trembled to think of preaching such a sermon as that was that confuted the sermons and writings not of one but of many Ministers of the Gospell shall I say as sound and faithfull as himself If I were as disdeynfull as he I mought disdeyn the comparison I trust I may say as sound and orthodoxall as his betters for his owne coÌ„mendation of them elswhere proveth it Is this the reverend estimation he would work in the peoples mindes of the word preached by thâ—â— and of their worthy labours spredd abroad through out the world Or must they think that none make conscience of preaching â—he truth but the D. and the men of his side What sayd I the men of his side nay he careth not to controwle some of theÌ„ also Bâ—shop Hooper a faithfull Minister sound and orthodoxall preached to as honorable an Auditory as that at Lambith even to and before King Edward the sixt against the Surplice and kneeling to receive the communion c. and yet the Doctor censureth him for it in his preface as deeply as the Refuter doth the Doctors sermon ¶ But passe wee over his slaunderous speaches in the Sect. 3. Ref pag. 8. ad D. pag. 18. next words to page â—8 where he affirmeth That the newe divines cited by the refuter are incompetent witnesses in a question of story concerning things done or not done 1400. or 1500. yeares before their time themselves also for the most part being parties in the cause Wherein howe neere he draweth to that Pithagoricall autos epha who with one dash of his pen crosseth out so many worthyes upon pretence that they are parties and but men of yesterday and therefore must not be heard speake but himself onely let the reader judge But how ever he sheweth himselfe to be one of them whom Ierom wryteth of qui tantam sibi sumit authoritatem ut sive dextra doceat sive sinistra discipulos noluit ratione discutere sed se precessorem sequi yet we must followe the same mans counsel in Ephes lib. 3. cap. 5. to read and meditate vt probati Trapezitae The D. mistaketh the matter and without reason maketh the newe divines incompetent witnesses sciamus quis nummus probus quis adulterinus For even here where the Doctor maketh the newe divines cited by the Refuters incompetent witnesses for matter of fact he much mistaketh the matter seing the whole dispute is de jure and not de facto for who ever denied the superioritie of Bishops over other Ministers de facto to be ancient But if it were the question they are every way as competent witnesses as many of them produced by the Doctor who give testimonie to matters of fact done or not done 3. 4. 500. yeares before they were borne being as able to judge as they and more too having read the stories conferred them and observed how new inventions crept in how matters from time to time were carried and by what stepps and staires the man of sin that Antichrist of Rome asceÌ„ded to the top of his LuciferiaÌ„ pride as having I say better done these things then those he alleadgeth 2. Where he maketh them incompetent for that for the most part The D. by his owne reason maketh all his witnesses incompetent they are as he saith parties to the cause lett him consider that if this proposition of his be good viz. All they are incompetent witnesses who are for the most part parties to the cause whether this assumption following viz. But all the Doctors witnesses for his superioritie of Bishops over Ministers are for the most part parties in the cause being Bishops for the most part as himselfe witnesseth Therefore they are incompetent c. Let the Doct. affirme the proposition against the newe divines I will make good the assumption against the old by his owne pen. Let therefore the conclusion be if he will That we will heare neyther speake but the word of God onely â—bâ— discutiamus causam nostraÌ„ But yet his rejecting of the newe writers after this sorte as incompetent The Doct. vnderhand taxeth all our newe divines for misinterpreting the script Fathers witnesses and his reasons for it may not be passed froÌ„ with silence For 1. whereas the quaestions are to be decided by the scriptures which I hope he will not refuse as Iudges concerning the substance of discipline to be observed and continued in the Church till Christs comming and those newe writers mentioned by the Refuter called sound orthodoxall by himselfe have alleadged and interpreted the scriptures against the doctrine of the Doctors sermon what doth he in rejecting them as parties but censure them to have alleadged interpreted and applied the scriptures corruptly even to mainteyne a faction and not dealt therein syncerely as in the sight of God Yea wheras divers of them also have cited Tertullian Ciprian Ambrose Augustin Ierom and other Fathers and so expounded them as the men of our side doe as diverse of the learned Papists have ingenniously acknowledged what doth the D. by this censure but charge theÌ„ to have perverted their meaning also and so to have dealt both weakly and corruptly What could Stapleton Hâ—â—ding Bellarmine Gretzer Bosius Staphilus or any of the most spitefull calumnious Papists have said more to the disgrace of those sound and orthodoxal Divines Was the D. wel advised think ye to present so pleasant a spectacle to the como adversary whose delight is to see mire and durt cast upon our worthy writers to the disgrace of them and in them of the common faith And seing he thus dealeth with so many so learned so judicious and orthodoxal so faithful and conscionable divines as his conscience telleth him and his pen hath tolde vs they are no marveile though he dealeth as he doth with his refuter yea what other can we looke for at his hands who carrieth even of the best so base and vile estimation though he maketh as if he were loth to do it pag. 20 Touching the Refuters directions as the D. is pleased to terme Sect. 4. Refut pag. 9. 10. D. pag. 18. 19. them to the reader I passe by the first of them onely wishing it to be observed how captious he is 1. in assuming that of Pythagoras to himselfe which the Refuter spake no more to him then to his self while he giveth it as a reason why he wisheth the reader to beleeve no further then evidence truely produced leadeth him 2. in excepting against the testimonies of Ierom and Tertullian as vnfittly cited by the refuter because they disswade from giving creditt to fame and vncerteine rumors as if they did not fitt those persons of whom we have too many that are transported with the name fame of the Doctor to beleeve all he saith without any examination of his proofes In the next place where the refuter wisheth the reader to think with himselfe that if he find no sufficiencie in the
writers of our side against the papists there are that mainteyninge the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution doe yet deny it to be divini juris and perpetually necessary not that great Bell of whome we heard even nowe I am sure of For as for the D. silly distinctioÌ„ betwene apostolical instuutioÌ„ divine right whereby he putteth this difference betwixt his opinion the papists as he telleth not from whence it commeth so I see not whither it goeth except to give Romish licence to alter and change divine ordinances at humane pleasures But hereof more hereafter in a sitter place here enough is said for the Ref. defence against the D. second slander wherin he hath bewraied want both of judgment and honesty the one in devysing such silly shifts and thinking The D. bewraieth want of judgment honesty to escape froÌ„ the whole host of our worthy writers by putting on so poore a visard or peece of a garment that would scarce cover any part of him the other in labouring against the truth and his own conscience to perswade that none of our worthy Champions against the papists are in their judgment opposite to him in this question And this his fault is the greater because he laieth downe their judgement imperfectly and closely stealeth all reputation The D. wrongeth all our best divines of sound learninge both from them and all other that accorde in judgment with them The former appeareth in that he restreineth their deniall of the episcopall function to be divini juris vnto his owne sense as if thereby they ment nothing else then that their functioÌ„ is not perpetually necessarie whereas it is plaine they make it an humane and not a divine ordinance The later discovereth it self in that he asketh what man of sound learning doth or can deny but that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles For he cannot be ignorant that as our immediate forefathers before spoken of so also the greatest nomber of orthodoxall divines at this day do flatly deny that the superioritie of Bishops over other Ministers was ordeyned by the Apostles The second notorious vntruth being removed we are now to Sect. 2. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 8. 9. meete with the third which the D. casteth upon his Ref. because he sayd that his doctrine was contrariant to the lawes of our Land which make it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to our Bishops that ecclesiasticall power they now exercise over us and to take it from them as his pleasure the which his highness taketh to himselfe and giveth to all Kings where he professeth that God hâ—h left it to the liberty and free will of Princes to alter the Church-government at their pleasure These are the refuters wordes in deed and he sheweth from whence he collected them to witt from Sr Edw. Cook De jure regis ecclesiastico the Kings Majesties owne speach in his Preface before his premonition But how proveth the D. that the Refuter hath in these words vttered a notorious vntruth for that is the charge if many words will prove it he hath proved it in deed for he hath spent a page and halfe about it wherein is as much profoundnes as truth let vs give him the hearing at large Before he coÌ„meth to the restimonies quoted by the refuter he giveth us two distinctions one concerning the episcopal power the other concerning the exercise thereof first therefore of the first Touching their power he telleth us that it is either spirituall respecting the soul as to binde and loose the souls of men or corporall respecting the outward man as to binde and loose the bodies the former of which is derived to them from the Apostles the later committed to them by the King to whose crowne all commanding and compulsive power is annexed It is well he graunteth the civil power of Bishops to be jure humano his Majestie is much beholden to him But will he ever be able to prove trow we that the spirituall power of opening shutting binding and loosing which he saith was derived to the Bishops from the Apostles is by divine ordinance proper to them and not coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the gospell with them but that they by the word of God are excluded from it this he meaneth in and by those wordes or The Doct. beggeth the question else he speaketh idlye in so meaning who seeth not that he beggeth the mayne question and laboureth for that which by all the sweat of his browes he will never compasse Touching the exercise of their power to let passe his termes of babituall or potentiall right as fitter to choake then to nourish his distinction that though their power be derived to them from the Apostles as a divine ordinance yet where a Christian Prince is assisting and directinge them by his lawes they may not actually exercise their power but according to his lâ—â—es ecclesiasticall seemeth to me somewhat harsh 1. that God should give to Archbishops Bishops c. such a peerelesse power so The Doct. speaketh harshly with contradiction to himself absolute and large over millions of soules as he speaketh without certaine rules and directions for the exercising and managinge thereof but hath left it as a dead trunke or body to depend upon the ecclesiastical lawes of ChristiaÌ„ Princes which as a soule must give life and breath and motion thereunto Verely that power is not a peerelesse but a powerlesse power in deed 2. That that power which hath rule and direction enough from God for the exercise of it where no Christian ayding and directing Princes are should become powerlesse and livelesse by the aidance and advise of Christian Princes 3. That the Doctor dare be so bold as besides these two to imply for so he doth that Arch Bishops and Bishops with their adherence maie actually exercise their power supposed to be derived to them from the Apostles contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes in case they be not such as doe assiste and direct them But passe we on all this winde shaketh no corne nor maketh ought to prove the vntruth in question leave we therefore his distinctions come we to his answere to the ref first proof of his assertion He affirmeth that the authority which the reverend Iudge speaketh of in the place quoted is the authority of the high Commission which the Bishops exercise not as they are Bishops for that others who are no Bishops have the same but as they are the Kings commissioners ecclesiasticall then which The D. speaketh vntruly or deceiptfully what can be more untruly or deceytfully spoken Will he say that that reverend Iudge speaketh of the authority of the high CoÌ„mission onely knoweth he not that that whole booke tendeth to prove that both the function of Archbishops and L. Bishops the jurisdiction they exercised in England long before the high Commission was dreamt of was by froÌ„ the
answere with the Doctors defence that he may ten times yea ten tymes ten tymes say Tirpe est Doctori c. with that of Ierom regula Monach per dit authoritatem docendi cujus sermo opere destruitur But thirdly when he chargeth his Refuter after the manner of other malefactors therfore to hide his head because he put not to his name what else bewrayeth he but that he is one of those Doegs I might say doggs that hunt drie foot thirsting after blood I wish him well would The Doct. thirsteth for blood have him knowe that lett the termes be equall as they ought to be his refuter wil shewe his head when and where he will But the Doctor is wise though he here danceth in a nett in that he is desirous to see his Refuters head he knoweth well he shall shortly after see his body in the Clink or Gatehowse or some such swete place for disputatioÌ„ In the mean time if he be a malefactor let the The Doct. calumniaâ—eth D. beare witnes of the evil but let him not bear false witnes against him as a malefactor as every where almost he hath done throughout his defence As in the next words where he chargeth his ref with wilfull falsifycations depravations forged caluÌ„niations sophistical shifis evasioÌ„s to elude the light of truth coÌ„victing his conscience and whereas his ref simply ex animo coÌ„fesseth his weaknes wants in the answere he chargeth him to speake it by an Ironie so reproaching all that is sayd of what kinde soever He disdeyneth that his refuter should say there is not a syllable of any Sect. 2. Ref. p. 8. 9. D. p. 16. 