Chap. 1. Wherein the reason moving the Refuter to an­swer the D. sermon is made good, and the Ref: freed from diverse vntruthes charged upon him by the D.

Sect. 1. p. 1. THe way of some is perverted and strange; but of the pure­man his work is right, sayth Salomon Prov. 21. 8. Now which part of the proverb, belongeth to the Refuter in his preface, and which to the Doctor in his answer to it; let the indifferent reader (se­cundum allegata et probata) judge, in the feare of God, and spare not. And first as the Refuters eye 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 cōming 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 [Page 2] 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 representatiō of the Matachin [...], 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 ex­aminatiō 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 [Page] [...]njust slaunder, & that he himself hath delivered diverse untruthes The D. first [...]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 jur [...], 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 sermō 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 God [...] lawe. Why then dooth he not directly contradict this assertiō, 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 sērmon 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 explicatiō and applicatiō wherof, his whole sermon is spent) set dovvn by himself (pag 94) in these very words, sc. that the episco­pall [Page 4] function, is of apostolical & divine institutiō? 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 pre [...]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. sermō 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 fai [...]h he did directly and ex­presly disclay [...] 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 cō ­fess, that he hath contradicted himself, and in one page of his ser­mon expressly disclaymed, what he directly proclaymed, & labou­red [Page] to prove in the principall scope of the whole. But is it not a The D [...] 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 shalbe 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 evidēt 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 [Page 6] 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 can cleare him of professing an untruth in so speaking. In deed in the later part of his marginal annotati­on, he telleth us, that in respect of perpetuitie, difference is made by some, betwixt those things that be divini, and those which be apostolici iu­ris, the former in their understanding, being generally perpetually and immu­tably necessary, the later not so. But dooth he make himself one of those some that make that difference, and is of that vnderstanding? it seemeth no, by the words, by some in their understanding; yea it appea­reth no, by the words in the body of the book, (even right against them where he sayth, ther is small difference as he vnderstandeth divine in­stitution; because what the Apostles did in the execution of their apostolicall function, they did it by the direction of the holy Ghost; so that they might true­ly saye of their ordinances, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us Act. 15. 28. &c. For though the D. should (now upon his later thoughts) put a difference between an ordinance divine or apostolicall, & jus divinum or apostolicum; yet the direction of the Ho. Ghost, which accōpanied the Apostles in the execution, wil as strongly conclude [Page 7] every jus apostolicū to be jus divinū, as it will, every ordinace apo­stolicall, to be a divine ordināce. Wherfore it wil be an harder mat­ter then the D. supposeth, to work his marginall note so to accord with thetext of his book, that he may deduce frō thence such a cō ­clusiō as here he tendreth, when he saith, that he professeth pag 92 not to [...] the calling of Bishops to be divini juris, as intending therby a gene­rall and perpetual necessitie thereof. Wherefore not being able to justify his profession by any words of his own, he is gladd to crave relief of his Refut: and to catch at some words of his, (pag 90 of his an­swer) saying, that his refut: acknowledgeth as much; for answer where­unto. 1. I demand of the Doctor (in his own words) with what eye he beheld this acknowledgment in his refuter? he saith in deed, that the D. maketh the calling of Bishops no further of divine institution, thē as being ordeyned of the Apostles it proceeded from God, without implying thereby any necessary perpetu [...]y therof. In which words, if the Refuter doth acknowledge that [...]he D. doth not mainteyn the calling of Bishops to be divini juris, as intending thereby the necssity and perpetuitie aforesayd; doubtless the same eye, which discerneth this acknowledgment, doth also no lesse clearely perceive, that the Doctor mainteyneth their calling to be divini juris so farr (though not any further then) as he holdeth it to be a divine institution, or an ordinance of God. And from hence we may safe­ly gather, that he plainly professeth the episcopall function to be divini juris, as intending therby that the first iustitution therof proceeded from God, and not from mens divise, as other humane ordinances. And therfore once agayn, I may conclude that the D. maliciously slandereth his Refut: in charging him with an untruth saying, that he saw his sermon tended directly to prove that the calling of Bishops is to be holden iure divino, by divine right and not as an humane or­dinance.

2. Moreover, since the Dr. is driven for his owne advantage, both here and in many other parts of his defence (Answer, to the preface pag. 7. libr. 3. pag. 57. libr 4. pag. 140. 145.) to shroud himself vnder this his Ref: acknowledgment; with what conscience can he requite his kindenes so ill, as he doth, with this false impu­tation A third un truth of the D. often re­peated. (so often repeated lib. 3. pag. 22. 58. lib. 4. pag. 140. 145.) namely, that his Ref. chargeth him with saying, that the episcopall function it divini juris or to be holden jure divin [...], as being generally necessary and per­petually [Page] imposed on all Churches, so as none other for me of goverment may l [...] [...]y case be admitted. For albeit he sometimes putteth the D. in mind of such speaches in his sermon, as doe urge the perpetuity or ne­cessity of the episcopall function; yet he no where affirmeth that his sermon tendeth directly to prove that the calling of L. Bishops is held by such a divine right as here he disclaymeth. It is enough to salve the Ref: assertion from an vntruth, and to returne back the vntruth into the Ds. bosome, if it appeare (as it doth sufficiently) that the D. holdeth it any way to be divini juris, and not an hu­mane ordinance onely.

4. But if the D. meaning (in his profession before sett downe) be to shew, that he holdeth the episcopall function to be an apos­tolicall and so a divine ordinance, because the Apostles who or­deyned it, were therein directed by the holy Ghost, and yet deny­eth it to be divini juris, because it is not generally perpetually and immutably necessary, as though there could be no true Church without it: this construction of his words doth rather increase, then diminish his fault. For as it is false to say that he professeth any such distinction in that 92. pag. of his sermon; so it is both false and slanderous to say that his Ref. acknowledgeth any such thing in that 90. page of his answere. And if he doe (in his judgment) al­lowe of that distinction, which he sayth (in his margin) some doe putt between jus apostolicum and divinum, he bewrayeth therein no small weaknes of judgement. Moreover it is an error in divi­nity, either to think that every ordinance which is juris divini, is so generally and perpetually necessarie, that no true Church can be without it: or to deny such an ordinance to be juris divini, as is of so generall and perpetuall an use, as he esteemeth and affirmeth the episcopall function to be in divers pages of his sermon. pag. 32. 35. 72. 74. 75. & 79. (put togither by the Ref. pag. 158. of his answere,) where he teacheth cleane contrary to his profession here. But for the better clearing of the state of the question, and shewing the vanitie and vnsoundnes of this distinction; I referr-the reader to the 3. 4. & 5. Chapters of the second book; here, I doubt not, enough being said to free the Ref. from the guilt of that vntruth, Sect. 3. pag 3 of the Ref. & pag 2. of the D. which the D. here chargeth upon him.

The second vntruth putt upon the Ref. by the D. he laieth downe thus; 2. where I spake (saith he) of the substance of their calling, with [Page] [...] eye did he see me defend their exercise of it? as if he would make the rea­der beleeve, I went about to justify all the exercise of their function, which in all, even the best governments whatsoever, is subject to personall abuses. With The 2. vn­truth w ^ch the D. char­geth on his Ref: is the D. 2. slaun­der. what eye? I answer, even with the same, wherewith he seeth, that either their calling is not the same which they exercise; or els the D. defendeth the one aswell as the other. The Ref. meaning is to shew, that the calling of Bishops which the D. defendeth, is not their election or vocation to their function; but rather the exercise of their function; yet not all the exercise thereof, as the D. most falsely insinuateth; but such an exercise of it as is performed by ver­tue of their callinge: as for particular and personall abuses in the execution of a calling, as they cannot in proper speach, be termed the exercise of that calling; so the D. hath no reason to charge the Ref. with making the reader bel [...]ev-that he went about to justify them. But this he would have knowne, that the D. having vndertaken to jus­tify the calling of our Bishops, doth therein justifie the exercis [...] thereof; for the question is not of an imaginarie fantastical substāce of I know not what calling in abstracto; but of such a calling as all our Bishops doe or may exercise, by means of their office, according to the lawes and canons of our Church. This therefore is farr frō an vntruth, vnless this be true, that the D. in his sermon maintein­eth another manner of calling in our Bishops, then what they exer­cise; when all the question is about that which they exercise, and eyther the Bishops calling is the same which they exercise, or else they exercise not their calling.

As truely is that third vntruth cast upon the refuter by the D. in The D 3. slaunder. his next words, where he saith. 3. neyther is it true that the auncient te­nure of Bishops is onely iure humano. Whereto it may be replied, that neyther is it true that the Refuter sayth in generall, that the auncient tenure of Bishops was onely iure humano: but that this was the auncient & wanted tenure of our L: Bishops. What tenure other Bishops eyther in the darknes of poperie, or before, have made clay me to, is nothing to the affirmation or present purpose of the Refuter. And as the D. with the same breath, wherewith he chargeth his refuter, dis­chargeth him againe in the next clause of his sentence: so however the Protestant Lord Bishops are but as of yesterday in comparison: yet is it playne, (as appeareth by the Bishops book fol. 48, 49) that [...] of late they have bene content to hold their callings jure huma­no, [Page 10] and that now upon the sudden they have changed and turned from their old and auncient tenure. As for the D. reason to prove the refuters speach to be an vntruth, because auncienter, then the Bishops he speaketh of (namely they of the primitive Church) did hold their callings by an other tenure, (viz. by apostolic all tradition or ordinance) & that without all contradiction &c: as it is insufficient for the purpose he produceth it, and besides the point now in questiō: so who knoweth not that it is altogither false, that it was so held then without all contradiction? These 3. vntruthes therefore which the D. hath found in the Ref. reason, are nothing but mistes caste before his readers eyes, the dispelling whereof maketh me to re­member what Ierom once said to Licinius of them who while they indevour alienos errores emendare, oftendunt suos: which with a little change I may English thus; while the D. went about to cor­rect his Ref. for vntruthes, he hath manifested his integrity, and discovered his own corruption.

Chap. 2. Concerning the Matachine, charged vpon the Ref: by the D.

Sect. 1. pag. 3. of the res. and pag. 2. of the D. The D. proceedeth, saying, that as the Refut. first Reason, fighteth with the truth, so the second, both with his opinion & with it self: and so setteth downe his reason why he deemed the sermon needful to be answered, to witt, that howsoever the D. affirmeth the doctrine of his ser­mon to be true, profitable and necessary; yet it is evident that it is vtterly false, hurtful and abnoxious, necessary to be confuted, at no hand to be beleeved; & then telleth vs, that in these wordes of the Refuter there are 3. reasons pro­pounded that come to be examined. I looked when I read to haue had a Matachine fight shewed in the former and these 3. pretended reasons, wherein all 4. of them should fight one with another: but all is brought to this, that the first reason fighteth with the truth, the second, not with any other reason, but with the Ref: opinion and it self. How the first fighteth with the truth, we have already seene, & The D. maketh 3. reasons of the Ref. one. we shall see by and by, that this second fighteth just after the same manner, that is in deed nothing at all. I call it the second reason, be­cause the D. three, is but the refuters one. And if he had not lost his honesty in his logick, he could never have made 3. reasons of those [Page] wordes cited by him; such boyes play ill beseemeth so reverend a man. But he telleth us, they come now to be examined, and for the readers sake, let us examine them according to his owne di­vision. The first he maketh to be this. It is evident that the doctrine in the sermon is utterly false: therfore most needful to be confuted: what an­swere maketh he to it? and how doth he prove it to fight against the Refuters opinion and with it self? this is his charge, thus saith he. It it be evidently false it needeth no confutation; Things manifestly false or true, are so judged without disputation or discourse; neyther doth any thing need to be argued or disputed, but that which is not evident. This reason therfore if it were true, would with better reason conclude against his opinion. It is evident (saith he) that it is utterly false, therefore it needeth not to be con­futed. What an answere is this? did the Refuter say, that it is evi­dently false to all men? some colour then had the D. for this an­swere. If not but that it is common to many to be so blinded with partiallity and prejudice, that they see not that to be false, which is evidently false; and not strange to others shamelesly to bend their witts to mainteyne manifest and grosse vntruthes, against as cleare a light as the Sun casteth at noon dayes: must they not therfore be refuted, because they are manifest? Is the D. ignorant that the god­ly & learned Fathers of old confuted diverse vanityes, some of which were so evidently false, that they could say, recitasse est refutasse? Yea so grosly false and in the face vntrue; that the refuter of them, saith They will fall of them selves &c. Was it not a doctrine utterly and evi­dently false, that Christ was not God? needed it not therefore to be confuted? the Fathers verily were but vaine men then. What? shall I need saie any more to this? did the D. himself never deeme it needfull to confute a point, which in his judgment and the judg­ment of all (if we maye beleeve him) that are not partiall, is vtterly false? doth he not affirme so of the presbyterian 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 sermō, 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, [Page 12] 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 abnoxi [...]us, therfore necessary to be co [...]futed. How this reason fighteth eyther with the truth, or with the Ref: opiniō, 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 & cō ­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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 D [...]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 thinkes he answereth it in the third part by his own prac­tise, when he sayth, he shall make all cleare in his book &c. the which how well he hath performed, wil appeare in the examination of the particulars, in the meane time, it seemeth his sermon made not all cleare.

So much for the first argument. A second the Doct frameth of the Ref: words thus. The doctrine is vtterly false; because it is contrary to the judgement & practise of the primitive Churches, next after Christ and his Apostles. To let passe the wrong he offreth herein to his Refut. The D. a­gaine wrog­eth his Ref. in making more arg. of his Ref. words then he ment. in making it by it self an argument contrary to his meaning, let us heare his answere to it: I cannot tel (saith he) whether to wonder at more, the blindnes or the impudencie of the man. And why so? because (saith he) I have made it manifest, that the government of the Church by Bishops hath the ful consent of antiquity, and not one testimonie of the auncient writers, for their iudgement, or one example of the primitive Churches, for their prac­tise to be alleadged to the contrarie. &c. I am sory I shall trouble the D. with so many questions: where I pray, hath he made this so mani­fest? in his sermon or in the defence of it? hath not the refuters as much (if not more) reason to wonder, at the D. blindnes and im­pudencie? seing, if he made it cleare in his sermon, is he not blind, in not seing that he hath made this his own defence needlesse? is it not his owne argument, that things manifest need not be disputed, nothing needeth to be argued or disputed, but that which is not evident? But his ex­cessive The D. practyce cō ­tradicteth his speach. travell in mainteyning that sermon, and the strange fitts he falleth into, in his defence thereof doe shew, that in his sermon he made not the matter so cleare as he talketh of. Where then? in his [Page 15] defence? so it seemeth, he meaneth. And be it so, yet was it not so before (no not in his owne eyes) for then this defence, by his owne reason had been needlesse. What reason then, hath he, to ar­gue his refuter eyther of wonderfull blindnes, for not seing that which was not then to be seene: or of impudencie, for affirming the contrary, which if he hath not clearely proved, is yet in quaesti­on. May we not rather wonder, and wonder in deed, at the Doct. that counteth it woderful ignorace or impudencie for any to deny or disprove whatsoever he sayth, & seemeth to himself, manifestly to prove; though in saying as he sayth here, he doth but crave the que­stiō? And yet out of the same passiō, he proceedeth & asketh his ref. The D. a­gaine beg­geth the questiō, for­getteth him self and the part in que­stion. how he durst mention the judgement and practise of the primitive Church for the triall of the truth in question, seing there is not one testimonye nor example in all antiquity for the pretended discipline &c: and offreth, that if his Ref. shall bring any one pregnant testimony or example, he will yeeld in the whole cause. Not to tell him agayn, that he is still in begging the questiō: I praye him to tell his Ref. what should feare him from mentioning that, which he vndertook to justify and proove? and whereto his large defense serveth, if his Ref. hath not at least in shewe proved as much as he mencioneth; or not brought so much as one testimo­ny or example to the purpose? the D. in his passion forgatt himself and the point in question surely; he could not els but knowe, that diverse testimonies of the Fathers, are brought to prove the func­tion of the Bishops in question, to be jure humano, not divino. As for his offer to yeild in the whole cause, yf but any one pregnant testimony or example be produced: by pregnant he meaneth certeinly, such as are subject to no wresting, or cavillation; but pregnant in his owne judgment, not in the judgment of all, or the most sound & ortho­doxall divines in the world; otherwise testimonies pregnant enough have bin already produced. But what so pregnant, that Cavillers, (such especially as have the sword by their side) cannot with some colours or others elude, and thereby delude the eyes of the simple, which is all they care for.

In the next place, where the Ref: sayth that his doctrine is con­trary Sect. 3. pag. 4. of the ref. & 4 of the Doct. to the iudgement of all the reformed churches, since the reestablishment of the gospel by the worthies in these latter times: the D. chargeth with an vntruth, saying. It is not a strange thing, that a man professing sincerity should so overreache, seing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches, is go­verned [Page 16] by Bishops and Superintendents, then by the Presbyterian discipline, as I have showed in the later ende of this book. How the Doct. hath pro­ved his assertion here, shalbe sene when we come to that later ende of his booke: but if he there proveth it no better, then he here pro­veth his Refut. to have overreached, I will turne the Doctors owne words (one or two exchanged) vpon him, & saye. Is it not a strange thinge that a man of the Doctors title should so overreach? Nay may I not apply it to him, before I proceed any further? For how proveth he that his refuter hath so overreached in this place? For­sooth beca [...]se a farr greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bi­shops and Superintendents, &c. The which for the time present, let vs suppose to be true: though by reformed Churches the Ref: mean­inge as he elswhere sheweth, soundly reformed Churches, it is not true. But graunt it, yet that which the D. saith is false: viz. that The D. un­truely char refuter to o­verreach, & is him­self too rea­dy to over­reach. therefore his refuter overreacheth here. For may not reformed Churches be governed by Byshops or Supreintendents, and yet the same Churches denie, that the calling of our L. Bishops is jure divino? which is, (at least as the Ref. vnderstandeth it) the maine doctrine of the sermon; and that whereto all other particulars doe homage and service. When the D. hath proved, that the Bishops and Superintendents of all reformed Churches, are such (for the substance of their calling) as ours, and doe hold or exercise their functions, jure divino, & not positivo; lett him charge his Refut. with overreaching. In the meane time he sheweth himself too ready to overreach; for if he looke over his Bishops and Superintendents mentioned in the later ende of his book, he maye see (if he shutt not his eies) that they held not their Bishoprickes or Supreintē ­dencie, by the D. new-found claime and tenure; to whom (at this tyme onely) I will add one or two more not mencioned by him. Iodocus Naum vpon Rom. 12. distributeth the Church-officers ordeyned by GOD into Prophets and Deacons, the Prophets into Pastors & Teachers, the Deacons into treasurers for the poore, and those which are Presbyters or Elders, viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline. Nicholaus Laurentius a late Superintendent in Den­mark, in his treatise of excommunication published Anno 1610. hath these asserrions. That the right of excommunication, is not in the power of any one man, eyther Bishop or Pastor; but in the power of the Pastors, & that company which Paul calleth the Pres­byterie [Page 17] (p. 62.) That excōmunicatiō, is eyther of the whole Church (meaning the people) or of certayn grave mē, w ^ch are in stead of the whole Church; so that the Pastor doe publikely in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence (p. 64). That where there is no such Senate or Presbyterie (except the Magistrate shall other­wise decree and provide) the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish: and the Superintendent, and two of the Pastors in that Province, wherein he dwelleth, and bring the mat­ter before them all &c. (ibid). Many moe might be brought for this purpose, (if it were fitting for this place) but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion, and to shewe the Doct. weaknes in so overreaching, as to charge that unjustly vpon his refuter, which he himself is justly guilty of.

Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of foure other notorious untruthes, charged upon him by the Doctor.

Sect. 1. pag. 4. of the ref. and pag of the D. 4. 5. In the D. next section, he chargeth his refuter to add to his for­mer overreaching, foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land, be­cause he said his doctrine was against, 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs, 2. contrarie to the profissed judgement of all our worthy wryters, 3. contra­riant to the lawes of our land, & 4. contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England. A foul fault, if true; and no great credit for the D, if not his refut in his sayings, but himself in so saying, hath vttered 4. no­torious vntruthes; let us therefore examine them; and in this chap­ter the first of them. The refuters words out of which the D. would extract the first of them are these: that the Do. sermon, is against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers, (some of whome were worthy Martyrs) who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Popes au­thority out of England, acknowledge with subscription, that the disparity of Ministers, and Lordly primacie of Bishops was but a politick devise of the fathers, not any ordinance of Christ: and that the government by the Mini­ster, and Seniors or Elders in every parish, was the ancient discipline. These be his words, for his proofe he referreth us to three bookes, the booke of Martyrs, the booke called the Bishops booke, and the booke cal­led Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum. Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious vntruth; The witnesses saith he, [Page] which the Ref. queteth, were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops, allow­ing the episcopall function both in iudgement and practise; it is almost incredi­ble that any testimonies, can from them be soundly alledged against the same. Inc [...]edible in deed, if they had been cast into the mould, in which our nowe Bishops have been formed: otherwise it is credible e­nongh that they may, (as I stil affirme that they doe) testifye some­thing against such a calling of Bishops as the D. mainteyneth, and yet hold the function & practise thereof lawfull. Was it never heard of, that some of our later Bishops (that worthy Iewel and others) allowed the episcopall function both in judgement and practise, & yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino? which is the point in quaestion, though the D. here would not see it. And why may not they allowe of the Lordly primacie of Bishops jure bumano, & dis­clayme it jure divino, aswell as allowe them to exercise civill autho­rity, and yet disclaime it as being lawful iure divino? as may appeare they did in the places cited. But 2. the D. goeth on, and (as if he had already said enough to prove his refuter to be as unconsciona­ble as may be) saith, that he wondreth greatly at his large consci­ence in this behalf, who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authours, alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits, which he brought not from their writings, but to them. A heavie charge, if true; but here it the comfort, that upon due examination, it wil be found to prove otherwise. It is no newe thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies, should be the readiest (as the D. here is) to laye the charge on others. Let us novv trie out the whole in the particulars. First concerning the testimony taken from the booke of Martyrs, and the Bishops booke, or booke inti­tuled, The institution of a Christian man, the Doctor telleth us, that he hath perused it and findeth nothing at all concerning the superiority of of Bishops over other Ministers: that which is said concerneth the supe­riority of Bishops among themselves; all whom with the ancient fathers I confesse (sayth he) in respect of the power of order to be equal, as were the Apostles whose successors they are. If it be but so as the Doct. here cō ­fesseth, they say enough to shewe (and he hath subscribed it) that the function of Archbishops is jure humano: But if he had perused with purpose to find out what is there to be found, he mought ea­sily The D. ca­ [...]ni [...]eth. have found full as much as the Refuter citeth it for. For it spea­keth not of Bishops severed from other Preists and Preachers; but [Page] promiscuously of all Bishops Preists Preists and Preachers, as appeareth by diverse passages of that part of the book there sett downe; to witt, the chap: of the Sacrament of orders,) amongst which con­sider we, 1. that there should be continually in the Church militant, ministers or officers to have speciall power vnder Christ, to preach the word, administer the Sacramentes, ioose and binde by excommunication, and order & consecrate others in the same roome and office whereto they be called, that their power was limited, and office ordeyned of God Ephes. 4, cōmitted and given by Christ & his Apostles to certeyn persons onely, viz. Preists and Bishops. That albe­it the holy-Fathers of the Church succeeding, did institute inferior orders and degrees &c. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mencion made, of any degrees or distinction in orders; but onely of Deacons or Mini­sters. That the power and authority belonging to Preists and Bishops is of 2. parts, potestas ordinis, and potestas iurisdictionis, to the first wherof alwayes good consent hath bene, about the second, some disagrement, and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people, that the iuris­diction committed to Preists and Bishops by authority of Gods lawe consisteth in three speciall points. 1. in admonition, excommunication, and absolution. 2. in approving and admitting, 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 permissi [...] & sufferance of the [Page 20] 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 cō ­tention, variance, schismes & divisions should be avoyded, and the Church preserved in good order and concord. Loe here their words: now ob [...]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 cōmit­ted 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 frō 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 reckō Bi­shops aswel as Archbishops &c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers, the limitatiō of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces; yea the limitatiō of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops, which cannot be thought they would ever have done, if they had held thē 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 [Page 21] 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 cōmitted to them by the Apostles. Which appeareth yet more clearely, as by that other booke called Reformatio legū ecclesiasticarū, 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, Archdeacōs, 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 Cōmentary 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 cōmon 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 cā 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 cōcerning 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 offēce 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, viz. that Bishops jure divino are equall among thēselves in respect of power and jurisdiction aswell as order. But though he deale honestly, that himselfe (and not the Bishops of King Henries dayes) restreyneth the equalitie of Bishops among them­selves to the power of order; yet he casteth a great blemishe [Page 22] & disgrace upon those our forefathers; in signifying that the aun­cient Fathers consented not with them, but with him and against them in this point. As for that clause he addeth, as were also the A­postles, whose successors the Bishops are, I know not to what purpose it serveth; save to discover his contradictinge eyther himselfe or the The D. cō ­tradicteth himself or the truth. truth: himself, if he mean that the equality of Bishops amonge thē ­selves, is as large as that equality which was among the Apostles, for thē he erreth in restreyning the equality of Bishops, unto power of order onely: the truth, if he meane that the Apostles had no o­ther equality among themselves then he giveth to Bishops; for they were equall also in authority and jurisdiction, aswell as in power of order; as is rightly acknowledged by our Bishops in their bookes, and by the auncienter Bishops in their writings. Neyther is it true (as the Doct. would insinuate) tha [...] Bishops onely are the Apostles suc­cessors. The D. un­truly insi­nuateth. that Bi­shops one­ly are the Apostles successors. For to speak properly, they have no successors; and in a ge­nerall sense all Pastors and Teachers, that hold and teach their do­ctrine, are their successors. And herein we have against him (a­mongst many others) the consent of those reverend Bishops, who having sayd that Christ gave none of his Apostles, nor any of their successors, any such authority as the Pope claymeth over Princes, or in civill matters, doe make application thereof aswell to Preists as to Bishops. But the D. notwithstanding, upon this, (that the Bishops are the Apostles successors) goeth on and telleth us, That we may not inferre; because the Apostles were equall among themselves, that therfore they were not superior to the 72 disciples; or because Bishops are equall among themselves, therefore they are not superior to other Ministers. Where­unto, I could say it is true; if it were apparant, first, that Bishops & other Ministers doe differ by any special difference, as the 72. dis­ciples did from the Apostles: but no such thing appeareth, eyther in the scriptures, or in the Bishops booke from whence the Doct. reasoneth: but rather, as hath bene shewed by the refuter, (and is before mainteyned) the cleane contrary. Secondly, that the Apo­stles had any superiority over these disciples, the which the Doctor wil not so easily prove as take for granted; seing 1. Christ living, the Apostles had no authority over any, 2. their Apostolical authority was not as then (whē the 72. were sent forth) cōmitted vnto them. and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministery of the 72. was to be cō ­tinued in the Church after Christ; but onely to remaine for that [Page] present journey and afterwards to be disposed of as Christ pleased. Thirdly it is also true, that as the equality of the Apostles amonge themselves, and the supposed superioritie they had over the 72, tooke not away their subjection and inferiority to Christ: so ney­ther doth the equallity of Bishops among themselves, nor their su­perioty over other Ministers take away their inferiority to the Pope, by any necessity of consequence. Wherefore I must for this The Refus. rightly al­leadged the testi­mony. testimony conclude, 1. that the refuter hath rightly alleadged it; and 2. that the D. hath wronged not onely his refuter: but us & them, in labouring (and that with slaunder,) to wrest their testi­mony out of our hands.

The next testimony is taken from the booke called Reform: leg. ec­cles. Sect 2. Ref. pag. 4. D. pag. 5. cap. 10. 11. de divinis offic ijs, to prove, that those which made the booke deemed, that as the episcopall function is not jure divino: so the go­vernment of the Church by the Minister and certeyn Seniors or Elders in e­very parish, was the auncient discipline; & so consequently his doctrine in his sermon contrary to their judgement. In answer whereunto, 1. he chargeth his Refuter to playe the part of an egregious falsifyer, and The D. co­lumniateth. the allegation to be forged; but by that time the matter be examined, I perswade my self the reader will thinke it meet, the Doctor take home those speaches to himselfe as his owne proper; the rather, se­ing the Ref: setteth not downe the words of the book; but onely his own collection out of them. 2. he fathereth that upon him; which he neyther sayd nor meant. With what eye, trow we, looked he vpō the Refuters words, that he would make his reader believe, that the Refuter affirmeth (as he afterwards intimateth) that the The Doct. slaūdereth. compilers of the booke, meant to bring in lay-Elders, or to establish the pretended parish discipline, or to acknowledg that it was the ancient discipline of the Church? Let us now debate the matter (as it deserveth) at large. And first, (it being remembred, that the booke is cited to prove, that the doctrine in his sermon is against the judgement of our immediate forefathers) we are to see what his doctrine is, viz, that as the episcopal function in quçstion is jure divino; so all eccle­siasticall power of jurisdiction is in the Bishops hands onely, that the Pa­stors of particular flocks, as they have their authority from the Bishop; so all the authority they have is in fore conscientia, not in foro externo, eyther for direc­tion or correction, that belongeth wholly to the Bishop, he is to reforme abu­s [...], exercise Church Censures against offenders: It is not in the power of any [Page 24] Pastor of a particular congregation, with any assistantes of lay-Elders, or other associates to execute any censure &c, whereof we maye see more at large in the 4. point of his sermon pag. 45-52. And however in his defence he doth in part deny this to be his doctrine: yet is it sufficiently averred (lib. 2. Cap. 4. hereafter following) to be his doctrine. Now to prove that this his doctrine is against the judgement of those fathers, is that booke alleadged; the Doct. is now to make good his charge if he can: he sayth he will doe it by transcribing the 10. & 11. chap. cited, the bare recitall whereof, being (as he saith) a sufficient consutation of his forged allegations. The words transcri­bed by him are. Evening prayers being ended, (in citie parish Churches) wherevnto after the sermon there shalbe a concourse of all in their owne chur­ches, the principall Minister whom they call parochum, the Parson or Past [...]r, and the Deacon if they be present &c. and Seniors, are to consult with the people how the mony provided for godly vses may be best bestowed; & to the same time let the discipline be reserved. For they who have cōmitted any publike wic­kednes to the cōmon offence of the Church are to be called to the knowledge of their sinne, & publikely to be punished, that the Church by their wholesome correction may be kept in order. Moreover the Minister going aside with some of the Seniors, shall take counsell how others whose ma [...]ners are sayd to be naught, and whose life is found out to be wicked, first may be talked withall in brotherly charity, according to Christs precept in the Gospell, by sober and honest men, by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselves, thanks is duely to be given to God; but if they shall goe on in their wickednes, they are to receive such sharp punishment, as we see in the Gospell provided against their contumacy.

In the 11. Chap. they sett downe (in case that they judge any for contumacy worthy to be excōmunicated) how to proceed in the exercise and denouncinge of that sentence. 1. the Bishop is to be gone unto, and his sentence to be known: who if he shal cons [...]t, and putt to his authority, the sentence is to be denounced before the whole congregation, that therein so much as may be, we may bringe in the auncient disciplyne. Here are their words; now what sayth M. D. to prove, that (these words notwithstanding) the refuter is an egregious falsifyer? and that the reader may be these words thus transcribed, discerne the allegati­ons to be forged? of this last he hath never a word, concerning the first, he telleth us, that though they mention Seniors, and auncient disci­pli [...]e, yet they meant nothinge l [...]sse, then to bring in l [...]y-Elders, or to esta­blish [Page 25] the pretended parish discipline, or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church. And what of all this? what if they did mean none of these? yet shall that which the refuter affirmeth of them re­mayne true still. What they meant and acknowledge, we shall see by and by; when we have seene the D. proofs that they meant not so. He telleth vs, he wil out of the book it selfe make it manifest; and I wil tell him he will not; but I will the contrary rather. To make his word good, (if he could) he sayth. The whole goverment and disci­pline of our Church, by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Rurall Deanes, &c. is established in that book: and to make good mine, I saie, it mat­tereth not, they had no commission from the K. to remove it, and bring in that ancient discipline, which (by their wordes they ac­knowledge) was not then in use, but diverse from that established; their cōmission stretched no further then to examine the lawes & reforme abuses, letting the offices to remaine still; yea and therein to proceed no further, then would stand with those offices & the lawes of the land. Will the D. saye that they in all the booke have any one word to shewe that they held that government and disci­pline of our Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacōs, rurall Deanes &c. to be jure divino? Nay as divers of them in their submission to King H. the 8. professe the contrary; so throughout this book they have no one word tending to prove the Bishops authority over o­ther Ministers to be any more jure divino, then Archbishops, Arch­deacons, Rurall Deanes, &c: but as they are birds of a feather, so they stand and fall togither by one and the same ecclesiastical lawe, or humane ordinance.

