best proofe is most certeynly so it was I doubt not therefore but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost equalling the beleevers in Cenchrea and those in Corinth with the same name calling the one the Church in Cenchrxa the other the Church in Corinthe Rom. 16. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. will argue our assertion to be more probable when we say they were distinct Churches alike indued with power of ecclesiasticall government then his denyall that hath no other confirmation then I say it or so it was for what authoritie hath he eyther to subordinate one to another or to confine in one ecclesiasticall body those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches Thus much for his Proposition his Assumption coÌ„meth now to Sect. 6. 2d pag. 65. be examined which he saith is confirmed by two arguments the one the end intended by the Apostles in appointing Presbyters in cities which was the conversion of the nation for which themselves first preached in the cheife
conversion of the residue eyther in citie or countrey For howsoever we deny not but that it belonged to them both as Christians to use all opportunity of winning to the faith as Ministers to preach to the heaeÌ„ also if they were present in their coÌ„gregatioÌ„s yet it was their office to attend on the flock whereof the holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. And not like Apostles or Evangelists to imploy themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians By these fewe words saith the Doctor the deep wisdome of the parish disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a fewe converted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted c. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set was onely that number of Christians already converted c. 3. that their proper office was to attend them onely which were already converted and not to labour the conversion of the rest c. The last of these I confesse is plainly averred by the Refuter and the second by consequence implyed But the first hath no shadowe of any foundation in his words so that the Doctor his deep wisdome hath drawne it I suppose out of his owne drowsy imagination And yet if it be an erronious conceit why bendeth he not the stroak of some one reason or other against it Yea how will the D. free himself from error seing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer that doth more savour of that conceit then these words of the Doct. Def. pag. 54. that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were fewe and when there were many yea when all were Christians and those in his sermon pag 25. that vpon the division of parishes there happened no alteratioÌ„ to the state of the Bishop 2. Moreover if the second be an errour whose hand is deepest in it whether the Refuter who alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers or the Doctor who citeâ—h the same scripture serm pag. 18. to justify this speach that the Presbyters were to attend the flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments Very likely then he supposed it to be a truth A contradiction in the Doct. that the flock over which they were set was onely that number of Christians which were already converted And he had good reason so to judge because that flock onely was the visible Church which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus But now he seeth it is an error so to conceive because our Saviour calleâ—h the elect not converted his sheep Ioh. 10. 16. and the L. in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet converted As if men could give or take the charge of such a flock or people as they neyther know nor could be taught to discerne by any notes that come within their vnderstanding because the Lord who knoweth all that he hath chosen and appointed in time to call and to whose cies things to come are as manifest as things preseÌ„t doth entitle his elect though yet vnborn or at least vnconverted by the name of his sheep or his people 3. As touching the third point the Refuter hath plainely discovered his judgment how farre he granteth it and in what respect he denieth it to be the dutie of Presbyters to labour the conversioÌ„ of Infidels For besides the coÌ„mon dutie of Christians to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith they are as he faith to preach vnto them if they will come into their assemblies but to imploy their labour in traveiling to and fro in any countrie or diocese to preach vnto them where they find any concourse of people this he denyeth to be any part of the Presbyteriall function and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle or Evangelist Which plaine dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor by shewing how in what course holdeth it their dutie to labour the conversion of infidels whether by the like traveil and imployment that the Apostles Evangelists vndertooke in places where the gospell had not yet any entrance or whether in any other fashion that the Ref apprehended not But he I will not say craftily concealeth from his Reader the parts of his Refuters distinction and as if he had simply denyed them any way to labour the conversion of any that were allenated from the faith he resteth on this trifling replie as though saith he the Apostles intended by their Ministery the conversion and salvation of no more but those few that were at first converted And then for the better manifestation of their wisdome he should have sayd of his owne inhability to make good his assertion he opposeth them with a fewe questions which yet are more then needed but let us heare them they are these 1. Whether the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were not Ministers of the word 2. whether they were not many in some places more in some fiwer yea sometimes as many as those who were before converted Act. 19. 6. 3. whether they being many were onely to attend that smal number of converts 4. whether the Apostles in ordeyning many intended not the conversion of more then those few 5. whether it was not their office to labour their conversion 6. If not how they were to be converted 7. Nay if they did not labour how were they converted Of these 7. the. 3. 4. and 5. might have been spared seing they are already answered viz. that the conversion of citie countrie did not belong to their office as any proper work thereof and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordeyning them otherwise then is before expressed The rest also might have been overpassed since he knoweth his Refuters mind therein save that he would closely intimate vnto his Reader as it seemeth two arguments to justify his owne assertion for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner The Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were all Ministers of the word and were many in each Church yea in some places as many as those that were besides converted wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their Ministerie to convert the rest and that it was a duty proper to their office to labour their conversio How true it is which in the first place he avoucheth I will not here debate it belongeth to another treatise the later part of his Antecedent importeth that the Apostles ordeyned many Ministers for each Church though the number of converts were so small that in some places it scarce exceeded the number of Presbyters A matter so unlikely that if the consequent annexed must hang in
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 fâ—â—st 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 coÌ„mon 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 coÌ„version because upon the divisioÌ„ of coÌ„gregations 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-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 eÌ„yther 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 wiâ—dome 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
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. coÌ„tradicteth 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 AlexaÌ„dria 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 Petâ—r 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 appoiÌ„red 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 coÌ„ntradict though against the light of his conscience denieth the conclusion coÌ„tradicteth 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 FreÌ„ch 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 Ciâ—â—â— or countâ—â—â— 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 reâ—â— both in Ciâ—â—â— 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— parishâ—â— 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