17. sound proofe in his sermon prayeth God to give him grace to repent of his blasphemy against the truth he delivered I imbrace his charitie but see not the refuters blasphemie However the note of blasphemie against the truth maketh a loud crie in the eare of the simple yet doth it never the more prove the doctrine of his sermoÌ„ to be true The Doct. slandereth his Refut with blasphemy proveth it not I affirme with the Ref stil that the foundation whereon he built his sermon will not beare it the building is ruinous and weakly underpropped in telling vs he taketh God to witnes that the proofes alleadged in his sermon are such as satisfy his owne conscience and that he trusteth he may without any great boasting assume as good skill to himselfe to judge of an argument as his Refuter c. I feare me it will appeare by that time all be layd togither that he hath often fallen fowle vpon his ancres and that neither his conscience nor his skil however assumed are fitt Iudges in this case my sight hath fayled me and I am much mistaken if I have not seene some men of as much note for conscience and skill as the Doctor here assumeth to him selfe who yet have foyled both when they have once undertakeÌ„ a badd cause But to proceede it is worth the noting that he calleth all to consider of the blasphemie saying And what was it that he hath thus censured A sermon vttered in the presence of God in the roome of Christ before a most honourable Auditorie by a Minister of the Gospel shall I say as sound and faithfull as himselfe no I disdeyne the comparison for by his fruites in his booke he hath to my seeming bewrayed an vnsound judgement an evil conscience and an vnsanctified hart I trust I maye say by a Minister of the Gospell as sound and orthodoxall as his betters as conscionable in all his sermons and writings and as carefull to deliver nothing but the truth of God Me thinks he should rather have trembled to think of confutinge a sermon of such an one c. then have dared thus to confute it Is this the reverend estimation that you would work in the peoples mindes of the word preached c What shall I saye to this DOCTOR Oh quam elatus profectò satis pro imperiolo suo What woulde he have sayd and how would he have disdeyned and disdeyned agayne if he had bin but a degree higher but a DEANE aswell as a Doctor But to answer this great charge what if I should instance for an assumption to his proposition but a fewe sermons preached at Pauls Crosse as famous a place as Lambithe by meÌ„ that take themselves to be as good divines as he that yet have in the D. conscience delivered vnsound pointes of doctrine will he mainteyne the coÌ„sequence of his proposition that we should rather tréble to think of the confuting of them then once to dare to censure them I appeale to his conscience whether Bishop Bilsons sermon concerning Christs suffrings and discension was in all points sound or no and yet he taketh himself to be as sound a divine as the D. and it may be will disdeyne the comparison too But to speake ad idem lett the D. suppose that if a discipliarian as the D. calleth them if any may be found comparable to him with great plenty of Argumentes and Testimonies truely and faithfully alleadged did deliver that there is no such preheminence and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and the D. should have excepted against it and refuting it have given the same censure on it that the Ref. hath done on his sermon and he replyed as the D. here doth And what hath he thus censured A sermon uttred in the presence of God in the roome of Christe before a most honorable Auditory c. would the D. have demed this speach reasonable Knoweth he not that it is possible enough for as faithfull Ministers and as sound and orthodoxall divines as himself ever was or is like to be notwithstanding their soundnes in other points of divinitie to preach and print as well as Mr. D. that which hath if we may beleeve him scarce one word of truth or syllable of sound proof in it What saith he to Calvin Bâ—za and other worthy divines admirably sound and orthodoxall in all substantiall pointes of religion by his owne confession Have they not both preached and printed the cleane contrary doctrine to his sermoÌ„ concerning the governmeÌ„t of the Church How often doth he in his sermon centure their sermoÌ„s writings and all that is sayd by them to be but pretty and witty proofes mere colours no sound arguments c. the discipline to be pretended their owne devises yea and vpon his second thoughts in his defence doth he not charge a fresh all that is sayd by them or any other to be false counterfeit novelous and affirmeth he not that if their can but one proofe be brought for it he will yeild c. Mought not a man now turne the D. speach vpon him and saye what is that which by his sermon he hath so censured even sermons and writings uttred in the presence of God c. me thinkes he should rather have
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.
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
discipline as he calleth it calling it a fancie a novelty that bewrayeth the falsity a mere humane invention a newe device c. And doth he not all this notwithstanding bestowe first a longe sermoÌ„ and then a large defence for confutation of what is said for it me thinkes therefore the D. is quite of the hookes in his thus reasoninge Things manifestly true or false are so judged in deed without disputation or discourse but it is by them sure to whome they appeare so not to others to others they are so judged by disputation and discourse It is true also that nether doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident but knoweth he not also that nothing is to be confuted but that which is evident whiles it is not evident it must be argued and disputed but when the falshood is evident it must be confuted Thus we see how stoutly this reason fighteth with the Ref. opinion the D. should now shew us how it fighteth with it self but whatsoever the matter is he hath not a word to that end the reader hath leave to work that out by his own imagination Let us passe on to the second reason of the three pretended by the D. called by him the second braneh thus framed by him on the Refuters behalf It is very huriful and abnoxiâ—us therfore necessary to be coâ—futed How this reason fighteth eyther with the truth or with the Ref opinioÌ„ or with it self or with the other reasons he sheweth us not but in stead thereof scofteth at the word obnoxious as if it would beare no other The D. scoffeth at a word letteth the point alone sense then scoffingly he giveth of it to wit subject to be hurt with evil tongues c. Wheras the word is turned almost in all languages French Italian Spanish aswell as English culpable diserving blame or punishment as the Refuter meaneth it But if it were not yet hereby appeareth how apt he is to take his brother by the throat not forgiving him the least syllabicall slipp but making him pay the utmost farthing If his adversary should use him after that manner ful oft perhaps might he be twitched up for halting But lett the D. make the word sound what he will the reader may see that the Eagle is hungry when she catcheth at such flies and the Refut meaning and so his words indifferently construed doe sound that it is a doctrine hurtful and worthy of blame and therefore to be confuted what sayth he to the reason he onely denieth it to be hurtful and why For I not onely sayd saith he but proved also both in the preface coÌ„clusion of the sermon that it was both profitable and necessary Which what is it bur a silly begging even of the mayn question I call it filly seing The D. beggeth the maine quaestion the proof lieth not in the body but in the preface and conclusion both which are answered by the Refuter to the former of which he hath replyed nothing nothing to purpose it being as himself calleth it in the division of his sermon def lib. 1. p. 28. not a proof but an application of that which before he pretendeth to have proved And if the Refuter had not disproved his proofes both in preface and conclusion and wheresoever else as he hath at least deemed himself to have done yet is the matter under triall still What then hath the Doct. here done but as if a man making claime of some parcell of land and bringing forth to that end certeyne deeds to prove his title wherevnto when his adversary shall plead forgery or insufficiencie he should think it sufficient for rejoynder to say he hath not onely sayd his title is good but proved it by the deeds aforesayd How the Refuter hath disproved the D. proofes whether sufficiently or otherwise mattreth not in this point sure it is the matter remayneth still questionable yea had he not at least made some shewe of a sufficient disproof of them what needed so wise a man as M. D. to make so great a volume of defences he told us even now I cannot yet forget it that nothing needeth to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident Come we now to the Ref words which the D. maketh his third reason The third sayth he It is necessary indeed to be confuted as if he had sayd it is necessary indeed to be confuted therefore it is most needful to be answered That clause of the Refuter is an epiphonematical repetition of the maine conclusion and nothing else as he that joyneth vit and honesty togither may easily see but the Doctor maketh it a different argument that he may make a child of his adversary his reader to imagine that he beggeth the question and proveth idem per idem but lett the judicious judge of his dealing herein and honour him for it as he seeth cause to me it seemeth an hungrie cause that is gladd to feed upon any thing Thus much for the Matachine fight charged vpon the refuters reasons how truely I leave to the readers sentence The Doctor goeth on and telleth vs how his refuter proveth the first of the three former reasons by divers arguments The first Sect. 2. Refut p. 3. Def. p. 3. whereof is as he sayth this The doctrine of his sermon is vtterly false because it is repugnant to the truth the word of truth the scripture of truth now what sayth he to it 1. he calleth them all ridiculous amplifications 2. he sayth his Ref. had rather take it for granted then be putt to prove is to be repugnant to the word and 3. that he for his parte shall make it cleare in this defence that there is not a sillable in the scriptuere to prove the pretended discipline and that the episcopall function hath good warrant in the word To all which I have not much to reply To the first not to stand upon the number of the amplifications we see the sentences are there onely and minde one thing the second being an exposition of the first the third of the second the one adding not an exegesis onely but an emphasis also to the other But say they are more then needed is it not much more then needeth to call them ridiculous Wisdome I perceive must dye with the Dâ—putt case there were such an amplification in the Service book as ridiculous as it is the D. I doubt not would find a hand to subscribe it as agreable to the word of God and no doubt but might doe it with more peace of conscience then to many amplifications therein conteyned yet no ridiculous thing in Gods service is agreable to Gods word To the second may I ask the Doct what need the refuter had to prove that in his praeface which the whole refutation tendeth to prove and whither it was not enough for him in it to admonish thereof And me
such as are nominated elected and presented to any Church 3. to make and ordeyn rules and canons for order and quietnes for diversities of degrees among Ministers c. And that those orders are to be made by the ministers of the Church with the consent of the people before Christian Prince and after Christian Princes with the authority and consent both of Prince and people Againe we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people comitted to their spirituall charge that wheras certeyn men doe imagine and affirme that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome power and authority over all Bishops and Preists in Christs Church c. that it is utterly false and untrue Againe it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neyther in the scripture nor in the wrytings of any authentical Doctor or author in the Church being within the times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or betwene the Bishops themselves but they were equall in power order authority and iurisdiction And that there is now since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops it was divised among the auncient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and vnity of the Catholike church and that eyther by the consent and authority or els 〈◊〉 least by the permissiâ—â— sufferance of the Princes and civill powers for the time rulinge For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees amonge Bishops and spirituall governors This it seemed the D. marked not of the Church so ordeyned some to be Patriarches some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archbishops some Bishops And to them limited not onely several Dioceses or Provinces where they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certayne bounds and limitts of their iurisdiction and power In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles it was lawfull for all Bishops certeyne of them assembling togither to constitute and consecrate other Bishops the sayd Fathers restreyned the sayd power reserved the same in such wise that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitane or Archbishop no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province likewise in other cases their powers were also restreyned for such causes as were then thought vnto them conventent Which differences the sayd holy Fathers thought necessary to enact establish by their decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed or established in the Gospel or mencioned in any canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiastical wryter within the dayes of the Apostles but to the intent that thereby coÌ„tention variance schismes divisions should be avoyded and the Church preserved in good order and concord Loe here their words now obâ—erve we among other things 1. that they joyne togither Bishops and 1. That they make Preists or Bishops all one Preists not onely in the duty of instructing but also in the power of the keyes of bearing the spirituall charge of the people coÌ„mitted to them 2. And in setting downe that headship of the Pope which they disclaime they joyne the Priests with the Bps. of Christs Church affirme his power of claime authoritie froÌ„ Christ over both to be alike false and vntrue 3. they saye that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops spiritual governours of the Church which last words spiritual governors must needs include all Preachers that have spiritual charge as is before noted 4. And as among those degrees ordeyned by them they reckoÌ„ Bishops aswel as Archbishops c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers the limitatioÌ„ of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces yea the limitatioÌ„ of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops which cannot be thought they would ever have done if they had held theÌ„ jure divino 5. And ail this was after that Christians were increased to an infinite multitude throughout the world and in an imitation of the example of like degrees in the old testament not for that any such were established in the newe c. wherfore if the D. had well perused their words with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading he mought have found that whatsoever they speak of the equalitie or superiority of Bps. amonge themselves affirming the one and denying the other to be instituted by Christ the same is to be understood not of such Bishops as had that name proper to them after the Fathers had established sundry differences of degrees but of all apostolike Bishops or spiritual governours preists or preachers which had the spiritual charge of any people coÌ„mitted to them by the Apostles Which appeareth yet more clearely as by that other booke called Reformatio leguÌ„ ecclesiasticaruÌ„ compiled by them wherein it shall appeare anone they make the Bishops in quaestion to be of no other institution then the rest of that ranck of Archbishops ArchdeacoÌ„s Deanes c. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall Stokesley two others of them and therefore fittest to interprete their own meaning writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole S. Ierom say they aswell in his CoÌ„mentary on the Epistle to Titus as in his Epistle to Euagrius sheweth that those primacyes long after Christs ascension were made by the device of men where as before by the coÌ„mon agreement consent of the Clergie every of the Churches were governed yea the Patriarchall Churches The words of S. Ierom are these sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Praesbyteris esse majores And in the margin this note is sett Difference betwixt Bishops Preists how it came in What caÌ„ be more plaine then this to shewe that those Bishops did acknowledge as the ref saith the disparity of Ministers the primacie of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops c. was but a politik divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ Iesus This shall suffice for that testimony before we come to the next it shall not be amisse to speak a word or two coÌ„cerning the D. confession touching the parity of Bishops among themselves but yet restreyning it to the power of order for feare of offending cutting off his Archbishops head But so it falleth out that when men are affraid to what is truth for offending one side they often speak to the offeÌ„ce of the other that so farre as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papall authoritie whiles he denieth what they affirme