But let vs heare what the Doctor can make the book speake concerning the Bishops authoritie, he sendeth us to the 12. chap. where he saith it is decreed, that the Bishop is at f [...] seasons to give ho­ly orders, &c. to remove unfit men &c. to correct by ecclesiastical censures, vi­ces & corrupt manners; to prescribe orders for amendement of life; to excōmu­nicate those which wilfully & obstinately refist, to receive into grace those that be penitent &c. and finally to take care of all things, which ex Dei prescripto by the ordinance of God belong to them, and which our ecclesiasti­call lawes have cōmitted to their knowledge and judgements. Very wel; and what doth the D. inferre of all this? just nothing: I will help him by and by. But first, who seeth not that those fathers vnderstoode two parts of that episcopall function, one divine, the care of those [Page 26] things, which are prescribed them by God, and cōmon to all Bi­shops or Ministers of the word; one principall member whereof, to witt, the diligent and syncere preaching of the word, they mention as the first duty in the first words of that Chapter, which the D. left ou [...], perhaps because divers of our Bishops have left it of, as no part or the least part of their duety; the other humane, viz, the exercise of that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, which was committed to them by the K. in his ecclesiasticall lawes. Now 2. to help the D. a little, he should have inferred vpon the wordes sett downe by him: That therefore the authority of doing all those things mentioned, was (in the judgement of those Fathers) in the hands of the Bishops a­lone; the which if he durst not doe, he should have brought forth some other chapter to shewe it: else certeynely he can saye nothing to the purpose. And that it may appeare he cannot doe it; I will nowe make it manifest out of the booke, that they were of a con­trary judgement, and laboured so farre as their cōmission would suffer them, to bring in that auncient discipline before spoken of, concerning the ruling and guiding of the particular flocks by the M [...]nister and Seniors of the same; and so farre brought it in, by the order prescribed in that booke, that it cutteth the windpipe of the D. sermon concerning his sole ruling Bishops so in sunder, as it will never breath from their decrees; nor ever have affinity with the auncient discipline they speake of. We have already seene (con­cerning discipline and excōmunication) what they decree, cap. 10. 11; that being remembred, add we to it, that in the 6. cap. de ex­communicat: thus they further order. 1. that if possibly it may be (it being a thinge much to be desired) the consent of the whole Church or Congre­gation should be had, before excommunication be decreed or denounced against any. 2. that no one man (Archbishop, Bishop or other) shall have the power of excommunication in his handes. And therefore 3, that neyther Archbishop, Bishop, or any ecclesiasticall Iudge, sholl so much as decree ex­cōmunication without the consent of one Iustice of peace, of the Minister of the Congregation, where the delinquent dwelleth, or (in his absence), of his de­puty Curate, or assistant, and of 2. or 3. other Ministers both learned and of good life; in whose presenc [...], the whole matter & busynes shalbe heard, debated, pondered, & decreed.

In like sort, for the receiving agayne of the excommunicate per­son into the Church, vpon his repentance, in the 14. chap: they [Page] likewise order: 1. that it shall not be by any Iudge, before his repentance be approved and certificate therof made to the Bishop, by the Minister and Syndicks, or some of the cheife of the parish. 2. when the Bishops or ecclesiasti­call Syndic [...]. Iudge, shall give licence and authority, for the receiving of him into the con­gregation by the Pastor, be shal not receive him into the Church; but in the pre­sence of the congregation: and 3. not before he hath witnessed his repentance to the Congregation, by confessing and bewayling his sinne before them, & craving [...]don both of God and them, togither with the [...] favour for his reciving in. The which when the party hath done, the Minister 4 ^ly. shall ask the con­gregation whether they will forgive him his fault, and commend his cause by prayer unto God that he would shewe mercy to him, and cōfirm that in heaven which they doe on earth. And the people answeringe thereto, we will, he shall againe ask them, whither they will receive him into their company and count him as a brother, wherevnto when they have answered, we will; then shal the Minister absolve him, and receive him into the Church, saying after this manner. I doe here before this Church, the guiding whereof, is cōmit­ted vnto me, absolve thee from the punishment of thine offences, and from the bonds of excōmunication, by the authoritie of God, the power of Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, with the consent of the members of this Church present, and also of the ordinary; (Ordinario suffragante) And I doe restore thee a­gaine to thy former place and ful right in the Church. Behold here the or­der prescribed by thē for administration of this part of discipline; and therein observe that the Bishop or ecclesiasticall Iudge had but a voyce in it, he was neyther the doer nor the sole-doer; but the Mi­nister and the Seniors or cheefe men of the Parishe, and the congre­gation had their voyces also; and that as they could not doe it with out the Bishop; so neyther the Bishop without them. And thus farre they sought to bringe in the auncient discipline; and doe shewe their judgement to be directly against his doctrine for the Bishops sole government, as appeareth also by the former testimony cited out of the Bishops booke. Consider we now what the D. sayth to the Seniors they speake of; he telleth us, that it is apparant, that by Seniors they [...] not ecclesiasticall officers, because where they reckon vp all ecclesiasticall officers from the Clerks to the Church wardens, Deacons, Mi­nisters &c. they doe not once mention Seniors or their office. And therevpon concludeth that by them they vnderstand, some of the principall hous­holders, in some places called vestry-men, in some Masters of the parishe; in some [...]ncients of the parish. Which is nothing to the purpose, seing the [Page 28] ref: never sayd, that by the Seniors, with whom they require the Minister to consult, they mean any of the ecclesiastical officers thē established, wherof onely they make mention in the Chapters no­ted in the Doctors margin: yet when in the places alleadged by the Refuter, they (all those officers notwithstanding) prescribe the Mi­nisters to take to them Seniors, and without their counsel to doe nothing in the the Church busynes, & to proceed with wicked persons according to Math. 18, and adjudging them worthy to be excom­municate, and having gotten to approve it, they must denounce it publiquely in the congregation: that therein so much as may be, they might bring in the anncient discipline: will not any man that hath witt and honesty conclude, that they acknowledged that of olde time there were Seniors (let the D. call them what he will, they call them Seniors) who were joyned with the Pastors of particular cō ­gregations in Church government; and that they (so farre as their comission and the lawes then established would permit them) out of the love they bare to that discipline sought to bring it in. The D. therefore wanteth witt or honesty in so charging his refut: the former we knowe he hath, the later, the reader may see he wanteth: else would he never at his first meeting with this testimony, charge his refuter to be an egregious falsifyer, to have produced forged allegations: and when he is to take his leave of it, will the reader to judge with what conscience that booke was alleadged, as if the Refuter against cō ­science had alleadged it. But I will joyne with him in that request, praying the reader in Gods feare so to doe; as also how wel he hath proved his Refuter in the allegation thereof, to be (as he chargeth him) an egregious falsifyer, and to have produced forged allegations; and so proceede to the rest of those notorious untruthes as he calleth them.

Chap. 4. Wherein the Refuter is discharged of the other notorious untruthes, charged upon him by the Doctor.

The second notorious untruth layd to the Refuters charge by Sect. 1. ref: pag. 4. D. p. 7. the Doctor, is because he sayd, that his dactrine is contrary to the profif­sed profis­sed judgement of our worthy wryters (Whitakers, Fulk &c.) who in their an­sweres to the Papists (who plead for their hierarchy with the same reasons, that the D. doth for his) doe determine that the government our Bishops exercise ever other Ministers, is jure humano, by the positive law of man onely; the which (if the D. say true) is false, and so the papists left vnanswered. fre [Page 29] hence ariseth this second notorious vntruth; but how doth M. D. make it appeare so? 1. Can he deny, the doctrine in his sermon to be cleane contrary to their judgement that holde the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers to be given them jure hu­mano, by the positive lawe of man onely? No he dareth not con­tradict his Refuter in this point. What then? 2. Doth he deny that the Papists doe pleade for their hierarchy with the same rea­sons, that he doth for ours? no, he onely indeavoureth to perswade, that his arguments are good, though theirs be naught. 3. But doe not our worthy wryters (those the refuter named with others) in their answers to the Papists that alleadge the same reasons, de­termine (as the refuter saith, that the governmēt which our Bishops exercise over other Ministers, is jure humano, not by divine right but) by the positive lawe of man onely? This is so evident a truth, that the D. neyther doth nor can refell it. Where then is that no­torious vntruth, wherewith he chargeth his Refuter by reason of those wordes? is not he rather a notorious slaunderer in delivering The D. is the slaūde­rer. such an accusation as he cannot justify? Iudge Christian reader whē thou hast heard his answer. First, sayth he, the popish opinion is farre dif­ferent from that, which I hold; for they holde the order and superiority of Bi­shops to be jure divino, implying thereby a perpetuall necessity therof; in so much that where Bishops are not to ordeyne, they think there can be no Ministers nor Preists, & cōsequently no Church: I holde otherwise as the Ref: himself acknow­knowledgeth, p. 90 in fine. If therefore the Papists doe bringe the like argumēts to prove their opinion which is so unlike to mine; nothing hindreth but my ar­guments may be good, though theirs be naught. For those argumēts which de­monstratively prove the episcopall function to be of Apostolical institution, doe not straitewayes prove it to be divini juris. Wherefore my opinion being so farr different from the popish conceite; who seeth not that the judgement of our di­vines, which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists, is not opposue to mine? for though they hold not the episcopal function to be injoyned jure divino, as being perpetually necessary; yet what man of sound learning doth or dare deny that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles? Thus we see how the D. hath ledd us along. But notwithstanding the confidence of his speach, observe wee the extreame povertie of his cause; is he not neere driven, (think ye) when to prove his great difference be­twene his opinion and the Papists, he is fayne to flye to the re­futers acknowledgment of it in that 90. page, where with the same [Page 30] breath, he challengeth him to be contrary to himselfe, seeminge at least to vnsay that in one place, which he had sayd in another? Doth he not remember that he hath often charged his refuter to affirme throughout his answere that he holdeth the episcopal fun­ction to be iure divino, and to imply a perpetuall necessity thereof? how then doth the refuters acknowledgement prove that the po­pish opinion is farre different from his? Doth it not rather prove that in this very point wherein he layeth the mayne difference, he he is fully knitt vnto them? although forgetting himselfe (as ma­ny Papists also do in their discourses) he contradicteth at one time, what he maynteyneth at an other. But to let the world see, how he jumpeth wth the Papists in this matter, I wil relate his opiniō; (not in his ref: words, but in his owne). The functiō & authority (saith he, serm. p. 79) which Tim. and T it. had at Ephesus and in Crete (cōsisting speci­ally in the power of ordinatiō & jurisdictiō) was not to end with their persōs, but to be cōtinued in their successors, as being ordinary & perpetually necessary, not onely for the wel-being, but also for the very being of the Churches. For if whiles the Apostles themselves lived, it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted, such as Timothy and Titus furnished with epis­copal power: then much more after their decease, have the Churches need of such governours. Loe here his owne wordes: now who seeth not that they closely implye, that which he saith, the Papists doe more im­pudently The D. closely im­plieth, what the Papists im­pudently affirme. affirme? viz, that where Bishops are not to ordeyne, there can be no Ministers or Preists, and consequently no Church. Yet there is a freind of the Do. who pleadinge the same cause blusheth not (among other propositions, delivered to disgace the Presbyte­rian discipline, and the mainteyners thereof) to affirme in playne termes that, all Ministers created and made by the newe Presbyterie, are mere laye-persons, and cannot lawfully, eyther preach Gods word, or admini­ster the sacraments; so saith Tho: Bell in his regiment of the Church, page 136: and then addeth, this is already proved: and a little afer con­cludeth with Ieroms wordes (often objected by the Papists against the Protestants) ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem; where there it no Preist or Minister there can be no Church. But to returne to the D. seing all the reason he here bringeth to mainteyne his accusation is from the difference of opinion betwixt the Papists and him, con­cerning the authority of Bishops: it being made evident that there is no such difference as he pretendeth, it will necessarily followe [Page 31] that this second vntruth how notorious soever, here charged upon his refuter, must be discharged upon himselfe. For it is a truth (so The 2. vn­truth which the D. char­geth upon the Ref. returneth to himself. evident, as the D. cannot deny it), that the judgement of our di­vines is wholly opposite to his, in that they hold the calling of L. Bishops to be, neyther divini nor apostolici juris, neither as the Pa­pists, nor as the D. holdeth them, if he did (as he sayth) so farre differ from them. And putt case, the difference betwixt the Pa­pists and him were such as he saith; yet what is that to the point in question? (I meane to prove the refuters assertiō to be a notorious vntruth?) nothing at all. The D. in deed his opinion being so different (as he fayth) from the popish conceit, asketh who it is that seeth not that the judgement of our divines opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not oppo­site to his: and I may ask him, what meant he to ask that question? Maye not the D, (yea doth he not) agree with the Papists in affir­minge the episcopal function to be divini juris; thereby intending that it is a divine and not an humane ordinance; though he should differ from them in the point of the perpetual and immutable ne­cessity of the function? And may not our worthy writers of whome the Refuter speaketh, (yea can the Doctor shewe that they doe not) contradict the papists aswell in the former point, as in the later? Will he say, (and can he prove) that they determine such Bishops onely as have such a calling as the papists mainteyne to be jure humano, by the positive lawe of man onely? doe they not generally conclude and determine the matter, of all Bishops what­soever, that are superior to other Ministers? or can they holde (which the Ref. saith they doe, and the D. doth not denie) that the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano onely, and yet hold it an apostolicall ordinance also? or can they hold, that so farre forth as there is a perpetuall necessity thereof, it is onely jure humano: and that so farre forth as it is not perpetuall, but so as the Church may be a church without it; it is an apostolicall and a divine ordinance? Or doe our writers there­fore determine against the papists, that the government aforesaid is onely jure humano, because they defend it to be perpetually neces­sary? Or doe they determine onely against those reasons of the pa­pists by which they prove this government to be perpetually ne­cessary? Will the D. affirme this? Is not the contrary to all this most evident to them that read their writings? Doe they not plain­ly [Page 32] and directly without any relation to this or that conceite, con­clude against all those reasons which papists bring, that the gover­ment of Bishops over other Ministers, is not an ordinance divine or apostolicall, but humane onely, directly contrary to the D. con­clusion, lett his reasons be what they be may? And it were worth the knowinge what reasons those are that demonstratively prove (as he saith) the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution, & yet prove it not to be divini juris, and of perpetuall necessitie: as also what worthy 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 distinctiō betwene apostolical instuutiō & 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 frō 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 functiō 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 [Page] 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 h [...]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 cōmeth 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 cōmon 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 [Page 34] them by his lawes, they may not actually exercise their power, but according to his l [...]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 Christiā 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 Cōmis­sion 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 & frō the Kings of England? Doth he not (pa. 13.) affirme (from the Statute of the Parliament held at Carliel 25. Edw. 1.) that the holy Church of England was founded in the stare of Prelacie by the King and his progenitors? And that in the time of Edw. the third, it was often resolved (17. cap. 23.) that the K. might exempt any person from the jurisdiction of the Ordinarie, and graunt him episcopal jurisdiction? & (fol. 9: edit. 1606) that (in 1. Hen. 4.) the Archbishops & Bishops of this Realme are called the K. spirituall Indges? And to conclude, doth he not [Page] afterwards conclude that though the proceedings and progresse of the ecclesiastical Courts run in the Bishops name; yet both their courts & lawes whereby they proceed, are the Kings? Verily, if by our lawes, their function and jurisdiction were holden to be of di­vine ordinance, he neyther could nor would have said so. But heare we the Doctor speake againe, he telleth vs, that the authority which the Bishops exercise in the high Comission, is not exercised by them as they are Bi­shops; but as they are high cōmissioners, and his reason for it, is, for that o­thers that are no Bishops have the same. Wherein he dealeth as decitful­ly The. D. dealeth deceiptful­ly. as before. For 1. he will not (I suppose) avouch that the eccle­siastical jurisdiction which the Bishops there exercise of suspending excōmunicating depriving, &c. is exercised as Commissioners and not as Bishops and Archbishops? or that others their Assistants in that Cōmission, that are neyther Archbishops, Bishops, nor Mini­sters of the word, can without them exercise those Censures? In deed, in that the high Cōmissioners convent men from all parts & out of all Dioceses in the Land, and proceed against them by im­prisonments impositions of fines &c. it is done by power of the high cōmission: but for all ecclesiasticall Censures, what doe they, which every Archbishop within his Province, and Bishop within his Diocese may not doe, (yea sometimes and too often doth not) without that Commission? Thus we see how he hath infringed the Refuters first proofe, taken from Sr Edw. Cooks testimony or re­port. The refuter might have sent him for further proofe of that point to that Booke called an Assertion for Church polocie; wherein are proofs plentifull and pregnant, whereof the D. in likelihood can­not be ignorant. And I might here commend vnto him other te­stimonies also; but I hast on to other more needfull matters.

Let us therefore heare him what he can say to his refuters second proofe, to witt, the K. Majesties judgement, whose words are be­fore set downe. 1. saith he, It seemeth that whiles the Refut: talketh of The D. slandereth his Ref. with one brearh; & yet against his will cleareth him with another. liberty to alter at their pleasure, he thinketh it left to his liberty, to alter the K. words at his pleasure. Might not a man this once tell him, that he careth not what he saith, so it may (as others before him) De Im­peratorio nomine invidiam conflare? the refuter is so farr off from chan­ging the K. words, that he did not so much as once offer to set thē downe, but onely sheweth what he conceiveth to be the K. judge­ment, by his words in the place in question; the Doctor therefore [Page] here falleth up to the eares into the pitt he digged for his refuter: and his fault is the greater, for that he cleareth his refuter of the crime objected, & confirmeth him in his so judging, by the Kings words, which himselfe layeth downe with the next breath saying. The King in deed doth say, tha [...] it is granted to every Christian King Prince and cōmon wealth to prescribe to their subiects, that outward forme of ecclesi­asticall regiment, which may seem best to agree with the forme of their civill government; so as they swarve not at all from the groundes of faith and true re­ligion. Let the reader judge whether the Refuter did not rightly collect, what he collected from the Kings words yea or no? and I wish him also to observe how the Doct. slippeth from these wordes of the King, without so much as an offer to shewe wherein they are contrary to the Refuters collection; or fall short of proving his as­sertion, both which he should have done, if he would have made good his charge upon the ref: But we may see, he durst not abide the light of the Sun, which here shineth so bright, as if he had not turned his back vpon it, it would have marred his sight quite. We must therefore here leave the Doct. or follow him flying from the point in question: for not daring to speake one word to it, he ap­pealeth to the Kings wordes elswhere, sett downe (Premonition p. 44) from whence (if we will beleeve him) he will make it appeare, that the K. differeth not in judgement frō the doctrine of his ser­mon. The Kings words are these, That Bishops ought to be in the Church, I ever mainteyned as an apostolik institution, and so the ordinance of God &c: If the D. would by these the Kings words have proved the point in question; he should have shewed that the function of the Bishops of the Church of England nowe exercised by them, is (for the sub­stance of it) mainteyned by these words of the King, to be an A­postolik institution and so the ordinance of God: the which if he could have done, he mought have made a contradiction betwene the Kings preface & his Premonition; but never a whitt the more have proved that the King agreeth in judgement with the doctrine of his sermon, which tendeth to prove another manner of episco­pal function to be of divine institutiō then the King in these words speaketh of; as the Doct. (it seemeth) sawe well enough, when he forbore to set downe his Majesties very next words, where he shew­eth in what respect he ever held that episcopal function (which he speaketh of) to be an Apostolike institution: to witt, that he ever [Page] mainteyned the state of Bishops, and the ecelesiasticall hierarchie, for order sake. Againe, that he alloweth of Bishops and Church hierarchy, and reverenceth the institution of rankes and degrees among Bishops, Patriarchs, (which he knoweth were in the tyme of the primitive Church) for order sake. Againe, that if it were now a question as once it was, which of the Patriarchs should have the first place, he could with all his hare yeeld it to the Bishop of Rome, that he should be primus episcopus inter omnes episcopos, & princeps episcopo­rum, so it be no otherwise, but as Peter was princeps Apostolorum. And a­gaine affirmeth, that the allowance he giveth to the hierarchy of the church is for distinction of orders, for so he vnderstandeth it &c. What shall we say to the Doctor? did he not read these speaches of the King? or did he skip them, because they spell not well for his purpose? It appea­reth plainely by them, that the other his Majesties words cited by the Doctor, are without colour drawne by him, to justify that jurisdiction of Bishops, for which he pleadeth. Who se­eth not that these his highnes wordes do evidently shewe, that he giveth no other jurisdiction to Bishops over Presbyters (by aposto­licall institution) then vnto Archbishops over Bishops, and to Pa­triarches over Archbishops? And the same is not any sole power of rule, but, for order sake, such a principallity as three of the Apo­stles had over the rest, and Peter had above the eleven: as is further to be observed out of page 48. where we may easily discerne, that it cannot be the Kings meaning to give vnto Peter such jurisdictiō over the Apostles, as our Bishops have over Presbyters: nor yet to clippe the wings of his own supremacie, which he must needs doe, if that superiority of order which he giveth to Patriaches above Archbishops, shall drawe with it, that power of rule, which our Archbishops and Bishops have and exercise in their Courts.

Thus much may suffice to free the Refuter, from the third vn­truth, falsely fathered on him by the Doct. The rest of his speaches may well be passed over as impertinent; for however he sayth, he herein cōmeth to the point: yet as he therin toucheth not the point in question; so he discovereth his owne vnsaying what he sayd be­fore in his sermon, touching the perpetuity of the episcopal functi­on. The D. vn­saieth in his Def. what he said in his sermon. And were it fitt to followe him in his wandring frō the point in hand, it were no hard matter to shewe that himselfe and others of his side have their hands cheife in the trespasse, which he closely chargeth his Refut: and the men of his side with. For none in the [Page 38] Land have set their tongues & penns so earnestly to abridge Kings and Princes of that libertie his Majesty speaketh of; then the fa­vourers of the episcopall government now in question. To let passe Archbishop Whitgifte (in his Defence against T. C. page 171. and 181. and wishing the Reader onely to compare it with T. C. secōd Reply part 1. page 227. and 614.) with diverse moe: observe we what one M. D. Dove saith in his defence of Church-government. The Church must be ordered (saith he, page 3.) according to the precepts and examples of holy writt. Bishops (saith he, p. 34.) ought to be Lordes, and ecclesiasticall persons ought to vse civil authority, quoniam ab initio fuit sic. from Adam to Moses, it was so; frō Moses to Christ and the Apostles it was so; with thē it was so: & frō thē hath so continued vntil this time, excepting onely the times of persecutiō, &c. (which he thus salveth a litle after where he saith,) Our question is not what was then of fact; but what ought to have bene of right. But as for this Doctor, it may be the Doctor will say litle more, then that he mought have bene wiser. What defence, trowe we, will he make for that his reverend father, that gave him so good satisfaction concerning the episcopall function, who disco­vereth his judgement by the title of his booke The perpetuall gover­ment of Christs Church? And if we advisedly weigh what he affirmeth in the treatise it selfe (page 3. lin. 9.-12 and compare togither, p. 106. lin. 32. &c. page 2, & 3. lin. 12. with page 245. lin. 4. & 9. & 247. lin. 32-35.) we may easily discern, that he placeth a maine necessity in the reteyning of the episcopall function. Yea and so doth the D. also, (as his words already sett downe doe shewe). Nei­ther can he with all his shifting, avoid the force of the objection, which from those wordes his Refuter inforceth, as shalbe shewed more at large in a place more fit for the purpose. For the present, I onely wish the reader to observe, that how ever he seemeth to as­sent vnto the Kings speach, which his refuter mentioneth & him­selfe setteth downe; yet (for feare of offending his good Lords the Bishops and Archbishops.) he dareth not openly professe the out­ward forme of ecclesiasticall regiment to be lefte to the libertie of Princes and Cōmon wealthes as the King affirmeth. viz. that they may prescribe to their subjects, what seemeth vnto them fittest to to agree with the civil government. And yet in a matter of farre lesse moment (to witt, the maintenance of our Clergie by tithes and other temporalities) he feareth not to taxe the King, and the [Page 39] Lawes of our land (underhand and by consequence) of sacriledge in alienating & deteyning from the Clergie, the tithes or any thing else once dedicated to holy vses. See his sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers, page 82. But whither am I run in this di­gression?

I come now to the fourth notorious vntruth, wherewith the Sect. 3. and Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. Refuter is charged by the Doct. because he saith, that the doctrine of his sermon, is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England profes­sed even by the Bishops themselves till of late dayes, when as men weary to hold any longer in capite of the K. they began to change their tenure into soccage, and disired to be free even from Knightes service. For proofe of some part whereof he referreth the reader in his margin, to Bishop Iewels de­fence of the Apologie, and Archbishop Whitgift against Mr Cartw. See we now how the D. proveth a notorious vntruth in them. First The D. to colour his 4. slander, addeth to the Refu [...]: wordes, besides his meaninge. he addeth these words of his owne to them. Therefore vtterly false, & and so maketh an Enthimeme of them: as if the Ref: should holde all for true, that the Church of Engl: holdeth concerning the go­vernment of the Church, and the contrary therevnto, for false. Whereas the Refuter neyther so saith nor meaneth. Might the D. be this once asked, what he meant by adding that his last sentence, and making an enthymeme of this last speach of the Refuter & not of any the rest? Was he at a nonplus, that he must needs make himself work quite besides the point in question, yea besides the re­futers words and meaninge? Wherefore to let passe the work he hath upon that his Enthimeme made to himself; in his next page, beginning at his Lastly: I wil touch upon the point, which the D. here calleth the Antecedent. viz. that the doctrine of his sermon is con­trary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops. He tel­leth vs, he giveth no credite to it though Bishop Iewell and Archbishop Whit. be cited at random. But will his not giving creditt to it prove it to be a notorious vntruth? I trowe not, by that tyme we have heard thē speak. Are they cited at randō? their bookes are named, and divers of their testimonies not unknowne to the D, if he had but read his ref: answere pag. 34. & 124. let us heare them speak againe. And first of Archb. Whitg. concerning the Elders in question, I knowe (saith he, answ: to the admon: p. 161, 162.) that in the primitive Ch:, they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermēt of the cōgre­gatiō was cōmitted, but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate [Page 40] 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 Christiā 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 Admonitiō, 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 appointed [...] If the Doct. hath read him, [Page 41] 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 governmēt 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 cōmend (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 ke [...]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 excōmunicated 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 [Page 42] hereby, Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth th [...]. 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 maketh it, to saye, that by the scriptures of God a Bi­shop and a Preist are all one? or knoweth he, how farr and vnto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretike? verely Chrisostom saith. in 1. Tim. Hom. 11. ad Evagri­um. quaest. vet. et novi. testā. q. 101 de digni­tat. sacer­dotali. Betwene a Bishop and a preist in a manner there is no difference. S. Ierom saith somewhat in rougher sort. I here saie, there is one become so peevishe, that he setteth Dea­cons before Preists, that is to saie, before Bishops; whereas the Apostles plaine­ly teacheth us, that Preists and Bishops be all one. St. Austin saith, what is a Bishop but the first Preist, that is to say, the highest Preist? So saith Saint Ambrose, there is but one consecration of Preist and Bishop, for both of them are Preists; but the Bishop is the first. All these and other mo [...] holy Fathers togither with Saint Paul the Apostle, for thus saying by Mr. Hardinges advise, musts be holden for Haeretikes. And in his reply to him (article 4. page 309.) having shewed what pri­macie or headship Ierom gave to Peter. (viz: that to avoid con­fusion which lightly happeneth in all companies where no or­der is; Christ appointed Peter for that he was the eldest man to speake and deale for the rest as cheefe and heade of all his brethren) he addeth these wordes: which order also, was after­wards [Page] vniversally taken throughout the world, that in every congregation of Preists, one should have a special preheminence above others, and be cal­led (Episcopus) Bishop. This was thought a good politick way, to avoid conteution in the Church. By all which it appeareth that this worthy IEWELL was perswaded. 1. That the preheminence of Bishops above other Ministers, was first brought in by humane policie, and not by any divine ordinance in the holy scriptures. 2. that the preheminence of Bishops in the first originall and establishment thereof, was onely a preheminence, such as Peter had above the rest of his fellow Apostles, which was at the most of order onely, and not of any superiour cōmanding power & jurisdictiō. And 3. that in the primitive Ch:, other Elders besides Ministers of the word, had an hand in the governmēt of the Church.

Thus we see the judgement of these two Bishops cited by Sect. 4. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. the Refuter; nowe let the reader judge whether he hath uttered a notorious vntruth, in saying the Doctors sermon is contra­ry to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops, or rather whether the Doctor hath not malliciously The D. slandereth mallicious­ly. slaundered him in so charging him. I saye malicious, and if his conscience be spurred the quaestion, from the abundance whereof his pen wrote, it will subscribe to it. For knewe he not all this to be true in the Bishops bookes quoted by the Re­futer in his Margin? Yea are not divers partes of these testi­monies expressed in the Refuters answere, page 34. and 124? Did he not reade them there? And hath he not slipped them over with such a slubber, that (if he be not farre spent) he cannot laye them and his answere to them togither, without the blushredd-colour. Well, but the Doctor is none of them that will be madd without reason; he therefore giveth vs a rea­son why he doth not credite his Refuter. For sayth he, the do­ctrine of our Church, appeareth best by the articles and confession of our Church. Which reason is without reason, and argueth the man not so wel advised as he mought be, when he appealeth to the cō ­fession of our Church, collected out of the Apologie thereof writ­ten (as himselfe sayth) by Bishop Iewel from the Apologie it selfe, and Authors owne exposition and defence of it. Is it likely (think ye) that other men should vnderstand him, better then himselfe doth, eyther in the Apologie or defence of it? especially [Page 44] being authorized to write it by our Church; and it allowed yea cō ­manded to be in all our Churches? But let vs examine his allega­tions apart. The first is the booke of Articles, and what doth that? The 36. article thereof approveth (saith he) the booke of consecrating Bishops Preists and Deacons. And what then? that booke (saith he) in the Pre­face thereof saith, that from the Apostles times there have bene those orders of Ministers Bishops Preists and Deacons in Christs Church, and that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church. Is not this a sweet proof? mark it well, The articles approve the booke, and the preface of that booke saith, that those three orders have bene in the Church from the Apostles times &c. Therefore the booke of articles (and consequently the doctrine of the church of England) approveth the function of Bishops and their superiority above Preists to be of divine ordinance. As if 1. what soever is sayd in the pre­face before the booke (which in all likelihood was done by one or two onely, and not by so generall a consent as the booke it selfe) must needs be allowed for the currant doctrine of the Church of England in that age, because the 36. article (in our booke of ar­ticles) doth for some purpose approve the booke of consecrating Bishops &c. as conteyning in it all things necessary to such con­secration. But 2. doth that preface say that those 3. orders were in the Apostles times? no, but from the Apostles times, exclusive­ly; which words do [...] not prove they were in the Apostles times, but the contrary, as the refuter hath shewed (out of Chamier de Pon­tif. Oecum:) in his answere page 87. in the like phrase of Ierom to Evagrius, saying, that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas &c. one of the Presbyters were chosen from amongst the rest & set over the rest &c. But 3. it seemeth they meant otherwise, by the last clause, which the D. citeth, that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church. But the reader must know that that sentence is none of theirs, nor to be found in that preface, it hath pleased the D. ex abundanti, to add that clause of his owne head, and cleane con­trary to their meaning that made that book at least: for as we have heard (cap. 3, before going,) they held the superiority of Bishops, The D. ad­deth one sentence, to his testi­mony and detracteth another from it. to be a politick devise of man, and not the ordinance of God. Let us goe forwards with the Doct: he addeth, that the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by Gods word. Here 1. I charge the D, as before with the adding of one sentence, so here with the detracting of another whiles he deceitfully cōcea­leth [Page 45] part of the words. For the booke requireth the Bishop to cor­rect and punish &c. according to such authority, as he hath by Gods word and the ordinance of this realme: which later clause (of the lawes of this realme) they would never have added, had they thought that the power which our Bishops exercise is wholly by Gods word. But 2. though those words detracted by the Doctor had not bene ad­ded by them; if he thinketh it wil prove that the function now ex­ercised by Bishops is warranted to them by Gods word; he forget­teth his owne distinction betweene potest as & modus potestatis, togi­ther with the difference which he putteth betweene function and authoritie lib. 4. pag. 100, 102. & 147. Neyther 3. is that autho­rity which the booke requireth Bishops to exercise, such a sole power of correction, as the Doctor giveth unto them; for the same booke requireth also of every Minister (aswell as of the Bishop) at his ordination, that he preach the word, and administer the sacraments & The D. owne testi­mony a­gainst him. discipline; so giving every Minister a stroke in the outward policie & government of the Church, (aswel as the Bishop) which the Doct. taketh quite from him. But to conclude this point, the booke of articles, doth in deed, shewe the judgement of our Church in some matters of policie and church government devised by men, aswell as in more weighty points of faith set down in Gods word. Where­fore the doctrine of our Church concerning the later, is not to be sought for, in the booke of consecration, or the 36. article that e­stablisheth it, (much lesse in the preface of that booke) but rather in those articles which concerne faith and sacraments. For the whole body of our Church being assembled in Parliament, evidently per­ceiving that there were some clauses sentences and articles in that booke and the preface thereof not warrantable by the word; did therefore approve of it, no further, then it concerned the doctrine of faith and sacraments; and provided also that no Minister of the word, should be tied by his subscription further to approve it: as well appeareth by the statute. 13. Elizab: cap. 12. And here I wish the reader 1. to take notice, that in all that booke, there is no word of Archbishops, Archdeacons, Deanes, rurall Deanes with the rest of that rowe; so that they will not be found (be like) in the word; nor hath God by his spirit appointed them in his Church. 2. To ob­serve, how the Doct. that so boldly and confidently (that I say no more) rejecteth so many Synods, Churches, and learned men al­leadged [Page 46] by the Refut: and acknowledged by himself to be ortho­doxal divines, is not so wel seene in his allegation here, as he would seeme to be; surely he mought very well conceive, that we might take exception not onely to his booke of ordering Bishops, Preists and Deacons; but to the article that establisheth it, both being made by the Bishops themselves, Iudges in their owne cause, and seeking their owne preheminence; espetially when they were both so farre excepted against, by that whole assembly of Parliament, as not to binde any by subscription to approve them, so much as con­sonant to the word.