as with Arrians as ours be with men of another language 3. And here by the way observe how the Doctor at vnawares pulleth downe with the one hand what he setteth vp with the other For against this comparison between those churches that lived among the Arrians and the French Churches among us alleadged to prove that the later are as he saith the former were models of diocesan Churches I may returne his owne exceptions thus The French Churches cannot be Models of diocesan Churches like as he supposeth the other were because their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of lay-men and wanteth a Bishop which they had neither are they placed and reâ—eined for the the conversion of the citie and countrie to them as in the Doctors conceit the ancient Churches among the Arrians were for otherwise how should they be converted as he argueth pag. 67. And this also by the way weakneth his arguing to shew that Sect. 6. the French and Dutch Churches among us are no parish assemblies For if they be neither diocesan nor models of diocesan Churches what else can they be then parishes such at least as the Refuter in this question esteemeth to be parishes or parishonall Churches 2. But in this point he sheweth himself what he is when knowing as is before noted sect 3. in what sense the Refuter holdeth those The Doct. knowing the Refut to speak in one sense â—â—ieth to an other Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches to be parishes he doth notwithstanding flie to another sort of parishes viz. such as ours now are deprived of the power of ecclesiasticall government and subordinate to an other Church as members thereof to his exceptions therefore in this behalfe this reply may suffice That which is one Church among many in one citie is one parish or one congregation such as in this question we define a parish to be But the French Church in London is one Church among many in one citie as the Doctor acknowledgeth p. 7. 1 It is therefore one parish as wee understand a parish in this question Againe That which hindreth not the french and dutch Churches among vs fro being each of them one ordinary congregation assembling to one place for the worship of God doth not hindâ—â— them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question But the Doctors exceptions viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches doe dwel in many distinct parishes according to the circuite of our English division of parishes in London and other places aâ—d that their Churches are indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof these exceptions I say doe not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them one ordinarie congregation assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God Therefore neyther doe they hinder them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question As for that one speach inserted touching the French and Dutch Churches when he saith they have a Presbyterie as the Church â—â— Geneva hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might have in an imitation of the ancient Christinians me thinks it scarce savoureth of truth or at least argueth forgetfulnes in himselfe For if that he speaketh of having a Bishop once in eâ—â—e and still in possâ— The Doct. speach either is vntrue or else contradicteth himself be referred to the French and Dutch Churches here in England where doth Alasco say that they once had a Bishop and how knoweth he that our Bishops would suffer them to have in each church a Bishop of their owne If to the Church of Geneva as he needeth not Alascoes testimonie to prove that they once had a Bishop so in saying that they now might have a Bishop what else doth he but contradict here what he earnestly pleadeth for lib. 4. pag. 166 viz. that the Churches of France and Geneva neyther in the first reformation could neyther now can obteyne the government of Bishops to be sâ—tled among them though they would but it is no new thing to meet with the Doctors slippings this way We come now to the Refuters regestion when he striketh at the Doctor with his owne weapon in this manner â—â— there were no parishes Sect. 7. ad P. 70. lin 8 in the Apostles times how could there be Dioceses seing every Diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes The Doctor telleth us it is but a floorish and a kind of answer that best fiâ—teth him that is at a non-plus But it is well knowne that this kind of answer is very usuall with divines nothing inferior to him eyther in schoole learning or divinity that to contradict any assertion belonging to the question aswell as the conclusion principally contraverted doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theologicall scholasticall disputations yea it is in deed of speciall use to put the adverse part to a non-plus or at least to let the indifferent Reader see the weaknes of his argument and therefore no mervâ—ile though the Doctors patience be not a little troubled with it But see we how he bestirreth himselfe to escape the stroak of it Good Sir saith he what is this to my consequence Againe to what end is this spoken to deny my consequence or the maine conclusion And a little after Therefore when he would sâ—â—me to denie the consequence of the propo-â—â—tion he doth not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against the assumption he dâ—niâ—th the principall conclusion Good Mr. D. with your patience is there no difference betwixt the deniall of the conclusion and the retorting of an argument against it And is it nothing to you if your maine conclusioÌ„ fall to the ground so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand uprightâ— but it is a fault in the Refuter when he would seeme to impugne your consequence to passe by it and to set upon your conclusioÌ„ when you thought it had been sufficiently garded Belike you looked not for such a stratageme at his hands whom you tooke to be amazed at the fight of your argument as you say pag. 71 and so shallow conceited when he is in his best wits that if we may beleeve you pa. 80. he can see no further then his nose end Yet perhaps if you had seene your consequence touched by the former part of his answer you would not have blamed him â— for running out against your conclusion before he gave the onset to your assumption But to let your scoffs alone tell us in good earnest doe you think your consequence is altogither out of the reach of this his regestion as you call it doth it not rather fall with the conclusion for how could Presbyteries be appointed to Dioceâ—es when there were none If therefore the want of
all were leavened but by consociating many particular Churches which were distinguished some at one time and some at another as the nomber dayly increased vnder the the oversight of one diocese or provinciall Bishop His second comparision of a man who consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct if it be well weighed maketh more for his Refuter then for himself For as it is willingly granted that a man in his first conception hath no distinct members so it is as freely professed that it is no man to speak properly much less is it such a man as the Doctor is Wherefore that which he presupposeth in his comparison viz. that the Churches planted by the Apostles before parishes were multiplied in the cities and countries annexed were Dioceses even so as a womans ofspring is a man before the parts of an humane body are formed and distinguished this I say argueth with the Refuter and against the Doctor that The D. argueth against himself and for the Refut it is no less absurd to say that the first Apostolike Churches which had no parishes distinguished in their circuite were notwithstanding properly Dioceses yea such as ours are at this day then to affirme that a childe in his first conception before the parts of his body are framed is yet properly a man yea such a man as all others that are borne and converse among men We have heard how well he hath bestowed his paines for recoverie Sect. 10. ad sect 6. pag. 73. of his proposition out of his Refut hands it remaineth that we attend what he saith for the rescuing of his assumption which hath these parts 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures 3. that they were not onely to attend the whole flock converted but also to labour the conversion of the residue 4. and that in both these duties they must labour in cōmon In what sense the first is contradicted by the Refuter we have seen before sect 3. where was also noted how farre it differeth frō that which he now giveth in stead thereof viz. that the Churches planted in cities as at Ephesus Antioch c. were not in the Apostles times divided into Parishes from whence he may recieve a direct answer which here he expecteth to his question whither the Churches were thō divided into parishes or not viz. that although the Apostles did distinguish parishes by constituting particular congregations in severall places that is in each towne or citie that enterteyned the faith one Church-assembly yet none of the Churches which they established in any towne or citie was in their times subdivided into severall parish assemblies But what shall we say to that two horned argument which thus disputeth for his advantage If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times as at Alexandria it seemeth to have beene then was not every Church but one parish Is they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures and so the Assumption is true The Doctor taketh on imediately after these words against his Refuter for being transported with a spirit of contradiction whereof by and by in the meane time is not the Doctor The Doct. contradicteth him himselfe a strange kind of disputer that will contradict one branch of his owne assumption to justify his maine conclusion and yet assume the same to confirme another part of his assumption and then make his boast that his whole assumption is true But to answer him in kind thus I reply If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times then his assumption in the first branch is false if they were not then each Church in their times was but one parish that is to say one congregation and so he erreth in his maine conclusion And that he may see I use not this regestion because his argument hath put his Refuter to a nonplus for a more direct answere I give him to wit that his first horn hath a weak consequence his second is sophysticall The one is weak beause that which maketh an Church bearing the name of this or that citie as the Church of London or Sarum to be more thē one parish is not the distribution of the people of each diocese into many parishes but the combining of the parishes so divided into one Diocesan body If therefore he will prove the Church of Alexandria or any other which he supposeth to have been divided