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌ„t of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ was coÌ„mitted but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time as himself testifyeth wryting upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doct that the Archbishop in his defence of that his answere page 161. vpon his second thoughts three times confesseth asmuch almost in the same words I confesse sayth he that there was Seniors and I alleadged Ambrose partly for that purpose and partly to shewe that both their names and offices were exstinguished before his time And knoweth not the Doctor also that he spendeth two pages at the least 656. 658 to shewe the inconveniences that would as he conceiveth folowe vpon the reteyning of that government vnder ChristiaÌ„ Princes especially in the Church of England Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church doth he not in his answere to the AdmonitioÌ„ page 162 affirme that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same that it cannot be governed in tyme of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution c. Doth he not in his defence page 658. 660. spend a whole Chapter tending as the title sheweth to prove that there is no one certeyne kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed After which discourse knitteth he not vp the matter with these 3. knotts 1. that it is well knowne how the manner and forme of government used in the Apostles times and expressed in the scriptures neyther is now nor can nor ought to be observed eyther touching the persons or the functions 2. that it is playne that any one certayne forme or kind of government perpetually to be observed is no where in scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof left to the Christian Magistrate c. 3. that wee must admitt another forme nowe of governing the Church then was in the Apostles times or els we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all authority in ecclesiasticall matters Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authoritie doth he not acknowledge page 680. all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise be it civil or ecclesiasticall to be then executed in the Queens Maiesties name and right and to come from her as supreme Governour And speaking page 747 of the Colledge of Presbyters which Ierom calleth Senatum ecclesiae togither with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies saith he not that that kinde of government which those Churches Cathedral he meaneth had it transferred to the civil Magistrate to whom it is due and to such as by him are appointedâ— If the Doct. hath read him he knoweth all this to be true Thus much breifly for the testimony and judgment of that Archbishop the which how farre it differeth from the Doctors sermon whatsoever he sayth now by exchange in his defence and whether it casteth not the governmeÌ„t by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times let the reader comparatis comparandis judge Come we now to Bishop Iewels judgement set downe at large in his defence of the Apologie out of which the Doctor saith that Confession of the English Church was collected whose testimony I might well coÌ„mend in regard the booke out of which it is taken is commanded to be in all our Churches but that the Doctor wil againe as before cry a mountaine banck but I will barely lay it downe and let it commend it self First concerning the power of the keies he hath in his apolog chap. 7. divis 5. these words Seing one manner of word is given to all and one onely keâ—e belongeth to all we say speaking in the name of the Church of England there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerninge openninge and shutting And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Preist or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth he saith parte 2. page 140. that as a Iudge togither with the Elders of the congregation he hath authority both to condemne and to absolve And page 152. that in the primitive Church eyther the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation had authoritie herein and that the direction and judgment rested evermore in the Preest And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use yet he shewing out of Beatus Rhenanus howe they were vsed in old time saith That the excoÌ„municated person when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Preists as vnto the mouthes of the Church and opened to them the whole burthen of his hart by whom he was brought into the congregation to make open confession and satisfaction which done duely and humbly he was restored againe openly into the Church by laying on of the handes of the priests and Elders Againe concerning the authoritie of Bishops over other Ministers cap. 3. divis 5. page 109. he mainteyneth the testimony which in his Apologie he had alleadged out of Ierom ad Evagriu making all Bishops to be of like preheminence and preisthood against the cavills of Harding as the refuter will I doubt not against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith What S. Ierom meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth thâ—â— Ierom seemeth to match all Bishops together as if they were all equally the Apostles successors And he thmketh not any Bishop to be lesse then other for that he is poorer or greater then other for that he is richer For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium a poore towne equall with the Bishop of Rome And further he thinketh that a Bishop is no better then any Preist save that he hath authority to order Ministers Againe pag. 111. that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops they had it by agreement and custome but neyther by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods word And to shewe that it was not his judgment alone he produceth Ierom and Austin Ierom upon Titus 1. sayinge Lett Bishops vnderstand that they are above the Preists rather of custome then of any truth or right of Christes institution And that they ought to rule the Church altogither And that a Preist and a Bishop are all one c. Austin epist 19. saying The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Preist not by the authority of the scriptures saith Bishop Iewel in a perenthesis but after the names of honour which by the custome of the Church have now obteyned Againe chap. 9. divis 1. pag. 198. What ment Mr. Harding saith he here to come in with the difference betwixt Preists and Bishops thinketh he that Preists and Bishops holde onely by tradition or is it so horrible an heresy as he
Gods word or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors 2. It is to be noted that our CHVRCH acknowledgeth that though there be dâ—vers degrees of Ministers as Bishops Preists Deacous in the Church yet that one onely manner of word is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all and that there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting This assumption is the Confession now froÌ„ hence I may be bold to make one note more with this conclusion 3. Therefore it is to be noted that wheras our Churches practise is otherwise in the government that our Bishops now exercise it is net a matter of fâ—ith conteyned in Gods word or grounded thereâ—n but onely of poliâ—iâ— and humane tradition for the power of the keyes and discipline of the Church is one onely and given to all Ministers aswell as to Bishops by the word of God And consequently the doctrine of the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of The D. hath slaundered his Refut his owne testimonies produced for advocates being judges the Church of England and consequently that the Doctor hath here slandered his refuter his owne testimonies produced for Advocates being Indges But we have not yet done the D. as a man that will have somewhat to saye if the worst come to the worst asketh that if the Bishops being now better informed concerning their functions had nowe reformed their judgements according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity whether it would follow that their later thoughts which are comonly the wiser were false and worthy to be confuted I answere that it maye be asked whether he was more foolish or presumptuous in making that questioÌ„ For who is so foolish as to affirme that any mans later thoughts are false and worthy to be confuted because they are reformed according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity 2. Presumeth he not that if the Bishops be now of late grown to another judgement concerning their hierarchie then the Bishops their predicessors have bene in the dayes that are past that these later are wiser then the former and have reformed their judgments according to the holy scriptures c Doth he not thereby censure the former of error and ignorance concerning the truth in this behalf howsoever as it seemeth by his former note they made it a matter of faith conteyned in Gods worde or grounded thereon I will not here question the probabilities whether the thoughts of the nowe and late Bishops or their predicessors be the wiser this without comparison I dare saye that those Bishops that made not this title of superiority authoritie over their brethren and fellowe Ministers were men both godly and learned zealous lovers of sincerity wrote as against the coÌ„mon adversarie so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed and against ignorant Ministers nonresidents pluralitans many things of like sort nowe not onely tollerated but defended also let the Doctor advance the Prelates of these dayes above them if he will I will make no comparison Thus much shall â—uffice to acquite the refuter of the false and slaunderous imâ—utations of such notorious vntruthes as the Doctor hath layd vpon him in his answere to the first reason Chap. 5. Concerning the hurt like to come to the Church by the D. sermon and namely of advantaging the Papists We are nowe to handle the D. answere to the Refuters second reason as he calleth it though it be in deed but a member of the Sect. 1. Refut pag. 5. 6. D. pag. 11. 12. former in reply wherevnto I wil be more breife touching but here and there vpon a word or two most materiall the most parte of the Doctors speach being in deed nothing but sarchasticall and by-speaches The Refuter thought his sermon the more needfull to be confuted because though it was utterly failse yet he had caried the matter so handsomly smoothly and confidently that it caried appearance of truth and therefore discerned that much hurt was like to come to the Church of God by it Herevnto to let passe the D devised divisioÌ„ of the words he answereth by charging his refuter againe to crosse contradict himselfe saying that however his refut had sayd in the former reason that it is evidently false so not dangerous yet now he saith the doctrine is so by me handsomly and likely handled that it is so farre from being evidently false that every word hath an appearance promise of truth But the fight is here betwixt the Doctor and his owne shadowe not betweene the Refuter and his speaches Not the Refuter but the D. fighteth against himself Thinges evidently false are not dangerous in deed where and to whom the evidence appeareth yet dangerous enough to them that see not or will not see the falshood of them Thinges evidently false to one may have an appearence and promise of truth to another The Apostle 2. Cor. 11 3. c. feared leaste the Corinthâ—â— were beguiled as Eve was by Satan through the false APOSTLES that transformed themselves into an ANGELL of light and tolde theire tale so handsomely smoothly and confidently that it had an appearaunce and promyse of truth to the Corinthes why else was he affraid they would be beguiled by them though they scarce uttred one word of truth themselves being the Ministers of Satan and their doctrine utterly false even the doâ—â—â—ine of Divills And if the D. here reasoneth well who seeth not that he confuteth that reverend Bishop Iewell whom his Ref. as he saith in that speach imitateth Hardings doctrine was utterly and evidently false surely and yet dangerous too or Bishop Iewell said not well and yet he carried himself so smoothlie likely and confidently that to many it had shewe and appearance of truth why else doth that reverend Bishop bestowe so much labour in confuting it I could agayn say as much concerning the Ref. answer the D. defence but we must passe on The Doctor thinketh that he told his tale so smoothly in his sermoÌ„ that he had almost perswaded his refuter to be of his mind we cannot let him to think so nor he me to think that that imagination of his hart among others was vaine It may be he is now feeding himself vpon this fancie that as his sermon had almost perswaded him so this his defense hath altogither perswaded him to be of his mind but I suppose the refut or his freind will tell him that he haâ—h an ill stomach that feedeth fatt with such winde As for the rest of his speaches to the end of that section let the reader judge of them as they deserve The Refut proveth the hurtfulnes of the Doct. sermon 1. froÌ„ Sect. 2. the advantaging of the Papists and 2. from the scandalizing of others thereby Touching the first The Papists saith he would be much advantaged thereby seing that Antichristian doctrine even after the renewing
the approbatioÌ„ of their function in this or that particular text of scripture that the Doctor himselfe may and doth imbrace the one and yet reject the other Else how dareth he understand that text Act. 20 28. as he doth serm page 18. 37. 69. of inferior Presbyters which had no power eyther of ordination or of externall jurisdiction contrary to the judgement of Bishop Barloe who iâ— his sermon thereon at Hampton Court pag. 3. affirmeth that the Apostle in those wordes speeketh fully for the prelacie and describeth therein every part of the outward function of Bishops As for the D. reasons moving him to examine what manner of persons were noted by the Angels of the Churches though it were no hard matter to mainteyne the Refuters objections yet suâ—ceasing to contend further therein I will overpasse his 2. section pag. 29 30 it having nothing materiall or worthy of reply save what is already spoken to in the 〈◊〉 section of the former chapter And as touching the 3. 4. sections concerning the number of the angels and their preheminence because we shall have fitter places for them hereafter lib. 3. cap. 3. I will therefore here passe by them and so come to his 5. section In his 5. section two things may be commended to the readers Sect. 4. ad sect 5. Def. p. 35. observation First the Refut saying pag. 4. that it was in deed needfull to inquire what manner of Bishops those Angels were because Bishop Bilson and Bishop Barloe had fancied to themselves another sort of Bishops then eyther the Holy Ghost hath mentioned in the newe Testament or any sound divine offred to teach thereout The Doct. from thence inferreth that the controversie which remayneth to be decided is this viz. whether sort of Bishops such as those learned and himself defendeth or such as his adversarie and his adhaerents stand for is that kinde of Bishop which hath beene of late devised Where it is easy to be seene howe cunningly he changeth The D. changeth the question the question he should have sayd The controversie to be decided is this whether the Holy Ghost doth vnderstand by the Angels of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. such Bishops as our English Praelates are or rather such as his Refuter and his adhaerents stand for But wittily and not vnwittingly doth he shun this controversie for it seemeth he knoweth that to be true which his Refuter added to witt that if the vse of the word Bishop manifestly warraÌ„ted vnto vs by God in his word and the joynt interpretation of all protestant divines would have contented him others of his side we neyther had need nor occasion of this examination Wherefore though he offreth two things to our consideration for the deciding of the former question viz. what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Angels what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches yet he closly slideth The D. closely slideth from debating pointes propounded and then braggeth c. from the debating of them and propoundeth his 5. points before noted diverse from these to be handled in their stead So that his first assertion which he promised plainly to prove hath none other direct proofe then the bare propounding of those two questions which he offreth to our consideration Which the D. knoweth well enough notwithstanding he braggeth of the contrary and adjureth his reader in the name of God without partiallity to see on which side is better evidence and more pregnant proofs and to assent therevnto Secondly where the Doct. vndertaking to prove out of his text that the office and function of his Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good the Refuter tolde him it was soone sayd but not so soone done there being nothing in his text to prove it because to be lights starrs angels which was all the D. had said or could shew out of the words is not proper to his Diocesans but coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations as himselfe had taught in his sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers pag. 20 61. The D. replyeth indeed but as a man out of temper chargeth his Ref to wrangle and to have nothi g to say but that which with an idle coccisme he often repeateth and in this place is altogether impertinent and that he was resolved aforehand to cavill with whatsoever he should find in his booke c. Whereunto I will say nothing but this that concerning the temper of the Doctor and truth of his speach I will not the D. is a party he must not lett the reader indifferent therefore judge The sight of the Doctors former proceedings moved the Refuter Sect. 5. ad sect 6. p. 36. 