Thus much concerning the booke of articles and the D. dealing with vs therein. Come we now to the Confession of the English Sect. [...] church, collected as the D saith out of the Apologie: The wordes as he layeth them downe are these. We beleeve that there be divers de­grees of Ministers in the Church, whereof some be Deacons, some Preists, some Bishops &c. But he should have read out to the end of the sentence, and not breake off with an &c. (so keeping many of his readers from the sight of them) if he durst, for overthrowinge his owne cause. For the very next words insinuate that these diverse degrees If the D. had read his owne testimony to the end, it would have bene against him are of order, not of power and jurisdiction, whiles they make the office of those divers degrees to be one and the same saying, to whō is cōmitted the office to instruct the people, and the whole charge and setting forth of religion. It seemeth the D. was somewhat shortwinded when he read that sentence: and I challenge him to bring one word out of all that confession that giveth more authoritie to Bishops, then to other Ministers, that are called Preists. Doth not the 7. article of that confession professe, that Christ hath given to his Ministers (one aswell as another) power, to binde, to loose, to open, to shutt? Doth it not make the authoritie of binding and loosing to be in tha [...] censure of excōmu­nication, and absolving from it, aswel as in preaching mercie or judgement? Doth it not make the worde of God the keye, whereby the Ministers must open or shut the kingdome of he [...]ve [...]? And doth it not affirme, that the disciples of Christ (aswell as the Apostles) received the authortie of o­pening and shutting by it? And that the Preist is a Iudge in this case, though he hath no manner of right to challenge an authoritie or power? that is, (as the observation vpon it vnderstandeth it) civil, or to [Page 47] make lawes to mens consciences? To be short, doth it not affirme, that seing one manner of worde is given to all, and one onely keye belongeth to all, that therefore there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting? If I belie not the Confession, but that these be the very wordes thereof, let him that readeth confider, whe­ther the Confession produced by the Doctor as an Advocate in his behalfe, to prove the Refuters fourth vntruth, hath not as a Iudge given sentence against his owne Client. Worthily there­fore hath he here cited this confession, and of no lesse worth is his owne observation vpon it. It is to be noted (saith he) that our Church acknowledgeth nothinge as a matter of fayth, which is not con­ [...]yned in Gods worde, or grounded thereon. And I will note it with him, and doe tell him that he noteth well for vs and againste The Doct. note is for vs and a­gainst him selfe. himselfe; For if the government of the Church by such Bishops as he speaketh of, be a matter of faith, why putteth he a diffe­rence betweene matters of discipline and the articles of fayth; and referreth the question of the function and superioritie of Bi­shops to the former, lib. 3. page 38? and howe is their govern­ment mutable and not perpetually necessary as in his defence he often affirmeth? In deed he once sayd that the [...]piscopall functi­on and authoritie which Timothy and Titus had (the same with ours) as being assigned to certaine Churches (consisting in the power of ordina­tion and jurisdiction) was not to end with their persons, but to be con­tinued in their successors as being ordinarie and perpetually necessary, not onely for the well beinge, but also for the very being of the visible Chur­ches. This was the Doctors faith, when he preached and prin­ted his sermon (page 79.) but it seemeth his Refuter hath occasioned his departure from it. But let we that passe, and keep we him to his note here. Thus I reason,

It is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing for a mat­ter of fayth, which is not conteyned in Gods word, or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors.

2. It is to be noted, that our CHVRCH acknowledgeth that though there be d [...]vers degrees of Ministers, as Bishops, Preists & Dea­cous in the Church; yet that one onely manner of word is given to all, and [Page 48] 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 frō 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 f [...]ith conteyned in Gods word or grounded there [...]n; but onely of poli [...]i [...] 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 questiō? 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 cōmon adversa­rie, so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed, and a­gainst ignorant Ministers, nonresidents, pluralitans, & many things [Page 49] 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 [...]uffice, to acquite the refuter of the false and slaunderous im [...]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 divisiō 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 Corinth [...] 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 [Page 50] 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 do [...]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 sermō, 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 ha [...]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. frō 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 & reviving of their cer [...]monies amōgst us) is so freely preached & pu­blished, tending to vphold their hierarchy aswell as ours, the Doctors reasons be­ing in deed the very same with theirs. The Doctor answereth with ma­ny vile and opprobrious speaches: and 1. telleth vs, that the advan­tage which ariseth to the Papists both by his doctrine preached and the cere­moniees mainteyned still amongst us, may through Gods blessing be this. That when they see us not so new fangled as our opposites, nor so carried with hatred to their persons, as to depart further from them, then they have departed from the primitive Church; but are content to observe the auncient government, & lawful ceremonies used in the primitive Church, they may be induced to joyne The D. a­buseth the name of God. with us &c. Then which what can be sayd more against reasō & their owne profession; to the abusing of the name of God and his bles­sing? [Page 51] Knoweth he not that to this day, they have bene incouraged in their madnes by our cōming so neere them, and departing no further from them? Doe they not both say, and write, that our book of leiturgie is an Apish imitation of their Masse-book? that our religion cannot stand without their ceremonies? that the contention that is a­mongst vs for them, and eating their broath, putteth them in good hope of our eating their rostemeat? Doe not the Rhemists in their annotation upon Ioh. 21. 17. affirme, that the Protestants otherwise denying the preheminence of Peter; yet to uphold their Archbishops, doe avouch it against the Puritans? Yea even of late take they not occasion to fill theire bookes with our canons and constititutions, arguments and reso­lutions? to let passe others, what will the Doct. say to that worthy Proctor of theirs, Iacobus Gretzerus, hath he not (panegyr. missae, cap. 11. 12. & demonst. dogm. cap. 7) alleadged against the refor­med Churches) our service booke for their popish holy dayes, D. Tooker and our late booke of Canons both for the signe of the Crosse; for kneel­ing in the act of receiving the sacrament; for the whole hierarchy from the Archbishop downewards, and for divers other their superstiti­ons? Hath not Cornelius Scultingius in his hierarchica Anacrisis, al­leadged D. Whitgift and transcribed whole leaves out of him for defence of their hierarchy? Doth not Stapleton, (relect. against Whi­tak. Cont. 2. q. 3. art 3.) take the Bishops arguments for the up­holding of their hierarchy; to uphold the Popes, affirming they are built both on one foundation. &c? I suppose the Doct. will not deny this; yea they that are acquainted with their writings knowe more then this, of the advantage they take by such sermons, as that the Doctor printed. What likelihood is there then of winning the Pipists by comming neerer them? no no experiēce hath taught us, that this policie in seeking to win the adversaries by dallying and playing with them, and comming so neere them, hath bredd more papists in England in few yeres, then were wont to be bredd in ma­ny; in so much as, we have cause to feare, that under colour of lic­king he Papists whole by this meanes, the wound is become so great, that all the balme in Gilead will s [...]atce salve it, the case is so desperate.

Sect. 3. But 2. what shall we say to those opprobrious speaches which the D. casteth forth against all that mislike the ceremonies and episco­pall government, in saying, they are new fangled and so farr caried with [Page 52] hatred to their persons (papists he meaneth) as to depart further from them, then they have departed from the primitive Church? And what to his vnjust The Doct. calumnia­teth both his Ref: & & the re­formed Churches. censure of his Refut. and of all that accorde in judgment with him, when (because he called his doctrine Antichristian) he faith, it is meerely spoken out of faction, after the vsuall fashion of our opposites? His tongue is his owne, and he thinketh that none of his Lords will controwle him: wherefore he spareth not to stuff a great parte of his great volume, with such vnsavoury reproaches. Perhaps he ment to justify (at least it well appeareth he hath justifyed) his ref. in charging him, to have given the papists much advantage: for is it not a great advantage vnto them, when they may (if they liste) assume the Doctors testimonie, to disgrace those worthy divines, which in other reformed Churches have abandoned the ceremo­nies and government controverted in our Churches, with depar­ting (and that in a newe fangled and factious humor, and of meere hatred to their persons) from that ancient government, and those lawfull ceremonies, which they received from the doctrine and ex­ample of the primitive Church? But it seemeth he forgatt that of Tully, verecundius loquor propter Pompeium; For however he vilifieth his refuter without blushing, taking him to be no better then a dishclout: yet considering he had so many Pompeies to deale with as his refuter mentioneth, he could not but harden his face as an Adamant, that he blusheth not (notwithstanding their names with their testimonies and arguments and their just praises given them by other learned more then by the refuter) to count all newe fanglisme and faction.

But 3. his freindes wil say he had good cause to be offended with Sect. 4. him, that charged his doctrine to be Antichristian: for who can with patience beare so heavie an imputation? But the Doctor must beare it, and it will stick close to his ribbs, till he can remove the reason that inforceth it vpon him. To witt, that his doctrine tendeth to the upholding of the popish hierarchy aswell as ours, and therefore is Anti­christian. The consequence he impugneth not; all his labour is to weaken the Antecedent. And first in the detestation thereof, he cryeth out, God forbid; which brought to my minde the saying of Hazael, 2. Reg. 8. 13. who, when Elisha tolde him of the evill he should doe, protesting against it with indignation, sayd, what? [Page] is thy servant a dogge, that I should doe this great thing? and yet for all that he did it. And I have heard some in my time crye, fie on the Divil, when they have done him great service. Let vs therefore see whether the D. prayer and doings agree. In the popish clergie (saith he) above Bishops and Archbishops, the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as governours of the vniversal Church; in in whom the popish [...]yerarchy, so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth. And againe, Their government is justly called Antichristian, who are his assistantes in this vni­versal government. The Doctors drift is (as it seemeth) to free him selfe from defending the popish hierarchy, because he mainteyneth not, eyther that headship and goverment of the vniversall Church, which maketh the Pope to be properly Antichrist; or that subor­dination and assistance vnto him in his headship, which maketh the Romish Hierarchy to be properly Antichristian. A poore shifte The Doct. hath a poore shift and a silly defence. and a silly defence. Could the Doctor be so simple as to imagine that his refuter had any meaninge to charge him or his doctrine with vpholding the popish Hierarchie in any of those maine diffe­rences, which here or afterwards, he mentioneth, to distinguish thē from our Clergie? Or could he perswade himself that none of his The D. dis­puteth, a dicto secūdum quid, ad simpli­citor. Opposites would discerne the weaknes of his defence, when he dis­puteth, a dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter, in this manner?

My doctrine tendeth not to vpholde the popish hierarchy, quatenus it is properly Antichristian. Therefore it tendeth not to give them any suppor­tance at all. The Refuters meaning is playne, that the tenour of the Doctors disputing for our prelacie, tendeth by consequence to vpholde those functions and degrees in the popish Hyerar­chy, which other reformed Churches have rejected as vnlawfull, at least vnecessarie and superfluous. Which is a truth so apparant, that the Doctor doth in part closely acknowledge it, though with The Doct. closely ac­knowledg­eth what he fairely, but falsely excuseth. a faire (but false) pretence, he seeketh to excuse it, when he sayth, wee are content to observe the auncient government of the pri­mitive Church, though reteyned by them: for what is that governe­ment wherein we agree with them? Is it not the government by ARCH BISHOPS, LORD BISHOPS, ARCH DEACONS, CHANCELLORS, COMMISSARIES, &c. assisted with Proctors and Apparators? Wherefore since the functions of the popish hierarchy serving for CHVRCH-government, are none other [Page 54] then such as we reteyne in our Churches (the Pope and his Cardi­nals excepted) the D. cannot disclaime the defence, of the rest of their hierarchy, vnlesse he will leave our owne naked and desti­tute of due protection. And if that be true, which the refu­ter hath in many parts of his answer obected, (viz that the Papists doe (and may with as good colour of truth, alleadge the same reasons for the Popes primacie, over Archbishops, that the D. urgeth for the superiorty of Bishops or Archbishops) it is no wrong at all to affirme, that the D. sermon tendeth to vphold the popish hierarchie, aswell as ours, even from the Pope to the Apparitor. But let vs go on and trace the Doctor in the stepps of his answere. 1. Who can excuse him in this, that professing (as he now doth) the Pope to be properly Antichrist, in regard of that vniversall go­vernment which he assumeth; he should notwithstanding reare vp a pillar (in his defense following) to upholde what he would seeme The Doct. vpholdeth what he seemeth to pull down. to pull downe. For to justify the government of Metropolitans (who were at the first as he saith, lib. 2. p. 114, autochephaloi, heads by themselves of their Provinces) he thus reasoneth, page follow­ing. It was convenient or rather necessary that there should be consociation of Churches within the same Province, and that that governours of the severall Dioceses, should meet for the cōmon good, and that the wrongs offred to any by the Bishops within their Dioceses might be remedied. By consequent, therefore it was necessarie (especially before there were Christian Magistrates) that one in every Province, should be held as cheefe or primate, who should assemble the Synods, moderate them being assembled, see the decrees executed, & have a generall superintendencie over the whole province. By the like conseq: (it is well knowne that) the Popes proctors doe plead for his vni­versall primacie; and the D. doth very frankly offer them the ante­cedent. lib. 3. p. 4. The whole Church (saith he) is governed by the mu­tuall consociation of their governours for the cōmon good, and the concurrence of them to an Occumenical Synode: For the whole Church being but one body, there ought to be a Christian consociation of the governours therof, for the com­mon good of the whole body. If there ought to be such a consociation of all Bishops and governours of the whole Church; then there is no lesse conveniencie, or rather necessity of this consociation of the whole, then there is of the former in one Province. Wherefore the Doctor cannot forbid any freind of the papacie (in an imitation of his former argument) to inferre this conclusion. By consequent, [Page] therefore, it is necessarie (specially now that there is not a Christi­an Magistrate, to whose civil regiment, all (or the greatest part of) Christian Churches, are in subjection as formerly they were to the Romane Empire) that among the ecclesiastical governours of the whole Church, one should be held as cheife to assemble and mode­rate generall councels, to see the decrees executed, and so to haue a general superintendencie over the whole Church. Thus in travei­ling The D. tra­veyling with an Archbish: bringeth forrh a Pope. And so doth Sta pleton charge ou [...] Bishops by their arg. for their hierarchy to doe. Re­lect. adver. whit cont. 2. q. 3. art. 3 with an Archbishop, the Doctor bringeth forth a Pope. But if he will infringe this later consequence, and say (as he seemeth to imply lib. 3. pag. 4.) that the necessity of a Christian consociatiō among the Bishops of the whole Church, cannot inferre a necessi­ty of one Pope, or cheefe B [...]shop; because Christ our King & Mo­narch for the government of the whole Church, hath no Vicar ge­neral, but the holy Ghost, who appointeth governours vnder him, to governe the several parts in some respect Monarchically; and the whole (by concurrence in one Oecumenical Synode) aristocratical­ly; then for the like reasō (to witt, because Christ our King hath no Vicar provinciall, but the holy Ghost, who appointeth governours vnder him in every Church throughout the Province) the necessity of a consociation of all the Churches in one Province, and of pro­vinciall Synodes for the cōmon good of those Churches, cannot conclude a necessity of one Metropolitane primate to assemble & moderate those Synods, and to have a generall superintendencie over the whole province. Wherefore it is evident that by the Doct. reasoning, the Popes Vniversall headship, & the Archbishops pro­vincial primacie, do stand or fall togither.

2. Shall we say also that the same reason which proveth the one, to be Antichristian, will prove the other to be Antichristian? Is it not proper to Christ to be the head of every particular Church, as­wel as of the whole? 1. Cor. 12, 27. 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ephes. 2. 22. cū 1. 22. 23. & 5. 23. Colos. 1. 18. And is not the title and office of Archipoimen proper also to him alone? 1. Pet. 5. 4.

3. But I hasten to examine the grounds which he hath layd to Sect. 5. ad D. pag. 13. cleare himselfe from patronizing the popish prelacie. He affirmeth (as we heard before) that their government is justly termed Antichristi­an, who are assistantes to the Pope in his vniversal government. Loe here the proposition, I wil make so holde, as to add an assumption. But Archbishops, L. Bishops, Archdeacons, Chancelors &c. in their several [Page 56] functions are assistants to the Pope in his vniversall government. Whence a­ny man may make the conclusion. Therefore the government of Arch­bishops L. bishops Archdeacons Chancelors yet in their severall functions, is justly termed Antichristian. The D. foreseing (as it seemeth) that such a conclusion as this might be inferred from his owne words; to prevent any further inconvenience (if his Refuter or any other should frō thence collect, that he mainteyneth the popish or antichris­tian prelacie as well as our owne, in asmuch as the government and function of our Prelates, is in substance and essentiall workes of office, the same with theirs) saith, that Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome are not Antichris­tian, in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction, but in regard of their subordination to the Pope, and dependance on him, as members of that body, whereof they acknowledge him to be the heade. Where the reader must againe be advertised, that the D. wandreth from the question at The Doc­wandreth from the question at his plea­sure. his pleasure: for the point now controverted betwene him and his Ref. is not what transgression doth make the Romishe Bishops and Archbishops antichristian properly or improperly? but whether their callings and functions (which other reformed Churches have refused as better beseeminge the degenerate Synagogues of Anti­christ, then the orthodoxall Churches of Christ) be not justified by the Drs. discourse, aswell as the offices and functions of our owne Prelates? The negative in this questiō he should have strongly for­tified; but he rather justifieth his Ref. assertion, in profering them a full discharge from all steine of Antichristianity, if they will re­nounce their subordination to the Pope, and acknowledgement of him for their head. But, seing he professeth (lib. 3. pag. 154.) never to give over the maintenāce of his cause; at his better leysure I will expect from him a direct answere to this reply; I have already proved from his owne assertion, that their government is justly termed An­tichristian: But their jurisdiction extended over the Churches of an whole Diocese or Province, is a principall and essentiall part of their government: why then should not their jurisdiction so largely extended, be justly termed Antichristian? Againe, wherein soever they give best and greatest assistance vnto the Pope in his vniversall government; therein they are rightly reputed antichristian: this I trust the D. will acknowledge without any fur­ther proofe, neyther will he (I hope) putt us to the paines to prove what all the world discerneth to be true. viz. that in the large extent of their jurisdictions, they give best and greatest assistance vnto the Pope in his [Page] vniversall government; wherefore I will once rest perswaded, that he will subscribe to this conclusion, that in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction, they are justly reputed Antichristian. And so I will enter vpon the best defence he hath to wipe away all note of Anti­christianity from our owne Bishops.

Having restreyned (as before we heard) that Antichristianity Section. 6. which cleaveth to Romish Prelacie, vnto their subordination to the Pope &c. he addeth this consequence. Therefore they are no more Antichri­stian, then their parish-Preists, and aswell might the Refut. call the Pastors of Parishes amongst us Antichristian, because the Popish Parish Preists are Antichristian, as our Bishops Antichristian, because the Popish Bishops The Doct. trifleth in fig [...]ting with his owne sha­dow. are such. When will the D. cease to play the trifler in fighting a­gainst his owne shadowe? Where doth the Refut. saie, that our Bi­shops are Antichristian, because the Popish are such? Or which of his Opposites did ever argue to such a purpose? Nay hath his Ref. in any part of his answere once termed our Bishops Antichristian? Yet if he had sayd, that the Popish be, and ours are alike Antichris­tian in regard of their functions, as being in substance one and the same, however they differ in subordination to the Pope; he is wi­set (I trowe) then to be so farre misledd by the Doctor, as to say, that our parish pastors, and their parish preists are alike antichris­tian. For their Preisthood (in regard of the very essence and forme of their office) is a sacrificing preisthood as the Doct. acknowled­geth, and the proctors of poperie doe more clearely teach: Rhē. annot. in Acts 14. 23. Bellarm. lib. de sac. ord. cap. 9. But the of­fice of our parish pastors (though corruptly termed Preists) hath nothing to doe with sacrificing, and therefore it is not the same of­fice, but of a diverse forme, ordeyned (as the Doctor rightly af­firmeth) to preach the word and to administer the sacramēts. Now there is no such essentiall differēce in the very function it self, which our Bishops and the popish doe holde and execute. Wherefore though it be an absolute inconsequence, to inferre that our parish pastors are Antichristian, because the popish parish preists are such: (in as much as the functions are differing) yet when the functions of our Bishops and theirs are called into question; if the later be granted Antichristian; the same must be confessed also of the for­mer; vnlesse it can be clearely shewed, that the functions doe differ essentially one from another.

2. And if his meaning be thus to plead in behalfe of our Bishops, viz, that they cannot be Antichristian, because the popish Bishops are not An­tichristian in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction, but in regard of their subordination to the Pope, &c. I have already shewed the error of this argument, in proving that their very jurisdictiō & government is Antichristian. Onely here agayne let the reader remember, how the D. justifieth his Ref: in that speach, wch he indevoureth to wipe away, viz. that he vpholdeth the Popish Hierarchy aswell as our owne.

3. In that which followeth, he assayeth to shewe, that the func­tion of Bishops was not first instituted by the Bishops of Rome, & therefore cannot be Antichristian. The function of Bishops (saith he) is not more (nor yet so much) to be ascribed, to the institution of the Bishop of Rome, as that of parish Ministers: For Bishops, as we shall shewe, were or­deyned by the Apostles, and sett over Dioceses; but the parishes were first di­stinguished in the Westerne Churches, and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them, by the ancient Bishops of Rome, whose example other Churches did imitate, as divers authors report. Is not the Doctor strangely bewitched with the love of his reverend Fathers and their functions, that (to The D. to free the e­piscopall function from being reputed Antichris­tian expo­seth his owne cal­ling to that dis­grace. sett them free from all feare of beinge any longer reputed Anti­christian or of the Popes institutiō) he will expose his owne calling and function to the same disgrace? But if that be true, which diverse authors report (as Platina in vita Euarist: & Poli­dor Virgil: de invent rer: lib. 4. cap. 9. and others) that Euari­stus did onely divide titles in the City of Rome vnto Presbyters; and that Dyonisius gave them Churches or Churchyardes, and distributed abroad aswell Dioceses to Bishops, as Parishes to Pres­byters: upon this ground we may safely affirme, that the function of Diocesā Bps. is truely ascribed to the institutiō of that monkish Pope Dionisius, 266 yeares after Christ, or therabouts. For however Bishops were ordeyned of the Apostles, and sett over particular Churches, (as parish Ministers are at this day) yet there could be no Diocesan Bishops till D [...]oceses were distributed, and parishes multiplyed in each Diocese. Wherefore it is neyther error nor blasphemy to affirme, that the function of Diocesan Bishops is An­tichristian; if that may be rightly termed Antichristian, which had the first institution from the Bishops of Rome, in the third centurie of yeares after Christ.

If the Doct. shall contradict this position it will easily be made [Page] good from the grounds of his owne manner of disputing. For in The Ref: justified, by the D. own grounds. affirming (pag. 12. of his praeface) that the function and discipline of our Bishops, though truely Catholike and Apostolicall, is of his opposites termed Antichristian; he offreth us this disiunction. The functions and government of Diocesan Bishops and Provinciall Arch Bishops are eyther truely Catholik and Apostolical, or else rightly termed an­tichristian. He cannot weaken this disiunctive proposition, vnlesse he will overthrowe his owne reasoning, lib. 1. pag. 60. & 61. and confesse himself to be as ignorant in logick, as he would make his refuter to be. If therefore it may appeare, that the functions and government of Diocesan Bishops, and Provincial Archbishops are not truely Catholike and Aposticall, it wil then inevitably fol­lowe, that their functions & govermēt are justly termed Antichrstiā But the function and government of Diocesan Bishops, being first instituted by the Pope Dynosius, cannot be truely Catholike or A­postolicall: much lesse can the function and government of Pro­vinciall Archbishops, be truely catholik or apostolicall, if that be true which himself holdeth for a truth not to be denied, viz. that there were Diocesan Bishops such as ours be, before there were any Metropolitans or Provinciall Primates; because they followed up­on the combination of Dioceses & subordination of divers Chur­ches togither with their Bishops, in the same province, vnto the me­tropolitane as their Primate. lib. 3. p. 20 21. & lib. 4. p. 7. Where­fore the Doct. hath no just cause to blame his ref: if he shall hereaf­ter hold the calling of Diocesā & provincial Bishops to be Antichri­stiā. 4. Especially seing he hath not at all touched the main groūds which prevayle with those, who have affirmed the degrees & functi­ons of Diocesan Bishops, & Archb: to be Antichristian. viz. 1. that the bringing in of these degrees by litle and litle made way for the man of sinne to climbe up to the top of his greatnes, & to seat him­self in that chaire of Luciferian pride, wherein he sitteth at this day, as shalbe seene in the answ: to his lib. 4. cap. 5. sect. 10. 2. And as he stil leaneth on their shoulders, so his kingdome cannot stand with­out them (for they are his assistants, & without them they can have no preists, & so no Church as the D. acknowledgeth pa: 7. & 12. of of his preface) wheras on the contrary, the true Churches of Christ may (as the Doct. also holdeth as he sayd before, page 2. and 7. of his preface) very well want them, as they did in the purest [Page 60] times (viz the first 200 yeares, as shall appeare in answere to his lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 4. and 5.) and doe in some places at this day flo­rish in more peace and sinceritie (witnes the broiles of the Church after the first 200. yeares, and the peace of the reformed Churches at this day) then those Churches which formerly did and now doe imbrace them. 3. But specially this is to be noted that sole ru­ling Bishops (such as are ours, diocesan and provinciall Lords) (for which see the state of the question lib. 2. chap. 3. & 4.) could ne­ver gaine any generall applause or place in the Church till Anti­christe (having first gotten possession of his vsurped vniversal head­shipp, to proportionate their estate in some degree like to his owne) did procure, for some of them, principallities, and for all of them, Baronnies, and allowed every one of them to domineire, as petty Monarches in the exercise of their spirituall jurisdiction, as shalbe proved in the proper place hereafter.

To goe on therefore vnto that which remayneth. The D. think­eth Sect. 7. D. pag. 13. 14. it strange, that the doctrine of his sermon concerninge Bishops a­lone, should vpholde the Popishe Hierarchie from the highest to the lowest as­well as our owne, and calleth it, a shameless vntruth; because the Papists reckon. 5. orders vnder Deacons. But we, with the primitive Church, reckon but. 3. onely. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. But intreating him The Doct­must take his shame­less vn­truth to himself. to take the shameless vntruth to himself, as his owne proper in this point aswell as in the rest; I wish him witt, that it is not strange to them, who see and knowe, that many arguments now vrged in our Church for the popish ceremonies reteyned by us, (as crosse &c,) doe by a like cōsequēce plead for oile, salt &c. which we have abolished. And therefore we have more cause to thinke it a strange thing, that the Doctor should be ignorant that many of his argu­ments intended for the defence of his Bps alone; with the change of an Assumptiō, may serve as fitly to justify, those inferior degrees which are vnder the Deacons in the Romish Synagogues. And yet it is more strange, that he should challenge conformitie with the primitive Church, in reckoning 3. degrees of Ministers and ney­ther more nor lesse; seing the same authors that he alleadgeth for that purpose (serm: pag. 29. &c.) doe reckon other degrees which wee have refused, and the Papists reteyne though in a more corrupt course, as all other Church functions are; and some more ancient doe reckō two onely, as his refuter in answere there­vnto [Page 61] shewed.

Lastly, it is more then a wonder in the Dect. eyes, that the very same reasons which are brought to justify the Apostolical goverment of our Church, should also serve to prove their Antichristian Hierarchy, because their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope, and receive jurisdiction from him; but ours not so. But if his reasoning be of any worthe, it may well be more then a wonder to his readers; if the example of the auncient & Aposto­lical Presbyters, should justify our parish Ministers at this day. For, the former were all one with the Bishops, in the Apostles times; & received their jurisdiction, aswell as their function from Christ, or the holy Ghost, Act. 20. 28; but ours now are subordinate to Bi­shops, and receive their jurisdiction from them. Nowithstanding if the Doctor had advisedly considered, that the question is of fun­ctions onely, and not of accidentall circumstances; he would have The D. ex­ciption both idle and frive­lous. spared this exception of his, as judging it both idle and frivolous. As for his conclusion, that there is but one small agreement with the Ro­mane Church concerninge the superioritie of Bishops over praesbyters, out of which the Ref. would builde a totall consent and conformitie to their Antichristian government; may it not be wondered at? 1. That he can find, but one agreement betwene the Protestant and the Popish go­vernment. Are there not the same degrees, Primates, Archbishops, Suffraganes, Archdeacons, Deanes &c. Are there not the same seats of dignitie? The same authoritie and government? The same lawes and procedings? The same inferior Officers? The same rites and ceremonies? The same change of names? The same civill jurisdic­tion and titles? The same pomp and glorie in the world? setting aside the truth of doctrine and subordination to the Pope, non o­vum ovo similius. 2. That because the Refuter said, the doctrine of his sermon tended to the vpholding of the popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparator; he chargeth him to build a totall consent and conformity; as if it may not tend to the vpholdinge of the Hierarchy, though with some differences?

Chap. 6. Concerning the hurt like to come by the D. sermon, to the scandalizing of Protestants. Sect. 1. re [...]. pag. 6. 7 8, def: of the D. pag. 14. 15. 16.