into sundry parishes in the Apostles times not to be one parish he must make demonstratiō of that which he often averreth but neyver proveth by any testimony divine or humane to wit that the parishes which issued out of the citie-church by such division were subordinated to her jurisdiction as daughter churches to their Mother The other is sophysticall because in saying the Presbyters were not assigned to severall parishes untill the Churches were divided into parishes he taketh the Presbyters not joyntly for the Presbyteries whereof his conclusion speaketh but singly for each Presbyter or Minister apart For we may grant that the assignement of one Presbyter to take the charge of one parish followed in course of time the multiplying of parishes in one Diocese and yet mainteyne that Presbyteries were appointed to severall parishes that is to say to particular congregations before any Church planted in cities by the Apostles was divided into severall parishes Wherefore had the Doctor regarded in what sense the Refut taketh these words Presbyters and Parishes or severall Cures when he denieth the two first branches of his assumptiō he would never have made so srivolous a flourish as he doth both here afterwards pag. 76 of a false conceited contradiction for his perswasion that every of the Apostolike churches was but one parish made him to censure the assumption as voyd of truth in that it denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times and the presbyters or Presbyteries ordeyned by them to be assigned unto their distinct charges Neyther shall the Doctor ever be able to prove though he strive til his heart ake that in this impugning of his assumption he contradicteth his owne perswasion formerly delivered But let us see how he freeth his assumption from the errors or Sectiō 11. ad pag. 74. untruthes objected against it First touching the third point before set downe viz. that the Presbyters were not onely to attend the converted but labour the conversion of the residue he was told that it was but the repetition of an errour before noted in the former argument whereto he answereth nothing but that he hath proved it to be an evident truth Wherefore his proofes being disproved the errour remaineth unsalved And the repetition of it seing he cōfesseth it to be of greatest force to prove that the Presbyteries were appointed to Dioceses pa. 70. argueth him to have ill distinguished
for Doctor to winde out of the bryars of a coÌ„tradiction 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. â—hoppeth 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 coÌ„opany 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 coÌ„pany 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 maintâ—yned 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
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
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 bâ—lls 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. sâ—ct 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 indiffâ—rently viz. severall parishes or congregations for one and the same thing Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togiâ—her in this very argument of his to contradict his conclusion and so to justify our owne I tender him for reqâ—itall this that followeth If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles tâ—me then the Churches oâ— Corinth Ephâ—sus c. Were in that age each of them but onâ— onely congrâ—gation or parish But that â—ssumpâ—ion â—s by the D. maintâ—yned to be true pag. 69. and 73 let him therefore disclaime that AssumptioÌ„ or give way to this conclusion Therefore the Churches of Coriâ—th Ephesus c were each of them in the Apostlâ—s â—imâ—s but one onâ—ly congregation or parish and not many But let us heare what it is that withholdeth his aâ—sent from the Antecedent or assumption of the Refuters bâ—forâ— set downe Though I deny not saiâ—h he bâ—t â—hat â—t the first and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect 3. pa. â—04 time of the Apostle Pâ—ul the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a pâ—pulous 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 pâ—rswasion what maketh him affrayd or abâ—sht to dâ—scover 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 pâ—oduce to justify that which he acknowledgeth scz that the most of the Churches in Pauls time did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation could he finde think ye in the Apostolicall writings any more pregnant allegations to countenance his assertion then such as the Refuter hath produced Well let us give him the hearing in his exceptions First in the scriptures alleadged he takâ—th occasion from the date of them being before the yeare 55. or 60 to weaken his argumentation for it soundeth in his eares as is he had sayd If before the yeare 55. or 60 they were but The D. is â—pilanthanominâ—s cautouÌ„ one congregation then they were no more untâ—ll the yeare 200. See how soon the Doctor forgetteth himselfe for his owne pen testifyeth lin 1. 2. of this very page 104 that both the maine argument and the proofes thereof doe speak of the Apostles time And can any matter questioned concerning the state of any Church or Churches in the Apostles time be proved from the scripture otherwise then by those testimonies that their writings affoard He that can argue at his pleasure from the condition of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time see his defense for this lib. 2. pa. 45. and 47. and lib. 3. pag. 21. to conclude all other Churches to be such as they were for the first 200 yeares and from the stare of the Churches that flourished in the third or fourth age after Christ to prove that the Churches Bishops established by the Apostles were of the same constitution doth he not shew himselfe an egregious wrangler when he wil not admit the testimony of S. Paul and S. Luke to be sufficient for the time of the Apostles because S. Iohn lived 40. yeares or more after the date of their writings especially when no alteration can be proved by any other evidence as himselfe confesseth pag. 101. lin 21. But perhaps he hath exceptions of more weight against the particulars For touching the church of Corinth he saith the thing that is testifyed for it 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20. 33. is such as might be written to the Church of England False and absurd can it be affirmed of all the people professing the gospell in England that they come or for their number may come togither en te ecclesia epitoauto in one Church or into one place to eat the Lords supper but the words of the Apostle vers 18. 20. 33. doe by consequence imply that the faithfull which then were members of the Church in Corinth to whom he writeth came togither in one church assembly and into one place or at least for their number might in dutie ought so to assemble togither to eate the Lords supper Compare the tenour of the Apostles words sunerchomenoon humoon c. v. 18. 20. with the like phrase of speach 1. Cor. 5. 4. sunachthentoon humoon c. Math. 22. 34. 41. and 27. 17. Act. 20. 7. 8. 25. 17. 28. 17. sunegmenoon vel sunelthontoon c. and it will appeare that a concurse into one place for one worke is imported by the very word sunerchomai though it had no other wordes annexed to inforce that construction Neyther can any one instance be given where it noteth such a distribution into many severall societies as must be implied in it if it should be applyed to the Church of England which cannot possibly be gathered into one place for the celebration of the Lordes supper But why doth the Doctor bury in silence that other testimony 1. Cor. 14. 23. c. Ean oun sunâ—lthe he ecclesia holee epi to auto What did he skip because he could not spell Doubtlesse his owne conscience told him the simplest of his readers would have discerned that he had spoken against coÌ„mon sense if he should haue sayd that the like might be affirmed of the Church of England viz. that the whole church coÌ„meth togither into one place And yet he was loth to acknowledge that those words evidently approve the Ref assertion touching the Church of Corinthe viz. that their number was no more then such as ordinarily assembled for the worship of God into one place Secondly whereas he saith that what is testifyed for the church Sect. 6. ad pag. 105. of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. might be applyed by a Bishop in his visitation to all the Ministers of a Diocâ—se What else is it but a direct contradiction of that truth which himseffe hath already approved pag. 75. A flat contradiction in the D. viz. that those Presbyters attendâ—d one flock in common that is coÌ„muni coÌ„cilso et mutuâ— auxilio and were not assioned to severall parishes or parts of the flock For how can that speach which importeth a coÌ„mon charge given to many Presbyters over one flock or congregation not yet distinguished into severall parts or members fitly be applyed without any change in the meaning of the words to a multitude of Ministers which have every one their particular flock or portioÌ„ of people committed to his peculiar oversight If the Doct. shall eyther here or in the for his defense that these speaches may be fitly applyed though in a differing sense to such purpose as he affirmeth it may be replyed that if he confesse the sense to be differing he discovereth his answer to be deceitfull but it is false and absurd if the construction of the words be one the same As for that which he addeth touching the word flock that it may be extended to a nationall provinciall or diocesan Church what meaneth he still to presume that his bare word will be taken for currant payment I confesse it is sometimes put for the vniversall Church as Iohn 10. 16. but he can alleadge no place in all the Apostolical writings where it is given to any visible church that comprized in her circuite many distinct congregations Wherefore he can with no shew of reason contradict his Refuter in affirming it to be a new conceite void of reason to imagine that the church of Ephesus was a Diocesan flock consisting of many congregations Moreover how can we in the interpretation of the scripture admit any word whose signification is questioned to be extended vnto a thing which at that time had none existeÌ„ce in rerum natura or how can he affirm without contradiction to the truth elswhere acknowledged that the Church of Ephesus was a nationall or provinciall Church for provinciall Churches grew up by the combinatioÌ„ of many Dioceses vnder one Metropolitan Bishop as himselfe affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 21 but as yet Ephesus had no Bishop at all if that be true which