37. pag. 4. to tell him that if he had walked with a right foote in the path he was entred into be should by his text have taught vs the meaninge of these two points not quire contrary as he geeth about by these two points tâ— teach vs the meaning of his text But the D. enraged aâ— these words of truth and sobernes as Festus was at the words of Paul was ready to take up his answere much learning hath made thee madd save that he would not ascribe to his Refut any learning at all therefore chooseth rather to say that too much wrath which is furor brevis made him so to forgett himself that he wrangleth without witt and against sense But I wish the reader consider whether the Doctor doth not overrashly judge him sick of his owne disease For what can he say eyther to excuse himself or justly to blame his Refuter For sooth that no man that is in his witts will say it is not lawfull for a preacher to explaine his text True but if the Refuter never sayd it and if the Doct. cannot extract any such thing from his wordes may not the reader worthily censure him for a mallicious slanderer 2. He asketh what The doct slaundereth it was which in this section he had in hand was it not saith he to indeavour the explanation of his text And to shew what manner of Bishops are here meant by the angells of the Churches And I answere him no he had already explained his text and affirmed that the Bishops meant by those Angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are now he was to make way for the performance of his promise to prove The Doct. seeth not or would not see what he had in hand his former assertion 3. He asketh againe what could be more fitly propounded for the explication of his text then the consideration of those two things before mentioned And a little after who seeth not saith he that the handling of these points is the very explication of the text I grant that these two points were fittly proposed to cleare his first assertion wherein he reposeth the explicatioÌ„ of his text if he had handled them so as he
assumption and conclusion on this manner If the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops then not by such presbyteries as they stand for But they were governed by diocesan Bishops Ergo not by such presbyteries as they stand for The proposition of this argument is absolutely necessary for such presbyters and such diocesan Bishops as ours are cannot stand togither And if the Assumption be denied he is already provided of a disiunctive argumentation sufficient to confirm it So that he may daunce as in deed he doth lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. the round The Doct. daunceth the round betwene these two and need not seek any newe prosylloâ—isme to conclude that which is to be proved But 2. what meaneth the D. to take that for graunted which his refuter flatly denieth Doth he not plainely tell him answer pag. 10. that though at were so as he supposeth that there were no other Elders in the primitive Church bâ—t Ministers of the word yet that it would not follâ—w that the Bishops were Diâ—osan because a Presbyterie of Ministers such as the D. himselfe coâ—fsseth The D. taketh for graunted that which is flatly denied were then in use might be ioyned with the Bishop in the government of the Church and that the whole congregation might have as great an hand in the government as he for so some of our opposites do graunt it had some times and therefore the sole government of Diocesan Bishops may well fâ—ll though there were no sole governing elders to over turne them It is therefore plaine that the Refuter disclaymeth this dâ—siunctive proposition as not necessarily true and that the Doctor wittingly how wittily soever concealeth from his reader both that division which is among the favourites of the Hyerarchie some acknowledging the state of the Church in the Apostles times for the outward forme and government thereof to be popular as Archbishop Whitgift in defence of his answer pag. 180-182 which the Doctor esteemeth pag. 41. a Brownistâ—call and Anabaptisticall dotage and The D. coÌ„tradâ—cteth his owne doctrine that contradiction which is found in his own writing since he now putteth the reynes of Church-government into the hands of the Bishop to rule as ours doe without the advise of the presbyters whereaâ— he formerly acknowledged sâ—rm pag. 1â— that in the primitive Church the Bishop vsed the advise of certeyne â—raâ—e Ministers and in Church causâ—s did nothing almost without them A thing now growne altogither out of vse and in the opinion of â—ome whose judgemeÌ„t ought to sway much with the Doctor that kâ—nâ—e of government which the aunciâ—nt Presbyteries and their Bishops exerâ—ised is now transferred to the Mâ—gistrate to whome it is due aâ—d to such as by him are appointed sâ—e D. Whitgifts defense pag. 747 Howsoever therefore it may be granted that in the question delivered by the Doctor the disiunct on which his proposit on expresseth is impliâ—d yet it followeth not â—ay it is an apparaâ—t vntruth to affirm hâ—t the disâ—unction is on both sides presupposed necessarie which the Doctor must confesâ—e vnlesse to use his owne words he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logick seing his disjunction and question doth not sufficiently enumerate their opinions which have debated this question in generall viz. what the forme of government was which was first practized in the most ancient and Apostolik Churches So that if I would treade in the D. stepps I might justly repay him with some such marginall notes as pag 47. 53. without cause he hath sett down to disgrace his Refuter to witt that the D. and his Consorts at this Day doe pleade against the discipline which Arch-Bishop Whitgift other learned Protestants yea the most ancient freinds of the Hierarchy acknowledged to be practised in the apostolike Churches and that the Doctor mistaking the question and craftily concealing the division that is among them of his owne side is bold to affirme that to be graunted which he knoweth to be denied 3. I know that for his defence he saith that his Refuter acknowledgeth the question to be such as he proposeth but he doth both the Refuter and the reader the more wronge in so saying In deed when the Refuter intended to shewe that our diocesan Bishops maye be proved absolute popelings by the same reason that the D. urgeth to cast that name on the parishe Bishops for which they whom the D. calleth a new secte doe as he saith stryve he then affirmed that the question betwixt the Doctor and them not betwene the D. and us for those words the D. hath evilly put in to make his owne cause good was this whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors The Doct. chaungeth the Refutâ— words and Elders or by diocesan Bishops But how doth it followe that he acknowledgeth the first of his two questions before mencioned to be rightly and fully delivered in respect of the parts of the disiunction He that hath but half an eye may see the inconsequence of his reasoning specially seing the question expressed by the refuter hath more reference to the second quaestion de iure then to the first de facto Moreover hath the Doctor forgotten that at his first meeting with this question he enterteyned it so well that pag. 41. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe he intreated the reader to store it up for future use Shall I therfore now inferr that he contradicteth himself in saying that his assertion is falsified in the later part of the question 4. But what need so many words to thewe the weaknes of the Doctors disiunctive argumentation or to prove that there is not any presupposed truth in his disiunctive proposition I hope he wil graunt for he is a Doctor and cannot lightly so farr forget his logick rules but he must knowe that the question which he debateth in the first part of his sermon must holde proportion with that assertion which is to be concluded from the 4. first points of his five seing the first part of his sermon is comprehended in them Now the assertion which is to be proved by these 4. pointes is eyther this which his disiunctive argument concludeth viz. that the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops or rather that which before he set downe pag. 58. for the assumption of his first syllogisme viz. that Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But which soever of these two he chooseth certeine it is his question Sect. 4. wil not yeeld him any such disiunctive proposition as he now draweth from this which he tendreth For his quaestion must be a single one and not compounded of two members viz eyther this whether the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or no or rather this whether Diocesan Bishops be vnderstood by the angels or no And this last coÌ„meth somewhat neare the mark though it misse of the right tenour of wordes which it ought to have kept viz. whether Bishops
Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishops and the Bishops to Christ And asketh he not pag. 46. what a Bishop else is but such a one as holdeth and menageth the whole power and authoritie above all yea and doth he not pag. 30. 31. out of the council of Sardis and out of Optatus and Hâ—erâ—m make those 3. degrees answerable to the high Preists and Levites placing the Deacons and Presbyters in the roome of the Preists Levites and the Bishops in the roome of Aaron the High-Preist the very cheife and Prince of all With what face then can he deny vnto the Bishop in his diocese a sole superiority or solepower of rule or say that the word sole is foisted in besides his meaninge Let him weigh the force of this argument and give us a direct answer to it the next time he writeth Whosoever ascribeth to every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner to governe in fore externo the Presbyters aswell as the people as their Ruler and Iudge holding and menaging the whole power and authoritie above all all subiect to him and he subiect to Christ he giveth to every B in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereignty and sole power of rule But the Dostor prescribeth â—o every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all c. Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereigntie and so power of rule The assumption is gathered from his owne wordes as is before shewed If he deny the proposition shall he not bewray in himself that evill conscience which he chargeth his Refuter with which is resolved to oppugne and deface the truth Can he be ignorant that a singular preheminence of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner put into the hands of any one to govern all the rest as their ruler and Iudge and he subject to to none but to Christ is not onely a sole superiority but a very sovereignty or sole and supreme power and rule Wherefore how soever every superiority in power or majority of rule be not a sole or sâ—preme power or superiority c Yet the Refuter hath rightly affirmed and the Doctor hath with check of conscience I feare denied the power of rule which he ascribeth to Bishops to be a sole power And touching our owne Bishops though he be loth to acknowledge Sect. 8. in plaine termes that they are sole ruling Bishops yet he affirmeth that which will easily evince it to be a truth For to let passe what he saith serm pag. 40. concerning ordination that the power thereof is ascribed and appropriated to the Bishop alone and that however by the councill of Carthage the Preâ—byters were to impose handes with the Bishop yet it was then as now with vs not for necessity but for greater solemnely c. To let this passe I say he confesseth lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 192. that the advice and â—ssistance of presbyters which the ancient Bishops used grew longe since out of use because it seemed needlesse both to the presbyters desyring their ease and to the Bishops desyring to rule alone And to take a way all shew of difference betwene those ancients and our Bishops who have not the like assistance of their presbyters that they had in former ages he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 5. pag. 111. That when Bishops used the advice of their presbyters the sway of their authority was nothinge lesse then when they usâ—d it not for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and advâ—se but never to over-rule the Bishop like as the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his Councell is nothing the lesse for it but the more advised The truth of this later speach is not here to be examined nor yet how well the former doth accord with the later there will come a fitter time for it hereafter for the present purpose it shall suffice to observe 1. That if a desire in Bishops to rule alone was one cause why the AssistaÌ„ce which formerly they had of their Presbyters grewe out of vse it may wel be thought that ours doe nowe rule alone seing they have no such assistance as they had 2. Neither can it be otherwise if that assistance which once they had was not to restreyne them of their willes but onely to yeeld them that help that great Princes free Monarches have of their grave Counsellors by whom they are advised in their affaires of state Here therefore I crave his answere to this argument Whosoever in their government proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them from swâ—â—ing the matter as pleaseth them they have a sole power of rule or do rule by their sole authoritie But our English Preâ—â—tes iâ— their Episcopâ—ll government and in proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them fâ—om swaying the matter as pleâ—seth them Let not the D. be ashamed to speake plainely what he closely insinuatâ—th Therefore they have a sole power of rule or do rule by theiâ— sole authoritie The proposition I suppose to be so cleare that the Doct. wil not deny it The Assumption is already acknowledged for true by himself I hope therefore in his next defence he will imbrace the conclusion and esteme it no longer an odious and absurd asserti on For why should he be ashamed to speake that plainly which he doth closely insinuate the rather for that one of his fellow Doct. D. Dove I meane in his defense of Church-government pag. 19. coÌ„ming to speak of a Diocesan D. Bishop ruling by his sole power saith that this is the cheefe matter now in question and further pag. 20. that he may speake something for the iustification of the Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie affirmeth that Timothy Titus were such Bishops Now no doubt the Doctor will expect an answer to that which was overpassed in the former chapter as impertinent to the point then in hand viz. That all power is not given to the Bishop alone because that in the government of the Church others are joyned with him some vnder him and some above him c. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 42. and he shall here according to promise have it And that he may see the force of his reasoning I wish him to remember that Christ saith of himselfe Math. 28. 18. all power is given to mean heaven and earth and to bethinke himselfe what answere he would give to one that shoulde thus argue In the government of the world there are others ioyned with Christ the Father is above him 1. Cor. 15. 27 28. and vnder him are both his Apostles and thâ—ir successors Mat. 28 19