The Refuter shewing how many were like to be scandalized by the Doctors sermon, viz. some being to farre in love with their owne ease, [Page 62] were likely to imbrace it without examination, others whose hartes were up­right before God would be made doubtfull, disquieted &c. The D. answe­reth for the most parte by calumniation and sarcasme, from which I briefly pass, wishing the reader, 1. to consider whither many have not bin brought to stagger and doubt in religion, as upon the sight of that strife and pleading for the Hierarchy and ceremonies with such arguments as will serve for the whole dose and recipe of verie many (if not all the rable of) Romish ceremonies: so upon the readinge of such sound doctrine as the D. here layeth downe (a­gainst all sound writers) for the justifying as from the words of God all degres of Ministery in the Church, the Popes and Cardi­nals onely excepted and foreprized. I will not answere his sarcasme, with Bishop Iewels speach against Hardinge and the like popish proctors, The peace which they would have, is onely the rest of idle bel­lies: But I wish the D. to knowe, that we hate division and schisme, and are the sonnes of peace, desyring peace with all men, asmuch as is possible, & wil stande with holynes. And I say to him and the rest of his fellowes (as the Apostle did of his Accusers) you are not able to prove those things, which for profitt, advantage, or prefer­ment, or of anger, and in heate of contention (which worketh not the righteousnes of God,) you speak and wryte and suggeste a­gainst us. Facile est maledictum ex trivio arripere, et in optimum quemque jacere: but si accusasse sufficiet, nemo erit innocens, I doubt not the reader wil remember, that aliud est madedicere, aliud accusare &c. and that the D. hath used many calumnniations more fitt to be spitt at, then spoken to. As for his conclusion following after them, that his Ref. resolution in answering his sermon, though guilded over with glorious words, was naught, els, but to publishe and disperse a mallicious diffamatorie libell, and so, after the manner of other malefactors, The Doct. calumnia­reth. to hide his heade. I must touch vpon it alittle, and wishe it be consi­dered, whether he sheweth not himself as full of splene and spite as he is empty of good reason. First he therefore calleth it a libell be­cause the Author putt not his name to it. Wherein as he jumpeth with the Papists; so he is answered already in the answers to them. I passe over Bristowes challenge mencioned by Doctor Reynoldes in his preface to the Vniversity of Oxford vpon his Theses of the Holy scriptures, and Church, where Bristowe required the Author to putt his name to it &c. Bellarmine excepting and objecting [Page 63] certeine treatises and resolutions of Iohn Gerson translated, for that the translator putt not to his name, saith against him, that the saying of Christ is verified, Iohn, 3. qui male agit, odit lucem, and crieth, that he was ashamed to make his name knowne, as the Doctor doth a­gainst his Refuter, charging him as a malefactor to hide his head. But Pryar Paulus in his Apologie, shall serve the Doctors turne aswell as Bellarmins, who answereth (page 3.) I see no reason (sayth he) why of necessity he was to putt to his name, vnlesse it be taken from a rule that every translator is to doe the like: we rather blame them that think to winne themselves creditt, by making praeface or Table, &c. Diverse workes extant of the Greek Fathers translated into Latin, carry not the names of the transla­tor &c. Christ approved not the advice of his kinsfolkes, transi hince et vade in ludaeam: but answered as in many cases his servants may answere (and the Refuter at this time) Tempus meum &c. my time is not yet. Sure­ly (saith he, page, 4.) the glorious lustre of the authors titles is net a matter of such prejudice as should over throw the cause of him that proposeth it with out manifesting his name, according to the course holden, in the councell of the Areopagites. Hardinge also calleth the Apologie which Bishop Iewell wrote (amongest other reproachfull termes,) a famous li­bell and a slanderous writt, because it was printed without priviledge, and no mans name sett to it, &c. To whom Bishop Iewell giveth an answere. (Defenc. part 1. cap. 4. divis. 2:) that will sitt as close to the Doctors backe, as the coate that is made for it. Must it need followe sayth he) that all bookes not subscribed with the au­thors names are libells? To beginne with the scriptures (saith he,) who wrote the bookes of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Denteronomy, Ioshua, Iudges, Kinges, Chronicles, Iob, &c. What name hath the Epistle to the Hebrewes puit to it, &c. And so reckoning up diverse other parts of the scriptures, with the Apostles Creed and other wry­tings of men that subscribed not their names to them, asketh him whether he would make his brethren beleeve, that all these be but li­bels, slaunderous writts &c. and so concludeth that it is neyther neces­sary nor commonly not to doe it &c. as the reader may see at large.

Secondly, whereas the Doct. calleth the Refuters answere a ma­ [...]ious di [...]amatory libell. I apeale to the reader to determine. 1. whe­ther [Page 62] it be not a malicious slaunder of him so to call it, and what honesty there is in him, seing (as I suppose) there can no one sen­tence be produced thereout, deserving that censure, much lesse the whole booke? 2. Whether (in what measure soever the refuter be guiltie of that crime) the Doct. hath any reason to argue him of it, it being apparant to any that will compare the refut: 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 disputatiō. In the mean time, if he be a malefactor, let the The Doct. calumnia­ [...]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 calūniations, sophistical shifis & evasiōs to elude the light of truth, cōvicting his conscience: and whereas his ref: simply & ex animo cōfesseth 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 sermō 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, [Page 63] 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 undertakē 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 mē, 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 cōsequence 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 [Page 64] 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, B [...]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 sermō concerning the governmēt of the Church? How often doth he in his sermon centure their sermōs & 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 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 cōmendation of them elswhere proveth it. Is this the reverend es­timation he would work in the peoples mindes of the word prea­ched by th [...], and of their worthy labours spredd abroad through out the world? Or must they think that none make conscience of preaching [...]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 thē also. B [...]shop Hooper a faithfull Minister sound and orthodoxall, preached to as honorable an Auditory, as that at Lambith, even to [Page 65] 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 [...]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, ascēded to the top of his Luciferiā 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. [Page 66] 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; [...]b [...] discutiamus causam nostrā. 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 frō, 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 thē to have perverted their meaning also, and so to have dealt both weakly and corruptly? What could Stapleton, H [...]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 [Page 67] 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 Doctors reasons to inforce the acknowledgment of his doctrine for true; that then it is not elsewhere to be had: because he being knowne to be a scholler, and professing to have read the cheefe Treatises on both sides, it is likely that there is in his sermon the pith and substance of all, that all of them can say for themselves and against vs. M. Doctor answereth, it is an vnreasonable motion; and the reasons thereof contradict, both what he sayd even nowe, and are contradicted by what he affirmeth afterwardes. And to prove that the motion is vnreasona­ble, he affirmeth it to be vnreasonable, the weight of the whole cause, should lye vpon one short sermon vttered by so meane a man as himselfe. The which, (to vse his owne wordes) is an unreasonable reason, and such as contradicteth what he sayd even nowe, and is contradicted by that which he affirmeth afterwards. Even nowe he sayd that the proofs which he vsed in his sermon were such as satisfyed his owne conscience, and that without boasting he mought assume to himselfe as goad skill to judge of an argument, as the refuter or others of his side; he calleth it blasphemy against the truth, that his sermon was censured to have no sound proofe in it, he sayth, he is a Minister of the Gospell, What? as sound and faithfull as the refuter? no, he disdeyneth the comparison: but as sound and orthodoxall as his betters, and as conscionable in all his sermons and writinges, and as carefull to deliver nothing but the truth of God. And that his refuter cannot deny him to be a faithful Mi­nister and orthodoxall Divine. Agayne, that he is perswaded in his conscience, the Refuter hath not convinced him of any one vntruth through­out the whole body of his sermon. All this he boasted, even nowe, of him­self, & somewhat else a litle before; & yet now with the turning of the page he is becōe (if he mean as he saith) a mean man, & so mean as it is an vnreasoable motiō to desire any to think, that if there be [Page 68] no sufficiency in his reasons; it is not elsewhere to be had: either he Eyther the D. speaketh by an iro­ny and not sincerely, or else he contradic­teth him­self. speaketh by an ironie and not syncerely; or else his former speaches cōtradict this later. And how it is contradicted by that he speaketh afterwards, appeareth throughout his whole booke, wherein every where he advanceth himselfe above measure: yea in this very se­ction, he standeth upon the creditt of his evidence with a witnes, making this offer that he is well contented to be credited in nothing, if there be not better evidence in his sermon and the defence of it, for the episcopall go­vernment; then is to be found for the discipline in quesion, in all the writings of the disciplinarians; so advancing himself above all those sound and orthodoxall divines in the world, that are by all soundly lear­ned, counted the lightes of the world. Thus can he play fast and loose, vp and downe, debase and advance himselfe, as may make for advantage; before he was alofte as we have hearde, learned and skilful to judge of an argument, &c. a faithfull Mini­ster, an orthodoxal divine &c. nowe he is a meane man, & so meane a man, as if he had not a fellow on his side to match him. By & by he is up on high again, & disdeyning comparisō with his Refuter, advanceth himself above all that have writt for the discipline, Lu­ther, Calvin, Beza, &c. Yea pawneth his creditt concerning all that ever he wrote of what subject soever, upon his truth and sufficien­cie in this one point. But let vs nowe see the double contradicti­on in the refuters reasons, as the Doctor calleth them; but it but one reason as the refuter hath layd it downe, & the reader will not be so simple, as to make the first clause or mēber of a sentence, (as the Doctor here divideth it) a reason: that because the Doctor is a Scholler, therefore he hath in his sermon sayd asmuch, as can be The D. dismem­breth the Ref. words and reaso­neth ex male divi­sis. sayd of that argument. He mought well enough, for all that, have sayd nothing to it: but the Doctor is very ready to divide, where his refuter conjoyneth, it seemeth to allude to his owne words page 146. His refuters reasō was too strong for him to deale with, whiles the Medius terminus, consisting of two branches, was boūd togither, and therefore he dissolveth it, taking each branch by it selfe, indeavouring like a grosse headed Sophister, to perswade the reader, that because he can bowe each twigge severally, therefore he can breake the whole bundell or faggott. But what the Doctor here weakneth (or rather scoffeth at) by dissolving, I wil streng­then by vniting, thus.

He who is knowne to be a Scholler, of good skill to judge of an argument, a sound and orthodoxall divine, and professeth to have read the cheife treatis [...]s written on both sides in this controversie, and to have set downe in a sermon, vttered in the presence of God, & in the room of Christ, those arguments which for the fulnes and plentifulnes of their proofe satisfied his owne conscience. Of him, it is likely we may receive the very pith and substance of all, that all of them can say, eyther for themselves, or against vs.

But the Doctor is known to be such a scholler, and to have done all this. For he professeth as much of himselfe, as we have already heard.

Therefore of him, it is likely, we may receive the very pith and substance of all that all of them can say for themselves or against vs. For we cannot im­magine, that such a scholler, so skilfull to judge of an argument, such a divine so orthodoxall, and so faithfull a Minister, as he professeth himself to be (& we will not dispute the contrary with him, we envie it not) having read the chiefe treatises as saith, would receive satisfaction and be perswaded by the weakest reasons; or make any other choise but of the cheife, the first borne & strength of all the arguments he read, to utter in the presence of God, & in the roome of Christ, especially before that honourable auditory as he calleth it. Who would offer him that wrong, as to think he did not, against that day, gleane out the pith and substance of what he had read, and could be sayd therein, but that for want of skill or will to make the best of that he had read for his owne advantage and his cause, left out the best proofes and made choise of the worst? But what saith he against this? or how maketh he his Refuters contradictions to appeare? To lett his scoffe alone, when he telleth vs he hath bene a scholler ever since he was five yeares old; 1. He would knowe hovv it can be, that he should have the pith and substance of all that can be sayd in that contro­versie, seing his refuter chargeth him to speak without proofe? The answere thereunto is easy. For putt case, those cheife treatises which he read, and from whence he received satisfaction, be without sound proofe (as in deed they are) may he not have the pith and substance of them all, and yet all he hath be with­out ptoofe? 2. He telleth vs, that it is not possible that all which he and all the rest can say, can be comprised in so short a sermō. And I beleeve it; [Page 70] For by this his defence it appeareth that he himself can saie a great deale more, then can be comprized in so short a sermon; for besides all that he hath spoken pertinent to the purpose, though nothing to prove the point in question, I dare be bolde, to affirme, there are a century of vntruthes, sarcasmes, slanders and many things of like sort. But all this while, how proveth he that double contra­diction he spake of? Nay where doth the Ref. saye (as the D. insi­nuateth) that all that he and the men of his side can saie, is com­prised in his sermon? That which the Ref. saith, is possible e­nough, to witt, that the pith and substance of all (how much soe­vet it be,) that he and all of his side can say in this controversy to any purpose, may be comprized in as short a sermon as his, which filleth vp an 100. pages; and was not onely preached, before that most honorable auditorie as he faith; but also vpō second thoughts and mature deliberation enlarged, and published to the world. Thus we see how well he hath proved both the vnreasonablenes of the Ref. motion; and the contradictions charged vpon the reason thereof. As for his good admonitions in his epilogue and else­where, (how ever delivered by him not without mixture of gall & wormewood) we have so learned to make use and profit of the wordes of our enemies, as we willingly imbrace them.

¶ Thus much in reply to that which the Doctor hath an­swered Sect. 5. D. page 20. 21. 2 [...]. concerninge the Refuters preface: he should nowe have defended his owne praeface against the answere to it, but that he vtterly refuseth; because, 1. it is a mere libell consisting of noto­rious cavillations, mallicious calumniations, and personall invectives. 2. there is no material thing in it which is not fully answered in the defence of his ser­mon. 3. the defence of his sermon it selfe being growne to so great a volume; he should greatly wrong both himself and his reader in answering it. 4. his re­futer beinge in the darke, and he in the light, it is a verye vnequall combate &c. And therefore in steade of answeringe, he falleth to advisinge, as we shall see when I have given answere to these severall pointes. Lett the reader, concerninge the first, judge, whether the D [...]s. owne wordes may not be banded backe agayne, and charged more justly vpon his preface, thē vpon the answere to it? But albeit both that his preface and this whole defence are in the highest de­gree guiltie of those 3. notorious evils charged vpon the Refu. an­swere: yet I will spare him therein, and onely demaund whether it [Page 71] standeth with any equitie, for him at his pleasure to smite as with his tongue, yea utter in printe, wordes more sharp then swordes; and not forus, once to oppose a sheild of juste defence to beare of his blowes; for him, as Tullie saith, venenata tela jacere, but not for us medicinam facere? As if Caius Fimbria were revived, who when Orar. pro R [...]scio Amerino. he had not; as he desited, slaine Q. Scevola, accused him in judg­ment, quod non totum telum corpore recepisset, that he had not suffred, the whole weapon wherewith he was smitten to enter his body. To the second, I answer, that the reason were good, yf what he saith were true, but the reader comparinge them togither, will finde no one materiall thing eyther fully or once in part answered in the defence of his sermō, how ever here and there he shall meete, with revylinge and reproachfull speaches cast vpon the Ref. for it.

As for the third, I will not deny but his defence is growne to a great volume in deed, and so great, that he should not onely have wronged himself and his reader by making it greater as he sayth; but that he hath wronged them both and his Ref: too, in making it so greate as it is; considering it is growne to that greatnes, as by many notorious vntruthes, so also by those three imputations falsly charged vpon his Ref: And I wish he had regarded more seri­ously what he had committed to the Presse for the judgment of the present age and all posterity; and that he had not so much yeilded to his inordinate affection and corruption, as to make his volume swell with such bitter speaches, so full of choler, & vnpleasant flow­ers of his rethorick, not respecting what became him, that com­mendeth mildenes to others, & proposeth for that purpose the ve­ry example of our Lord and Mr. Christ. If he had defended truth, as truth requireth to be defended, he would never have presented that plesant spectacle (he speaketh of) to the cōmon adversary. If in any sort, bitternes hath bin vsed in our defense by any, who have bin strangely dealt with, through which perhaps some have vttered some distempered speach; the D I doubt not, hath paid them all home their owne againe with large interest, and measure even full & running over, as one that counted it (whatsoever he professeth to the cōtrary) a disparagement to be overcome in such a contention.

Lastly touching the fourth, where he casteth them into the dark that doe not putt their names to their writings &c. What argueth [Page 72] that speach of his, (besides the wrong offred to the pen-men of the sciptures, and other good men many mo [...]; (as is before sayd) but extreame dealing of the Bishops, towards us, why else should we not dare to be seene in a cause, so clearely taught in the word of God, and so famously professed and practised by so many, even the best reformed Churches in the world? As for the refuter, he is asmuch in the light as the Doctor, and as wel knowne to be the Refuter as the D. is to be the defender. Let his Lordbishops lay by their imprisonment, and other extreame dealings, and cease to be Iudges in their owne cause, and that without baile or main­prize or benefitt of appeale inforcing us to indure their sentences; and the D. shall soone see his adversarie in the face. Till then, the reader will both judge his request vnreasonable; seing manifest ex­perience witnesseth that the mildest men for bookes written with­out bitternes, have drunk deep of the Bishops cupp, mixt with the spice of their imprisonments, degradations and such like; and also deeme him a man of no great valour, for counting that combate vnequall, when he figheth with an Adversary, that is not shutt vp in prison, and hath not his weapons blunted or rather taken from him by that meanes. Thus much breifly to his reasons preten­ded for not replying to the Refuters answere, I say pretended, be­ing perswaded, the reason that moved him indeed not to make re­ply, was for that his cōscience cōvinced him of many foul offences therein, had not grace freely to acknowledge them. But to drawe to an ende, his conclusion is. That in stead of answering tha [...] which is past, he will advyse for the time to come, that they who wilbe estee­med men of syncerity, when they publish any bookes, (especially such as they dare not sett their names vnto) would have speciall care not to disgrace any mans person, least they make themselves guilty of that moste b [...]se and odious crime of libelling &c. Least they subject themselves to the fearefull Curse of God &c. The which as I gladly imbrace, so I wish himself had fol­lowed The D. in the end of his sētēce, forgetteth what he ad viseth in the begin­ning. his owne counsell, (especially in this his conclusion, in the ende whereof he forgetteth, what he adviseth in the beginning) so mought he have bene esteemed a man of some syncerity and bene freed both from that evill of sin he cast vpon his Refuter, and the evill of punishment he hath cast him under: vnder both which by his owne sentence, he hath throwne himself; all men seing, who [Page] by all meanes he hath sought not more the overthrowe of his ad­versaries cause, then disgrace of his person; and therein waded so deeply, as he hath left neyther body nor soul, neither learning nor honesty vntouched; and when he hath all done, maketh up his mouth with this profession, that (as if his Refuter were the vilest man in the world) his sharpest answeres are but too milde for him.

Chap. 1. Of the Refuters preamble and the Doctors exceptions to it, especially concerning the choise of his text, handled by the D. lib. 1. cap. 1.

THe Refuter of the D. sermō, having throughly viewed the Sect. 1. ad cap. 1. Def. page 23. 27. frame of the whole, and strength of every part, held it a point of honest & playne dealing, at his first entrance vpō the answere, to informe his reader, what he conceived of it; both concerning the worke it selfe, and the author of it. Of the worke he sayth (page 1.) that it was a building ruinous and tottering, rea­dy to type and fall, and of the Author, that though he boasted of much riches, yet he shewed himself poore and little worth. For where he made a glo­rious shewe, of building a strong and goodly mansion, or tower of defence, for our reverend Bishops to rest their Lordships in; he had scarce one stick or stone of his owne to builde with; nor (as it seemed) one foot of firm or fast ground to set it on. Hereat the Doctor scorneth, and with much choler, wrath, and rage breaketh out, at the first dash, beyond all bounds of charitie and modestie; charging his Refuter with this resolutiō, that before he would incounter the sermon it selfe, he thought good to spend some of his splene, vpon the author of the sermon, the matter, and the text; so making himselfe privie to an other mans thoughts. But how cō ­meth he to that intelligence? Forsooth, because he beholdeth in him, a prowd in sulting over the Author, a scornefull gibing at the matter, & a captious carping at the choise of the text. For towards the author (whose creditt must needs be very deare to the Doctor) he behaveth him self like another insulting Goliah, gibinge Tobiah, and slandering Sanballat; and (though his Refuter be but a worthless and witless fellow (pag. 24.) yet in arrogant vantinge, he playeth the part of Pirgopo [...]nices himself &c. page 25. And touching the matter, because the Refuter said it was borrowed out of D. Bilsons booke of perpetuall govermēt &c. he taketh it for a gibe or scoffe, and rejecteth it, as a base calumni­ation, framed according to his owne practise, and as an objection of a child­ish, [Page] yet odious wrangler, and a slanderous libeller and such like. Beholde here some of the fairest flowers of the Ds. defense, concerninge the Author and matter of his sermon; vnless the reader will give the preferment to these high praises, sett by himself as a garland vpon his owne heade, viz. that he commeth to the combate in simple manner, like David with 5. smoath stones (for so he calleth the 5. pointes of his sermon, now reduced by himself to 4.) taken out of the fountayne of Gods word &c. that the most of his allegations are of his owne readinge, that he is not conscious to himself, eyther in that sermon, or any other writinge, to have taken any one line from any, without citinge the Author; And that in 9. or. 10. daies space, (to provide for his sermon) he hath so fortifyed the cause of the Bishops, that the greatest worthies of the adversaryes parte, assaylinge is with all their force, have not bin able in twice so many moneths, to make the least breach therein &c. But, I doubt not but, he that readeth, will consider otherwise of the matter; and that as there is no reason, he should carry awaye those lofty praises given to himself, and bitter reproaches cast vpon his Answerer, without controwlment: so whiles he striveth to wipe away that impuration of making boast of much riches; he more and more verefieth and taketh it home to him­self; and that in scornefull gibing and proude insulting &c. He hath al­ready in the first 2. leaves of his defense, so farr outrun his refuter, in his whole answere, that it is in vayne for him, (if he were a man of that streyne) once to move one foot forwardes, for victorie in that kinde of bookemaking. Notwithstanding it were both easy (and in some respects profitable) to cleare the Refuters creditt, from the injurious calumniations, thrown on him by the D. and justly to returne his venemous dartes into his owne boasome. But I purpose not to folow his veine in prosecuting, so eagerly any per­sonall quarrells, which bringeth little advantage to the cause; or comfort any way. And if the D. had bin as loth as he preten­deth (in his answere to the preface pag. 20.) to trouble; yea (to use his owne wordes) to wronge both himselfe and his reader, with personall discourses, which breed endlesse & fruitless conten­tions; or had bin as willing to imbrace, as he was ready to give his advice (pag. 21.) (in the publishing of any booke) not to seck the disgrace of any mans person &c. yea if he had well considered, that he here (pag. 25) maketh it the parte of an odious wrangler, to seck his ad­versaries disgrace by that which doth no whitt advantage his cause; doubtles [Page 76] he would never have spent so many words, (and that in the fore­front of his treatise) in answering what was objected concerninge the Author and matter of the sermon. He would rather (as fit was) have laboured more thē he doth, in justifyng the choise of his text (the last of the three objected against him) as that which is ma­teriall and of great consequence; the standing or falling of the the whole building, depending vpon the strength (be it more or lesse) which it receiveth frō the foundation layd to vphold it. But however he hath slightly passed it over (that it may appeare howe vnjustly he hath censured his Refuter therein) he shalbe called back to a more serious debating thereof, after a word or two spo­ken to some things concerning the other two.

Concerning the Author, (which is the D. himselfe) he affirmeth, Section 2. that the Refuter gave him greater prayse then eyther he desired or deserved, &c. and yet he scoffeth at it in his answere to his preface page 19. Againe, he would prove his Refuter to be a worthlesse and a witlesse fellow, because he passed by the learned treatises of the worthies of their side, and made choise to contend with him, in the vanquishing of whom, there can come neyther creditt to himselfe or his cause, nor disadvantage to the adverse part. But the reader can easily conceive the contrary; for in dealing All former writers of the D. side are answe­red in the answer to the doctor. with the Doctor, who hath read those accurate Treatises; and in his sermon (as wee have reason to beleeve) layd downe the extract or quintessence, of that which all those worthies could say therein; he dealeth after a sort with them all, and answereth them all, in an­swering him. Creditt enough therefore wilbe gayned to the Refu­ter and his cause, with disadvantage to the adverse part; in case the D. (being the man that he maketh himselfe to be, prefat. pag. 16. 17.) who had read vvhat all could say, and had the best helps of all that had vvritten before him, of that argument, and vvas vvise e­nough to make the best of that he read, for his advantage; shall yet in this question shevve himselfe (as his Refuter sayth) but poore in deed. And vvhere to prove himselfe to be neyther weake nor worth­lesse, he affirmeth that in his sermon provided in 9. or 10. dayes at the most, he hath so fortified his cause, that the greatest worthies of opposites, assayling it with their forces, have not bene able in twice so many monthes to make the least breach therin: I vvish it may be considered vvhether it be not a boast of much riches, or no? 2. If we may beleeve reports, the greater part of that sermon, vvas preached before at a visitation, or [Page] assembly of Ministers with great applause. But 3. it mattereth not whether it were provided in that time or no; seing he was above 9. or 10 dayes after the preaching of it, in reveiwing and enlarging of it (for enlarged it was as he sayth preface 4.) for the presse, as the time of the cōming of it forth, sheweth: 4. He speaketh with­out booke and more then is true, both in saying that the greatest worthies assayled it with all their force, and that the answerer was in an­swering it twice so many monthes as he was in providing it. Well may he knowe his owne time and helpers; but the Refuter knoweth that the best able or greatest worthies, were so far from assayling it with all their force, that they touched it not with one of their fingers: and that he (one of the least among many) was not so many weeks as the Doctor nameth monthes about it. Doth the Doctor with reason imagine or looke, that they who have neyther bookes, nor libertie for studie, nor presse, nor purse for eyther, at cōmand, (as himselfe hath,) can make so quick dispatch as he? Lett him pro­cure indifferencie herein; & then blame vs for want of expedition. And with as litle reason argueth he, when he telleth us, that the greatest worthies assayling it with all their forces, have not been able to make any breach therein, in twice so many monthes as he was dayes in providing his sermō; as if because they have not done it in that time, they therefore were not able to doe it. Well may he argue them of sloth and negligence, but not of vnsufficiency & vnablenes.

Concerning the matter; whether the Refuter (finding little in the D. sermon which is not in the Bishops booke, (from whence Section. 3. he professeth to have received so good satisfaction) and much al­most, verbatim, word for word with it) might not (suppose &) say, it was but borrowed: I leave it to the indifferent reader, not to the D. (who is a partie) to judge. 2. The often references made thereun­to, were not so much (as the D. sayth) to shewe that what he de­livered was taken thence: as to let the reader see, that both are an­svvered in one, hovvever he sayth the Bishops proofes are such, as never were nor never wilbe answered. 3. To make good his charge of falshood & slaunderous libelling, vpō the Ref:, for saying his sermō vvas borrovved of the Bishop: he professeth he is not conscious to himself of taking any one line from any, without citing the author &c. And yet confesseth a litle before, that diverse of his allegations, were not of his owne first reading, [Page] but examined at the founteine, being as it were, sent thither for thē, by them whom he read: the which as the Refuter denied not; so the contrary to which, he affirmed not, neyther had reason, seing it vvas fitt in deed, he should examine them by the first Authors (where ever he mett with them at the second hand) whether they were true or no. Lastly as for his praise sett upon the oldnesse of the stuffe, because that which is the oldest is the truest: it is but an idle begging of that question, which will not be graunted him; it be­ing The Doct. beggeth the questi­on. out of question, that it was (as the refuter saith) built out of the Bishops old stuffe: not of the oldest stuffe, or of his stuffe, which is the Ancient of dayes. And therefore as Salomon (Prov. 16. 31.) saith of old age, so say I of it: It is then honourable and worthy of cōmendation, when it is found in the way of righteousnes, with­out which figure, it is but as a cypher, whose value in divinity, is nothing worth.

But, to let all passe, come we nowe to the 3. point, and examine Sect. 4. ad Sect. 3. Def. lib. 1. Cap. 1. pa. 27. we, whether the Refuter deserveth to be censured, as a man that spent his splene vpon the text, captiously carping at the choise of it, yea or no? The Refuters words, whereon the Doctor taketh occasion so to censure him, are (not as the Doctor layeth them downe, (out of an abortive booke as he calleth it) thereby shewing how greedy he himselfe is of carping: but as the Refuter himself in his answere, pag. 2. line 5. 6. hath them, namely) these. The text being allegori­call, (as himself confesseth) digge he deep and doe what he can, he shall hard­ly finde fast ground, whereon to lay his foundation. Can any man that judgeth his text vnfitt for his purpose, deliver his opiniō in milder termes? Is there any one word, that savoureth of captious carping? Yet if there were, is it all one to to carp at the choise of the text, and to spend of his spene upon the text it self? But, not to stay vpon this any lon­ger, the Doctor telleth vs, that though the quarrel pleased the refuter so well, that he repeateth it againe, page 3. yet without cause; for that, seing the expositiō of the allegorie is not doubtful, but confessed on both sides, that as by 7. starres are meant the 7. angels; so by the angels, the Bps. of the Churches: who seeth not, that this assertiō, the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good, is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn, as it were vpon a rock? But 1. lett him certify us, 1. touching the exposition of the allegorie in his text, and that if it be nothing doubtfull, but confessed (or agreed on) on both sides, why he doth, in the 2. pag. of his [Page 81] sermon, prepose this, as a doubtfull point needfull to be examined. viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the angels of the Churches? The D. cō ­t [...]adicteth himself. 2. Wherefore he tendered this for his first reason of examining the doubt; because (to vse his owne words, def. pag. 29.) when the Holy­ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels, this interpretation it selfes allegoricall, and therefore needeth some exposition? And. 3. Wherefore, in the very next words of his defence, he m [...]ncioneth. 3. different opinions, touching the persons or functions ment by the Angels. viz. whether all Ministers in generall, the Presidentes of the presbyteries, or diocesan Bi­shops?

2. Moreover, can he without blushing saye, that it is confessed on The Doct. speaketh vntruely. both sides, that by the 7. starrs are ment the 7. Angels? Was it not fl [...]ttly denied? (Not without reason or shewe of reason at leaste) doth not he himself afterwards (cap. 2. sectiō 3.) spend paynes in opening the doubt, and proving, that the angels were just 7. and no more?

3. Lastly, if this be all that he can rightly and strongly build, upon the Apostle in the words of his text, viz. that the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good; his refuter hath good cause, even still to affirm, that this text neither was nor is, any firme ground for him, on which to set up such a mansion for his Diocesans as he assayed. Who therefore seeth not, that it is, (not the refuter with the text, but) the Doctor that quarrelleth with the Refuter in this pointe without a cause? Especially seing when he cōmeth to that 3. page, where he sayth the quarrell is repeated, he doth wittingly both cō ­ce [...] vnder an [...], and overpasse without any answer, that which is [...] [...]a [...]mom [...]nt to justify his Refuter in this point. For the Doct. [...] [...]no [...]l [...]dge a truth to lye in one of these assertions of of the Refuter, to witt, that eyther there is some other portion of scrip­ture, wh [...]n, that which he pretendeth to be here layd downe vnder a v [...]le, is [...] vnf [...]ed [...]d delivered: or that there is no such place to be sound [...] the scripture? Now let him make the best choise he can; and which of them soever he choose; the same shall make [...]ood the refuters quarrell (as the Doctor calleth it) I meane the consequence of his reasoning in that place. For 1. if he shall affirme that there i [...] some other text, that plainely vnfoldeth the pointes here sayd downe vnder the va [...]e of an allegorie; then in reason should his censure be approved which saith, it had bene fitter both in divinity and [Page 82] good discretion, for him to have chosen, some other more cleare portion of scrip­ture, then this which is allegoricall. 2. If he shall grant, (as I think he will not) that there is no such place to be found in all the scripture; it will also inevitablie followe, that the Refuters sentence was right when he sayd, this text cannot be deemed a fitt Iudge to decide so great a controversy.

But it was one of his pointes of wisdome, to passe by this dilemma, Sect. 5. ad cap. 2. pa. 30. defen. or two forked argument; he thought, it enough to repeate (in that 30. page,) his former answere, that the meaninge of the allegory is on all sides agreed on; and to add, this silly inference, that since we doe con­fesse the Angels to be the Bishops of the Churches, therefore by our confession the text was as fittly chosen, as if it had bin sayd, the 7. Starres are the Bi­shops of the 7. Churches. See, see, how faine he would (if he could) The D. beggeth of us, what he dareth not give him­self. wringe from us an acknowledgement of that which himself, well advised (I suppose) dareth not affirme namely, that an allegoricall texte is as fittly chosen, to prove any conclusion, as another which vnfoldeth the same more plainely. But it shall not be amisse, to lett him see the strength of his consequence by another of like force.

