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
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
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
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