by them Ergo none other forme of Church-government save that which the Apostles ordeyned is lawfull and good The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same and it is justified by these Apostolicall precepts 1. Thes 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. 3. Ioh. 11. which allowe the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing and deny them the use of nothing but what is evill The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctors allowance of the Presbyterian discipline when he affirmeth it serm pag. 95. 97. to be good as silver and next to the best though he deny it to be of Apostolicall institution And the later assumption is the conclusion of his answere before set downe wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the coÌ„clusions of these arguments how soever the former conclusion is contradictory to the assumption of the later and the later conclusion directly contradicteth the assumption of the former argument Thus the reader may see that whiles the Doctor laboureth to A dubble contradiction in the Doctor winde out of one contradiction he sticketh fast insnared in two for fayling Neither let him think here to evade as before by saying that he affirmed not simple the presbyterian discipline to be good but only then when the episcopall government cannot be had for Mr. Doctor were simple if he could perswade himself that so slight an answere might free the reformed Churches that want Byshops from the obloquies of caviling papistes which he professeth to be his charitable intent in pleading so as he did for them and their discipline And since silver is simply good and at all times good though inferior in goodnes to golde he dealt deceitfully not simply or syncerely with his reader in comparing these 2 kindes of governments for their goodnes vnto silver and golde if he meant not to allowe the presbyterian government any other or larger goodnes then for those times or places where the episcopall regiment cannot be had But to look back once againe to the Doctors answere before set downe what if I should contradict his assumption and make use of his proposition to cut in sunder the windepipe of his conclusion in this manner ' Where that government which the Apostles ordeyned cannot be had there some other government might be admitted But whiles the Apostles lived in some Churches that government which they ordeyned could not be had Ergo whiles they lived in some Churches an other forme of government might be admitted The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his owne Th'assumption is fitted indeed to contradict his in the sense that he imbraceth vnderstanding by the government ordeyned by the Apostles the government by Byshops so that whereas he saith it might be had whiles the Apostles lived I on the contratie affirme that in some Churches at that time it could not be had And this I suppose will be made good by his owne words elswhere serm p. 69. The D. contradicteth himself Def. lib. 4. pag. 62. when he alledgeth the want of sit choise for one reason why all other Churches besides that of Ierusalem wanted Bishops for many yeares in the life tyme of the Apostles For how could Bishops be had to governe every Church when there was not sit choise of persons fit for that function The same reason is more plainly delivered by others that plead the same cause Bishop Barloe serm on Acts. 20. 28. fol. 6. saith that after the conversion of many people even in setled Churches the Apostles hasted not to place a Bishop because a presbyter fu to be made a Bishop is hardly found which the Doctor also acknowledgeth serm pag. 54. where he saith If a worthy Minister be amonge men as one of a 1000 as Elihu spukith Iob. 33. 23 vndoubtedly a worthy Byshop is as one of a millioÌ„ verie hardly therefore will he escape the bryars of another palpable contradiction And it will be no lesse hard to avoyde the stroak of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ which if he cannot turne aside then his propositioÌ„ now in question will lie in the dust overthrowne not by anie of our weapons but by the turninge of those upon him which he put into our hands As for the Arguments which he addeth to put new life and strength into his proposition though just exception may be taken against them for there is oddes betwixt the use of government not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches and the reteyning of it in all Churches or the altering of that government which they had once established yet will I not prosecure such advantages seing we are no lesse perswaded then he that there is a manifest truth in it The assumption followeth which hath two parts the one that Sect. 3. ad sect 2. c. p 38-44 the government by Bishops such as ours are was used even in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them both paâ—ts he indeavoreth to prove first by scripture then by other evidence His scripture proof for the former is nothing else then a naked repetition of the explication of his text scz that the 7. angels were the Bishops of the. 7. churches and for the substance of their calling like to ours which as he saith he hath proved for I may as confidently avouch we have disproved But for the proofe of the later besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint Iohn or rather by our Saviour Christ he alleageth section 6. Epaphroditus the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians commended by Saint Paul as his funergos kai sustratiotes copartner both in his function affliction the Philippians commanded to have in honor such Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem approved of all Acts. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 19. Archippus the Bishop of Colossa in respect of his function approved of Paul Colos 4. 17. And Antipas who had been Bishop of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost Apoc. 2. 13. His argument standeth thus In the Apostles times Epaphroditus was the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians Iames the just the Bishop of jerusalem Archippus the Bishop of Colossa and Antipas the Bishop of Pergamus But Epaphroditus was commended of Saine Paulas his Copartner infunction and affliction Iames the juste generally approved Archippus in respect of his function approved by Saint Paul and Antipas commended by the Holy Ghost Ergo the function and government of Bishops was approved and not contradicted by the Apostles Here the Proposition if vnderstood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours is altogither false and the D. doth but begg the question in taking for granted what he should have The Doct. beggeth proved if he could But if it be vnderstood of such Bishops as the scriptures testify to have bin in the Apostles times seing they were no Lordly governors but Pastors or Bishops in another function eyther higher as was Iames the Apostle or inferior as Pastors of one
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 judgmeÌ„t 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 PhilippinÌ„s because be was their Bishop or Pastor And even this coÌ„struction 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 thâ—â— concurre wâ—â—h him in his interpretation of the words of the Apostle espetially seing in his viewe of the bâ—oâ—â—s 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 prehâ—minent 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 EvaÌ„gelissa 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 coÌ„monly 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 〈◊〉 in honour faith not him onely qui vester est Doctor
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted 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 argumentatiō 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 thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō 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 lōg 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 īmediately 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 frō 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 childrē 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-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 demāded 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 Ierusalē 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 thē 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 governmēt 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 Superintendēcie 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 cōversion 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 Apostle◠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 Ierusalem◠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 abroad◠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 natiōs 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.