Our adversaries (the D. I meane, & the men of his side) doe affirme and teach that the Angels were diocesan Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers; and that the 7. Churches which they governed were properly, Dioceses. Therefore in their opinion, the text was as fittly chosen, as if it had bin said, the 7. Starres are the diocesan Bishops, who having a superiority in degree over other Ministers, did oversee the 7. dioceses, or diocesan Churches in Asia. 2. As for the replie, which he ascribeth to his Refuter (viz. that though it be granted, that the Angels are Bishops, yet not such Bishops as The D. vn­truely fa­thereth on the Refut: what he said not. the D. speaketh of) if it had bin as truly his, as it is vntruly fathered on him; yet he giveth him no cause, to answere as he doth. viz. then the vnfittnes of the text (belike) is not because it is allegorical, but because in his conceite, it is impertinent. He should rather have inferred thus, Then I see the text is vnfitt in a double respect: in parte, because it is alle­goricall; and cheefly because, (though the meaning of the allegory be thus farr agreed on, that it is confessed the Angels were Bishops, yet) it is a great controversy whether they were such Bishops as the Bishops of our Church are. But the D. giveth litle hope, that he will of his owne accord, confesse so much; this, belike, shal be answered with another, inferred vpon a more sure ground. It is certeine the [Page 83] consent of Interpreters (being so farr divided (as he acknowledg­eth, pag. 7. touching the nature of the function of these Angels) can give his text no fitnes to conclude his purpose. Belike there­fore the fitnes that the Doctor imagineth to be in it, is because in his owne conceit it is pertinent, induced therevnto perhaps by the judgement of some fewe that are parties in the cause. But his con­ceit (though supported with the approbation of some that favour the Hierarchy) is too light to be layd in the ballance against the judgment of all those Protestant wryters, which vary from him in the explication of his text.

3. Lastly, where 1. he would sett the newer and elder disciplina­rians (as he termeth them) at odds, about the interpretation of the text; that the one should understand it of all Ministers in generall, the other, of the Presidents of the Presbyteries onely. And 2. that against them both, he proveth by the text it selfe, and by other divine evidence; that the calling of diocesan Bishops, is in this text commended vnto vs, vnder this title of the Angels of the Churches: we are to knowe, that for the for­mer, they agree well enough; for however some understand it of the Presidents; yet they meane such persons, as were also of the com­mon sort of Ministers, though for the time of the assembly, chosen The D. a­voucheth that of both, which is true in neither. Presidents. As for the latter, I marveile he durst so boldly avouch it of both; seing it is true in neyther; as I doubt not but the reader will confesse with me. Thus much in defense of the refuters first reason for mistiking the Doctors choise of his text. viz. because it is allegoricall.

It remayneth that I remember the reader of an other reason, ur­ged Sect. 6. ad page 27. Def: in fine by the Refuter (answ. pag. 2.) against the Doctors choise of his text to iustify our Bishops callings; viz. That whereas others deny that the angels of the Churches were (as the Doct. affirmeth) Diocesan Bishops, he doth not once offer to prove the meaning of his text to be so by any other scripture, or sound expositor of it. Now as it was needfull for the backing of the interpretation of his text, to have produced some: so questionlesse M. Doctor had both witt & will enough to have done so; if they had bene to be found. Wherefore I againe conclude, the text chosen by him was and is vnfit for his purpose. In deed he giveth vs a direct answere herevnto in that last sentence of page 27. where he sayth, Though some object that by the an­gels are meant eyther all Ministers in generall, or the Presidents of the Pres­byters; [Page 84] yet he proveth both by the text it selfe and other evidence, that the cal­ling of Diocesan Bishops, is in the text comended vnder the title, of the angels of the Churches. But hath he done the deed, indeed? Is this his answere as true, as it is direct? Then is it to purpose in deed, and this quar­rell will soone be at an end. But soft a while, what are his proofs? The Doct. promiseth double proof; but produceth none at all What is his evidence, where of he thus boasteth? Where shall wee find them? Are they here layd down to his readers viewe, that they may see and judge of them? Or doth he point out any one page, chapter or booke, where, elswhere any peece of proofe is to be founde? No verely, this is all he saith, but of this more in my answere to the 3. page: where (besides that which is already examined, con­cerning the vnfitnes of his text) some paynes [...]s taken to prove that in each church one onely was intitled the Angel thereof, and that he had a preheminence above the rest, which may l [...] graunted, and yet his Diocesan Bishoprick denied: But to prove that which he sayth, he proveth; there is not as yet found any one line, eyther in his sermon, or his large defence thereof. In the first, he did not once offer to prove it. In this next, be though it enough to say, I doe prove it. In his third, (which is to come) perhapps he will attempt it; but till we see it effected; the Refuters judgmēt must stand sound, that the Doct. vnfitly chose this text, which ma­keth nothing for his purpose.

Chap: 2. Concerning the division and frame of the Doctors sermon, and other materiall points conteyned in the defence of his praeface, or first part of his sermon, unto page 54.

The D. being sett to pick as many quarrels as he could (and Sect. 1. ad cap. 2. Def. sect. 1. & 2. p. 28. 29. 30. more by many, then he had any colour for) so farr misliketh the refuters division of his sermon into 3. parts, viz. the preface, the bo­dy, and the conclusion; that he will needs change the number, either by inlarging it into 4; or abridging it into two. To bring his whole The D. for­getteth in one place, what he doeth in an other. building into a just quadrangle, he divideth that which his Refuter calleth the preface, into these two distinct members, to wit, a pro­eme and a proposition; but he forgetteth (as it seemeth) that himself [Page] shutteth up both these in one, calling them, in the very title of his Chapter, the first part of his sermon. And to reduce all into a perfect dichotomy, he sendeth vs to his transition, (serm. page 94.) there to observe a distribution thereof into two parts, viz. the explication continuing to that place; and the application from thence to the end. Where­in he sheweth himself not very well advised; for his transition hath these words, The same d [...]ct [...]ine, which by way of explication of my text, I have proved; I doe now by w [...]y of application commend vnto you. Now who is so blind that seeth not here 3. distinct parts? to wit, the explica­tion of his text, a doctrine proved by the said explication, and an application of the doctrine so proved? Or rather, who is so sharp The D. is very incō ­stant in the division of his sermon sighted as the Doctor, to discerne the two former to be included vnder one worde explication? And who so skilfull in logicall ana­lysing and dividing, as he who now reduceth vnto explication the 3. first sides of his quadrangle [...] I meane, his p [...]oeme, proposition, and confirmation of his 5. points, proposed to be proved; and againe, divideth his explication into these two members, viz. an explication of his text, and a doctrine collected out of it. But though I will not for­bidd him to cutt his owne coate, into as many, or as fewe pee­ces, as he will; nor to al [...]e, the frame of his owne building, in­to what formes, and as oft [...] he listeth: yet if he shall remaine stil angry, with them that observe it, and shall still revile them that like not his inconstancie; I knowe none that will excuse him. And since he is not ashamed, wrongfully (and without any just cause given) to charge his Refuter (Def. page 46, &c.) with double dea­ling, sophisticall shifting, disordering [...]e frame of his sermon, cutting shorter, and stretching longer the partes thereof, and that by a forced analysis, against the light of his owne conscience; though I have not so learned Christ, as to require him, with the like termes of reproach, (albeit he justly deserveth it) yet must he be contented to heare the truth decla­red, and his owne shifting too and fro in changing his assertions at his pleasure, more plainely discovered.

Of those two assertions, which his explication (as he saith) Sect. 2. cōteyneth, the first he layeth down in these words, That the Pastors or governours of the primitive Churches (here meant by the Angels) were Diocesan Bishops, and such, for the substance of their calling, as ours be; the second in these wordes, that the function of Diocesan Bishops is lawful & good: And he affirmeth, that these assertions, are for the handling of the [Page 86] text first propounded to be discussed. But if the Doctor had pervsed the 2. page of his sermon, (for it seemeth he cast not his eye vpon it, when he wrote his defence) he should haue seene that these are not the same assertions, but changlings (whosoever rocked the cradle) The Doct. changeth his asserti­ons. putt in their stead. For there having the words of his text before his eyes, The 7. starrs are the Angels of the 7. Churches, & considering to what end he had chosē his text, (viz. to justify the honourable fun­ctiō of our English Prelates); he vndertaketh in the first place, plain­ly to prove, that the Angels of those Churches were Bishops (for the sub­stance of their calling) such as our Bishops are. And secondly out of the words to shewe, that the office and function of Bishops, here meant by an­gels, is in this text both approved as lawfull, and cōmended as excellent. Will the D. say, that in sense and meaning (for in words they are not) these are all one with the two first? Nay his conscience will tel him, that in each proposition both termes (I meane the subiectum and the predicatum) have received such a change, that the two for­mer, cannot be truely sayd to be the same with the two later. For in that first, (which he saith is an explication of the text) lett him shame the Divill and speake the truth, and tell us, what moved him to add, the word primitive to the subiect, and the word Diocesan to the Predicate of that assertion? Shall I help to informe the reader, till his owne answere may be heard? He was resolved (the event de­clareth it) to make the best defense he could, for the calling of this Diocesan Bishops; yet not so much by the text, which he chose; or by any other testimony of scripture; (for then fewer lines might have served his turne, then are nowe the leaves of his sermon) as by the authoritie of fathers & councels, wherof he had greater store, and such as (in his owne apprehension) made a fayrer shewe for his purpose. Hence is it, that in the winding up of all that he had spoken for the proofe of his first assertion, (to make the conclusiō more sutable to the premises) he brought his whole discourse to this yssue, (serm. pag. 52.) Thus you have heard, that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church, were, for the substance of their calling, such as our Bishops are. Where note, he saith not, the angels of the 7. churches in S. Iohns time, were such Bps. (yet that was the point, he promised to prove) but the angels or Bishops of the primitive church, were such. Vnderstanding by the primitive Church, the ages succe­ding, for 300 yeares after the Apostles dayes, (as appeareth by [Page] serm. pag. 56. & 57. and by Def. lib. 3. page 12 and 14.) which when he hath made the best of it, that he can; is but an idle digres­sion from his text, not a right explication thereof. Yet in this veine, The D. di­gresseth from his text: doth not rightly explicate it he persisteth throughout his defence, giving vs for the true and na­turall explication of his text, the same general assertion: whereof see lib. 1. pag. 54. lib. 2. pag. 41. & lib. 3. pag. 22. Onely in these places (like as before) he addeth the word Diocesan in the predicate, or later terme of the sentence, to conforme this first assertion, with the second of the last edition, (viz. the calling of Diocesan Bishops is law­full and good) that he might with the better colour commend the later vnto us, as the Doctrine which floweth from the former. For which cause also, he seemeth here to limitt his first assertion, with­in the compasse of his text, vnto those Pastors or Bishops, which are here meant by angels: he seemeth (I say) here to doe it; and he doth it in deed, in the last section of this chapter, and page 3. lib. 4. where he seriously mindeth the collecting of his doctrine from the text; yet, in inclosing those words, here meant by angels, within a pa­renthesis, he seemeth withall to intimate to his reader, that those words may wel be spared; & the sentence neverthelesse stand perfect without them; as it doth in the places before noted, even as oft as he aimeth at the reducing of his 4. first points (serm. pag. 6. & 7.) vnto one cōmon conclusion. Thus he windeth out and in at his The Doct. windeth in and out, at pleasure. pleasure, and vnder termes that carry a double construction, hath fitted his first assertion to a double purpose. What shall I say to him? Would he thus have done, if he had hated double dealing & sophisticall shifting in himselfe, as much as he seemeth to loath it in his Refuter; who gave him farr lesse cause, what say I? yea, to speake truth, no cause at all, so to accuse him of any such offence? Let the reader Iudge.

But let us goe on, and compare togither the 2. assertion (to use his owne phrase) of the newe edition, with the 2. point proposed, Sect. 3. serm. pag. 2. In the one he roaveth at randome, and affirmeth of Diocesan Bishops at large, (at least of all such as ours be, for so he expoundeth himself, lib. 4. pag. 3.) that their calling is lawfull & good: In the other, reteyning a speciall reference to his text and the an­gels there mentioned, he saith, that the function of Bishops, there meant by the angels, is in the text it selfe, approved as lawful and commended as ex­cellent. Howsoever the Doctor be strongly perswaded, that the An­gels, [Page 88] of whom his text speaketh, were Diocesan Bishops, for the substance of their calling, like to ours; yet is he not surely, so farr bereaved of his senses, but he can discerne a difference, not onely betweene those ancient Bishops, in particular, and those to whom he resembleth them; or Diocesan Bishops in generall: but also betweene the lawfulnes of their callings distinctly considered. For as he is not ignorant that his Refuter acknowledgeth, the fun­ction of those Bishops, which are in his text called Angels to be lawfull and good, because they were Pastors of those 7. severall Churches; and yet holdeth the calling, of all such Diocesan Bps. as ours are, to be vnlawfull: so be he here remembred, that we finde his owne [...]llogi [...]mes (lib. 1. p. 58. & lib. 4. 3) to put this diffe­rence betweene the calling, of the one, and of the other; that the calling of such, as is here meant by Angels, is made the M d [...]s ter­mi [...]us, to cōclude the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops. Moreover, there is so much differece, betweene the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops, considered at large; & the approbatiō 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 i [...] 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 su [...]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 [Page] 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 warrāted 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 cōmon 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 [Page 90] 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, t [...] teach vs the meaning of his text. But the D. enraged a [...] 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 explicatiō of his text; & if he had handled them, so as he ought (by giving direct answeres to his questions, and ad­joyning the confirmation of each point, by some cleare evidence [Page 91] from the text it self, & the circumstances therof, or some other scri­pture (where the like wordes or phrases are vsed): such a handeling in deed of these pointes, had bin a good proof of his assertiō, & consequently a sufficient explication of his text. But since he hath not once indeavoured thus to handle his two points; (which himself acknowledgeth, ought to have bene discussed for the clea­ring of the text) what should hinder the Refuter or his Reader still to affirme, that his text (in regard of these two doubts) standeth still vnexplained, and his first assertion left vnproved? 4. To con­clude, the D. thus reasoneth, If the text be that which is to be explica­ted, who could be so senslesse, as eyther to require that these points should be ex­plained by the text, or to find fault, that by the handling of them, the text is explained? I answere first, to the last accusation. If the fault which The Doct. slaūdreth. the Refuter findeth, be not such as the Doctor mentioneth, but rather the contrary; viz. that he goeth about to teach vs the mea­ning of his text, without any due handling of those points, by the bare cōmending of them to our consideration: then, whether the Doctor be not againe worthy to be censured, eyther for a blinde and inconsiderate, or for an vncharitable and mallicious slande­rour, lett the christian reader judge. As touching the other, who The D. see­meth sens­les or for­gettfull. would have thought him to have bin so sensless, or at least forgett­full, as he seemeth to be, eyther, in judging that his Refuter ment to limitt him in his explication, vnto the words of the text, to ex­plaine it by it self, without any other help; the contrary whereof is plaine to be seene (in his answere, pag. 3. & 4.) or in deeming it absurd and impossible, for a text of scripture to be explained by it self; seing he himself explaineth and proveth by the very words of his text, (serm. pag. 2. & 3.) his second assertion, concerning the qualitie of their function. But the cause is reasonable, why the D. dooth the one, and leaveth the other vndone. For his 2. assertion, viz. that the function of the Bishops, meant by angels in his text, is of God ap­proved as lawfull, doth clearly in all mens understanding arise frō the very name of stars and angels: but it is not so easy, (nay it is impos­sible) to drawe out of those wordes, or any other circumstances of the text, such a preheminence above other Ministers, as his first assertion attributeth to these angels, when it affirmeth them, to be such Bishops (for the substance of their calling) as ours are. Wherefore, it was the Doctors wisdome (if it were worthy of that [Page 92] name) not to deliver us any one proofe (syllogistically concluded) throughout his large defēce: but to stopp his readers mouth every where with such words as these, the text is rightly expounded of Dioce­san Bishops, And, I doubt not by Gods help to make it evident; that such Bishops are here meant by starres and Angels. Yea it is proved, that Diocesan Bishops are here meant by angels. But hereof more when I come to the 2. last sections.

As for the two next sections, there being nothing in them, but Sect. 6. ad sect. 7. & 8. Def: pag. 37.-39. gall and bitternes, vented in personall calumniations both false & slaunderous, I hold them vnworthy any reply. It is sufficient, both for the Authours, aswell of that modest offer of disputation, as of the late Petition; as also for the Refuter, that the Doct. bare ac­cusation The Doct. hath two sections ful of calumni ations. of slaunders not meet to be named, cannot make the guilt of them; for why should they care to answere him in this case, wherein he speaketh, he neyther careth nor knoweth what? And touching that loud-crying slaunder, which he renueth, in charging them to deny the King to be a member of a true visible Church; since it is already sufficiently refuted, I might well passe by all he hath said to weaken their defence: and seing he doth with great scorne, refuse aforehand to admitt of the answere, say­inge, it is no matter what they hold, vnlesse they were more learned and i [...]dicious; he deserveth no other rejoynder but this, it is no matter what he speaketh, vnlesse he had some better grounde then he hath, to make good his accusation. But in so hay­nous a crime as this is, (laesae Maiestatis) it may be a deed of charity to defend them; a word of two of it therefore.

The Doctor being displeased with them, that argue our Bi­shops, to be therefore no members, of any true visible Church, because they are not members of some one onely parishe; did The D. ad­ded to his opposites reason a malicious speach; & now set­teth a false glosse upō it. falsly and maliciously add, that in these mens conceits, it must needs be the Kings owne case. In deed, if any of them had at any time pro­fessed, or given the least suspicion of this conceite, that the King is not a member of any one particular congregation, (such as we define a parish to be) there had beene reason for his inference: But the D. knoweth that they all holde the King and his hous­hold to be an intire Church, or distincte congregation by it self. Wherefore if mallice and selfe-love, had not too much prevailed with him; he would (vpon his second thought) have [Page 93] revoked his slaunderous inference, and not have sett a false glosse upō it, to make it seeme the more probable; for thus he reasoneth.

The Kinge having a more generall reference to all the Churches with­in his dominions (as being the governour of them all in greate Britta­nie and Ireland) is further from being a member of one onely parish, then any Bishop in this kingdome.

Therefore by what reason they deny the Bishops to be members of the true Church; (because forsooth they be not of some particular parish) by the same, they may aswell denye the Kinge to be a member of the true Church.

Whereunto I answere. 1. If he had any intent (by this argu­ment) to justifye his former slaunder; in stead of these words in his conclusion; they may aswell deny the King &c. he should have said, in their conceit they doe and must deny &c. which he cannot with any colour conclude, vnlesse he will add to his Antecedent the like words, (in their conceit and opinion) and saye, that in theire The D pro­veth one slaunder by another, or reasoneth absurdly. judgement and conceit the King is further from being a mem­ber of one onely parish, then of any Bishop in the kingdome. But this were to prove one slander by another; for they whom he slaundereth doe acknowledge, that notwithstanding his ge­nerall reference to all the Churches in great Brittanie and Ire­land, whereof he is supreme governour by his Kingly office, yet in asmuch as he submitteth himselfe and his family, to the pub­like Ministerie of those whom he hath chosen to dispense the word and sacraments, to him and to them; he is a member of a true visible Church, (or if you will) of one certaine parish, that is to say, (of one particular congregation of Christians, assembled to­gither in one place, for the solemne and publique service of God. 2. If the Doctor be of a contrary opinion, then he reasoneth ab­surdly from his owne false imagination, (that the King is further then any Bishop from being a member of one onely parish) to cō ­clude that they which deny the Bishop to be a member of a true Church, may aswel (or rather must needs) be so conceited of the K. With much more probabilitie we may return this conclusion into The D. cō ­cludeth a­gainst him­self, and bringeth his slander upon his own head. his owne bosome, that seing he is perswaded, the K. cannot be a member of any one parish, because he is the governour, of all the Churches within his dominiōs; he must for the same cause deny him to be a member of any one Diocesan or provinciall, (I may adde Nationall) Church within his dominions. And hence it [Page 94] will followe that in his conceite, the King is not a member of any one certeine visible Church: for by one visible Church, the D. mea­neth, the christian people of one diocese or province, or at the moste of one na­tion. For the christian people lyving vnder diverse lawes (as the people of Eng­land and Scotland doe) are diverse nations, and so diverse visible Churches, if we may beleeve his owne wordes lib. 3. p. 51. 52. Wherefore the vnpartiall reader, may easily see, that this odious crime, (of denying the King to be a member of a true visible Church) falsly and spite­fully ascribed to them, against whom he dealeth; doth truely and justly light vpon himself. As for the question which he moveth, whither they holde the King and his houshold to be a true Church? That so he may be thought to be a member of a true Church? though the Q. be needlesse, and sufficiently answered already, yet know he a­gaine and againe, that they hold the Kinge and his familye to be a true visible Church, not onely a member of a true Church; and the King in regard of his regall office, a most noble member excelling all other, though the Doct. seemeth to be otherwise perswaded, not onely of the King as is before shewed, but perhaps also of his fa­miley; because it is not as other parishes are, a subordinate mem­ber of any one diocese, nor constantly subjected to the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop.

His last reason, why we may not with the like reason acknowledge the Bishop and his family to be an entire (Church he should say, but he saith) familie by themselves? I will answere when I finde him better disposed to receive it, then he was, when to the ende of his question, he ad­ded, It is no matter what they holde, vnlesse they were more learned and ju­dicious. In the meane time, lett him bethink himself what to answere to these questions. 1. Whether every Bishop, or any one of them, doth alike subject himself as the King doth to the pastorall autho­rity of any one or moe, that doo ordinarily distribute the word and sacramentes to his whole familye? 2. Whither any Bishop re­sidinge, with his familye in another diocese (as the Arch Bishops alwaise doe, and some others for the most parte doe) he and his familey be (as other parishes are) subject to his jurisdiction, in whose diocese they are? 3. And if the Bishop be the pastor of his familey and his chapleines assistants to him, for the pastorall over­sight therof, whether we may not affirme their families to be so ma­ny Presidents of parishes governed by a parish pres bytery?

In 3. sections following, the Doctor bestirreth himself to re­cover Sect. 7. ad sect. 9. Def. pag. 40. his credit with his Diocesan Bishops, who by a reasō groun­ded on his owne words were proved (by the Refuter, page 6.) to be absolute Popelings. The reason was layd downe to him in this forme.

They who have not onely supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesi­asticall, are absolute Popelings. All Diocesan Bishops have not onely su­preme, but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall. Therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings. The Doct. scorning that this should be called his reason, sayth, That there is nothing in it his, but the propositiō, which also is stretched, beyond not onely his meaning, but his wordes. His wordes are these (serm. pag. 4.) least they might seeme to sett up an abso­lute popeling in every parish, who should have not only supreme but also sole au­thoritie in causes ecclesiasticall, they adioyne unto him, (that is, to their Pastor) a consistorie of lay or governing elders. Out of these words (saith the Def: pag. 40.) I deny not, but this proposition may be framed. They who give to a Bishop, not onely supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall, doe seeme to sett vp an absolute popeling. And why not (or better) that pro­position, which his Refuter urgeth? In deed if he had sayd, They seeme to sett vp an absolute popelinge, in giving to their parishe Bishop, not onely supreme, but also sole authority &c: his propo­sition had more naturally flowed frō his words, then now it doth: but since he saith an absolute popeling, which should have both supreme & sole authoritie &c. he very clearely describeth in these last words, (of having such an authoritie as he speaketh of) what he meant by an abso­lute popeling, namely such a Pastor or Bishop, as hath not onely supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical. Wherefore he may aswell deny it to be day-light at high-noone, as deny that the Refuter rightly drewe his proposition from his wordes before expressed.

2. Moreover put case, a man should contradict the proposition, which himself acknowledgeth to agree with his words and mean­ing; must he not be inforced for the proofe thereof to assume, some such assertion as that is, which the Refuter propoundeth. viz. that he is an absolute popeling who hath (in any parish or diocese) su­preme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall?

3. Yea doth he not elswhere in his sermon (pag. 17. & 51.) with out any seeming, affirme in plaine termes, that the parish Bishop, or [Page] Pastor of every parish, must rule as a Pope vnlesse he be assisted with a presby­terie, or subjected to the diocesan Bishops authority? Yea that it is to sett vp a Pope in every parish, if the Pastors doe rule alone, neyther subject to the Bi­shop, nor restreyned by Assistantes? In like manner, in this defence (lib. 1. cap. 8. pa. 194.) saith he not, that their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme ecclesiasticall officers, would be (he saith not might seeme to be, but would be) absolute popelinges, if presbyteries were not adjoyned vnto them, because they shall have not onely supreme, but also sole authority? It is therefore a meere cavill joyned with an evident vn­truth; The D. j [...]ineth a cavill and an vntruth togither. to say as the D. doth, that the proposition sett downe by the Refuter; is not his, but stretched beyonde not onely his meaninge but also his wordes.

4. But it was the D. cunninge to take advantage of the word seeminge (here vsed, but elsewhere omitted,) so to perswade, if he could, that his Resuter had no colour from his wordes, to coclude, that he did sett vp (but onely that he did seeme to sett vp) absolute poplinges, for which cause also, in meeting with the places, where the Refuter reneweth this objection (which yet is no oftener then his owne wordes gave occasion, by his renewinge of his calumnia­tion against the favourites of the government by presbyters) he sendeth back his reader to this place, saying, that th [...]se objections (though repeated in other wordes answering to his owne termes) are answered before, and that to their shame (see lib. 1. pa. 194. & lib. 3. pag. 142.) But (will he, nill he) we have gained the propositio; so that if his answere to the assumptio be not the better, the shame will light vpon his owne pate.

To come therefore to the assumption. First, lett it be remembred Sect. 8. that the Refuter propounded it (not as his owne assertion, which he ment to prove by the constitution of our Churches, or the prac­tise of our Bishops, but) as a pointe which the D. vndertaketh to prove in his sermon. 2. He is likewise to be so vnderstood as ofte as he objecteth against our Bishops, that having sole and supreme au­thority, they rule as Popes or Popelinge; wherefore the assumption which the D. rejecteth, as false and foolish, or frivolous, is this in effecte. That all diocesan Bishops have (or ought to have in the D. opinion) not onely supreme but also s [...]le-authority in matters ecclesiasticall within their diocesse. Or thus, The D. giveth and alloweth to di [...]cesan Bishops, such supreme and sole authority &c. Wherefore to make way for the proofe [Page] of this Assumption, the Refuter first layde downe the state of the question, into which the Doctor is nowe entred, (viz. whither the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders, or by Dioce­san Bishops) and then addeth, that where they say by Pastors and El­ders, adioyning the Elders to the Pastors, and making them both subuct to the congregation (so farr off are they from giving sole and supreme authoritie to the Pastors alone &c.) Mr Doct. taketh all from them all, and putteth the re [...] into the bandes of his Diocesans alone, &c. From which words to con­clude the former assumption, and (in the contriving of the argu­ment) to keep, as neere as may be, to the tenour of the syllogisme, proposed by the Doctor to himself to confute; thus I argue.

• Whosoever giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone, that power which is taken from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes; he giveth to the Di­ocesan Bishop, supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall.
• But the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone, that power which is ta­ken from their several Pastors with their Elders and Parishes.
• Therefore the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical

I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth downe (sect. 11. pag. 43.) and adjoyne such an as­sumption as best fitteth with it. And I nothing doubt, but the Re­futer will easily be discharged from all the untruthes, the Doctor chargeth upon him, and it be made to appeare that the Doct. him­self is the man that climbeth that ladder of vntruthes, to put his The D. not the Ref. climb­eth the ladder of vn­truthes. Bishops out of that seate of papacie, wherein (by his owne rules) they were quietly seated. And first, I will confirme the partes of this argument; & then blowe awaye the smoke of those untruthes which rose from out of the Doctor as sparkes flye vpward. The pro­position I thus prove,

• Whosoever giveth vnto one Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese, such a power of government as would be found both supreme and sole, if it were inve­sted wholly in the person of any one pastor for the government of one parishe, he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole au­thoritie in causes ecclesiasticall.
• But that power of government which the D. taketh, from the severall Pa­stors with their Elders and Parishes is such a power as would be found to be both supreme and sole authority in causes ecel [...]sticall; if it were wholly inve­sted into the person of any one Pastor, for the government of one Parishe. There­fore whosoever giveth vnto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese, that [Page 98] power of government, which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes; he giveth vnto the diocesan Bishop: alone for his diocese, both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall.

Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is cleare enough of it self, and the assumption is drawne from the D. words both in his sermon and this defense of it, when he saith, againe and againe, that the autho­rity which he denieth vnto parishes, with their Pastors and Elders, (in this controversy) is an immediate and independent or supreme authority suffici­ent for ecclesiasticall government. And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority (viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall) if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoyned to him. Wherefore, if it can be pro­ved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical goverment, which he denieth vnto Pastors with their parishes and Elders; it will inevitably folow, that he alloweth vnto every diocesā Bishop, supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall. To pro­ceed therefore to the proofe of this pointe (which is the assumpti­on of the first prosyllogisme) thus I argue,

• In debating this question (whither the Churches are to be governed severally by Pastors and Elders in every parishe, or by Bishops sett over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese) whosoever impugneth the former and mainteineth the later, he giveth vnto every Bishop in his diocese, that power of goverment which he den [...]eth to the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes.
• But in debating the question before mentioned, the D. impugneth the for­mer branch of the question, and maintaineth the later.
• Therefore, he giveth to every Bishop, in his diocese, that power of gover­ment which he denied vnto the severall pastors with their Elders and parishes.

Here the Assumption is in it self evident, if the question debated, be such as is before noted; which none of his freinds need to doubt of, since the D. himself excepteth not against it, but intreateth the reader to take notice of the state of the question for future use (pag. 41.) and when he repeateth it (cap. 3. pag. 61.) he acknowledgeth it to be rightly sett downe, in respect of the partes of the disfuncti­on. Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyl­logisme standeth firme. For in this question (to use his owne words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61.) he must confesse, (vnlesse he will confesse him­self to be ignorant in logicke) that this disjunction is implyed. The Churches of Christe are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parishe, or by one Bishop, set over an whole diocese. And [Page 99] this disjunction, as it is ex hypothesi necessarie, it being agreed vp­on on both sides, that either the one or the other forme of gover­ment is to be imbraced, and that one and but one of these asserti­ons is true or false; so it doth necessarily import, both that they which affirme the former, doo give vnto every parishe Church and her presbytery (for the government of it self) the same power, which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops: And that they which pleade for the government of Bishops, doe allowe vnto every Bishop in his diocese, the same power and authority, which they de­nie to the severall parishes and their presbyteries. For as it were a foolish question, if both partes of the disjunction were true; soo it were no lesse foolish, if both partes were vntrue or false; as it must be, if that power of government, be not lawfull for the one, which is de­nied vnto the other.

Now (to come to the vntruthes which the D. chargeth vpon his Sect. 9. ad Sect. 10. pag. 41. 42. Refuter:) he findeth in his assumption these two. 1. that all authori­ty is by the Drs. taken from the Pastors, Elders and people in every parishe. 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone. To prove the first an vntruth, he first granteth one parte of it true, saying the Elders in deed, I reject as a new devise. 2. As for the parishioners, (though for our cre­dit sake, as he saith, he leaveth out that dotage of their cheife authoritie, as if we held it, and so maketh vs beholding to him, for lea­ving that out, which wee never put in; for where did he ever read that we give them the chiefe authority in government?) in them he acknowledgeth some authoritie, in chusing or consinting to the choise of some Church officers. And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes, he leaveth them that Pastorall power, which ever was gran­ted to them, since the first distinguishing of Parishes, to witt, their power of order as they are all Ministers, and a power of spiritual or inward iurisdiction, to rule their flock after a private manner, and as it were in the Court of conscience. The Elders indeed, have little cause to thanke him; but see how much the people and their Pastors are beholding to him: he is content the people shall have some authority, he had once sayde to choose, but that was too much, and therefore recallinge it he sayth to consent to the choise of some Church officers; but they must stand to his curtesy, hereafter to vnderstand at his pleasure, who are those some Church­officers, to whose choise they have authoritie to consent; and who [Page 100] are those other some, to whose choise, they have no authoritie so much as to as [...]ent: whether by the former, he meane their Pastors, and perhaps the Church-wardens and Parish clerks; and by the la­ter, the Bishops, Deanes, Prebends, Archdeacons &c. yea or no.