And if one of our Bishops may in his visitation apply to alâ— the Ministers of his diocese those words of the Apostle Acts. 20. 28. that they should attende the whole flock c. as he saith lib. 2. pag. 105. then he must acknowledge all those Ministers to be properly Diocesan and not parishonall Pastors because the whole flock or Church in such a speach is properly a Diocese and not a parishe Moreover by the like consequence he must acknowledge that the Prophets Teachers mentioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. were for the extent of their authority equall with the Apostles that is all vniversall Ministers none affixed to any particular Church or Diocese because the Church wherein God is sayd to ordeyne them is the vniversal Church militant as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 227. lib 2. pag. 4. Also that Titus was properly a nationall Bishop and not Diocesan or provinciall because the Church of Crete whereof he was Bishop was properly a Nationall Church and not a province or diocese And that the Bishops of our owne Church whose function he will have to be of divine institution are properly nationall also and not diocesan or provinciall because the Church of England whereof they are Bishops is neyther diocese nor province but properly a nation or nationall Church Wherefore if the Doctor doth not willfully shut his eies against the light he may se that though he could prove those 7. Churches to be properly dioceses yet it will not followe as he supposeth that the Angels of those Churches were properly diocesan Bishops So that if he faile also of his hope to prove or â—ather boast in vaine of that proofe which he professeth lib. 2. pa 3. to have drawne from his text to shewe that the 7. Churches of Asia were properly dioceses then may he sit downe in silence with the losse of his cause till he hath found out a new text in case any other can be found to justify the functioÌ„ of our Diocesan Bishops His argument which as he saith sect 2. cap. 3. is grounded Section 3. Ref. pa. 53. D. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 43. sect 3. vpon the text was in his sermon pag. 17. 18. proposed to prove a more large Conclâ—sion viz. that in the Apostles times and in the age followinge the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels to wit all visibles Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes wherfore before we trie how wel he hath proved those 7. churches to be Dioceses let us first see how absurdly he dealeth in strayning his text to a larger extent I meane to justify that generall coÌ„clusion before mentioned The words which â—ay downe his argument are these For whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seven naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith Theâ— starres were the angels of those 7. churches it cannot be denied but that the Châ— whereof they were Bishops were great ample cities and not cities alone but also the Countries adioyning From the last wordes of which-sentence the refuter frameth this connexive Syllogisme If the Churches of Asia to which our Saviour Christ writâ— were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the Countries adioyning then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes But the Churches of Asia were such therefore they were Dioceses c. And addeth that the Assumption lieth pag. 18. and the conclusion pag. 17. whereby it appeareth that the last wordes of the proposition which is supplied viz. then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes must not be restreyned to the 7 Churches of Asia onely but rather understood of all the visible Churches which were in the world at that time and in the age following as the wordes of his conclusion before delivered doe shewe Notwithstanding because the reâ—uter rejecteth the consequence of the proposition and saith it is naught the Doctor finding himselfe vnable to make it good disgorgeth his stomach against his The D. vnable to make good his owne reasoÌ„ seeketh to make his Ref. logick naught Refuter and thinking to make his logick naught asketh pag. 43. sect 3. if he cannot frame a Syllogisme with hope to answere it vnlesse the proposition have a consequence which he may deny and as if he were a Puny that had not learned the groundes of logick intreateth him that the Proposition may be simple and afterwards charging him not to know what the hypothesis or thing supposed in a connexive syllogism is taketh vpon him Magistraliter to teach him how to know it and willeth him to dispose his connexive proposition into an Enthymem and giveth him to witt that what part is wanting to make vp a syllogism the same is presupposed as the hypothesis whereon the consequence is grounded and so goeth on along in instructing his Refuter in logicall pointes where I leave him And on the Refuters behalfe I answere 1. that though he is not perhapps so great a logician as Maister Doctor yet he is not ignorant how to reduce an Enthymem into a simple Syllogisme he hath often done it before the Doctor drewe him into his schoole as the reader may see in his answere pag. 9. 29. 70. 73. 109. 139. 145. 154. 155. 156 and so hath proved The D. a false witnes him to be a false witnes in saying as he doth pag. 44. and 45. that he knoweth not what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposed in a connexive proposition and that he must unlearn that art if he will not be counted a Trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexive syllogisme that he may have a consequence to cavill with â— but doth not the D. himself frame many coÌ„nexive Syllogismes in this Defense See lib. 1. pag. 67. 84. 92. 101. 134. 165. 180. in the rest of his bookes many others may be found besides sundry Enthymemes which he leaveth void of that supply that should reduce to a perfect syllogism Wherefore if his Refuter be worthy so oft to be reproved as he is by the Doctor lib. 1. pag. 109. 146. and here et alibi passim for his connexive Syllogismes however another might doe it yet I may here tell the D. it becoÌ„meth not him to doe it Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum But had the Doctor made none yet the use of such Syllogismes is common both with Divineâ— and Logicians of good account Doth not Aristotle often use them See Prior. lib. 1. cap. 40. lib. 2. cap. 2. Are they not by good Logicians commended as most firme apt both for confirmatioÌ„ of truth coÌ„futatioÌ„ of errour To passe by Polanus Log. l. 1. p. 92 Let the D. read that worthy Sadeel Tit. de verbo Dei scripto c. cap. 2. and 3. Vseth he not in his reasoning there both kataskevasticos anaskevasticos ten connexives for one simple
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
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
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
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
no cheiftie or preheminence to any one above the rest neyther perpetual not teÌ„porarie in any Pastoral duty of feeding or governing the people depending on them seing in his conceit they had neither Bishop nor President to guide the or to moderate their meetings in the absence of the Apostles who as he supposeth reteyned all episcopall government in their owne hands Which confused paritie or rather Anarchie as it was never imbraced of any reformed Church in these last times so it cannot without wrong disgrace to the Apostles be ascribed unto their ordinance As for the Apostles wordes to the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts. 20. 28. the Doctor seemeth inconstant and at odds with himselfe Sect. 13. ad sect 7. p. 75. in the application of them For he first quoted that text serm p. 18. to prove that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word and Sacraments where note that he limiteth the word flock and the duty of feeding to the company already converted which argueth as may well be supposed that he did not then conceive the residue of the City and Country yet vnconverted to be any part of that flock or The D. agreeth not with himselfe in the applicatio of Act. 20. 29. Church there spoken of but now he streatcheth both words to the whole nomber of all which in City and Country belonged to God and were by their Ministerie to be converted and rockoneth it as we heard before sect 7. one of the Refuters indigested fancies to restreine the flock over which those presbyters were set vnto the nomber of Christians already converted Heare we now the reasons that perswaded him to change his opinion for he useth not to doe and vndoe without reason First he urgeth the use of the word flock Iohn 10. 16. where the flock he faith is that for which the good shepheard gave his life vnto which apperteyned the sheep which his Father gave him even the elect not yet converted as he saith pag. 66. not onely among the iewes but the Gentles also even that Church which God meaning Christ who is God is sayd to have redeemed with his blood Acts. 20. 28 and that people of his which he saveth from their sinnes But how will he from his allegations inferre that the flock in which those Presbyters were set as overseers Act. 20. 28. was the people belonging to God aswell vnconverted as converted in the City of Ephesus and the Country adjoyning Doth not himselfe weaken the consequence when he faith This is spoken of the Church in generall yea but he proceedeth to say so the company of them that belong to Christ in any nation province diocese city or parish may be called the flock the Church the people of God Well then if the company of faithfull in one parish may be called the flock and Church of God aswell as a larger society of such as belonge vnto God in a nation province or diocese is not the Doctor yet as farre to seek as at the first for a found reason to perswade his conscience that the people yet vnverted but belonging to Gods election throughout the diocese or province of Ephesus were a part of the flock and Church which those presbyters were charged to attend to and feede May not a man with halfe an eye discerne that a greedy desire to contradict his Refuters assertion hath instead of better reason preveyled with him or rather as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter pag. 73. so transported him that he careth not how shamefully he contradicteth himselfe so as he may gainesay his adversaries present assertion Yet there is a worse fault that accompanieth this change of opinion in him for he absurdly consoundeth the visible Church of Christian professors knowne vnto men with the invisible Church or flock of Gods elect knowne onely to himself yea we may therevnto The D. coâ—radicteth himself coÌ„ foundeth the visible invisible Church maketh the Apostle author of a senselesse charge add a third fault no less absurd then the former when he makerh the Apostle Paule the author of a senseless charge imposed on the presbyters viz. to attende on a flock the nomber and parts whereof they neyther knew nor could know and to feede with the word and Sacraments such as were not yet begotten vnto the faith Attend we now a litle to the advantage which he maketh to his â—ause from this text to his removall of the disadvantage which his Refuter draweth from thence If sayth he they were to attend the whole flock in coÌ„mon then were they not assigned to severall parishes which were but parts of the flock to which purpose the place of the Acts was Sect. 14. quoted Before he borrowed as is observed sect 10. the first branch of his assumption to justify the second now the second is fortified by the third so that his owne pen maketh him guiltie of the fault which upon farre lesse cause he imputeth pag. 55. to Mark whethe D. be not coÌ„fouÌ„-ded in him self his Refuter scz to bring within the compasse of one syllogism two arguments which tend to justify the mayn point of the assumption Consider this well and with all remember that the 4. point is a bare repetition of that which he urged in the former argumet as is shewed sect 1. yea observe further that the second parr of his assumption which by this reckoning is the onely maine point of his argument is made a part of the consequence of his proposition as appeareth sect 2. By all which layd togither it is evident that this argument of his separatis separandis is nothing else but a concluding of the same by the same in this manner In the Apostles times the Presbyters were not assigned to severall cures whereby he meaneth parishes Ergo in their times they were not appointed to parishes But to come to his inference deduced from the place of the Acts. which he quoted if that be true which his words intimate that severall parishes were parts of the flock which the Presbyters were charged to attend how can there be a truth in the first branch of the Assumption which denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times must he not fall an ase at least lower then before when he sayd pag. 63. sect 6. that his assertion touching Churches not divided into parishes is to be understood â—â— epi to plaiston as true of most Churches I might ask him how it is possible the Presbyters should hold the charge of the flock in comon if it had severall parishes for the parts thereof how the flock could be undistinguished or attended on in coÌ„mon if the charge given to the Presbyters were such as upon like occasion might by a Bishop in his visitation be applied to all the Ministers of a Diocese as he afterwards affirmeth pag. 105. will it not be A contradiction in the Doct. hard think you
for Doctor to winde out of the bryars of a 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
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
Bishops and he saith Def. lib. 4. p. 49. that it was not explayned onely but also proved by shewing the time c. Wherefore he doth his refuter the greater wrong to call him a notorious caviller to say he gave sufficient proofe of a bad conscience pag. 64. and 65. because he complayned that in all this section there was nothing to prove the point before mencioned For had he intended that his discourse touching the time should serve either for a bare explanation of his former assertion or for the affoiling of such a doubt as he now proposeth he was able enough to have expressed his meaning in plaine termes and therefore not having so done he giveth us cause to think either that he had no such meaninge or that he purposely concealed it that he might here as he doth in sundry other partes of his sermon pick a quarrell with his Refuter for mistaking his Analysis But since the Doctor will needes for the better recovering of his spirits change the tenour of his reasoning and make answer rather to our objection then goe on with the proofe of his owne position I wil first set downe the objection in form then weigh the validity of his answere Whatsoever function or government is not mencioned in the Apostolicall Writings the same was not ordeyned by the Apostles neyther is it of divine institution But the function or government of diocesan Byshops such as ours is not mencioned in the Apostalicall writinges Ergo the function and government of diocesan Bishops was not ordeyned of the Apostles neither is it of divine institution His answere tendeth wholly to infringe the Assumption by declaring Sect. â—â— as himself speaketh that Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches Apoc. 1. 2. 3. sometimes their Rulers Heb. 13. 17. sometimes their Apostles as Phil. 2. 25. Wherefore if he cannot make it appear that Diocesan Bishops such as ours were pointed at vnder the names which he alleadgeth then his whol discourse spent this way is altogither idle and impertinent And if the spirit of God hath given these names to such Bishops is it not an oversight in the Do. to allow as he doth in his sermon of the dignitie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. all the same names save onely the name of Apostles A contradiction to all Ministers To clear himself from this contradiction he saith his former sermon is of Ministers in generall including Bishops and diverse thinges there spoken of Ministers in generall doe principally belonge to Byshops He addeth all Pastors are Rulers or Rectors of their severall flockes but the Byshopes are Rulers both of them and their flockes And all Ministers are Angels but the Byshop alone is the Angel of each Church or diocese Behold here a plaine confession that in his former sermon he giveth to Ministers in general the names and titles there mencioned among which are these that they are called egoumenoi Rulers Angels of the Churches How then excuseth he his restreyning of these titles here to diocesan Byshops such as ours Forsooth Byshops are included and diverse things spoken of Ministers in generall doe principally belong to Byshops Be it so in his vnderstanding but can he perswade himself that his bare affirmation will perswade the conscience of an indifferent reader to interteine the opinion no no we have learned from his owne inditing lib. 1. p. 200. how to frame him an answer If diocesan Byshops such as ours were first proved by other arguments to be of divine institution the best argument that could be raised out of these places were from the Genus to the species affirmative as if he should say The Scriptures speak of Church-Angels and Rulers which were Ministers of the word Ergo of diocesan ruling Byshops But seing they never were nor ever will be proved by other arguments the reason taken from those places is from the Genus to a fancied and platonicall Idea or poeticall species and that affirmatively If we should say it were a bird therefore a swan it were but a simple argument But if thus it is a bird therfore a black swan it were too ridiculous yet such is the argumeÌ„t of this disputer For if he should say The Holy Ghost in these 3. scriptures Apoc. 1. 