Iames we account these particulars 1. that the Iewes had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations 2. that the church of Ierusalem was in some respect as is before shewed sect 3. the Mother-church of Christendome 3. that Iames was an Apostle principally to the Iewes 4. and that among the Iewes those of Ierusalem and the country round about did more specially belong vnto his oversight whiles Peter and Iohn who were also Apostles for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9. were imployed in other places 5. lastly that during his presidency in the Councell Acts 15. he was superiour in order but not in degree vnto the rest of the Apostles But among things more doubtfull besides the question it selfe of Iames his election or assignement to the function of a Bishop at Ierusalem I reckon these positions 1. that a presidencie in honour or preheminence in order such as he speaketh of is intimated by S. Paul in setting Iames before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him in respect of his episcopall charge at Ierusalem 3. and that in the same respect he had the presidencie in the councell Act. 15. 4. that he was alwayes after the time of his supposed election to his Bishoprick superiour in order to the rest of the Apostles when and whiles they remayned at Ierusalem 5. that this continuance of that superioritie in him appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this superiority or precedence did growe from the prerogatives which that Church and people had above others To these particulars if the Doctor will have us to give our free assent he must first inform us by what authoritie or consequence of reason he is ledd to apprehend a truth in every of them and remove the probabilities which doe incline our judgments to the contrary For touching Gal. 2. are not the wordes of the Apostle ver 7. Sect. 7. 8. affirming that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Peter much more plaine for his preheminence above Iames and Iohn in the Apostleship of the Iewes then the naming of Iames before them vers 9. can be for his primacie above all his fellowe-Apostles Is it not then much more frivolous and ridiculous in the Doctor to extract for Iames a preheminence in honour above Peter and the rest of the Apostles from that slender prioritie which Paul giveth him in naming him first then it is in Bellarmine to ascribe vnto Peter a preheminent dignitie above the rest because he is usually named in the first place Why therfore should not that did up the Doctors mouth that hath dammed up Bellarmines Sidrac inter adolescentes qui in ignem coniecti sunt primus numeratur neque tamen Sidrac socijs suis prefuit Sutclif de Pont. lib. 2. p. 105. Quando multi nominantur necesse est aliquem primum nominari c. Gravissime Erasmus Annot. in Math. 10. ex ordine recensionis non efficaciter intelligitur quis cui sit preferendus Whit. de pont p. 27. l. Adde we harevnto that which is of all observed in their answere to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not alwayes kept Peter which is first placed Mat. 10. 2. Marc. 3. 16. Luc. 16. 14. Act. 1. 13. is set in the last place 1. Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. 9. 5. And Iames here first named being one of the Lords brethren cōmeth after the greater part of the Apostles 1. Cor. 9. 5. when he saith the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord Cephas Levissimum igitur argumentum hoc ordinis est as Mr Whit. saith pag. 274. 2. And if no preheminence can soundly be conveyed to Iames from this precedence in nomination is not the D. strangely deluded when he taketh it for a sure truth that the Apostle intended by naming him in the first place to teach us not onely that he had a prerogative of honor above the rest of the Apostles but also that the same did arise from his episcopall charge at Ierusalem for is there any one word in the whole epistle that giveth the least intimation of any such difference betweene him Peter Iohn as the Doctor fancieth when he maketh him properly a Bishop for some and them Apostles for others of the circumcision Doth it not rather appeare by the right hands of fellowship c. mencioned verse 9. that Imaes exercised among the Iewes the same and no other Ministery that Peter and Iohn did and that they joyntly were Apostles for the Iewes like as Paul and Barnabas were for the Gentiles 3. And here by the way observe that this distribution of persons or places where these were after this agreement to exercise their Apostolicall function bred no inequalitie or disparitie betwixt them in precedence or honour For if the ancient prerogatives of the Iewes gave any preferment to their Apostles above those by whom God wrought among the Gentiles as the Do. supposeth then Paul was in this respect inferiour to the other but the whole scope of his reasoning tendeth to mainteyne the contrarie viz. that as elswhere he faith he was meden busterekenai in nothing inferiour to the very cheife Apostles 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the Iewes in generall gave not to Peter who had the Apostleship of the circumcision any preheminence above Paul the Apostle Teacher of the Gentiles how should Peter become inferior unto Iames by reason of any preheminence which the Church at Ierusalem might challenge above other Christian Churches Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge Iames his presidencie Sect. 8. to be probably gathered from the text because he concludeth the disputation adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assemblie vers 19. 20. 28. 29. so I can by no meanes allowe this presidencie to growe unto him as his right in regard of his episcopall charge in that Church much lesse can we take the presidencie for a sufficient proofe of his Bishoprick there although the Doctor should tell us tentimes that it proveth it For what strings can knit the joyntes of this argument togither Iames was president or Moderator in the Synode at Ierusalem Act. 15. Therfore he was the Bishop of that Church Was S. Paul the Bishop of Ephesus because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Actes 20. 28. pag. 2. he fate as president in the Convocation when the Clergie of Ephesus were by his call come togither Or was Peter Iames his predecessor in the Bishoprick of Ierusalem because he was president in the choise of Matthias to succeed in the roome of Iudas Act. 1. 15 Surgit Petrus non Iacobus vt is cui presidentia discipulorum cōmissa erat Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes c. Whit. de pout pag. 288. 2. But to come to that which he saith doth appeare Act. 15. viz. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior in order to the
this chapter haue given us a second reason for his first conclusion scz that Timothy and Titus were ordeyned Bishops by S. Paul he now tendreth us a second prosyllogisme to confirme the antecedent of his first argument But to let him goe free with this fault I will answer this argument as it standeth first to the proposition which although it never sawe the Sun before his defence came abroad he taketh for graunted because T C and his Refuter have assailed it in vaine So he flattereth himself in his owne conceite but all in vaine For a meaner Scholler then T. C. or his Refuter eyther may easily discerne the inconsequence of his proposition although he may seme to have fortified the presupposall which he concludeth with a double bulwark both of describing the authority and of prescribing the duty of Bishops For S. Paul in his speach to the Elders of Ephesus Acts. 20. 18. c. describing his owne office and authority as he was the Superintendent of that church president of the presbyterie there plainely describeth the office and authority of all Superintendents or presidents in particular churches consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed by all such as should succeed in the like office till the comming of Christ Notwithstanding it were absurd froÌ„ hence to inferre that the Apostles speach there presupposeth his ordination to the office of a superintendent or President of the Presbytery in that Church of Ephesus wherefore neyther doth it follow that the Apostle in his epistles to Tim Titus presupposeth their ordination to the office of Bishops in the churches of Ephesus and Creete though it should be graunted that in describing their authority as they were governours of those churches and in prescribing their duty such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christs comming he both described the office and prescribed the duty of Bishops But this which he assumeth for a truth I reject as an assertioÌ„ no lesse voyd of truth then the main coÌ„clusion now in question for it is grounded upoÌ„ this false suppositioÌ„ that none other then diocesaÌ„ Bishops had in those times or could have by succession the government of particular Churches Now let us heare what he can say in defence thereof The Assumption I prove saith he by those particulars wherein the episcopall Sect. 4. ad sect 3. pa. 78. authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of iurisdiction they being the censures of other Ministers doctrine 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. 3. 9. Iudges oâ— their person and conversation 1. Tim. 5. 19. 