In like manner he alloweth, to the Pastors of parishes, a pastorall power, both of order and jurisdiction; but their Pastorall authori­ty, is not in foro externo, but in fore cons [...]ientiae, and whatsoever it be, it is delegated and cōmitted to them by the Bishops, (serm. pag. 45.) to whom the care of the whole Church belōgeth so that the authority is not theirs, they are but as servāts to the Bps, & so rule under thē, as they are ru­ed by thē, as at large he assayeth to prove, serm. p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea & in this defence, p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastorall power onely, which ever was granted vnto them, since the first distinguishing of pa­rishes, and allotting of severall Presbyters to them, as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolicall; but rather of humane & papall institution. Thus we see how deeply indebted the Pastors and people are to the Doctor for his allowance towards them.

2. But how will these parts of power or authority thus allowed them by the D. prove an vntruth in the Refuter when he said, that the question being (as he said) whether the Church should be go­verned by Pastors and Elders with the people, or by Diocesan Bi­shops, the Doctor taketh all from them all, &c. Must not that all which is said to be taken away, be limitted to the question before proposed? q. d. all that power of government (which is contro­verted whether it belongeth to the Pastors with the elders & peo­ple of every parish, or to the Bishop in his whole Diocese, all this I say,) the Doctor taketh from the Pastors Elders & people, and put­teth the same (not all simply) into the hands of his Diocesan Bishop alone. And in this sense (which is the true sense, though the Doct. shifteth out of it) the refuters words are true, as before is shewed. The Doct. shifteth the sense. Neyther can the Doctor without shame, deny it; seing that exter­nall power of government which standeth cheefly in ordeyning, censuring and absolving &c. is the thing controverted in the quae­stion before expressed, which the Doctor holdeth to be the Dioce­san Bishops right, and unlawfully given to the parish-Bishop & his Elders. Wherefore the first vntruth falleth back upon the Doctors owne head, when he falsly sayth, that his Refuter affirmeth of him, that he taketh all manner of authoritie from the Pastors Elders & [Page 101] people. And so also doth that second vntruth, inasmuch as himself well vnderstandeth, and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. vn­truthes, but they both fall back vpon his owne heade. meaning (in the proposition set downe page 41.) to be of giving to the Bishop, that power, which is taken from the severall Pastors &c. and not all power simply. As for that he objecteth to prove, that he gi­veth not all authority to the Bishop alone, because others are in the ec­clesiasticall government ioyned with him, some vnder him, as Deanes, Arch­deacons &c. some above him, as Archbishops, and provinciall Synodes &c. It shalbe answered, cap. 4. sect. 8. where it is nothing to the pur­pose but an other shift, from the question, which is not defact [...] and of the time present, (viz, what order of government now standeth in our Churches by our present lawes and constitutions) but de [...]re, what forme of Church-government ought to be, or at least, law­fully The D. shifteth the questi­on. may be, as being of divine or Apostolicall institution? Or if d [...] facto, yet it is for the time past, for the first 200. yeares after Christ, as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugne (serm. pag. 4.) doe declare. Wherefore, if the Doctor will discharge himselfe from giving all the power of government in question, to one Bi­shop alone in his Diocese (and so be guiltlesse of the vntruth, he chargeth on the Refuter) he must both affirme and prove, that the Archdeacons and Deanes (rurall and cathedrall) togither with the Chauncelors and officialls, which now rule vnder the Bishop, and the Archbishop with his courts, which are above him; be of divine institution, or at least were in vse, in the time of the Apostles, and so derived to succeeding ages. And yet, if he could and should per­formo this hereafter; it shall nothing weaken the Refuters asserti­on, who examining the tenor of his sermon (and finding therein no intimation, eyther of any assistants to restreyne his Diocesan Bishop, or any superior court to rule over him) did therefore true­ly Sect. 10. ad Section 11. page. 43. Two other vntruths charged on the Ref. by the D. returne back into his owne bosome. affirme, that the Doctor put the reynes of the government cō ­troverted, into the hands of his Diocesan alone.

As for those two vntruthes, which he sought and professeth to finde in the proposition, they doe (even as the former two) re­turne home into his owne bosome. For since he cannot deny, but that the power which he taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes, is in his opinion a supreme authoritie in cau­ses ecclesiasticall, and such as wilbe both supreme and sole in the Pastor (yea more then Popelike) if they had not a consistorie of el­ders [Page 102] joyned to him; it is no vntruth to affirme (but an vntruth to deny) that he giveth both sole and supreme authoritie to the Dio­cesan Bishop (whosoever he be) that giveth to him alone that power of government which the Doctor taketh from every several Pastor, with the Elders and people of every parish. For whereas he obje­cteth, that because he acknowledgeth a superior authoritie, both in the Archbi­shop: and his courts; and in the provinciall Synods, &c. it is apparant, that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders; yet it would not follow, that he giveth the whole authoritye ecclesiasticall, to the Di­ocesan alone; it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected, & is before answered; and here altogither impertinent; because to w [...]ken the refuters proposition, he must shewe that he giveth not supreme and sole authoritie to the Bishop in his Diocese; although he give to him alone, all the power that he taketh from the severall Pastors, with their Elders and parishes.

But whereas he falleth backe to the assumption againe, & addeth touching his refuters speach in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops, that it is the supreme and lowdest lye, and maketh the Assumption of his cheef [...]syl­logisme evidently false; it is a supreme and lowd lye in the Doctor, (if The D. ma­keth a loud lye. I may returne him his owne words) 1. to reckon this for one vn­truth implied in the proposition, when himselfe acknowledgeth it to be the assumptiō of his cheife syllogisme. 2. to deny it; for what could be spoken with a supremer & lowder crye, by him, then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical, and that not in this defense onely, but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon, where he offreth to prove it by divers testimonies. To what end else citeth he (pag. 30.) Ignatius ad Smyrn. and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens. shewing that all must be subject to the Bishop, who holdeth and menageth the whole power & authority over all; yea such a power as admitteth no partner, much lesse a superior? Yea what else meaneth his conclusion, pag. 52. where he saith, thus you haue heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church, were for the substance of their calling such as ours are, having a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction? If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop, let the rea­der [Page 103] (especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next cha­pter) judge. As yet therefore neyther the lowest nor the lowd­est lies, which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter doe belong to him; they must goe home and rest with their owne Father, for ought is yet done.

As for all that which followeth (pag. 44. & 45.) eyther to Sect. 11. ad pag. 44. & 45. & sect. 12. 46. 47. Def. free himselfe from giving popelike authoritie to Bishops, or to prove his accusation against the Presbyterians, that they make the Pastor of every parish a petty pope: Well may it argue his wps: good affection to the one, and evill will, (which never said well) to the other; but it can neyther cleare him, nor condemne them, in his conscience, who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides. For neyther is the Doctors cause releived, by that subjection which he affirmeth (and the Refuter acknowledgeth) of our Diocesan Bishops, to their Archbishops &c: Neyther is their cause made the worse by the height or impudencie of that ecclesiasticall authoritie, which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish. For the question is not (as the Doctor shifteth The Doct. shifteth the questiō it). Whether by our Church constitutions, Dioccsan Bishops doe lie subject to any higher authoritie, or whether men may appeale from them, &c. but) whether the Doctor doth not indeavour in his sermon, to convey vnto every Bishop in his Diocese, as his right by divine institution, an authoritie and power of go­vernment, in causes ecclesiasticall no lesse sole and supreme, then the power which every Pastor should haue in his parish (by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them) if he had no consistorie of Elders to assist and restreine him? And tow­ching the parishbishop, the question is this; whether he should be (or at least seeme to be) an absolute Popeling, (as having sole and supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall) if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoyned vnto him? If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slaundering, and syllogi­stically conclude eyther from his owne sermon, the Negative in the former question; or from their writings whom he impu­gneth, the assirmative in the later; he shall, I doubt not, have good and honest audience. [Page 104] In the meane time, seing he hath not as yet affirmed, (much lesse proved) that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolicall insti­tution, subject to the jurisdiction eyther of the Archbishop, or of the provinciall synode; it may suffice to close vp the former questio with his owne words (p. 43.) What hath he gained by all his owne triumphing outcries, but the manifestation of his owne mani­fest vntruthes? And for the later question, since it is evident, (by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy) that they doe subject their Pastor, aswel as the meanest of the people, togither with the whole congregatio, to the Kinges authority, & to all his Majesties civill officers & ecclesiasticall lawes: and seing also it appeareth, not onely by the same Tract, art. 26. but also by those 16. positions: & by the Refuters words (whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. & 41.) that they subject their Pastor, and every of their ecclesiasticall offi­cers, to the body of the congregation and their censure, if there be juste cause: he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes, these 2. false and shamelesse positions. viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. ad­deth to his former vn­truthes, 2. false and shamelesse positions. in regard of that supremacy, which they ascribe vnto him: and that, were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him, as the Pope hath of Cardinals, he would be more then a Pope. True it is, they say, that the Pas­tor of a particular congregation, is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer, in every true constituted visible Church of Christ: But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers, as were specially instituted in the new-Testament. And if the D. judgement be demaunded, which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church, let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop, or at least of his Archbishop? For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles, and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government, were dioceses properly (as he confidently saith) and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth (as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114.) that Metropolitans were (I say not instituted, but) intended by the Apostles; why may it not be concluded that in his opinion, the diocesan Bishop, is he highest ordinarie officer eccle­siasticall, in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet? Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon (specially by pag. 44. 45. & 90.); that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule, aswell over the presbyters as the people of his dio­cese; [Page] that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop, (which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop) that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie, which he ascribeth vnto him. If he had rather bestowe this honor, vpon his Metropolitan Bishop; because (to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable, to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches, then this of England) he saith (in that 114. pag. lib. 2.) that at the first Metropolitans were, autokephaloi, heades by themselves of their provinces, and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops; as it must needes be granted him, that the title doth beseeme him much bet­ter, because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger: so it The D. fal­leth into another vn truth. in denying any of our Bishops, to be the supreme ecclesiasticall of­ficer in his Church. To say as he doth (pag. 45.) that our Bishops are guidded by lawes, which by their superiors are imposed on them, maketh no more for them; then the like subjection in the parish Bishop. But why say I the like? Since it is farr greater, he being subject not one­ly to the King, his ecclesiasticall lawes, and the meanest of his civil officers; but also to the censures of his fellow-elders, and the con­gregation whereof he is a member.

But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people, (viz. that they have (as the Pope saith he hath) a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall, and therefore for m [...]king of lawes ecclesiasticall &c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority, of a synode to impose lawes on him, no more doe they) I yet see not, with what windelace he can drawe from thence, that which he intend­eth, viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bi­shops, then to his Diocesan Bishops. For is not that power of govern­ment which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church, by di­vine and Apostolicall institution, as immediate independent and sufficient for it self; as that which they give to every parish? Else why doth he, for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion, namely, that the visible chur­ches (such as he speaketh of) indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government, were Dioceses properly, and not parishes? The com­parison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop, in this manner. As Papists say, their Pope hath [Page 106] an independent, and immediate authority, from Christ, over all the Pastors and people within his charge, (which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world) & a power sufficient, for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where: so siath the Doctor and his associates, that every Di­ocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ, over all the people of his Diocese (which is his charge) and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction: see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface, & serm. pag. 52. As for Synodes, if they be lawfully called, well ordered, and their constitutions, by royall authority ratified; the Doctor can give neyther more honour, nor obedience to them, then they doe; (as their protestation sheweth. Art. 8, 12. 13. 14.) If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them; they thinke, that by divine or apostolicall ordinance, their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches, without their particu­lar and free consents. See H. I. in his reasons for reform: pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge; how will he exempt his Di­ocesan Bishop, from being like herein to the Pope, when he had ne­ther Archbishop, not provinciall Synode, to impose any lawes on him? Or the Archbishop and primate of all England, who at this day, acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him? Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians, from whom (although in some thinges I con­fesse I dissent) yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their in­nocency. Wherein we see how the more he striveth, to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop; the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other, vnder a just and due ti­tle therevnto. And since it is, and shalbe proved, that he giveth both The D. get­teth no­thing by striving, & let him take home his plaine lye. sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches; he must (will he nill he) take home to himself, that same plaine-lye, which he giveth his Refuter (in the next section. pag. 47.) because he saith, that his wordes doe there imply (and afterwards plainely affirme) a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers; for in the Refuters vn­derstanding, sovereigntie, is nothing but sole and supreme authority. What more there is, the Refuter is content to saye, (as the D. in the section following,) willeth him to say in another case, ou manthano, ad sect. 12. pag. 47. I understand not. And as for that other vntruth, which M. Doctor [Page] is pleased to call an error, where he saith, they were called angels in re­spect of their generall calling of the Ministery; it shall rest sub judice, vnde­cided for a while, till a fitter occasion calleth for the examination of it.

In the 5. next sections (viz. 13-17.) there are many words Sect. 12. ad sect. 13. 14. 15. 16. Def. from page 47. to 52. D. spent to litle purpose, the Doctors cheife drift is to cleare himself of some vntruthes, which the Refuter chargeth vpon him in his af­firmation, that the wise and learned disciplinarians doe grant, 1. that the Bi­shops which in his text are called Angels, were Bishops of whole cities and the countreies adioyning, that is to say, Dioceses. 2. That the Presbyters which were no Ministers were lay and annuall. 3. That these angels were nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries. 4. That their presidentship, was one­ly for a week or a month, and that by course, as being comon to them in their turnes. Now the Doctor, to manifest the truth to be of his side, in all these points, appealeth to the writings of Calvin and Beza. And touching the first, the sheweth from their words, that in the primi­tive Church, Bishops had the oversight of Dioceses; and therefore in some places (where their circuit was very large) they had vnder them, such as were called Chorepiscopi, countrey-Bishops (he might have added Lectores, Acoluthes &c.) & that they had also above them Metropolitanes, as we may see in the places whereunto he sen­deth vs. Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. section 2. and 4. Beza de Mi­nist grad: cap. 24. pag. 167. &c.

But how doth this prove (that which he was to prove), that the The D. fre­eth not himself fro the untru­thes char­ged upon him. Bishops which in his text are called angels, were Bishops of Dioceses, or set over whole cities and the countryes adjoyning? Doth it not prove as strongly, that these angels had both country-Bishops, & diverse other inferior degrees of clergie-men vnder them; and Me­tropolitans above them? Which if the Doct. should affirme, his best freinds would see very evidently, that he abuseth these grave and The Doct. changeth the quest:, & concea­leth that which would co­vince him of 2. evils. learned divines most grossely, to make them the authors of those vntruthes, which himself broached, and will not recall. His hope was (it seemeth) to blinde his readers eyes, by a crafty changing of the question (as almost every where he doth) and concealing that which serveth to convince him, both of mainteyning an vntruth, and abusing their testimonies to mainteyne it. For it is manifest, that they both do speak neyther of these Angels, nor of the Apo­stles times; but of that forme of government, which by humane [Page 108] ordinance tooke place after their daies; wherein the ordinances of Christe and his Apostles, which should have bin kept inviolable (ac­cording to 1. Tim. 6. 14.) began to be violated; and so on to the time of the Papacie. Let the D. read againe the title of that 4. cap. with the 1. & 2. sections therof, togither with that 24. chap. of M. Beza, pag. 165. 166. &c. and though he be a partie, yet I will (at this tyme) make him judge, how substancially he hath proved the first pointe.

Nether are the Testimonies alledged for the 2. point, so direct or The D. tes­timonies prove not the point. fit for his purpose, as he would perswade: for where he should prove that they teach, that those ancient governinge Elders which (they hold) were par [...]s of the presbyterie, in the Apostolike Churches, are laie and annuall; he sheweth out of Beza, (in his former book pag. 60. cap. 11.) that at Geneva, there are yearely, either new chosen, or the old confirmed. And out of Calvin. (Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 8.) and Beza againe (cap. 11. pa. 64. and de presb. and excom. pag. 105.) that they are or must be chosen out of the laiety. The reasons why they are there annuall, doe clearely shew (Beza dicto libro. pag. 68.) that it is a matter of conveniencie, in regard of persons, place, time, and son­dry other circumstances (so estemed) and not a thing necessarie. And though they account them not of the Ministery, because they are not chosen and ordeyned to the Ministery of the word and sa­craments; yet is their office merely ecclesiasticall not civil, because of the choise and ordination by the publike prayers of the Church. And therefore if the word laiety or laie-persons, be opposed to such as are persons ecclesiasticall; they cannot properly be sayd to re­maine laye, during their office. Neyther doth Calvin any where say, that being chosen out of the lai [...]y, they still remaine lay. Nay his very phrase, chosen from among the laitie, sheweth, that after the choise during the time of their office they are not of the laiety. But the D. saith, that being chosen they doe not become to be of the Clergie, there­fore Mr Calvin must needs meane, they still continue to be of the laiety. But when by the Clergie, Mr Calvin meaneth (as he saith, vsitato nomi­ne, all such as exercised any publik Ministery in the Church; (all be­ing so called from the Doctor to the dore-keeper) what can he else meane, but that they (by that election being called to beare publick office of government with the pastors) became thereby to be of the clergie, that is (as the generall definition of the word clergie shew­eth) [Page 109] ecclesiasticall persons. In deed, he calleth them [...]ie, because they be not of the Clergie in the stricter sense, (viz Ministers of the Sacra fun­ctio juris­dictionis. word and sacraments) but yet he calleth their function, an ecclesiasti­call order and sacred function.

As idly and evilly alleadged is Mr Bezaes testimoney, for as litle Bezaes tes­timonie is both idly and evilly alleadged by the D. doth it speak to the purpose; he may do [...] wel to look vpō his book againe, & see whether it be Beza that calleth them annuall in the title of that chapter; it may be the title itself will prove none of Be­zaes, but Saraviaes his adversaries, who by that term in the title see­keth to disgrace that function; which I the rather beleeve, because, where they are sayd in that title to be such as are ad docendum in [...]pti, Beza disclaymeth it, and saith, they must in some sort and measure be ad docendum apti; and that it is a fault, if others be chosen, and chargeth Saravia to do litle better then calumniate in so terming them. And that however new may be chosen at the yeres end, yet that te­m [...]re nec ipsi s [...]se deponunt, nec deponuntur; yea rather summo studio reti­nentur qui fidem suā, et diligentiam in suo praesbyteratu probarunt. And that whereas by the order of the consistory, a time is prescribed whether annum vel longius: it is done in discretion, for diverse causes (set down by him) not for that eyther they did not, or by the nature of their office might not, continue longer. And the Doctor might aswel say, that these two worthies do [...] make the office of the Pastor (which is perpetual) ānual: for the case may so fall out, that it may & doth last but a yeare with some, such is their demeanour therein. And to conclude, the very lawes of Geneva, which conteyne the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying, (pag. 9.) That in the end of the yeare the Elders shalbe presented to the Seniory, to know if they be worthy to continue in their office, or to be discharged, because it is not expe­dient, that they be changed without a cause, shalbe Iudge. However it be, it resteth still an untruth vpon the Doctors owne head (neither shall he ever be able to remove it) in that he faith, They hold the Pres­byters of those Churches (mentioned in his text) which were not Mini­sters, to be annuall or lay-Presbyters.

Asmuch may be sayd concerning the third point, viz. that they The Doct. standeth out in an untruth. make those angels nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries, then which the Doctor saith, nothing is more plaine; & I say, nothing is lesse plaine or true, then that it is plaine they say so. [Page 110] For 1. neyther Calvin, nor Beza, nor T. C. nor the Author of the ecclesiasticall discipline, do confound those ancient Bishops (the D. speaketh of) with these Angels, as he doth. He produceth them all 4. (as if he would strike it dead) and they all agree in one, yet ne­ver The Doct. 4. authors agree in one, but never a one with him, some of them a­gainst him. a one with him. Three of them speake, neyther of these angels, nor of the times wherein they lived; but of other persons & times; very sweetly therefore doth the D. from them conclude, for these Angels and their times. Beza in deed (Annot in Apoc. 2. 1.) spea­keth of these Angels, but it is cleare he maketh them such (Proesto [...]es) praesidents of the assemblies, to moderate the meetinges of the rest of the Ministers; as that also, they were Ministers of particular Churches or congregations, with whom the rest of the Ministers were equall in authority after the end of that assemblie, over which they were for order sake chosen & sett: yea he directly disclaymeth, both in that Annotation, and in his answere to Saravia, those pre­sidents or Bishops, which were nothing else but presidentes of such Assemblies having no particular Churches, vpon which they did re­side, and over which they watched not, togither with the rest of the Ministers, of equall authority with them.

2. It is also evident by the writings both of Calvin and Beza (for as for the other noted in his Margine, I know not to what ende he should send the reader to them, vnlesse for his discredit in quo­ting them idlely) Instit. lib. 4. ca. 4. sec. 3. and De gradib: Minist. ca. 22. pa. 133.) that even those ancient Bishops, (which lived af­ter the time of these Angels, for of them onely they speak) which moderated the assemblies of the reste of the Pastors and presbyters in any Towne or Citie, were themselves by their office, Pastors (et suae pareciae preerant) and governed their owne parishe, yea they la­boured no lesse (much more rather) then other presbyters, in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments; ill favouredly therefore, doth the D. conclude from them, for the Apostles times. But to help at a dead lifte; and to colour the falsehood (which he could The D. to colour his vntruth foysteth in a sentence which yet doth him no good. not but see,) of that his assertion; he now, in this defence, foysteth in these words in respect of their superiority, and telleth us, that they make the Angels of the Churches (in respect of their superiority) onely presidents of the presbyteries. And so reasoneth very profoundly in this manner. They make the Angels of the Churches, in respect of their superiority above other pres­byters, onely praesidents of the presbyters; Ergo, they make those Angels nothing [Page 111] else but presidentes or moderaters of the assemblies. As if a man mought (by rules of logick) conclude Mr. Downam to be nothing else but a Doctor in divinitie, because by degres in schooles he is a D. in di­vinity, though he be also Pastor of great Which is his best stile, if he were so well advised, as to take his degree of honor, from the word of God &c.

As for the fourth, since the Ref. acknowledgeth (answer pag. 7.) Sect. 13. ad sect. 17. p. 52. 53. that those wise and learned divines, doe judge that their presidencie in classicall or Synodall meetings, was but of a short continuance, as occasion required; the D. might have spared his labour in proving this point. If he would directly have contradicted him; he should have proved from their writings, that they are of opinion, that the president might not by the nature of his office, continue longer then for a we [...]ke or a moneth; this was it, which the Refuter denied: but herein he justifieth him rather. For in the very places quoted by him, pag. 141. 153. though Beza saith, that the presidentes of the presbyters were at first by course, & of short continuance; yet he affirmeth that that order was not essentiall or immutable, but accidentall and variable, and that it was afterwards thought fit to settle it constantly vpon one. But whereas the D. (lib. 2. pa. 141.) telleth us, that as there cannot be one instance given, but that alwaise the president of the presbyterie in the primitive Church, was perpe­tuall: so it was in Calvins time, and Beza misliketh it not, but sometimes wish­eth it were restored; what else doth he but justifie his Refuter in that The D. jus­tifieth his Refuter in that where in he would cō ­demn him; & must take home his 4. un­truthes. wherein he would condemne him? Wherefore let the D. be in­treated to take these 4. vntruthes to himself again their own home; where (for ought I know) they were bredd and borne, and there let them rest, till he can bring (which wil be ad graecas ca­lendas) a better discharge from their writings, to justify those par­ticulars.

Now touching those calumniations, of vnmannerly ignorance, cū ­ [...]ing rudenes, wrangling &c. which he objected against his Refuter, I overpasse them as vnworthy any answere; it was the best he could doe, to outface and salve his credit; but ill will it doe it, with them that are wise & judicious. But whereas he twice affirmeth (pag. 47 53.) that the Refuter craftily concealeth, or cunningly seeketh to conceale, the division which is among our selves; it is a slaunder, not of ignorance, The D. wit­tingly slan­dereth. but against his owne knowledge; for he could not but see that he sayd (pag. 5. of his answere) that all men are not resolved of the truth of [Page 112] every of them: yet the division is not so great as he would perswade the world, nether are the pointes so newe or so generally contradicted of those reverend and learned divines (Calvin Beza &c.) as he confident­ly (but falsly) avoucheth. Wherefore take he also to him these two vntruthes, and add he a third likewise to the former, where he saith (in his margin. pa. 47.) that the Refuter mistaketh his reason; vnlesse, he had rather acknowledge, that his reason is impertinent and fri­volous. For the question being. What manner of preheminence, those Bishops had, which are in his text, termed the Angels of the 7. churches; that which he addeth of the wiser & more learned disciplinarians, (their granting that they were Bishops of whole cities &c. that their pres­byteries consisted partly of annuall or lay. Elders, and that the An­gels were nothing else, but presidents of those presbyteries) cannot in reason rightly be reduced to the question; vnlesse it be vnder­stood of those Bishops and Churches which are mencioned in the text, which is to be explicated. And if he be (as it must be) so vn­derstood, he falsly chargeth his Refuter with an ignorant mistakinge of his reason; and lett him learne the lesson he elswhere taught his Refuter say, ou manthano, I vnderstand not my owne reason; or else against his vnderstandinge, he did both trifle in the one, and slan­der in the other.

Chap: 3. Concerning the residue of the Doctors de­fence of his preface, or first part of his sermon. from pag. 54 to the end.

Proceed we on now to the next section (pag. 54.) where he tel­leth us, that hitherto his two assertions conteyned in the explication, have bin Sect. 1. ad sect. 18. pag. 54. propounded, to be discussed; and that now there is way made for the proof of ey­ther, by enumerating distinctly the severall points, which he proposed to han­dle &c. And I wish the reader to remēber how he saith before (sect. 1. pag. 28) that the points to be handled are first deduced out of the text (from pag. 2. to pag. 6. of his serm: lin. 16.) and secondly, that they are enu­merated The Doct. changeth the points of his ser­mon. and distinctly marshalled, pag: 6: and 7. Now can any man that heareth him thus speak, judg otherwise then that himself hol­deth the points distinctly enumerated, to be the self same, and nei­ther more nor fewer then those, which are before deduced out of the text? Yet he that wel examineth the matter, shall find that nei­ther [Page 113] is the number of the points the same, neyther are the pointes (eadem numero) the same in number. We have already heard what are the two principall assertions, which he proposeth; (serm. pag. 2.) For the deciding of the former, he layeth downe two que­stions, which are inlarged into three. viz. 1. whether the Churches whereof they were angels, were parishes or Dioceses. 2. And cons [...]qu [...]ntly whether those angels were parishional or Diocesan Bishops? 3. What was the preheminence in regard wherof they were called angels, whether onely a prio­rity in order above other Ministers, & that for a time and by course; or a supe­ri [...]itie in degree, and maiority of rule for terme of life? In the direct answe­ring of these three questiōs, togither with the later assertion (which must be take as is before expressed) the summe of his preface lieth, as himself confesseth. (Defen. pag. 29.) Wherefore the points de­duced out of the text, cannot exceed the number of foure; so that in the Doctors enumerating of 5. conclusions to be more at large prosecuted; the nomber of these later excedeth the nomber of the former by one, as every childe knoweth that can tell his 5. fingers. And the reader may easily discerne, that this One (which is now marshalled into the feild, and was not before appointed to serve in the battell) is the first of the 5. which sayth, there were not l [...]y gover­ning Elders in the primitive Church; for this cannot carry the face of an answere to any of the three questions before mentioned. Now to compare the rest and to trie whether they be one and the same. 1. His direct answere to the first question touching the churches, must be this. The Churches whereof they were Angels, were di [...]ceses properly and not parishes. But the second of the five (for the first is shewed to be an intruder) affirmeth, that in the first 200. yeares the visible churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall goverment, were dioceses properly, and not parishes, and the presbyteries which were in those times, were not asigned to parishes, but to di [...]eses. Wherefore 2. That which followeth as a consequent of this, (viz. that the Angels of the Churches and presidents of the presbyteries, were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops.) must be referred to the Bishops, that lived in the first 200 yeares after Christ; where­as the answere of the second question hath peculier reference to the Angels of the 7. churches, that they were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops. 3. In like manner, the answere to the 3. questi­on, determineth the preheminence of those Bishops which are cal­led the Angels of the Churches, to be (not a prioritie in order, for a [Page 114] time and by course, but) a superiority in degree above other Ministers, and a majority of rule during life. But the fourth point amonge the five, with a larger reference to the Bishops of the primitive Church for many ages, affirmeth, that every Bishop being advanced to an higher de­gree of Ministerie, was s [...]t above the other presbyters not onely in priority of order, but also in majority of rule for terme of life. 4. And the last of the five, having an eye vnto the function of Bishops described in the forenamed positions (whose Churches are Dioceses, and their Presbyteries assigned for the whole Dioceses, whose preheminence also is a superioritie in degree, and majoritie of rule) promiseth to shewe and by evidence of truth to demonstrate, that the calli [...]g of such Bishops is of divine and apostolicall institution. But the last assertion proposed (pag. 2.) promiseth this onely and no more, out of the wordes of the text to shewe, that the office and function of Bishops, there ment by Angels, is in this text approved as l [...]wf [...]ll, and commended as excellent. Wherefore since there is so apparant a difference betwene the one and the other, me thinkes the D. should sooner be drawne to con­fesse, that the pointes first deduced out of the text to be handled, doo differ both in nomber and nature from these, which are se­condly enumerated; then to vndertake the mainteyninge of the contrary; and the reducing of the first of his 5. conclusions, to one of those 3. questions, which he propounded for the triall of his first assertion.

As for that faire florishe which he maketh, for the bringing of the first foure to the proofe of the first assertion; and the laste of the five, to the fortifyinge of the second; how vainly he striveth therin, the very change of both the assertions before named and here con­tinued, doth sufficiently declare: yet his defect herein, shall more fully be layd open hereafter, vpon just occasion offred.

In the meane time, I will first examine the scope of his reasoning, Sect. 2. ad sect. 18. & 19. p. 54. 57. whether it were so farr disordered by his Refuter as he would per­swade his reader; or rather be not perverted and put out of frame by himself? It is a truth, by himself confessed in the last section of this chapter (pag. 57. lin. 33. & 35.) that the body or frame of his sermon concludeth one and the same question; but he is very angrie with his Refuter for reducing both the assertions, which he proposed to be distinctly handled, into one syllogisme. For though he granteth that some such syllogisme, as his Refuter framed, [...]aie [Page 115] be gathered out of diverse places of his sermon; yet he denieth that it answereth to his intent. The syllogisme is this.

• The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good.
• The function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches
• Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is lawfull and good.

Both the premisses are clearely gathered from the 2. page of his sermon; for the proposition is implied in the 2. assertion, which saith. That the office & function of Bishops here ment by Angels, is in this text approved as lawfull and commended as excellent. And the assumption is thus propounded in the first assertion (ibid.) The Angels of the 7. Churches (or the Pastors or Bishops of those Churches vnderstood by the an­gels) were Bishops for the substance of their calling, such as the reverend fa­thers of our Church are. But let vs heare the Doctors censure of the re­futers syllogisme. Against the assumption, he excepteth nothing, wherefore I must take it for graunted, that it is, as his refuter affir­meth, all one with his first assertion. In like manner, he graun­teth the conclusion, to be the same with that which he calleth the doctrine collected out of the text (viz. that the colli [...]ge of diocesan Bi­shops is lawfull and good:) which he setteth also for the conclusion of both the syllogismes which himself frameth. (pag. 58.) neither de­nieth he the proposition to be in effect all one, with that which himself taketh for the proposition of his first syllogism, viz. that the calling of such as are here meant by Angels is lawfull and good. Let us view his syllogism and compare it with the Refuter) and this it is.

• The calling of such as are here ment by Angels is lawfull and good.
• Diocesan Bishops are such as are here ment by Angels.
• Therefore the calling of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good.