20. Heb. 13. 17. Phil. 2. 25. speaketh of ministers which dispensed the word and sacraments therefore of Bishops which had prehemineÌ„ce over other ministers it were a weak argument but when he inferreth therefore of diocesan Bishops such as ours which were more rare then black swann it is very ridiculous But to discend vnto the particulars it is already shewed how Sect. 3. much he deceiveth himselfe his reader in fancying the function of Bishops such as ours to be described in his text under the name of the angels of the 7. Churches And all may see how guilty he is of a plaine contradiction in restrayning now unto Bishops alone A plaine contradiction in the Doct. the same title which in his other sermon he extended to all Ministers viz. to be called not onely Angels but also angels of the churches The same contradiction he incurreth if he will appropriate vnto Bishops those wordes Heb. 13. 17. obey your rulers seing he applyed them in his former sermon unto all Ministers To say as now he doth that all Pastors are Rulers of their severall flocks but the Bishops are Rulers both of them and their flocks doth rather weaken theÌ„ strengthen his present purpose For what one word in all the circumstances of that text can lead any man to think that the Apostle doth there bind the Pastors of several flocks to yeeld obedience unto a Diocesan Bishop set over them Doth not the contrary rather appeare very clearely But I will let him see his errour not in my owne words but in the words of one of our learnedest Bishops from whom the Doctor received so good satisfaction the Bishop of Winchester in his confutation of the Seminaries pa. 164. 165. in quarto printed at Oxford First touching the translation of the word egoumenois he sayth it signifieth leaders as well as rulers and in this place standeth rather for Leaders then Rulers but S. Paul using the same word in this very chapter ver 7. remember the Leaders addeth beholding the end of their conversation imitate their faith that is follow their stepps If we must mark and IÌ„mitate them theÌ„ surely must they be Leaders to direct us and not Rulers to Master vs. Secondly he sayth that by tois egoumenois whether it be leaders or Rulers are meant all christian and godly preachers and that this is S. Pauls owne construction Remember your Leaders which have spoken to you the word of God we be not bound to their fancies or pleasure but onely to the word of truth proceding out of their mouths c. But the D. to justifie his vnderstaÌ„ding of this text saith that in
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
who is your Teacher he doth affirm that Epaphroditus is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians vers 25. because he was their Byshop or Pastor In like manner touching Ambrose how loosely dooth he reason Ambrose saith that the Apostles mencioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephe. 4. 11. were Bishops Ergo in saying that Epaphroditus was by the Apostle made their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. he meaneth that he was affixed and limited to the Episcopall charge of that Church in like sort as the later Bishops were and for that cause called their Apostle Nay rather it followeth from Ambrose his wordes that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinitie with the Apostleship I meane in this that he had onely a temporarie overfight of that Church as the Apostle himself had before during the time of his aboade there And this hath confirmation from the wordes that follow which the Doctor was wise enough to conceale his whole speach is this Erat enim corum Apostolus ab Apostclo factus dum illum in exhortationerie eorum mittebat ad eos quia vir bonus erat desiderabatur a plebe Where note he was desyred of the people not because he was their Pastor but because he was a good man and was now sent vnto them by the Apostle and so made their Apostle for their present instruction or exhortation not to take perpetuall charge of them for as afterwardes he saith in vers 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss he was necessary for many other Churches as one that yeilded solisium er auxilium both comfort help to the Apostle By all which it appeareth that in Ambrose his judgment Epaphroditus by his ministeriall function was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop There remaineth Theodoret whose wordes make the fairest shewe for him yet are they not so full as he pretēdeth for that which he saith in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed c. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist seing they had a temporary charge of some one or moe Churches committed to them Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properlie episcopall and such as now is controverted Yea the Doctor himself doth so vnderstand Theodoret when he faith in 1. Tim. 3. that those who now are called Bishops were at the first called Apostles and that thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the philippians c. For he gathereth from Theodorets testimony conferred with some wordes of Ierom Def. lib. 4. pag. 72. that the first Bishops so reputed were Apostles and Apostolike men that is Evangelists and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remained none were chosen our of the Presbyters to the office of a Bishop whence it followeth that Epaphroditus in Theodorets judgment is called an Apostle not because he was a Bishop but for that he was an Apostolicall man or Evangelist Wherefore it is but a vayn bragge of Mr. D. 1. to conclude as he doth pag 67. that all the Authors which he cited give testimony with his exposition And 2. to ask with what face his Refut could deny it For although he hath face enough to affirme whatever may seem to advantage his cause and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed yet the truth will discover it selfe to them that with an upright eye search after it to their shame that seek to deface it Now whereas he addeth that his authors before mencioned Sect. 7. ad sect 13. p. 68. doe all goe against the interpretation of the word Apostolos which his Refuter bringeth he saith no more but what his Refuter had before acknowledged His Authors were produced not to confute his Refurer before he sawe his answer but to justify his owne collectiō from the words of the Apostle which since he cannot effect he shal doe best not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions especially seing in such a case as this when Interpreters doe varie about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture the judgment of the indifferent Reader must be swayed neyther by the number yeares or learning of the parties but by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they doe best accordeth with the circumstances of the text it selfe and with the use of the word or phrase in other places Wherefore the Refuter though he mencion the names of some which imbrace his interpretation yet grounded himselfe rather upon the probability of reason then the creditt of their testimony Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himselfe to reject so lightly as he doth the judgment of Mr. Beza and Piscator in saying they are asmuch parties in this cause as the refuter himselfe For if it be true he hath wronged Beza in affirming that in the question of Diocesan Churches and Bishops he goeth with him and against his Refuter Lib. 1. pag. 48. and Lib. 2. pag. 140. Lib. 3. pag. 11. and that he is so farr from condemning the A contradiction government of Bishops reteyned in other reformed Churches that he wished withall his hart that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva the episcopall government had bin reteyned for so he sayth Lib 4. pag. 161. 166. but it is no strange thing to the observant reader to find the Doctor very often in this contradicting fault amongst others Let us see what he answereth to the reasons that were delivered to prove the Refuters construction the more likely viz. that Epaphroditus is called their Apostle or rather Messenger because he was sent by the Philippians in their stead to minister unto the Apostle Paul The first reason hath two braunches 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. doe shewe how he ministred unto him 2. the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthes benevolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuitie frō the Philippiās to Paul c. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians 2. but he saith it is vnlikely that eyther he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard And why unlikely is not that interpretation mostly likely which best agreeth both with the parts of the same scripture and with the vse of the word or phrase in other places And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct Let them be compared together and sentence given with the truth First touching Epaphroditus that he was their Imbassadour or Messenger to the Apostle Paul the evidence alleadged by the Refuter from the same verse and cap. 1. 18. is so pregnant that the Doct. cannot deny it yea he
to cure when he thus reasoneth Those two that accōpanied Titus were sent by Paul who had vndertaken to procure some releif for the poore brethrē in Iudea Ergo they were not sent by the Churches whose contribution they carried He falsly conceiveth that Paul was as high-minded as some Bishops now are who scorn to associate any others with them in the choise of such as they send abroad For we learn from Pauls owne mouth that he was of an other mind he saith expressly that one of those two whom he sent was chosen by the Churches to be his fellow-traveiler to convey their benevolence 2. Cor. 8. 19. and his foredealing with the Corinthes sheweth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he meant not to send any other with theire contribution then such as they should choose and approve by letters The Refuters first reason being thus recovered out of the Doct. handes and mainteyned against all his exceptions his interpretation Sect. 9 ad sect 14. pa. 69. will stand firme enough as having both the circumstances of the text it self and the use of the like phrase also here to justifie it although his 2. reason should be found too weake Notwithstanding I doubt not but to make it good if the Refuter may have that favour which reason alloweth to every one I meane to interprete his owne meaning so as the wordes may well beare without wresting or contradiction to any parte of his writing The reason is this Is standeth not so well with the propertie of the word apostolos which signifieth a Messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to Whome as his from whom he is sent Against this the Doctor directly opposeth not for though he say that in the Scripture the word is used with reference aswell to the parties to whome as to the partie from whom the Apostle is sent yet the truth thereof argueth not the Refuters assertion to be false For he shall bewray his own ignorance or want of judgment if he presse this for a good cōsequence The word is used with reference aswell to the one as to the other Therefore both phrases of speach doe equally and alike agree with the proper signification of the word For if both phrases have a like agremēt with the proper signisicatiō of the word then in both the word may be with a like fitnes translated Messenger but that were absurd for though wee may fitly lay of Paul or any other called the Apostle of Christ 1. Cor. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 1. 1. Iude verse 17. that he was the Messenger or Embassadour of Christ yet were it a very improper and unfitting phrase of speach to say of Paul that he vvas the Messenger or Embassadour of Gentiles when he intitleth himselfe ethnoon apostolos the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. To speak properly he was not their Apostle but Christs vocatus a Christo principaliter vt esset Doctor gentium as Piscator observeth upon those words and himself sheweth 1. Tim. 2. 2. 7 2. Tim. 1. 11. Where it is sayd that unto Paul was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision Gal. 2. 7. May we with as good regard to the proper sense of the word evaggelion gospell call his gospell the uncircumcised Iewes gospel as we may call it Gods gospel from those words Rom. 1. 1. where he saith he was separated to preach the gospel of God It is cleare that in these places Rom. 11. 13. and Gal. 2. 7. as also in the verse following where Peter is sayd to have the Apostleship of the circumcision the genetive case must be interpreted eyther by the dative as in the first I am the Apostle of the Gentiles that is to or for the Gentiles as he sayth 1. Cor 9. 2. if I be not an Apostle allois unto others yet doubtlesse I am humin to you or else by an equivalent phrase as the Apostle interpreteth himself Gal. 2 8. 9. Q. d. to me was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision to Peter the gospel or Apostleship of the circumcision that is to say to me was cōmitted the dispensation of the gospell cis ta ethne vnto or towards the Gentiles and to Peter the like dispensation or Apostleship eis ten peritomen towards the circumcision What cause then hath the Doctor to insult over the Refuter saying that whiles he goeth about to discover his ignorance as if he knew not the signification of the word apostolos as well as he he bewrayeth his owne For wherein bewrayeth he is own ignorance Perhaps in saying that among all the titles that Paul taketh to himselfe to magnify his office he never calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle taking the word in his proper signification of a Messenger or Imbassadour For the Doct. himself confesseth that when the Apostle calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. he useth the word with reference unto the parties to whom he was sent which argueth the Apostles meaning to be this not that he was their Messenger but that he was Christs Imbassadour sent to them If he shall yet urge that those words may warrant him to say that Paul was their Apostle I graunt it but withall he must knowe that in so saying the word Apostle doth not now signify a Messenger but a Teacher or Minister of the word holding that peculiar function which the 12 Apostles enjoyed If the Doctor know not this it is grosse ignorance in him if knowing it he shall yet indeavour to justify his cēsure given forth against the Refut it wil be enough in the judgement of the indifferent reader I doubt not to prove himself to be but a wrangler Having sayd enough in defence of the Refuter for both his reasons Sect. 10. ad pag. 70. we are now to take notice how that which the Doct. addeth to vnderpropp his owne Assertion is too feeble to stay it up from falling Even as saith he Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all Ministers sent of God but used with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the. 7. Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same Churches so Apostoli absolutely used is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall Rom. 16. 7. though kat hexochen given to Paul Barnabas Acts. 14. 14. and the 12. Apostles but used with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops Here the Doctor deserveth to be answered with his owne words viz. that while he goeth about to discover his Refuters ignorance as though
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-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.