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofes he answereth nothing Answered nothing no merveile if he had no answere to these proofes as they are now fitted to the assumption of his new shapen argument if this be his meaning his best friends I think wil scarce coÌ„mend his honesty or discretion But if his meaning be that these proofes before layd downe in his sermon received no answer at all dooth he not too much forget himself since he taketh notice in the next page following of this reason yeelded for the denyall of his assumption viz. that those instructions comprised in the places alleadged were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops but particularly to them as Evangelists and in generall to the Presbyters c. But since this answere is in his eyes no answer at all let us trie whether it may not be sayd with more truth that his proofes whereof he boasteth are no clear proofes eyther of the principall points before denied or of those which he now assumeth He knoweth full well that his refuter flatly denieth that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assumption both before and now to wit that S. Paul had any intention to informe Timothy and Titus as Bishops or any other Diocesan Bishops by them how to demeane themselves in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction hath he any argument to prove this or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mencioned At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumptioÌ„ why are not the proofs thereof if he have any contrived into form of arguments are his syllogismes so soon at an end Me thinks he should not expect any help in this case from his refuter whom he judgeth to be but a very bungler in the art of Syllogising Yet if it must needs be done to his hands I will doe my best to give it the best coate I can and that is this Whosoever describing vnto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christs coÌ„ming doth describe their office prescribe their duties in those particulars wherein episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth he doth in so describing prescribing plainly describe the office and prescribe the duty of Bishops But S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus describing their office authoritie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christs comming describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth For he describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in the power of ordination and jurisdiction as the places before quoted doe shewe And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth Therefore S. Paul in so describing the authoritie and prescribing the duty of Timothy and Titus doth plainely describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of Bishops Behold here good Reader how the Doctor after many windings in and out is retired back to that which he assumed as you may see sect 1. for the proofe of his first argument viz. that episcopall authoritie standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdiction This was then taken for graunted and so inforced to prove that Timothy Titus their ordination to the function of Bishops was presupposed by S. Paul in his epistles to them in as much as they had that authoritie coÌ„mitted to them Here it is againe produced to justify the same coÌ„clusion because if episcopal authority coÌ„sist in those particulars theÌ„ S. Pauls describbing of their authority and prescribbing of their duty in the same particulars argueth the authority duty of Bishops to be describbed in those epistles c. So to make a shew of some variety of arguments one assertioÌ„ must come twice upon the stage for one purpose that with an impudent The Doct. beggeth stoutly face to begge rather then with â—ound reason from Gods word to coÌ„firme what is well known to be one of the main points controverted For his adding the authority of Gregorie Nazianzen Chrysostome
unlesse it may also appeare that they were bound to the perpetuall charge thereof and that the same band recalled them back when those extraordinarie matters were dispatched which called them away for a time But this is more then he can prove eyther by testimony of scripture or any other evidence If he will conclude such a band of continuance from the Apostles wordes 1. Tim. 1. 3. and Tit. 1. 5. he must argue thus Paul requested Timothy prosmenein to continue still in Ephesus and appointed Titus epidiorthosei ta leiponta to continue to redresse what was Sect. 2. wanting in Creete Ergo they were bound to make their ordinary residence there as having the proper charge of those churches during life If there be any strength in this consequence then there must be a truth in this proposition that men are bound to make their ordinarie residence during life in those places where they are eyther requested prosmeinai or left epidiorthosai c. But the Doctor is not able with all his skill to prove a continuance or ordinarie resiance during life much lesse any band or tie unto such continuance in the wordes of the Apostle before mencioned For it appeareth that a farre shorter continuance and that without any band of office or calling therevnto is noted by the word prosmenein Mat. 15. 32. Mark 8. 2. and Act. 18. 18. And Grammarians doe teach that the word hath sometimes the significatioÌ„ of expecto to tarry or wayte for an others coÌ„ming which construction as it doth well accord with the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 13. till I come give attendance to exhortation c. so it was of ancient times received as appeareth by the reading which Augustin lib. 2. cont Parmen followed Rogavi te ut sustineres me I requested thee to tarry for me at Ephesus And certeynly these words Till I come compared with the former I requested thee to abide or stay for me at Ephesus doe argue very stroÌ„gly that Paul had no purpose to bind him unto perpetuall residence there as a Bishop on his perpetuall charge Si Timotheus erat episcopus Ephesinus fuit ne rogandus ut in sua paraecia maneret c. Let Mr Doctor read Sadeel to Turrians sophismes loc 12. sect 8. And as for the word epidiorthoosâ— Tit. 1. 5. it is nothing else with Scapula in his LexicoÌ„ then insuper emendo velcorrigo to ad an ameÌ„demeÌ„t fault or correct somewhat alreadie done or spoken for as there is prodiorthoosis a â—ore amendement of an evill by preventing it before it breake out so is there also epidiorthoosis an after amendement of a fault already coÌ„mitted see Aretius in Tit. 1. 5. Wherefore a continuance in redressing is not necessarily implyed in the Greek word as the Doctor may further see for his learning not onely by the reading which his Mr the Bishop of Winchester embraceth perpet gover pag. 47. 299. but also by that translation which the two last Church-bibles doe reteine I left thee in in Creta that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting or lefte vndone True it is that some wryters of good note to expresse the force of the preposition epi doe preferre this or the like reading I lâ—ft thee in Creta ut pergas corrigere that thou shouldest goe forward or continue to redresse c. thereby to signify that Titus succeded Paul as one put in trust to continue the work begun and to finish that which was left unperfect But even they which doe urge this signification of the word doe notwithstanding acknowledge the time of his continuance in Creta to be very short see Calvin Piscator Beza and others in Titus 1. 5. Wherefore the Doctors collection which from the Apostles words inferreth that Titus was not lefte there for a brunt to set things in order so to come away but to continue redressing what should be amisse and still to keep that Church in reparation is a false glosse Which as it hath no warrant from the word epidiorthoosai so it crosseth the true meaning of those words ta leiponta things remayning for they shew that he was left there for the rectifying of those things which by the Apostles departure thence remayned out of order and not for the repairing of such future defects as the Doctor conceiveth might arise by reason of the death of Bishops and Presbyters and many personall corruptions in doctrine discipline and manners whereunto the Church was subject for that the Apostle aymed at any such defects and their redressing it is more then he will be able to prove in hast But though he cannot make good his owne collection from the Sect. 3. ad sect 10. p. â—2 Apostles words 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5 yet he can easily throw downe his Refuters inferences which conclude that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops because Titus was sent for out of Candy to Rome and from thence dispatched into Dalmatia And Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second epistle was written to him he staied for some good time with Paul at Rome These saith the Doctor are goodly inferences to oppose to the evidence gathered out of the epistles But in vaine braggeth he of his evidence gathered out of the epistles since it is made manifest that the epistles have nothing to further his purpose And he wrongeth both Refuter and Reader in concealing the maine strength of those Inferences which he mencioneth for from those testimonies of Timothy and Titus their removing to diverse places after their stay in Ephesus and Creta he first collecteth That the Apostles tooke the same course of implying Timothy and Titus in their Evangelisticall function which he had before usually done and thereupon asketh who may be so bolde or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paulhad made the one Bishop of Ephesus the other Arch Bishop of Creet The Doct. therefore might have seene if he would that his Refuter argueth to this purpose They whom the Apostles implyed in their Evangelisticall function after their stay at Ephesus in Creta like as he had usually done before they I say were not made Bishops by him the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Timothy and Titus were so imployed after they had been lefte in Ephesus and in Creet Therefore they were not made Bishops by the Apostle of Ephesus Creet The proposition he deemed so plaine that he thought none would be so bold or vnreasonable as to deny it for could not the Apostle foresee what use he was like to have further of them or could he not find others which were at liberty whom he might send hither thither c. The assuÌ„ptioÌ„ he proved by their removes before mencioned To all which the Doctor maketh no other answer then a denyall of the conclusion in saying It is intolerable boldnes and arrogancie not to acknowledge that Paul had made them Bishops Onely he contradicteth him for saying that Timothy was not