What difference in the proposition, betwene function and cal­ling, Bishops of the 7. Churches, and such as are here ment by An­gels? What difference in the assumption, betwene the Bishops of the Church of England, and diocesan Bishops? Are they not in the D [...]ense, all one? if so; what difference in the conclusions? And wherein then hath the Refuter offended; if his syllogism be (for the sense and meaninge of each parte, though the wordes and phra­ses doe a little vary) one and the same with the first of the D. owne framing? Forsooth (the Doct. will tell you) because he would against [Page 116] sense make the Reader beleeve, that the proposition of his syllogism is that last assertion, which was prop [...]unded pag. 2. concerning the quality of their functi­on. But goeth not the Doctor rather against all sense (yea against his owne conscience) in labouring to make the reader beleeve, that the conclusion of the Refuters syllogisine, is that assertion (or do­ctrine as he calleth it) which pag. 2. sheweth the quality of their function? For, doth the Doctor speak of the Bishops of the Church of England, and not rather of the Bishops of the 7. Churches in Asia; when he promiseth out of the words of the text to shewe that the office and function of Bishops there meant by angels, is in the same text, approved as lawfull and commended as excellent? And are the Bishops there meant by angels, the Bishops of the Church of England, and not the Bishops of those 7. Churches? Behold, how a greedy desire to quarrell with his Refuter without cause, ca­rieth The D. cō. mitteth 3. foul faults to colour a falshood. him at vnawares into these fowl faultes, not onely of cōtradi­cting cōmon sense, & his owne knowledge; but also of giving the lie to the holy ghost the author of the text. And all this is done to co­lour that falshood, which before he had forged, sciz. that his 2. assertion propounded (pag. 2.) was this, viz. the calling of Dicce­san Bishops is l [...]wfull and good. A falshood sufficiently before discover­ed, and by himself (inconsiderately no doubt, yet) plainly acknow­ledged, when he saith of the conclusion of the first Syllogisme, (p. 58.) which is verbatim the same, that before he called his doctrine; that he did not expresse it, being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of his text. So this one sentence (the calling of the diocesan Bishops is law­full and good) is propounded as a doctrine collected out of the text (pag. 2.) and yet is not expressed, neither is it the doctrine, but implyed one­ly in the collection of the doctrine. How slippery is his memorie, that The Doct. in one pag grossly cō ­tradicteth himselfe. in lesse then one page contradicteth himself so grossely? But pardō we him this slip; for it is his cōmon (though a false) Tenent, that the later of his two assertions (propounded pag. 2. of his sermō) is the doctrine which he collecteth from the text, the former serving to prove the later, which he saith (lib. 4. pag. 2.) doth much cō ­mend the methode of his sermon. But the reader by that say­ing may see, how ready he is (notwithstanding his disclayming of it with indignation, lib. 1. cap. 1.) to apprehend a slight oc­casion, to blase his owne commendations; and how needful it was [Page 117] he should discarde that second assertion, which was first layde downe, (serm. pag. 2.) and in stead thereof, tender vs that, which every where in his defence, he termeth his doctrine. For if his 2. assertions (taken in the very words which first expressed them) be so knit together, that the former shall prove the later; the En­themem which they will frame, is this and no other,

• The Pastors or Bishops meant by the angels (Apocal. 1. 20.) were Bi­shops, for the substance of their calling, such as the reverend fathers of our Church are;
• Therefore the office and function of Bishops, here meant by angels, is in this text, both approved as lawfull and commended as excellent.

Now to make good the consequence of this collectiō, this must be added for the proposition. The function of such Bishops, (for the sub­stance of their calling) as are the reverend fathers of our Church, is in this text approved as lawfull and cōmended as excellent. Doth not this kind of reasoning (think you) very highly commend the Doctors methode, in disposing his two assertions, to his best advantage? For however he begg the maine question, in the proposition, or The D. beg­geth the main que­stion. consequence of his Enthimeme for graunted; yet he may rest se­curely in this, that the conclusion of his argument will never be impugned. But if his Refuter had thus disorderly turned the frame of his sermon vpside downe; or given the least intimation, that he indeavoured to prove a Diocesan Bishoprick to be lawful in the an­gels of these 7. Churches; because it is lawfull in the Lord Bishops of England; there had beene some cause for him (whereas nowe there is no colour of a cause) to complaine as he doth (pag. 56 & 57) that by a forced Analysis (not answerable to his Ge­nesis) the frame of his sermon (to let his racking and tain­tering speeches alone) is put quite out of frame. Wherefore since the Doctor chargeth his Refuter, with the fault whereof The D. is guilty of the fault which he chargeth his refuter with. himself is guilty; it shall be no great wrōg done, to return him some other of his own words p. 56. nimia est miseria, doctū esse hominum ni­mis, behold to how great trouble, too much learning wil put a man. For if his skil had not bene extraordinary, (I say not in analysing his owne treatise but) in changing his two first assertions, and bringing in other two in their stead, all this stirr had bin needlesse.

But the stirre (or strife) is not yet at an end, the Doctors great­est Sect. 3. ad sect. 19 p. 56. [Page 118] quarrel against his refuter is yet behinde, namely, the censure which he passeth upon those 5. points which he prosecuted in the body of his sermon, where he saith (answ. pag. 9.) that the first & the last are to litle purpose, and that the other three doe not dire­ctly prove the point in question. I will not here trouble the reader with the Doctors termes, wherein he sheweth in what rage he was hereat; let us rather examine how just or vnjust this the Refuters censure is; the which that it may appeare, let it be remembred that the Doctor acknowledgeth (in the former section pag. 54) that the first 4. points must be referred to the proof of his first assertion; & the last of the fyve, to the second. Now this being so, whosoe­ver taketh his second assertion, in the words wherein he delivered it (serm. pag. 2.) shall easily discerne, that it is labour bestowed in vaine, to spend time in the proving of that, which is cleare enough of it self. For who ever doubted, but that the office and function of those Bishops, which are in his text meant by angels, is there approved as lawful and commended as excellent? Wherefore, if his 5. point, serve for none other vse, then for the proofe of this The D. 5. point is idle. assertion; the D. hath no cause to blame his Ref: for affirming he might well have spared that labour. But albeit he could not indure so milde a reproofe; his patience must now be tryed with a sharper. Be it therefore knowne to him, that he reasoneth absurdly, if he The D. rea­soneth ab­surdly. referr his 5. point to the fortifying of his 2. assertion, (pag. 2.) for thus then his enthymeme standeth. The calling of Bishops, such as ours are, or at least such as the Bishops of the auncient Churches are affirmed to be (serm. pag. 7.) is of apostolical and divine institution. Ergo the function of Bishops meant by angels. (Apoc. 1, 20.) is in the same text approved as law­ful and commended as excellent. As for that difference which is be­tweene the later terme or praedicatum of the antecedent, and of the consequent in this argument, I will take no exception against it; for though every apostolicall or divine institution findeth not ap­probation in this text Apocal. 1. 20; yet the honour of such an institution cannot be denied vnto any function, which in this text receiveth approbation. Wherefore, he shall with good leave (if he will) exchange the later terme of his conclusion thus, Ergo the function of Bishops meant by Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is of apostolicall and divine institution. But how will the D. cover the shame, of his dis­orderly reasoning; when in stead of justifying our Bishops, by the [Page 119] calling of those Angels; he doth contrariwise, inferre their calling to be of divine institution, because our bishops have deryved their function, from divine or apostolicall ordination? Is not this to set the Cart before the Horse, & to laye that for the foundation, which The D. lai­eth that for the ground­sell, that should serve for the ridge­pole. should serve for the roofe or highest parte of his buylding? It will not serve his turne to tell us, that we mistake his. 2. Assertion; for it is already shewed, that himself putteth a changling in place thereof, when he delivereth vnder that name this conclusion; that callinge of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good. Notwithstanding since he will needes have this, (which the falsely calleth his 2. Assertion) to be the doctrine whlch he intended to prove (not onely by the explication of his text, comprized in his first assertion, but also) by that 5. point, wherein he bestowed his greatest labour: if he have sufficiently fortified the former 4. pointes, which serve to vpholde that explication which concludeth his doctrine; what offence was it for his Refuter then, or now againe for his reader, to say, that his labour in the last point was needlesse, and might well have bin spared? May he not well think, that one argument soundly conclu­ded from the canonicall text, will more prevaile with the wise, then many conjectural reasons, drawne frō mere humane testimonies? But may a man prove his patience yet a little further, & that with an harder sentence. viz. That he contradicteth himself, in urging The D. cō ­tradicteth himself. that 5. point as a distinct proofe to conclude the doctrine? I speak herein nothing but the truth, and that I received from his owne mouth. For this 5. point, to wit, that the function of Bishops is of epo­st [...]licall and divine institution, which he now (pag 54. & 58.) maketh a proofe of the doctrine arising out of the text, is expressely affir­med (serm. pag 93.) to be the doctrine it self, which ariseth out of the text, and by way of explication of the text, is proved. And who so well observeth, what lawfulnes and goodnes or excellencie, he ascribeth, eyther to the function of those Bishops, which are meant by angels in his text (assert. 2. pag. 2. or to the calling of all other Bishops answerable to his description; (pag. 51. with 54. & 54.) he may plainly perceive, that it is no other then such as hath insti­tution from God, and approbation from the text it self under the names of starrs & angels; wherefore if he himself had beene as care­full to observe the transitions, which he vseth in his sermon; as he is ready without cause, to blame his refuter for not observing thē; [Page 120] he might have discerned his doctrine handled in his sermon; to be the very laste of his 5. pointes, and not so diverse from it, as now he would perswade.

As for the first 4. pointes, how pertinent or impertinent they are, shalbe best perceived if we examine, how he himself reduceth them Sect. 4. ad pag. 57. 58. to his purpose. But let the reader be first advertised of the D. in­constancy in laying downe his owne project, whereat he aymed in in his sermon. For 1. when he promiseth (serm. page. 2.) in the handling of the wordes of his text, to prove, both what manner of persons are there ment by the Angels, & what is the qualitie of their function; The D. is very incō ­stant in laying downe of his project. who can with reason judge otherwise, then that these 2. assertions there set downe to answere those two questions, doe apperteine to the explication of his text? Yet now in his defense he every where restreineth the explication of his text, vnto the former assertion. 2. And having first altered the later (as he doth the former also as is before shewed) he constantly commendeth it to us, as the doc­trine of his sermon; whereas his owne wordes (pag. 93. of the s [...]rm. it self) doe deliver his doctrine in termes so farr differing, that he now maketh his old doctrine an argument to confirme the newe. 3. Againe, though he will at no hand consent to his Refuter plat­forme, in casting both his assertions into one syllogisme, as the pre­misses, from which the lawfullnes of the function, of our English prela [...]es must be concluded: yet it appeareth (by his wordes pag. 2. & 93. compared) that at first he intended both his assertions should concurre to prove his doctrine: for they both serve to the explica­tion of his text, (as is before noted) and his doctrine cannot possibly be concluded from either of them without the help of the other. Yea he himselfe is inforced (though he pretend the con­trary) to vse them both for the premisses, which in his first syllo­gisme (Defenc. pag. 58.) doe conclude his newe doctrine. The D. sermon & the de­fense there of are at variance. yea within 20. lines he disagreeth with him­self.

4. Lastly to these particulars, wherein his sermon and the de­fence thereof are at variance add that disagreement which may be see [...]e (in these 2. pages 57. & 58.) within lesse then 20. lines distance. For when he will have those 2. distinct partes (which he saith were before propounded by him) to be drawne, into two dis­ [...]inct syllogisms concluding the same question: who would not ex­pect, that the conclusion of each syllogism, should be a point dif­fering from both his assertions before distinguished; and that as the [Page 121] former assertion is the assumption of his first syllogism: so the later also should be the assumption of the second? But it is farr other­wise; for the later of his two distinct partes or assertions mentioned in his defense, is the conclusion of both his syllogismes; and the as­sumption of his second syllogism, is the last of his 5. pointes, which by his first and truest reckoninge, was the maine-doctrine of his ser­mon; and therefore ought to have bin the finall conclusion, vnto which the body of his sermon is to be reduced. Wherefore it is not to be doubted, but that (when the D. hath advisedly considered of these things) in his next defense he will be well content to give the later of his two syllogismes a faire bill of discharge, rather then to mainteine it any longer in that service, wherevnto he hath now assigned it.

As for his former syllogism, though I altogither mislike it not, if the assumption and conclusion be vnderstood of all kinde of di­ocesan Bishops; (for else, though it conteineth the greater parte of his sermon, yet doth it not so much as conclude the question, be­cause the calling of some kinde of diocesan Bishops maie be lawfull and good, though not the calling of such a kinde as ours are whose defense the D. intendeth) and if these wordes lawfull and good be so taken as he vnderstandeth them (serm. pag. 2. 54. 55.) viz. for that which hath institution and approbation from God, or is in his word approved as lawfull and good: yet to avoid further quarrels about words, I wish that his conclusion carry the very wordes of his doctrine, or such as are apparantly equivalent vnto thē. In which respect, (if I might be so bolde as to lende the D. advise in this matter) I suppose his syllogism might very well stand in this forme.

The function of Bishops ment by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is of a­postolicall, or of divine institution, or is approved in the holy Scrip­ture as lawfull and good.

But the function of Bishops (such as ours are for the substance of their callinge) is the verie function of those Bishops which are ment by Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. Therefore the function of Bishops (such as ours are for the substance of their callinge,) is of apostolicall or divine institution: or is approved in the holy Scriptures as lawfull and good.

Of this syllogism, as the conclusion suteth well with the last of his 5. pointes, which he calleth (serm. pag. 7. 55. 93.) his doctrine: [Page 122] so the premisses doe agree with those two assertions, which conteine the explication of his text (pag. 2.) to wit, the proposition with the second, and the assumption with the first.

But let us now examine his first syllogism, which he here deli­vereth thus.

• The c [...]lling of such as are ment by Angels is lawfull and good.
• Diocesan Bishops are such as are here ment by Angels.
• Therefore the calli [...]g of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good.

Concerning this syllogisme, heare we what he saith, The proposi­tion (sai [...]h he) I took for graunted, and therefore did not expresse it; The [...]s­sump [...]ion is the same with the former assertion, and is proved by the 4. first p [...]i [...]tes. The conclusion I expressed not being implyed in the collection of the doct [...]ne out of the text. What shall I say vnto him? Loath I am, and yet I must say, behold here as many vntruths, as there are parts of the syllogisme. 1. The proposition (which he saith he did not ex­presse) is in effect all one with the later of his 2. assertions (serm. The D. tel­leth 3. vn­truthes in one syllo­gism. pag. 2.) for there is no other difference betwixt them, then this, that here their callinge is more at large affirmed to be lawfull & good; whereas there, he speaketh within a narrower compasse, that their function is in this text (then handled) approved as lawfull and commen­ded as excellent. Which difference with him, is none at all, & there­fore (though now he hath forgotten it) he acknowledgeth (in this chap. (sect. 5. pag. 35.) his second assertion to be this, viz. that the calling of Bishops, who are here ment by Angels, is lawfull and good. 2. As for his assumption (which he saith is the same with the first assertiō) it herein differreth from it; that it setteth di cesan Bishops in stede of these wordes, such Bishops as ours are for the substance of their callinge. And whoso observeth that for the deciding of his first question (which affirmeth the Angels of the 7. churches to be such Bishops as ours are) he vndertaketh to trie (pag. 3.) whether those Angels were parishional or diocesan Bishops; he shall finde that his first as­sertion, doth crave the help of his assumption, to stand in the place of one of the pillers that must support it.

And touching his conclusion, since he tolde us, (even in the for­mer page) that it is the very conclusion which he proposed to be proved, (serm. pag. 55.) why saith he nowe, he did not expresse it? And if it be the main doctrin of his sermō (as every where through­out his defense he affirmeth) why saith he it is onely implied in the [Page 123] collection of his doctrine out of the text? But no more of these whies, let us come to the maine question, (from which the reader hath bin held too longe) I meane the triall of the truth of the as­sumption, and how true it is, that it is (as he saith) proved by the 4. first pointes of his five.

Well were it with the D. and the cause he pleadeth for, if he could Sect. 5. as easely prove his assumption, as he can saie, it is proved. But, as in truth he hath no ground frō his text, chosen of purpose to raise it vpon: so he goeth not about the proof of it, by any word or cir­cumstance The D. doth not once offer to prove the point in question by any word of his text. therein. For every man certeinly seeth that it is every waie as doubtfull (for ought appeareth to the contrary by his text) whether the Angels therein spoken of, were diocesan Bishops; as whether the calling of diocesan Bishops be lawfull and good. And it semeth that himself discerned some defect in his proofe; seing he forbeareth to deliver it in syllogisticall forme of reasoninge, (wher­in otherwise he is not sparinge) for he hath no other syllogism that bendeth this waie, then such as arise from each of his 4. pointes Nether one alone nor all the D. 4. points togither doe direct­ly cōclude his asserti­on. Yea the D. referreth them to a­nother question. considered severally and a parte; and yet not any one of them, (nor all of them, in one togither) directly concludeth that assertion, which he saith is proved by them: viz. that diocesan Bishops are here ment by Angels. They all saile another way, & trade for the bring­inge in, of another commodity or conclusion viz. That the primitive Church was governed by diocesan Bishops. and that the Angels or pastors or governors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops, and such for the sub­stance of their function, as ours are. Which point how well he hath pro­ved, we shall see hereafter, here, for the present, (till he shew us how he can directly and soundly conclude the former from the later) I still must and will affirme, that the assumption of his first syllogism remaineth as yet, vnproved, specially since he himself referreth his 4. pointes (which are all his proof of it) to another question. For the first assertion (propounded serm pag. 2.) with which he accor­deth his assumption, determineth no other question then this, viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the Churches? But the asser­tion which his 4. pointes doe conclude, is (as his owne wordes teach in the next chapter pag. 60.) the answere of another questiō, to witt, whether the premitive Churches were governed by such diocesan Bi­shops as ours are, or by such presbyteries as we speake of? This later is a ques­tion de facto, examininge what forme of government was imbraced [Page 124] of the ancient Churches; the former is de genuino scripturae sensu) touching the true sense of the text he handleth. Wherefore though Though the 4. pointes were gran­ted, yet the D. is still prooflesse &c. [...] Bishop Barlow serm. at Hamp. Court, vpon Acts. 20. 28. fol. 3.) it should be granted, that he hath sufficiently confirmed the later; yet it followeth not that the former is directly proved, or necessa­rily concluded. For he is not ignorant, that one of his reverend Fathers † (to whose judgment in the interpretation of a text, he ow­eth more reverence, then himself can challenge from his Refuter how basely soever he esteeme of him) doth behould every parte of the outward functiō of D: Bishops fully described in Act. 20. 28. as 1. The preheminent superiority above other Ministers in the word Episcopos. 2. Both their Cathedrall seat or positive residencie in one Citie, and a regencie setled in their persons during life; in the word posuit. And their diocesan jurisdiction, in the wordes, in quo viniver­so. And if the D. make any question of any one of these pointes, he may finde the first much more sufficiently confirmed, thē is his in­terpretation of the word Angels in his text; for besides the proofes produced (in the sermon it self) to shewe that the Bishops of the pri­mitive Church were set in a preeminent superiority above other Ministers; he backeth his vnderstandinge of the word Episcopos with some colour of reasō frō other Scripture, that as there are scopountes Seers Phil. 3. 17. (which expresseth the dutie of each pastor over his flock), so there are 1. Pet. 5. 2. episcopountes (quasi hoi opito [...]s sco­pountas) such as must visit & over look, both the flock & the Seers: wch last place of Peter, the D. himself vnderstandeth of Bishops (lib. 3. pag. 43.), wheras to prove that diocesan Bishops, are meant by Angels he alledgeth no shewe of any authority divine or humane, that may perswade the name to be given vnto Bishops, to expresse their pre­heminence above other ministers. And as for the rest of the prero­gatives of Bishops, which Bishop Barlow did but point at, & not prosecute; who seeth not how easy a matter it is to justify them by a like consequence of reasoninge to that which the D. useth? For if we must beleeve that a diocesan extent of jurisdiction & a prehmi­nent superiority both in degree of ministery and power of ordey­ninge &c. is implied in this title the Angels of the Churches; because the Bishops of the primitive Churches did governe whole dioceses and had therein such superiority above all other Ministers: why should not the D. also beleeve, that a diocesan jurisdiction and Ca­thedrall seate, togither with a positive residencie in one Citie, and a setled regencie during life, is rightly gathered from these wordes, [Page 125] in quo vni verse posuit; seing he knoweth that the Bishops of the primi­tive Churches, had every of them, the like jurisdiction, seate, resi­denoie, and regencie peculiar to their functions? Notwithstanding the D. will at no hand consent that the presbyters, (of whom Paul speaketh Actes 20. 28.) should be diocesan Bishops, such as ours are; for he taketh them for inferiour Ministers, such as he will have to be called Preistes. Now if he reply that the Churches practise in succeding ages, allowinge vnto Bishops those priviledges before mencioned, helpeth nothing to prove, that those wordes of the text, doe conveye the same partes or notes of episcopall prehemi­nence, vnto the Presbyters or Bishops there spoken of; why may not the Refuter return him the same answere, viz. That all his proofes produced to confirme his opinion touching the diocesan jurisdiction and preheminent superiority of the Bishops, which go­verned the ancient Churches, doe neyther directly nor necessarily conclude that such diocesan Bishops, are to be vnderstood by the Angels of the Churches Apoc. 1. 20? For is not the holy Scripture sufficient to interpret it selfe? Or are the rules which divines doe generally imbrace for the interpretation of any text, as by waying all circumstances of the text it self; & comparinge other Scriptures with it, where the like wordes or phrases are used; are these rules I say too weake or too short, to make good that large and powerfull preheminence, which he assigneth to these Angels? If so; may we not justly suspecte his explication to be forced and vnfitting? If o­therwise; why doth he not indeavour to shewe, that his constructiō of the text he handleth, is consonant to the circumstances, and to other scriptures? There be many words in the scripture, which may be drawne (as the Canon-lawe sayth dist. 37. relatum) to that sense which every one for the nonce, will frame to himself: But it should not be so: for we must not from without them, seek a foreigne and strange sense; that so we may, as we can, confirme it, with the autho­rity of the text; but the meaning of the truth must be received, frō the scriptures themselves. It was the fault of the Manichees (as Au­gustine noteth against Fa [...]stus a Manichee (Tom. 6. lib. 32. cap. 19) that every ones minde was his authour, what to allovv or dissalovv in every text: & so he vvas not for his faith subject to the scripture; but made the script: subject to himself; & that vvch he held, did not therfore please him, because he found it vvrittē in so high authority but therfore he thought it vvrittē, because it pleased him. But the [Page 126] reader (saith Hillary de Trinit: lib. 1.) is he who rather expecteth the vnderstanding of things, from the things themselves; then frō himself imposing it upon them; who taketh the exposition from thence, rather then bringeth it thither; and inforceth not upon the words that sense, which before his reading he presumed. Which course, if the D. had observed, he would never have given us this exposition of his text, that the angels of the Churches there mentioned were Diocesan Bishops, such as ours are: or if he had; he would have indea­voured to justify it, from the text it self and some other scriptures compared; and not have boasted (so confidently as he doth) that the explication of his text, is sufficiently proved; because he hath shewed (undeniably as he supposeth) the like Diocesan jurisdicti­on and superiority to have bene, in the Bishops of the primitive Churches, that lived in the succeeding ages.

But that we may yet see how impertinent and superfluous, not Sect. 6. ad pag. 58. 59. onely the first and last of his 5. points; but the first and last of his 4. (brought for proof of his assumption) are; it shall not be amiss to take a generall viewe of them togither; before we come to han­dle them in particuler, even for this purpose, to see their imperti­nencie and thus they lie,

If there were no other presbyters in the Church, but Ministers; 2 If the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels, were Dioceses properly & not parishes. 3. If the Angels or Bishops then were not parishionall but Di­ocesan Bishops 4. And [...]f the Bishops then, were superior to other Ministers in degree &c. Then Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels.

But all these 4. pointes in the Antecedent are true. Ergo the consequent is true also.

First, I pray the Doctor to tell vs, whether the first and last of these 4. pointes doe adde any force or weight at all to the conse­quent; for if there were in the primitive Church no Presbyters but Ministers; and the Bishops then were superiour to other Ministers in degree; yet will it never a whit the more thence followe, that these angels were Diocesan Bishops; might they not be parish Bps. onely, and have other Ministers or Presbyters under them, inferi­our in degree unto them, which might make a Presbyterie in a Pa­rish? Doe they which make the Pastour a degree above the Doctor, thereby make the Pastour a Diocesan Bishop? Secondly, as for the third point is it not a consequent of the second? Doth not the D. [Page 127] himself confesse it? (pag. 3. of his serm.) might it not therefore well have bin spared? Thirdly, if the secōd or third of his foure be gran­ted him, doth not the grant thereof, putt the fourth out of questi­on? It appeareth therefore that the Refuter may still affirme, and Two of the D. 5. points are idle, and the first 4. conclude another questiō, & whatever they con­clude, two of them at least, might be spared. that with advantage, that the first and last of the D. five pointes are superfluous, and idley produced.

But which is more, seing (as hath bin shewed) all the foure doe conclude another question, and not that assumption of his owne syllogism, which he saith is proved by them; doth he not offer his Refuter the greater wronge, in charging him so oft as he doth, with aforced analysis, yea and that divised [...]g [...]inst the light of his conscience, to put the partes of his sermon out of the frame? For as for the reasons which he urgeth to justify his accusation, they are too light and vaine to prevayle with any stayed minde. 1. He asketh the Refuter how he could perswade himself, that his anal [...]ysis was answerable to his genesis, when he sawe too partes of the 5. could not be brought to his frame, & the other three, not sutable to it. 2. he saith, that his ow [...]e distribution of his sermon, and the transitions which he useth doe wholly dis [...]gree with his analysis 3. he ad­deth, that the analysis here propounded by himself, and his defense of the seve­rall partes, doe manifestly prove, that neyther the first was impertinent, nor the [...]st superflous, nor the other 3. concluding besides the purpose. To begin with the last first, I saie that it is already shewed, how his owne ana­lysis here propounded, doth in many pointes disagree from the project of his sermon; in as much as, he hath changed, both the assertions, which he first set downe to be proved, and the doctrine which he laboured to confirme, whence it f [...]lloweth also, that his s [...]cond Syllogisme (framed to shewe that his 5. point was not su­perfluous) is it self superfluous and idle. In like manner hath bene manifested, and that from his owne words, that his 4. points doe conclude another question, and not that assertion, which he saith is proved by them, and that whatsoever they conclude, two of them at least, might have bene spared; so that his last too which I The Doct. heapeth up untruth to colour his slander. first answere, is but an heap of untruthes compiled to colour his slaunder. And the untruth of his second, is no lesse evident; for as the distribution of his sermon, & the transitions vsed therein, doe wholly dissagree, from his whole analysis here propounded; (as is before observed) so they doe justify his refuter against himself, not onely in the premisses of his first syllogisme; (which agree with his [Page 128] two assertions, (serm. pag 9.) but also insecluding the first and the last of his 5. pointes, frō all interest in the proving of the assump­tion of his first syllogisme. For as the Refuter rightly observed (an­swer. pag. 8.) from the D. owne wordes (serm. pag. 61.) that the proofe of his first assertion, is to be searched for, not in the last of the five, but in the 4. former: so it is plaine by the transitions, which he useth (serm. pag. 17. 22. 52.) that the direct proofe of the like function vnto our Bishops, either in those Angels or any other An­gels or pastors of the primitive Churches, hangeth vpon the three middle points, and not vpon the first, which concerneth onely the persons of whome the ancient presbyteries consisted. And though now he make a faire shewe, of reducing the first of his 5. pointes, to prove his first assertion anaskevasticos, by disproving the presby­teries which we desire; yet even this very defēse he maketh for him­self, clearely justifieth his Refuter that sayd, he could not see how it did directly prove that assertion the proofe whereof he searched af­ter. For if in his first point, concerninge lay Elders, he indeavou­reth (as himself acknowledgeth (both in the 54. pag. of thi [...] and 61. pag. of the next chapter) first and principally to disprove the presbyterian discipline, that so (by consequence), the disproof ther­of might be a proofe for our Bishops: with what face, can he af­firme, that this first point, is a direct proof of the assumption of his first syllogisme, which saith, that diocesan Bishops were in his text meant by Angels? 3. Wherefore, for an answere to his question, (which he tendered for his first reason) it may suffice to demande the like of him, that is, how he could perswade himselfe, that his analysis here delivered, was answerable to the genesis or first com­position of his sermon; when he sawe (or at least wise mought have seene) that 4. parts of his five, doe not conclude his first assertion, and that the fift could not be brought to his frame, without a change of the doctrine first propounded in his sermon? But (it see­meth) the D. is so well conceited of his owne Genesis, that he is per­swaded, that if his Refuter could have discerned it, he would have acknowledged every poin [...]e to be v [...]ry pertinent and direct, & the whole so perfect, that nothing is superfluous or wantinge. A strāge fancy, when his owne Analysis, maketh one of his foure pointes, to be a superfluous excr [...]scens, and more then needes; which before se­med to be of necessary vse. For, in reducinge his 4. pointes to this [Page 129] conclusion. That the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Churches were di­ocesan Bishops, his third point, which himself (as we have heard) ma­keth but a consequēt of the secōd, can yeeld him no better argum [...], then this: Those ancient Pastors or Bishops were Diocesan Bishops. There­fore, they were Diocesan Bishops. Wherefore when he hath advisedly, (vpon his second thoughts) compared his owne Analysis with his Genesis, I nothing doubt, but (winke he never so hard) he will The D. him felte makes a forced analysis a­gainst con­science. see, though I feare, he wilbe loath to confesse: that it is his owne self, that deserveth, much more then his Refuter to beare this im­putation, of a forced analysis, devised against the light of his owne consci­cence.