were tainted with partiall humors And though he professed he would not take upon him to speake so hardly yet the Doctor will needs have his reader beleeve that the Refuter sought to discredite all historians in generall by the mentioning of that speach Therefore to free his owne witnesses from all suspition in this case he saith the most learned Bishop truely noted what might be obiected against the historians of later times But if the Doctor uprightly weigh the intent scope of that learned Bishop he may perhaps discerne that Eusebius his ancientest witnes is not without the compasse of those stories which he speaketh of And if he in his learning judged it for that reason more safe to rely upon the authenticall records of the Conncels Fathers that were eye and eare-witnesses of the thinges which he urgeth had not the Refuter as good reason to desire also to see Iames his ordination justified by the testimonie of S. Luke or some other Apostolike man that lived in that age 2. But Eusebius as the D. supposeth is free from that imputation and much more Hegesippus Clemens And is not Ierom as free as any other belike the Doctor hath him in suspition though he be all in all in the evidence that he produceth as appeareth serm pa. 66. and 69. As for Eusebius how free soever the Doctor judgeth him in this case his testimonie standing him in good stead I suppose he wil not discharge him of that crime of framing matters to his own conceit in applying that which Philo wrote of the Iewish Essees to Christian Monks lib. 2. Hist eccles cap. 17. whereof the reader may see Reynodes and Harts Conf. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. and 492. 3. Neither is it a cavill as Mr D. in his quarrelling spirite is pleased to censure it to say that those Fathers Euseb Ierom c. finding the name of Bishop continued in the successioÌ„ of one Pastor after an other iudged of those that first governed those Churches according to them that lived in their times For if they speake not improperly which the Doct. will not admit for then he must yeeld himself to have played the sophister what else should move them to ascribe unto Peter the place of a Bishop at Rome and that for 25. yeares coÌ„tinuance see Euseb in Chron. and Ierom de script eccles in Petro unlesse the Doctor had rather say of them as one of great reading doth of Eusebius in this point D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 6. divis 3. pag. 260 viz. that the same befell them which Thucidides Hist lib. 1. saith of the old stories of the GraeciaÌ„s Men receive reports of things done before their time from hand to hand one froÌ„ an other abasanistons without examining trying of theÌ„ So som through a desire as it is likely of honouring the sees of Antioche and Rome and hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both devised that he sate 7. yeares in the one and 25. in the other Eusebius fell upon it and wrote it in his Chronicle but if he had tried it by the touchstone of the scripture he would have cast it off as counteryfeyt Thus saith Doctor Reynolds of that matter in like manner we may say without any wrong to Eusebius since we have before disproved by good warrant from the scripture that report of his concerning Iames his continuance for 30. yeares the Bishop of Ierusalem that his desire to magnify that See among others made him also too câ—edulous in countenancing those speaches of Egesippus and Clemens which by due examination might have bene found unworthy of any credit For what probabilitie is there in Egesippus his tale apud Euseb Sect. 3. lib. 2. cap. 22. concerning Iames that he was a Nazarite from his mothers wombe and never drunk wine to grave the tale he should have excepted the times of partaking in the sacrament of the Lords supper Moreover that he absteyned from eating of flesh from shaving his head and from annointing his body with oyle who would not take him by this description for a patterne of Monkish perfection rather then of the episcopall function specially seing it is added he was wont to enter alone into the temple and spent there dayly so much time in prayer that his knees Cameli instar tuberculis contractis obduruerunt Belike he forgat his Maisters doctrine Mat. 6. 6. Ioh. 4. 21. But the best is yet behind Huic vni licebat in sancta sanctorum ingredi c he only had libertie to enter into the most holy place for he used not any woollen garments but onely lynnen if this be true then as he joyned a Bishoprick to his Apostleship so he had the high-preisthood vnited to his Bishoprick unlesse we may think the use of lynnen garmeÌ„ts to be a lawfull dispensation for any man that was no Preist to usurp the high-priests office in entring into the most holy place 2. Now to come unto Clemens how fabulous I might say blasphemous is that which Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 1. reporteth out of him that Christ after his resurrection gave knowledge unto Iames the iust to Iohn and Peter and they delivered the same to the rest of the Apostles For this tale is flatt repugnant as Doctor Reynolds obserserveth Conf. cap. 3. divis 2. p. 163 to the word of truth wherein we read that knowledge the holy Ghost was given by Christ to all the Apostles joyntly See we Luk. 24. 45. Iohn 14. 26. and 16. 13. Act. 2. 4. and 4. 31. 2. Moreover in this fable he contradicteth himselfe like as lyars are wont to doe forgetting what he had said before to wit that it was an other Iames not Iames the just unto whom togither with Peter and Iohn Christ gave preheminence above the rest of the Apostles 3. And since wee are now in hand with the reputation of Clemens and Egesippus the first reporters of Iames his Bishoprick from whom eyther at the first or secoÌ„d hand the rest of the witnesses have received their warrant it shall not be amisse hither to drawe the examination of the Doctors defence pag. 60. of their credit against the moderate censure of the Refut answ pag. 133. How unsavorie a speach saith he is that of Clement recorded by Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 1. that Peter Iames and Iohn would not arrogate to themselves that glorie to have the Bishoprick of Ierusalem but chose Iames the Iust unto it Why was it a greater glorie then their Apostleship or can there be any lawfull calling in the Church too high for them whom Christ vouchsafeth to make his Apostles yea cheefe among the Apostles Such speaches as this in the Fathers are like black wenns in a faire body that have more need of a cover for excuse then of setting out for commendation The like may be sayd of those he calleth good Authors Eusebius and Egesippus who alleadge so carnall a respect of the Apostles in preferring Iames
Fathers he replieth neyther shifts nor against the fathers but true defenses in favour of them For the Apostles being sent to preach the gospel to all nations made their chiefe aboad in greatest cities of most resort as at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Rome c. now because this residence in the mother cities was afterwards supplyed by the Bishops of them therefore were the fathers wont to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities wherein they aboad most which they might the rather for that the word episcope in their speach to wit Euseb â—emens betokeneth in a generall meaning any charge or oversight of others c. It is plain then that the Doctor in his former wordes giveth his tongue and pen libertie to run out beyond the bounds of truth 1. In carrying unto his witnesses to impugne their testimonie that which was intended onely to contradict his owne position 2. in construing that to be meant of an absolute denyall of the name of a Bishop which was spoken of the episcopall function properly taken for that which now beareth the name The reader therefore is to be advertised that although the Refuter indeavoured by some exceptioÌ„s against the Doctors witnesses to shew that their testimony is too weak to bind the conscience to enterteyne their report for an undoubted truth yet he is so farre from giving them all the lie as the Doctor not very christianly chargeth him that treading in the stepps of many other worthies he salveth their credit by distinguishing the speciall proper signification of the word Bishop from that which is more generall and improper For properly in the phrase of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3 1 2. Tit. 1. 7. it noteth him who by his function is limited and fastened to the perpetuall oversight of one particular Church and now in coÌ„mon speach it is appropriated to the function of a Diocesan Prelate but in a more generall construction as the Apostleship is called episcope a Bishoplike-charge so the Apostles were by the Fathers termed Bishops And some of them as Iames and Peter vvere sAid to be Bishops of thosE Churches wherein they were reported to have made their longest residence And that the Fathers doe use the word in this latter construction the Refuter judgeth it most probable becausE he is perswaded not without good reason that in the former signification Iames being an Apostle neyther was nor could be a Bishop So then if the Doctor who holdeth Iames to be properly a Bishop yea a diocesan Bishop in function like to ours will justifie his assertion by those fathers whom he alleadgeth ought he not to haue demonstrated that which he wholly overpasseth to wit that the Fathers which entitle Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem meane thereby that he had proper function of a diocesan Bishop But he thinketh it sufficient to remove the grounds which his Refut layd to make good his deniall let us therefore come to it The Refuter saith that Iames neyther was nor could be properly Sect. 7. a Bishop seing he continued in the Apostleship a distinct office from it The D. answereth that none of his authors were so simple but they knew aswell as the refuter that Iames was an Apostle neyther knew they any reason which the Res would seem to know why his being an Apostle should binder his being the Apostle or angel of that Church for so were the Bps at the first called Yet with his leave some of theÌ„ were so simple that they thought this Iames called by Paul the L. brother was the sonne of Ioseph by an other wife before he was espoused to Marie the mother of Christ see Euseb lib. 2. ca. 1. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. col 579. vbi dicitur Epiphanius idem sentire which is in effect to denie him to be one of the 12. whom Christ selected to that office of Apostleship For among them there were onely two called by the name of Iames the one the sonne of Zebedaeus and brother of Iohn Math. 10. 2. Mark 3. 17. the other was the sonne of Alpheus Mat. 10. 3. Mark 3. 18. and brother to that Iudas which was also called Lebbaeus or Thaddâ—us Luk. 6. 15. 16. Act. 1. 13. with Mat. 10. 3. 4. and Mark 3. 17. Ambrose also was so simple that he accounteth this Iames Comment in Gal. 1. 19. â—ot onely the sonne of Ioseph but also one of those brethren of Christ which continued in unbeleife Ioh. 7. 5. after the 12 were daily attendants on thei Maister 2. Neyther were they all unacquainted with that difference between the functions of an Apostle a Bishop properlie so called which the Refuter maketh his reason for the deniall of the later office to them that bare the former Augustin distinguisheth the Apostleship from a Bishoprick as a greater office from the lesser Quis nâ—scii illum apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui preferendum de Baptis lib. 2. ca. 1. this sentence of Augustin is alleadged by D. Sutcl De pont Rom. lib. 2. ca. 10. pag. 140 143. to strengthen this consequence that if Peter were an Apostle then he could not be a Bishop or Pastor proprie loquendo Epiphanius an other of the Doctors witnesses is more playne for this purpose For having said that Peter and Paul were both Apostles and Bishops in Rome he saith withall Haeres 27. that there were other Bishops whiles they lived because the Apostles went often into other countries to preach Christ and the City of Rome might not be without a Bishop What can be more playne to shewe that since the Office of an Apostle requireth traveile abroad into diverse countries to preach Christ and the office of a Bishop bindeth to attendance at home on that one Church wherof he is made an overseer therefore and Apostle cannot be properly a Bishop Let me therefore here say to the Doctor as Doctor Reynolds did to Mr. Hart Conf. cap. 6. Divis 3. ad finem you may learne by the Fathers themselves that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that citie they meant it in a generall sort and signification because he attended that Church for a time and supplied that roome in preaching of the gospell which Bishops afterwards did And if this satisfy not the Doctor let him goe roundly to work and prove by other parts of their writings who are his witnesses in this question of Iames his Bishoprick that Iames his coÌ„tinuance in the function of an Apostle was no hindrance to his receiving and holding of a Bishopr properly so called In the mean while let us passe on to the new writers which concurre with the Refuter not onely in denying Iames to be properly a Bishop but also in that more generall assertion that an Apostle could not be a Bishop properly Chapt. 7. Concerning the new writers that ioyne with the Refuter in denying Iames to be a Bishop properly and whatsoever else the D. hath for the upholding of Iames his supposed