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 monumeÌ„ts 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 coÌ„mon 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 coÌ„mon-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 coÌ„tradict 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 coÌ„tinuance 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 sâ—pultus 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. 〈◊〉 ad pag. 95. 96. that Timothy and Titus were advanced and not debased when they were made Bishops For saith he whereas before they were but Presbyters though called Evangelists in a large sense they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of handes ordeyned Bishops Behold here quot axiomata totidem paradoxa as many paradoxes as axiomes For how will he prove 1. that they were before but presbyters The D. beg geth 3. times together and contradicteth himself in one sentence c. 2. called Evangelists in a larger sense 3. now made Apostles of those Churches 4. and by imposition of hands made Bishops The two last are nakedly sent forth without any one ragge to cover their shame the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth before acknowledged by himselfe pag. 94. where he comprizeth Timothy and Titus no lesse then Philip and some others under the name of Evangelists specially taken for the extraordinarie functioÌ„ of those that went up and downe preaching the gospell being not affixed to any certain place And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertioÌ„ of a palpable falshood For how could they be but presbyters seing they stood in the extraordinary function of Evangelists Forsooth he saith thâ—â— what the fathers say of the 72 disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery the same may of Timothy and Titus much more be verifyed But doth he noâ— abuse the fathers in making them the authors of his owne paradoxe For doe they match the 72 disciples or any other Evangelists with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise then they doe the Apostles with the degree or place of Bishops Neyther is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops or to lift up Bishops above Prophets but to countenaÌ„ce that superioritie which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters by a comparison of the like difference which they apprehended betweene the Apostles the 70. disciples Wee haue therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superiour to all ordinarie presbyters for besides that already gathered from Ephes 4. 11. it is apparant by that honour which the Apostle and by that obedience which the Churches to which they were sent gave unto them whiles they were his fellow-helpers and companions in his traveiles 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16. 10. 16. 2. Cor. 1. 1. 7. 13. 15. 8. 23. Philip. 1. 1. and 2. 20. 22. Wherefore I conclude once againe that to make them Pastors or Bishops when they were Evangelists is not to advance them but rather to throw them downe from a higher degree of Ministerie to a lower In the second place whereas the Doctor had sayd that Timothy and Titus were furnished with episcopall power at the time of Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 pag. 9â— their stay in Ephesus and Creet by S. Pauls appointment and the Refuter denied that they received any new authoritie which before they had not c. the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner If they received no new authoritie why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of handes whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Tim. 4. 14. 2. Tim. 1. 6. and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop I graunt that Paul mentioneth hands-imposition on Timothy that some of the fathers doe thereby understaÌ„d his ordination to be Bishop Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove eyther from those words or any of the fathers writings that the imposition of hands mencioned by Paul was a second ordination to a new office or a furnishing of him with any new Ministeriall authoritie which before he wanted What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop may be construed as is before noted coÌ„cerning Iames their speaches are which say that Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem of a new or differing imployment in the work of the Ministerie for the temporarie charge he received which argueth no new authoritie or office imposed on him 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands his owne pen hath given him a direct answer pag. 94. lin 32. where he saith that Timothy and Titus who were of the later sort of Evangelists and therefore in an extraordinary function lin 15. of the same page were ordeyned Ministers of the gospell by imposition of handes which I would fayne know how he can prove by any testimony divine or humane vnlesse he carry those wordes of Paul 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. to his first ministeriall function 3. Againe he asketh may we think that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to severall Churches had that authoritie wheresoever they became which Timothy had at Ephesus Titus in Creet And he addeth verily Philip the Evangelist had not authoritie to impose handes for the furnishing of men with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent to Samaria for that purpose Act. 8. 5 -17 If it be his drift thus to argue Philip the Evangelist had no authoritie to give graces fit for the Ministery by imposition of handes Therefore besides the Apostles none but Bishops had that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Creet I answer his reasoning is many wayes faulty For he cannot prove eyther that Bishops have or that Timothy and Titus had that authoritie by imposition of hands to give such graces Neyther is it true which his words import that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and Iohn Act 8. 17. were graces fitting the persons that received them to the work of the Ministerie Wherefore although it should be graunted that the Evangelist Philip had no authoritie to give those peculiar graces yet he might haue as great authority wheresoever he came as Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet so that his assertion implyed in his quaestion viz. that besides the Apostles onely Bishops had the like authoritie to that which Timothy and Titus had hath no colour of any sound reason to uphold it Yea it is strongly confuted by
he saith specially in ordinatiō and jurisdictiō if he take it personally for that which was invested in them by the ministeriall functiō which they there exercised then I reject the assumption also in that behalfe but if it be taken simply and at large for any authoritie to exercise the like works eyther in the same Churches or in any other then I disclaime his proposition For we are so farre frō affirming this authoritie to be proper vnto Evangelists that we hold it rather cōmō to every Pastor in his owne congregation Let the reader see what the Doctor observeth for this purpose pag. 79. 84. and what we have added cap. 8. sect 12 touching their preheminence above other Ministers and the continuance thereof in the presidents of Synods Now to come to his Argument first set downe and to passe by that fault of mencioning function onely in the proposition wheras Sect. 2. ad pag. 98. 99. authoritie is also joyned with it in the assumption and conclusion the Assumption which was denyed by the Refuter must for the clearing of his true meaning be divided into two mēbers the one serving properly for the plaine naturall assumptiō viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors the other serving eyther for the Medius terminus of a prosyllogism to cōfirm the former or at least for an explicatiō of his meaning therin viz. that the functiō authoritie which they had or exercised in those Churches was such as assigned them to the particular care thereof and consisted specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction the refuter for brevitie sake omitting to distinguish these two differing propositions infolded in one fitted his answer to the later affirming as the truth is that therein he doth but begge the question in asmuch as he assumeth for The Doct. beggeth truth these two points before convinced of falshood viz. 1. that they were assigned to the perpetuall charge of those Churches 2. And that their authoritie was such a preheminent power in ordination and jurisdiction as he ascribeth elswhere to Bishops If prejudice or rather malice as it may be feared had not blinded the Doctor he might have aswell discerned this as some others have done that borrowed no light from the Refuter by any private cōference with him to finde out his true meaning and then he might have spared that outragious calumniation He roves and raves as men use to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answer somewhat But to answere his Assumption as he hath now nakedly propounded it viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be cōtinued in their successors I answer with the distinctiō before used to wit that their personall authoritie perished with their function and therefore in that respect the assumption is false howsoever there remayned unto perpetuall succession an authoritie to performe the same ministeriall works which they exercised by vertue of their temporary function So that if he will prove the assumption in that sense wherein it is denyed then must he prove the perpetuitie not onely of their authoritie in generall and for the works sake which they performed but also of their particular function and of that personall authoritie which they there exercised so as neyther the one nor the other did end with their persons but was continued in their successors the proofe therefore of his assūption must thus runne That function and authoritie which is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus Creet is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authoritie which they there exercised was not to end in their persons but to be continued in their successors Here the Assumption was denied because however the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet there is no necessitie that there should be in every Church an Evangelist that is to say one indowed with that peculiar function personall authoritie which Timothy and Titus had for the good ordering and executing of that power The Doctor saith he did not affirme that which is denyed scz that there must be an Evāgelist in every Church neyther is he willing to see that his assumption doth both in effect affirm as much plainely avouche what he dareth not to justify to wit that the very function which Timothy and Titus exercised is perpetually necessarie not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches To avoid this grosse absurditie he will needes now divide their Sect. 3. ad sect 14. pag 100. 101. function from their authoritie which hitherto he hath conjoyned For thus he explaineth his Assumption The function which Timothy and Titus exercised was ordinary and their authoritie perpetually necessary c. of which two points he saith his Refuter graunteth the later doth not touch the former as if the former branch could escape his touch when his whole assumption is rejected as false or there were no difference betwixt that power of ordination and jurisdiction in generall which the Refuter graunteth to be perpetually necessary and that peculiar authoritie which was invested in Timothy and Titus by reason of their particular function which was before denied to be continued in their successors But in truth as he hath O sweet D now distributed and construed the parts of his assumption in the second he idly affirmeth what was never denied and so leaveth untouched the point which he should have proved And in the first he offendeth more grosly for he borroweth the conclusion of his first argument to make good the Assumption of the same Before he proved the function of Timothy Titus to be ordinary episcopall because it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall And now to prove that their function was cōtinued in their successors and therefore not extraordinarie and Evangelisticall he telleth vs that it is an ordinarie function and the same which the Bishops that succeeded them did exercise And to make a mends for this The Doct. beggeth impudent begging he multiplyeth his default by heaping up many assertions whereof some are apparantly false and the rest no lesse doubtfull then the point which he indeavoreth to justify For first it is false which he saith of Timothy and Titus that in them there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certain churches so is that which he addeth to prove it viz. that their calling to the Ministery was ordinary and their gifts attayned
he say there I meane to winter to conclude for certeinty that his Mr. was at Greenewich when he wrote 3. And if he say here I meane to winter to send to his Mr. for new direction where to find him As for the testimony of Athanasius Oecumenius and others which following the error of him that first iÌ„magined Paul to be at Nicopolis when he wrote to Titus drunk it in without any further examination it cannot overweight the force of any just probability to the contrary for in questions of this nature yea of greater event often times the heedlesse receiving of that which some one or moe of the Ancients have imbraced hath bin the cause of many errors But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him then the authors of the Centuries he might well have spared the citing of them for they leave it doubtfull whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis In the next place he urgeth the generall consent of the ancient Sect. 2. ad sect 18. pag 107. c. Fathers as Eusebius Dyonisius Dorotheus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostome and others to the number of 16. which testify that Timothy and Titus were Bishops To all which he received a threefold answer Frst that the fathers in so calling them take not the name properlie for the functioÌ„ of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop but improperlie in a more generall signification like as they call some of the Apostles Bishops for the work and preheminence sake wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them This answere is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare deniall of that which they affirme wherefore it shall suffice to urge him vnto the proofe of the point denyed and by him wholly neglected scz that the Fathers did so term them properly as giving them the very function of Diocesan Bishops for which he pleadeth Secondly he was tolde their consent was not so generall as he would make us beleeve the truth of which answer is evident by this that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence we heare not the names of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian or any other that lived in the first 300. yeares For that counterfeyt that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita is demonstrated by many worthy divines D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis Areopag Perkins problem pag. 9. Scult Medull de Dyonis script pag. 484. to be such a novice that he was unknowne to Eusebius and Hierom or any other of the ancients before Gregorie the great Wherefore it will give the Doct. little reliefe to graunt him that in his time it was generally received that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus especially seing the Papists may also from his testimonie likewise conclude that in his time the Monkes were of great credit in the Church many of their ceremonies as annoyntings crossings Incense coÌ„secrations c. were in vse and that in his time it was generally coÌ„fessed that Bishops onely were allowed divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere Hierarch eccles Cap. 4. 5. And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius that he was so farre from esteeming Timothy as a Bishop that he rather maketh him a Deacon epist ad Trall the Doctor answereth by distinguishing the times that he was such an Evangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordeyned a Presbyter lastly a Bishop he explayneth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning whose purpose is nothing else but to shew what service Deacons doe owe to Bishops by comparison of that service which holy Steven did to blessed Iames Timotheus Linus unto Paul c. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the DeacoÌ„ and not vvith the Bishop as T. C. rightly observeth yet as he giveth not to Paul the function of a Bishop so neyther unto Timothy the office of a Deacon Nay rather he shadoweth out in Timothy the office of an Evangelist in that he maketh him an assistant unto Paul in his Apostleship As for that fancie vvhich the Doct. broacheth of Timothies serving first in the office of a Deacon then of a Presbyter lastly of a Bishop it is not for his credit to father it upon Ignatius or Ambrose It is true that Ambrose saith Timothy was ordeyned a presbyter and that he was a Bishop because he had no other presbyters before him yet affirmeth he withall that there is but vna ordinatio episcopi presbyteri that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter vterque enim Cacerdos est Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh confuteth that thrice ordination vvhereof the Doctor dreameth And if Ignatius had bene acquainted vvith Timothies ordinatioÌ„ to the Bishoprick of Ephesus doubtlesse in vvriting to the Ephesians he vvould not have associated him vvith the Apostle Paul as a joynte Teacher or Mr by vvhom they vvere instructed in the faith Vos ergo tâ—les estote a â—alibus magistris eruditi Paulo Christifere Timotheâ— fidelissimo He would rather haue distinguished their functions like as he doth the Pastorall charge of Evodius from the Apostolicall function of Peter and Paul who first planted the gospell at Antioch as his words alleadged by the Doctor serm pag. 82. ad Antioch shewe In vaine therefore braggeth he of a generall consent of the auncient fathers when of all that lived in the first 300. yeares there cannot any one be alleadged that giveth to Timothy and Titus the name of a Bishop much lesse the function of a diocesan Bishop Here perhaps the Doctor will againe put us in minde of Eusebius Sect. 3. who reporteth out of former histories that Timothy first had the Bishoprick of the Church of Ephesus Titus of the Churches in Creet And because this his report is the maine foundation whereon all the rest are grounded I will vouchsafe it this particular answer following It is worth the noting that what he speaketh he delivereth not as a certain truth grouÌ„ded on the holy scriptures but as a doubtfull report derived from other stories from whence no sure proofe can be drawne in divinitie as before hath bene observed But not to insist on this exception why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument Timothy obteyned first episcopen the oversight tes paroikias of the Church in Ephesus like as Titus had of all the Churches in Creet Ergo they had each of them the function of a Diocesan Bishop in those Churches For Timothyes charge being paroikia en ephesoo the parish in Ephesus was too narrow a compasse for a Diocese Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta an Iland that had an 100. cities and therefore called hekatompolis had too large a jurisdiction for one province Moreover since there are no records of like authoritie to shew that any one Bishop in the Apostles dayes enjoyed the like superintendencie