Bishoprick COncerning the new writers the Doct. would never so lightly Sect. 1. ad sect 5. pag. 53. 54. sect 6. p. 55. esteme their judgment as he doth were he not highly conceited of himself For what protestant is there of any worth that honoreth not the very name of Doct. Whitakers Bishop Iewell and Doctor Reynolds I might send him to many others which in generall deny any of the Apostles to be properly Bishops so judge also of Iames in speicall Calvin in Acts. 21. 18. Lubbert de Papa lib. 3. cap. -5 pag. 209. and Lib. 4. ca. 5. pag. 296. Chamier de pont Lib. 3. pag. 450. and 453. cum multis alijs But the Doct. perhaps will more regard some of his owne society such as Doct. Sutlif who de pont lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 152. affirmeth the same of Iames that he doth of Peter and Iohn scz that he was not properly a Bishop And cap 6. pa. 114. to Bellarmin and Turrecrem urging the Fathers to shew that Iames was ordeyned Bishops of Ierusalem he answereth non aliud per ordinationem intelligitur quam quod Episcopi partes peregerit et ex reliquorum Apostolorum consensu Hierosolymis mansit And cap. 8. pag. 130. he directly contradicteth our Doctor in saying that his ordination they spake of was not a conferring of jurisdiction to him seing he had it by his Apostolicall office The which may serve to stop the Doct. mouth touching the Fathers which he challengeth to be whollie for him in this question For till he hath proved that Iames was properly a Bishop and that the Fathers ascribed to him the proper function of a Diocesan Bishop in calling him the Bishop of IerusaleÌ„ he shall but prove himself a trifler to say as now he doth that without any disparagement to these worthy wryters the affirmation of so many ancients in a matter of fact agreable also with the scriptures and proved by the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem c. may overweigh their deniall As for the scriptures I haue shewed they are rather against it then with it and in a like matter of fact scz Peters Bishoprick at Rome the like evidence may be produced neyther doth the Doctor hold it any haynous crime in himselfe by his deniall to overweigh their testimonie 2. Notwithstanding it is not the opinioin of Doctor Whitakers or any other which the Refuter coÌ„mendeth to the D. consideration but the reasons rather whereby their judgement is swayed For as he saith answ pag. 132. the same arguments that prove Peter might not be Bishop of Rome are as effectuall to conclude that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem seing they were both equall in the Apostleship And what though it were so as the Doctor saith sect 6. pag. 55. that 6. of those 8. arguments which Doctor Whitakers de pont quest 3. ca. 3. sect 9. urgeth be such as the Refuter with all his sophristâ—ie cannot with any shew of truth apply to S. Iames If the other two be such as the Doctor withall his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth exeÌ„pt S. Iames from their reach is it not sufficient to give him the foile in the maine controversie now in hand Yet there are some things avouched for the removall of those 6. arguments which are already sufficiently disproved as that he saith the storie of the Acts doth testify S. Iames his standing residence at Ierusalem and that his precedence in honour before Peter and Iohn is noted Gal. 2. 9. And somethings doe rather make against him then for him For if he were the Apostle of the Iewes at large as may be truely gathered from his epistle written to the 12. tribes that were scattered abroad Iam. 1. 1. and that compact made between paul and him with Peter and Iohn Gal. 2 9. how was he properly the Bp. of the Ch at IerusaleÌ„ For as it was fit that Peter should have professed the Gentiles to be his charge if he had bene their Bishop at Rome so it had bene no lesse fit that Iames should have professed himselfe to have bene the Apostle or Bishop of the Iewes in Ierusalem or at least in Iurie if he had bene by Peter and Iohn confined to that one Church or Province Againe if he can for his advantage I meane to justify his denyall of Peters Bishoprick at Rome carry the words of all the Fathers that say he was Bishop there to this meaning that he was one of the founders of that Church may not his Refuter in defence of his deniall of Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalem take the like libertie in construing the Doctors witnesses to this meaning that he taught and governed that Church for the time of his residence there If the Refuter in denying the later give all the D. witnesses the lie shall the Doctor goe free from the like blame of giving the lie to many ancient Fathers in denying the former Let him therfore take home his owne words cap. 2. pag. 46. See see homo homini quantum praestat that is strong in his hand which were weak in an others the truth belike is so partiall that it is true onely in his mouth But joyn we now in issue with him in the triall of the 2. first reasons whether they will not conclude with the Refuter that Iames Sect. 2. ad sect 7. pag 57. was not properly the Bishop of Ierusalem The reason is thus framed by the Doctor Bishops have certeine churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certeyne churches assigned to them Ergo the Apostles were not Bishops But because he hath somewhat abated the force of the argument in both the premisses I will deliver them in D. Whitakers owne words Episcopus vnum tantum gregem habet quem paescat ut suum At Apostoli nullam certam provinciam habuerunt neque vllas certas ecclesias quibus alligatâ— sunt The Bishop hath but one only flock which he is to feed as his owne The Apostles had no certeine province nor any certeyne Churches whereto they were tied The medius terminus wherein the strength of the argument lieth is not simply to haue a Church or Churches assigned but to haue one onely flock and to be bound unto it to feed it as his owne the reason ergo is thus to be contrived Every Bishop hath one onely flocke whereunto be is bound to feed it as his owne But none of the Apostles had one onely flock whereunto he was bound to feed it as his owne Ergo none of the Apostles was a Bishop The Assumption which was thought most likely to be impugned was fortified with a double Bulwark 1. omnibus Apostolis dixit Christus Ite in vniversum mundum et illi memores legationis suae ita fecerunt 2. Qut scirent sibi spiritus sancti ductuÌ„ semper sequendum esse quocunqueâ—os ipse vocaret eo continuâ— profiscendium ij sedes suas certis quibusdam locis affixas habuissent nunquam
that which he seemeth to applaud in Zanchy on Ephes 4. 11. pag. 95 viz. that the former sort of Evangelists and the Prophets also did governe the Churches nowe one then an other For how should Churches be governed by them if they had not the like power and authoritie for government that Timothy and Titus had From the Doctors reasoning in defense of his owne assertion Sect. 7. ad pag. 96. let us passe to the answer yeelded by him to his Refut who argued in this manner Timothy and Titus were to exercise their Evangelisticall function in those places For Paul biddeth Timothy after he had bin at Ephesus to do the worke of an Evangelist Ergo they receyved no new authority at their placing there which they had not before neyther laid they aside but reteyned still their Evangelisticall function The Doctor denyeth the Antecedent and contradicteth the proofe thereof Whereas Paul willeth Timothy to doe the work of an Evangelist what is thee saith he but evaggelizesthai to preach the Gospell diligently c. the word Evangelist being there taken in the generall sense Here we are put to prove that the name of an Evangelist is here taken not in a generall sense but in a more speciall for the function of an Evangelist which may appeare by these circumstances 1. First the very phrase it selfe to doe the work of an Evangelist cannot in reason be cōstrued otherwise then q. d. to doe the work which an Evangelist is bound vnto by his particular function like as in the like phrase the work of an Apostle the signes of an Apostle the commandement of the Apostles and the foundation of the Apostles 1. Cor. 1. 9. 2. Cor. 12. 12. 2. Pet. 3. 2. Ephes 2. 20. the name of an Apostle is specially taken for the office of Apostleship 2. It is the Apostles purpose see Mr. Calvin upon the place by the honorable mencion of his office to provoke him to use the greater diligence therein thereby to gaine the greater reverence among those that should behold his zeale and faithfulnes in his calling But the speciall function of an Evangelist serveth better then the generall name of a preacher of the Gospel both to animate him vnto watchfulnes and to procure him authority amongst those with whom he conversed 3. Moreover since it is knowne and confessed that he was once an Evangelist if either he had ceased so to be or if he had borne at this time a more honorable office as the Doctor supposeth in all likelihood the Apostle would have givē him some other title least others should be led into an error by this name 4. Lastly if we looke to the use of the word evaggelistes in other places we shal find it no where carried in the Apostolicall writings to a generall signification as the Doctor fancieth but rather is appropriated to that extraordinary function of Evangelists which then was knowne by that name as Act. 21. 8. Eph. 4. 11. Wherefore since it is a firme vndoubted axiome in divinity that we are to receive that interpretation of any word or phrase which best accordeth with the scope of the place it selfe and the use of the like in other places I will hold it for a truth not to be gainsayd that the word Evangelist ought here to be takē not in the generall sense but for the speciall function of an Evangelist knowne by that name We now come to Zuinglius his testimonie alleadged by the D. Sect. 8. ad pag. 97. to prove that their being Evangelists did not hinder them frō being Bishops His case is very desperate it seemeth since he is drivē to crave releefe of one so well knowne to be a professed enemie to to the Lordly jurisdiction of Diocesan and Provincial Prelates But what Zuinglius forsooth that Philip the Evangelist who had bene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea and Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and divers of the Apostles when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certayne Churches Which saith the D may be much more verified of the Evangelists In deed if this last glose had bene Zuinglius his words his evidence had bene farre sitter for his purpose then it is and yet would it haue done him no service till he had proved that Timothy and Titus had given over their Evangelisticall traveiles which he will never be able to effect while he breatheth But now all that Zuinglius speaketh for him is such as if he rightly conceive his meaning he will be very loth I suppose to subscribe unto For he is so farre from affirming as the Doctor intimateth to his reader that Philip after his Deaconship was first an Evangelist and after that became the Bishop of Caesarea that he rather citeth those words of Luke Act. 21. 8. where he is called an Evangelist to prove him to be a Bishop for these are his wordes De ecclesiastica sive ratione et officio cōcionandi fol. 48. Quo in loco illud nobis primo notandum est Philippum hunc Caesariensis ecclesiae Evangelistam episcopum vel pastorem fuisse c. In which place that is first of us to be noted that this Philip the Evangelist of the Church of Samaria was Bishop or Pastor c. whereby it appeareth as also by the words afeerwards remembred by the Doctor constat iuxta Pauli sententiam idem esse episcopi et Evangelistae officium and by many other speaches in that treatise that he confoundeth the names of Evangelistes Prophets Pastors in one office But let us see how the D. removeth the Refuters answere First he saith that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of histories other ancient writers who take not the name of Bishop properly when they give it to Iames or any other Apostle as Doct. Whitak hath rightly observed The Doct. reasoneth from that which is no cause c. deceitfully de pontif rom pag. 303 the Doctor replyeth 〈◊〉 that if Zuinglius spake according to the phrase of histories c. then and therefore he spake according to the truth from whence I inferre that if Zuinglius have spoken the truth in this matter then the Doctor is in an errour and reasoneth deceitfully a non causa pro causa For whereas he would perswade that Iames was properly a Bishop because the Fathers so intititle him Zuinglius saith expresly of Iames Hunc Hieron et omnes simul vetusti patres Hierosol episcopum nominant non aliam ab causam quam quod in ea urbe sedem fixam posuisset Ierom and with him all the ancient farhers call him Bishop of Ierusalem for no other cause but for that he had made his fixed aboad in that citie 2. The Doctor asketh Although it be true that the Apostles could not properly be called Bishops what is that to Timothy and Titus whom he hath proved to have bene particularly assigned to the Ch of Ephesus Creet where