Notwithstanding, I deny not, but that his 5. points are all of them some way pertinent to the purpose, though none of Sect. 7. them directly conclude his first assertion, which he saith is pro­ved by 4. of them. For his owne words doe shewe, that when he first set downe those five points, (in the proofe whereof the body of his sermon standeth) he minded not so much the explication of his text, as the confutation of the Elder and later sort of discipli­narians (as he calleth them) whose odious opinions, he had inter­laced (serm. pag. 6. &. 45.) in the proposing of those questions, which served to cleare his first assertion. I will prove (saith be pag. 6.) 1. Ag [...]inst both sortes, that there were no lay-governi [...]g Elders in t [...]e primi­tive Church. 2. And then more particularly against the former, that in the first 200. yeares, the visible Churches were dioceses &c. 3. And cons [...]quently that the A [...]gels of the Churches were not p [...]ishonall, but diocesan Bishops. 4. And ag [...]inst the later, That the Bishops being advanced to an higher degree of Mi­nisterie, were set above other presbyters, not onely in priority of order, but also in major [...]y of rule. To the same purpose, he speaketh here in his de­fence (pag. 54.) affirming as before, that he indeavoureth the proofe [...]f thos pointes ag [...]inst the new and [...]lder disc pl [...]arians. And though he pre­tende to drawe all these particulars [...]o one conclusion, which he saith, is the expl [...]cation [...]f his text: yet this appea e [...]h to be a m [...]ere The Doct. pretēdeth without truth, and shaketh hands with his text. pretence voide of truth; seing the explication of his text, lieth (not in this conclusion here set downe, scz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were di [...]cesan Bishops &c. but) in this ass [...]rtion propounded (serm. pag. 2.) scz. that by the Angels mencioned in his text we are to vnderstand such Bishops, for the substance of their call [...]ge, as our reverend Fathers are It is apparant therefore, that in the hand­ling of these 4. pointes, he shaketh hands with his text, and layeth [Page 130] by, both it, and the explication thereof: and (as if he were now, not in the pulpit to explicate a text of scripture, but in the schooles to dispute, or rather declaime pro forma) he wholly mindeth the justifying of our hierarchy; and the confuting of their opinions, which favour the presbyterie. Neither can any man otherwise judg, that observeth his wordes before set downe, and compareth togi­ther, both his three first pointes with those. 3. opinions which he texeth pag. 4. and the fourth, with that which he reprehendeth pa. 6. In which respect also, it shalbe no great error to thinke, that his 5. point is, (in his principall intendment) rather opposed against their opinion, which holde that episcopall superiority: which he pleadeth, to be vnlawfull, and (as he sayth pag. 5.) Antichristian; then proposed for the proof of his 2. assertion, as he now preten­deth pag. 54. & 58. Add herevnto his owne wordes in the next chapter, (pag. 60. & 61.) where he affirmeth, the question discus­sed in his sermō, to be two fold. The 1, De facto whether the primitive churches were governed by D: Bishops, as they say, or by presbytertes of such Elders as we speake of. The second, de i [...]re, whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as they hold; or must be governed by Pres­byteries, as we affirme. The first question, he saith his handled in the former part of his sermon; to which he reduceth his 4. first points. And the second in the later, which is the last of his five. And thus in deed, I graunt, that every of his 5. points may be pertinent to his purpose: yet still I affirme, that if they be referred to the proof of his two assertions, which he ought by his promise (serm. pag. 2.) to prove; the first and last might well have bene spared; and the other three (not to repeat againe, how one of them at the least, is needlesse) doe neyther directly, nor necessarily conclude that first assertion, which he saith is proved by them. Wherefore, had he meant to frame his analysis, to such a distribution, as best agre­eth with his Genesis; we should never have heard: from him, (that which so often he repeateth in this defence, to wit) that his five points enumerated pag. 6. 7. are the direct proofes of his 2. asser­tions, proposed pag. 2: he would rather have divided that part of his preface, which himselfe (sect. 1. of this chapter) calleth the proposition, into these two members. 1. a proposition of certeine questions to be debated for the explication of his text, (pag. 2. 3. & 5.) which he promiseth to cleare, but doth not. 2. a digressi­on [Page 131] from his text, wherein he proposeh, 1. the opinions of the dis­ciplinarians, whom he intendeth to confute (pag. 4. 5. 6.) and 2. those 5. pointes which he opposeth to their opinions (pag. 6. & 7.) and pomiseth in his sermon to prove against them. This had bene both true & plaine dealing, but he was not willing, the world should see, that his text affoardeth him so litle help as it doth, to conclude the doctrine, which he pretendeth to arise frō the expli­cation thereof. And therefore, how oft so ever his refuter calleth vpon him to make good his promise, by proving, that we are by the angels in his text, to vnderstand such B [...]shops for the substance of their calling, as ours are: yet by no meanes will he once heare on that side, and be recalled to this question; but sh [...]fteth it off by this calumniation, that his Refuter by a forced analysis (for I let passe his odious termes) withdraweth him from the principall queston. Where­fore to cut off all such quarrels, and to damme vp some other lurk­ing holes, whereinto he flyeth, as occasion serveth; before we pro­ceed to the examinatiō of any of the large discourses, made by him, in defece of his 5. conclusions: It shalbe good to take a better view of the state of the question debated in his s [...]rmon; that the reader may throughly see what it is both that the Refuter denieth; & the Doctor is to prove, first by the explication of his text; and after that by such arguments as he taketh most pregnant for his pur­pose.

Chap: 4. Concerning the state of the question, handled by the Doctor in his third chapt. sect. 1. which is altogither chaunged by him.

The question discussed in the sermon, (as the Doctor telleth us Sect. 1. ad Cap. 1. sect 1. pag. 60. 61. Cap. 3. sect. 1. pag. 60.) is twofold, The first de facto whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops, as we s [...]y, (saith he) or by the Presbyteries of such elders as they speake of. The second de [...]ure, whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Diocesan Bps, as we hold, or must needes be governed by their presbyteries as they affirme? The first is han­dled in the former part of the sermon; (to which he referreth the first 4. pointes) the second [...]n the later, whereto the 5. or last appert yneth. Here the reader must remember (as is already observed in the for­mer chap.) that the principall question in the entrance of his ser­mon, [Page 132] pag. 2. propounded to be discussed is wholly overpasse [...], the question I meane, de vero & genuino textus sensu, whether by the angels there mentioned we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of [...]eir c [...]lling, as ours are. And so let vs see how well he hath reduced the whole controversie (his text set aside) to these two questions, be­cause he dealeth against two sorts of Disciplinarians, who as he pretendeth differ greatly in their opinions the one from the other. His first question he thus explaineth. Wh [...]ther the prim [...]tive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops, such (for the substance of their calling) as ours are; or by such Presbyteries as they stand for, viz. eyther parishionall, consisting of the Parish-Bishop, and a compani [...] of lay or onely governing el­ders: or Presbyters in cities, consisting of the President, and other Presbyters, Whereof some are Ministers, but the greater some, laye or onely governing el­ders. The question being thus layd downe, because the expositiō standeth generally betwene Presbyters and Diocesan Bishops; a man would think that all which stand for the one, do generally and alike reject the other. Whereas notwithstanding, the D. & other of his minde, doe acknowledge that presbyteries had place and use in the goverment of the ancient Churches: and he would perswade his readers, that the more learned sort of disciplinarians doe ac­knowledge the primitive Bishops to be diocesan. But if the oppo­sition be (not simply betwene presbyteries and Bishops, but) one­ly betwene such and such; yet a man would judge that both sides hold, both diocesan Bishops, and presbyteries, though they disa­gree in the nature of their functions; whereas it is apparant, that he affirmeth, diocesan Bishops to be absolutely disclamed of the later sort of presbyterians.

Agayne, in the difference which he putteth betwene the elder & the yonger sort of Disciplinarians; who would not conceite that the elder sort, deny vnto country parishes aswel any governing Elders, as a parish Bishop; & have no entire presbyteries but in Cities onely: Wheras it is well knowne, that all their presbyteries are n [...]t limi­ted to Cities, & that Elders are allowed to country-parishes, even by them that contrive, the Churches of City & Country into one Eldershipp; yet so as the Elders in the Country have not ful power of jurisdiction. Moreover, in the 2. question as he hath proposed it, who would not thinke, both that all which plead for presbyte­ries (whether severall in every parishe, or one in diverse) doe holde [Page 133] the goverment which they imbrace, to be a like necessary; and that such as stand with the D. for diocesan Bishops, doe with one con­sent, strive onely for the lawfullnes of their places, and not for the necessity or perpetuity of their functions? Yet he indeavoureth to perswade his reader (lib. 4. pag. 161.) that the reteyning of dio­cesan Bishops (such as he standeth for) is no [...] condemned, by any moderate or judicious divine, but onely by the late Presbyterians: whereas it is too evident, (for his deniall to evince the cōtrary) that many at this day, doe stand forth eagerly for the necessitie & per­petuitie of the episcopal function now in question. Vnto these er­ronious conceits, there had bene no dore opened, had the Doctor bene pleased to have framed his questions, in such termes as most fitly answere, eyther to the first project of his sermon, or to the 2. assertions before delivered in his Defence. Agreable to his first project, are these questions. 1. Touching the explication of his text, whether the Bishops meant there by angels, were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are? 2. and touching the doctrine ray­sed out of his text, whether the calling of such Bishops as ours are, be of di­vine institution. If he had rather stick close to the words of his two Questions before mentioned, the first De facto is whether the angels &c. & the secōd, De iure, whether the calling &c. as we heard even now.

Wherefore the reader may see, that as before he changed his as­sertions; Sect. 2. so now he changeth his questiō [...]; neyther is it hard to dis­cerne, what might move him therevnto. For in the first, his owne The Doct. changeth his questi­ons aswel as his asser­tions. words discover his intent or purpose, when he entreateth his Ref: (p. 60.) to take notice, what is the question betwixt them, that so he may dis­cerne his discourse concerning [...]lders to be pertinent to the matter in quaestion. Wherefore having set down the first question in those two mēbers before expressed, (whether the primitive Churches were governed by Dio­cesan Bishops as we sat, or by Presbyteries of such elders as they speake [...]f?) he taketh it for graunted, (p. 61.) & on both sides agreed on, that the Churches were governed eyther by the one or the other, & so infer­reth that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proof of his Bishops. A direct proof? so he saith, but what Logician of any judgement will herein subscribe to his affirmation? The question hath two mem­bers, the Doctor holdeth the affirmative in the former, and the negative in the later; to prove the one, and disprove the other, is The D. dis­puteth not directly. a double labour. Wherefore since the Doctor susteyning the per­son of the opponent, in this disputation, beginneth with the first [Page 134] member of the question, & vndertaketh to prove this conclusion, viz. The the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops, such as ours are; who would not now in an orderly and direct course of disputation) expect at his hands some such Medius terminus, as sheweth positively, etherwhat agreeth to the function of a diocesan Bishop; or what manner of government was anciently practized, or such like? And if he forbeare to argue to this purpose, will not men of judgment be ready to thinke, that either he hath little to alledg this way, or to so little purpose, that he distrusteth the issue of his triall?

But if he shall fly from the first member of his question, which he made speciall choyse of, and that with resolution to confirme it by vnanswerable evidence, as his words every where (and namely p. 29. 35.) put his reader in hope: and if in stead of confirming this point, he shall bend the force of his disputation against the 2. mē ­ber of his question, to confute the reasons produced by the adverse part for the Presbyterie; who can excuse his inco [...]stancie? yea, who (that loveth him wel) can judge otherwise, then that it had bene much better for his credit, to have openly professed that he would first deale with the later member, and then come to the former? or rather that he would first susteyne the person of a respondent, and throw the burthen of proving upon his opposites, as afterwardes he doth, and plainly professeth it in the next sect. pag. 62.

But since he undertaketh the person of an opponent at the first entrance into this conflict, let us see how artificially he reasoneth from the one member of his question to the other: his disiunctive argumentation (pag. 62.) standeth thus,

Eyther the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops, or by such Presbyteries as they stand for: But not by such Presbyteies as they stand for: Therefore by Diocesan Bishops.

The proposition (saith he) is implyed in the very question betwene us: And the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie. The as­sumption is that first point of the five, which new we have in hand. But first I deny that his assumption is the first of his 5. points; for whē he sayth, The primitive Church was not governed by such Presbyteries as they stand for; doth he not therein oppose himself equally against both sorts of disciplinarians [...] aswell those that require a Presbyte­rie, to assist their Parish-Bishop, in every severall congregation; as [Page 135] those which establish a presbyterie in every City, for the governmēt of many parishes vnder one president, having preheminence of or­der above the rest of the presbyters? For so he explaneth the later member, of his disjunctive question page 60. It is therefore cleare, that his assumption here, is no otherwise the first, then it is, the se­cond, third, or fourth point of his five. For how proveth he, that his assumption is the first? Forsooth, he proveth it by the first (as he sheweth page. 62.) Ergo it is the first, and thus he proveth it. They are not able to prove, that ever there were any presbyters, which were not Ministers: Therefore the primitive Churches were not governed by such pres­byteries as they stand for. And why may he not reason from the 2. 3. or 4. point to the like purpose; They are not able to prove, that any of the visi [...]le Churches vsing goverment were parishes; or that any parishes had their Bishop, to governe them with the assistance of his presbytery; or that the presby­ters were in power of order and jurisdiction equall to their president, and inferi­or to him onely in order &c. Therefore the primitive Churches were not go­verned by such presbyteries, as they stand for. But this were to overthrow his dichotomies before set downe pag. 54. & repeated lib. 2. pa. 41. specially that first distribution of his proofes, which referreth the first point to a disproving of their presbyteries anaskevasticos, & the rest to the approving of our Bishops kataskevasticos, wherefore, I wil forbeare, to contend any longer against his assumption, & weigh rather what he saith in defense of his proposition.

The disjunction implied in the proposition, he affirmeth to be ne­cessary Sect. 3. though not absolutely, yet ex hypothesi, and so presupposed on both sides. The D cra­veth the question, & reason­eth from one mem­ber of it to another. But I must give him to witt, that if it were as necessary, as he sup­poseth; yet this kinde of reasoninge is on both sides esteemed no better, then a pretty craving of the question, neither can it be other­wise when he reasoneth from one member of the question to the o­ther. Else, why may he not disprove their presbyteries, by vnder­taking the proof of our Bishops government, with the change of the 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. [Page 136] 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 prosyllo [...]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, b [...]t Mi­nisters of the word; yet that it would not foll [...]w, that the Bishops were Di [...]o­san, because a Presbyterie of Ministers (such as the D. himselfe co [...]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 f [...]ll, though there were no sole governing elders to over turne them. It is therefore plaine, that the Refuter disclaymeth this d [...]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 Brownist [...]call and Anabaptisticall dotage) and The D. cō ­trad [...]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; wherea [...] he formerly acknowledged (s [...]rm. pag. 1 [...]. that in the pri­mitive Church the Bishop vsed the advise of certeyne [...]ra [...]e Ministers, and in Church caus [...]s did nothing almost without them. A thing now growne altogither out of vse; and in the opinion of [...]ome, (whose judgemēt ought to sway much with the Doctor) that k [...]n [...]e of government, which the aunci [...]nt Presbyteries and their Bishops exer [...]ised, is now transferred to the M [...]gistrate, to whome it is due, a [...]d to such as by him are appointed: s [...]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 impli [...]d; yet it followeth not, ( [...]ay it is an appara [...]t vntruth to affirm) h [...]t the dis [...]unction is on both sides presupposed necessarie; which the Doctor must confes [...]e [Page 137] 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 Refut [...] 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. cō ­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 [Page 138] 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 cōmeth somewhat neare the mark, though it misse of the right tenour of wordes which it ought to have kept. viz. whether Bishops meant by angels in his text, were such Bishops for the sub­stance of their calling, as are our Bishops at this day?

And thus we may see what moved the Doctor to change his first question, and how litle he gaineth thereby; seing he cannot com­passe his desire of dravving the first point of his five, to conclude that assertion, to which he referred the first part of his sermon. Wherefore, seing his disiunctive argumentation will not serve his turne; and he will yet once againe, (for it seemeth he is vnwea [...]ia­ble) attempt the effecting of his purpose; let me advise him to per­use his owne advise given to his Refuter, (lib. 2. 44.) namely, to set downe his Enthymem, and to supply thereto, that proposition, which is implied in the consequence, so to make vp a perfect syllo­gisme His Enthymem is this; In the primitive Church, there were no other presbyters but Ministers: Therefore the primitive Church was go­verned by di [...]cesan Bishops, such as ours are. Here now the Doctor is wise enough to perceive, that the propositiō implied in the conse­quence of his Enthimem, (and therefore needfull to be supplied) is this, viz. whatsoever church hath in it none other Presbyters but Mini­sters; the same is governed by such Diocesan Bishops as ours are: but his [Page 139] wisdome foresaw, that if he brought this propositiō into the sunne, to be looked on, his Refuter (yea I may say the simplest of his rea­ders) would easely have discerned that it needeth no lesse proofe, then the conclusion it self, or the assumption; which he would so faine reduce to his purpose. Yea as the falseshood of it was disco­vered, aforehand by the Refuter and that vpon good and sufficient reason, which the Doctor baulked, as he passed by: so it may evi­dently be convinced from his owne wordes aswell in his sermon, (pag. 69. 70. as in this defense (lib. 4. pag. 36.) where he con­fesseth, that [...] the apostles dayes, all the Churches, which they planted, (that at Ierusalem onely excepted) wanted Bishops, and yet had each of them a cō ­pany of Presbyters, which as Pastors, fedd them in cōmon, and laboured the conversion of others. Onely when they were to leave the Churches altogither by death or final departure into other places &c. then they ordeyned them Bi­shops, and not before; and this, saith he, is that which Ierom (cap. 1. ad Ti­ium) affirmeth, that the Churches at the first, before Bishops were appoin­ted over them; were governed by the cōmon counsell of Presbyters. Where­fore the injoying of a Presbytery cōsisting of Ministers onely, doth not necessarily argue, that the Church, which hath such a Presby­terie, is governed by a Diocesan Bishop, as the Doctor without truth or reason taketh it for graunted, even at their handes, who (with good reason) flatly denied it. Wherefore I hope, he will at length, acknowledge his passage, concerning governing el­ders, to be altogither impertinent; for (to pay him with his owne coyne pag. 60.) cōmon sense requireth, that what he seeth imper­tinent, he should acknowledge so to be; & charitie would (though selfe-love would not) that if he discerned not the untruth, and in­consequence of his reasoning; he should rather have suspected his owne analysis to be forced, then have blamed his Refuter, for his owne want of judgement.

Wherefore, not following him any longer in his outwandrings; it is high time that we come to examine his other question de iure, Section. 5. which standeth on two feet (as the former) on this manner: whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops, as he holdeth; or must be governed by their Presbyteries, as they affirme. The deceites couched in this question (as it is proposed) are in part touched before (sect. 1.) and shall more fully be deciphered hereafter: wee are now to see how well it suteth with the later part of his sermon, and [Page 140] the defense thereof) where he saith (pag. 60.) it is handled. By the later part of his sermon he meaneth the last of his 5. points, which affirmeth the function of Bishops (he meaneth such as ours are) to be of apostolicall and divine institution. In the handling whereof, there is nothing, to be found against the presbyteriā government, save one onely naked syllogisme (serm, pag. 60.) which concludeth the go­vernment of the Churches by a paritie of ministers and assistance of lay Elders in every parish, not to be of apostolical institution; be­cause it was no where in vse, in the first 300. yeares after the Apo­stles. And now in his defense (lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35.) he giveth no other proofe to justify the assumption which the Refuter deni­ed, but this; that it is proved in the former syllog [...]sme, set to justi­fy the government by Diocesan Bishops. For if, saith he, the govern­ment by Di [...]cesan Bishops, was generally and perpetually received in those 300 yeares; it is manifest, that this government, which they speake of, was not in use. Here therefore he (like as he did before) taketh one part of The D. a­gaine ta­keth one part of the question to prove the other. the question to prove the other. Shall I againe answere him in his owne wordes? This doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation, as the badnes of his cause. Verely he had li­tle reason to tel us, that he hath handled this question in the later part of his sermon, (viz. whether the Church must be governed by these Presbyteries) vnlesse he had more orderly disputed against the asser­tion of his Opposite. Yea if he had as largely reasoned against their Presbyteries, as he hath for Diocesan Bps, yet the question is not directly fitted to the points which he concludeth; since he insist­eth wholly upon the triall of this issue, whether of those two go­vernments, which he or his opposites do commend, be of apostoli­call and divine institution. And though he joyne togither apostolicall & divine, both in the first propounding, and also in the winding up of this point: (serm. pag. 7. & 54.) yet when he addresseth him self to the confirmation thereof (pag. 55.) he chiefly aimeth at this, to prove the function of Bishops to be of divine institution; and taketh a­postol call i [...]stitution for his Medius terminus, to conclude by conse­quence, that it is a divine ordinance. Wherefore it is evident, that the maine argument of his whole sermon, is the proofe of this asserti­tion, that the function of Bishops, (such as ours are for the substance of the [...] calling) is a divine ordinaunce; for this he pretendeth to drawe from his text, in as much as, the name of Starres and Angels, is [Page 141] there given to such Bishops. And to this, he reduceth all the arguments layd downe by him in the handlinge of his fift position, which he calleth the later part of his sermon; and from this he inferreth those three vses which he would have us all to make conscience of, viz. To acknowledge their function to be the ordinance of God, and in that regard, both to reverence their persons; and to obey their authority, as we are exhorted. Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17. Notwithstanding for the clearinge of the state of the question, two things are to be considered, to wit, first what he includeth in, or excludeth from, the substance of their callinge. Secondly, in what sense, their function is to be esteemed, a divine ordinance.

The substance of their callinge the Doctor explaineth (serm. Sect. 6. page. 52. 53.) where (ha [...]ing said, that the angels or Bishops of the primitive Church, were for the substance of their calling, such as ours are) he addeth, that is to say, Dioc [...]san and Provinciall Bishops, being superiour in degree to other Ministers, and having a singulari­tie of prehemmence for terme of life, and a peerelesse power both of ordi­nation and iurisdiction. Neverthelesse the reader must not imagin, that he speaketh of Provinciall or Metropolitan Bishops, when he affirmeth the episcopall function to be of divine institution; [...]or in his defense, he usually inserteth the word Diocesan (as lib. 1. pag. 58. and lib. 4. pag. 139.) to teach us that the Bishops, whose function he mainteyneth to be of apostolical institution, are no other then Diocesan Bishops. As for Metropolitans, though he thinke (lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114.) that their su­perioritie was intended by the Apostles, when they appointed Bishops, over mother Cities: yet (as well as he loveth them) he dareth not affirme that any were ordeyned by the Apostles, to the office or pr [...]h minence of Metropolitan Bishops. For every Metropolitan, in his opinion, (lib. 3. cap. 1. pag. 20. 21.) was The func­tion of Archbps. is lesse be­holding to the D. the [...] the fun­ction of Diocesan Bishops. originally the B [...]shop of his peculiar Diocese; and not actually a Metropolitan, vntill divers Churches in the same Province, be­ing constituted, there was a consociation amonge themselves, and a subordination of them to him, as their primate. So that the function of Metropolitans or Archbishops, is lesse be­holdinge to Mayster Doctor, then the callinge of Diocesan Bi­shops. Of the former he speaketh doubtfully (lib. 4. cap. 5. p. 130.) [Page 142] Their superiority arose, as Beza supposeth, from the very light of nature, direct­inge, and force of necessity urging men to that course: but, as I rather think, from the institution of the Apostles. Of th'other he affirmeth very pe­remptorily (lib. 4. pag. 139. 143.) that the calling of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution. The substance then of that episcopall function, which he holdeth to be a divine ordinance, the D. hath placed in these particulars. 1. That they be diocesan Bishops, or overseers of a diocese. 2. That they be superior in degree to other Ministers. 3. That they have a singularity of preheminence, duringe life, and 4. a peerelesse power both of ordination and of jurisdiction in their places. Loe here his enumeration; and withall, how he omitteth therein, (and that of purpose as it seemeth) foure other more sub­stantiall, The D. o­mitteth 4. substantiall and lesse questiona­ble points of the Bps. function, but ye [...] wisely. and lesse questionable points of their function, who first had the name of Bishops appropriated to thē in the ancēt Churches to wit, that they were 1. Pastors of their Churches bound by their office, to dispence the word and Sacramentes to their people; and therefore 2. tied to make their positive residencie, in that one City or Church, whereof they had the Charge, 3. assisted also every of them with his presbytery or Senate of Elders, without whose advyce and consent in Church-matters, nothing of weight was done, and 4. not subordinated to the jurisdictiō or censure of any one Bishop superiour vnto him. But of these pointes more he reafter, (lib. 3. & 4.) I now purpose not to insist on this defect, in his laying down of the substanciall partes of the episcopall function; neyther will I contend about the continuance of their Presidencie, or singular preheminence, whether it be essentiall or accidentall to injoy it cō ­stantly for terme of life? nor yet magnify the D. wisdome in his cū ­ning concealing of them, as knowing how it wipeth his Diocesans over the shinnes. In this rather I disire to give or receive satissacti­on, whether that singularitie of preheminence and peereless [...] power, which he ascribeth unto Bishop; be not a sole superioritie, or sole power of rule, as the Refuter affirmeth? And this I the rather desire, be­cause the Doctor is so highly offended with the worde, sole, that as oft as he findeth it vsed by his Refuter in this question, he reward­eth him, with these or the like counterbuffs at every turne. Whence cōmeth this sole I pray you, that hath so oft bene foysted in? I feare greatly frō The Doct. standereth shameless­ly. an evill conscience resolved to op [...]ugn and d face the truth (lib. 3. pag 118.) And in the next page, God amend that soule, that so often foysteth in that [Page 143] sole, besides my meaning and my words And againe, pag. 126, O defiled conscience, which ceaseth not to ascribe such odious and absurd asser [...]ions to me. Thus and thus is M. Doctor pleased to declaime.

Why? but how should the word sole, or the name of sovereignty, or Sect. 7. sole. rule [...]e so odious and offensive to the Doctors eares; when (not­withstanding all this face, the thing is so pleasing to him, that he pleadeth for it tooth and nayle? To ask as he doth (lib. 3. pag. 20. & 68, & 69.) where doe I say in all th [...] sermon, that Bishops had, or must have sole power or iurisdiction? and whether Bishops cannot be superiour to Presbyters in the power of ordination or iuri [...]aiction, vnl [...]sse they have all the sole p [...]w [...]r? Thus to ask I saye, helpeth litle, eyther to fr [...]e him from giving way to those assertions, which he seemeth to abhorre; or to make his Refuter guilty of so evill and defiled a conscience, as he accuseth him of; nay, if he discharge a good conscience, he must confesse, either that his wordes doe not faithfully expresse his mea­ning; or that he meant to give vnto Bishops, that sol p [...]wer of rule, which his Refuter gathereth from his wordes. For, what difference is there, betwixt that singularity of preheminence (which he ma­keth the first branch of the Bishops superiority. (serm. pag. 32.) and that sole superiority, or sole power of rule, which the Refuter speaketh of? Doth he not teach us out of Cyprian and Herom (pa. 33. 34) that the government, and the whole care of the Church, apperteineth to the Bishop, which is one onely? And that his sin­gular preheminence is a peerelesse power, and eminent above all; yea such as admitteth no partner, pag. 36. & 46? And doth he not afterwards (pag. 45. 46. 47.) vndertake to demonstrate, that the Bishop governeth in foro externo, not onely the people; but the pr [...]s­byters also of an whole diocese, as having authority to guide and direct them, as their ruler; and to censure and correct them as their Iudge? Doth he not, (serm. pag. 30. as is already shewed, in the former chapter, sect. 10.) out of Ignatius, make 3. degrees of Ministers, Deacons, Preists and Bishops vnder Christ; the De [...]cons subject to the 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 H [...]er [...]m, make those 3. degrees answerable, to the high Preists and Levites, placing [Page 144] 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 [...]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 s [...]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 Pre [...]byters were to impose handes with the Bishop, yet it was then (as now with vs) [Page 145] 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 [...]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 us [...]d it not; for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and adv [...]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 Assistāce, 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 sw [...]ing the matter as pleaseth them: they have a sole power of rule, or do rule by their sole authoritie

But our English Pre [...]tes i [...] their Episcop [...]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 f [...]om swaying the matter as ple [...]seth them. Let not the D. be ashamed to speake plainely, what he closely in­sinuat [...]th.

Therefore, they have a sole power of rule, or do rule by thei [...] 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. [Page 146] (D. Dove I meane in his defense of Church-government pag. 19.) cōming 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 th [...]ir successors Mat. 28, 19, 20. and also all Christian Princes.

Ergo, all power is not given to Christ alone; neyther is his government a Monarchy, or s [...]le power of rule.

If this conclusion doth not necessarily followe upon the Ante­cedent; then the Doctor (if he shut not his right eye) may see the loosenes of his owne argument. Shall I need to ask him, whether King Iames doth not therefore governe the Realmes as a Monarch by his sole authoritie, because in the government thereof, he hath many subordinate helps under him? Or whether the Duke of Sax­onie and such like free Princes, doe not governe, by a sole power of rule, their severall Provinces, because they acknowledge the Empe­rour their superiour? Hath not every Maister in the government of his how shoud a sole superioritie, though some have, both un­der them a Schoole Mr. for their children, and a Steward for the oversight of their servants, and above them sundry Magistrates, who in the Province or Country wherein they live, carrie a farre more eminent and pecrelesse superioritie?

It is apparant therefore, that the sole power of rule in our Bi­shops, is not impaired by any that are superiour or inferiour to thē unlesse they were in the same Cōm [...]ssiō joyned with thē as such assistants, as (if the case require) may restreine them. Neyther is [Page 147] their Monarchical authoritie abridged by the power of Synods as­sembled (as he saith pag. 43.) for the making of ecclesiastical cō ­stitutions; since the Kings highnes ceaseth not to be a Monarch, though he cannot make newe lawes, nor doe some things, without the consent of his Nobles, & Cōmons, assembled in the high court of Parliament. Neyther would the Doctor feare to professe that our Bishops doe governe Monarchically, or by their sole authori­tie, save that he foreseeth (as it seemeth lib. 3. pag. 22) that if he should plainly ascribe unto them a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction; it might be thence inferred that he alloweth no juris­diction to Presbyters, and holdeth those Churches to have no law­full Ministers, which have not such Bishops as ours are to ordeyne them. And surely (though he falsly charge his Refuter for disgra­cing his sermō with those inferences, yet) if he have none other way to avoyd them, but by denying that he giveth vnto Bishops, a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction; he must be content hereafter to beare this imputation, that he giveth way to those absurdities he would seeme to disclayme.

For first, touching jurisdiction, since he placeth it in that singu­lar and peerelesse power of rule (before spoken of sect. 7.) which Sect. 9. admitteth no partner, and subjecteth all, both presbyters and peo­ple in foro externo, to his direction as their ruler, and to his cor­rection as their judge: that which is already pressed to prove a sole superiority, or sole power of rule in Bishops, doth directly serve to conclude a sole power of jurisdiction in them. For to speake (as he doth) of externall & publike jurisdiction, in foro externo, which standeth (as he saith serm. pag. 51.) in receyving accusations, in conven­ting parties accused, and censuring such as are found guilty, accordinge to the quality of the offence, by reproofe, putting to silence, suspension, deprivation, or excommunication; in which respect, seing all the presbyters within the diocese are subiect to the Bishop (yea even those that should as­siste him, aswell as others that are severed from him, and affixed to their severall cures) it is apparrant, that that majority of rule, which the D. giveth him over all, cannot be lesse then a sole power of ju­risdiction. For who can deny a sole power of jurisdiction to him, that is, in the power and exercise thereof, so lifted vp aboue all o­thers, in an whole diocese, that they are all in subjection vnto him, and he hath no assistantes to restreyne him? Must the parish Bishop [Page 148] needs be a sole-governor, if he have not the assistance of a presby­terie joyned in cōmissiō with him? And is it plaine that the Iudges in the Kings Bench and common-pleas, who are Assistants to the L. cheif Iustices, are joyned to either of them, as to help thē in giving right judgmēt, so to restreine thē that they judge not alone, accor­ding to their owne pleasure? (S [...] his Def. lib. 3. pag. 141. 143.) And shall not also a diocesan L. Bishop hold & exercise a sole pow­er of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; when he is so superior vnto all in his diocese, that he hath no assistance of any, to restreine or over­rule him? Moreover, if Bishops onely (and not presbyters) be au­thorized, jure apostolico, to exercise their publike and external juris­diction, in all ecclesiasticall censures, over the people and clergie of their dioceses, (as the D. affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 116.) if also the power of reconciling paenitents, by imposition of handes, doth belonge to Bishops onely, and that by the power of their order; (pag. 105.) then surely their function is dishonored and their authority impar­red, by such as deny vnto them, a sole power of jurisdiction.

Secondly, concerninge ordination, the reader is to be advertised that he saith (serm. pag. 37.) it hath bin a receyved opinion in the Church of God, even from the Apostles times vntill our age, that the right of ordinatiō of presbyters is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops, as that ordinarily and re­gularly, there could be no lawfull ordination, but by a Bishop. And addeth (pag. 40.) that the perpetuall consent of the Church of God, ap­propriateth the ordinary right of ordination to the Bishop alone. And (pag. 42.) that Bishops onely, in the judgment of the Fathers have right of orde [...] ­ninge Ministers, regularly. And therefore, though extraordinarily and in case of necessity, he seeme to allowe of their Ministery, which in the want of a Bishop, are ordeyned by other Ministers; yet this is no other allowance, then he giveth to the baptisme of women or laie-persons, in the want of a Minister. For he saith in plaine terms (pag. 44.) The truth is, where Ministers maye be had, none but Ministers ought to baptize; and where Byshops maye be had, none but Byshops ought to ordeyne. In which words, who seeth not, that the ref: hath sufficient ground to affirme, that the D. giveth to Bishops a sole power of ordination? If he will say (as he seemeth to perswade lib. 3. pag. 69.) that this argueth onely a superiority in the power of ordeyning and not a sole power; then let him also professe plainly, that Mini­sters have not any sole power of baptising, but onely a superiority [Page 149] in that power, above women or other laie-persons.

But he cannot thus evade, though he would, seing (lib. 3. pag. 105.) he expresly affimeth, that the power of imposing hands to conveigh grace, either to parties baptized for their confirmation; or to panitents for their reconciliation, or to parties designed to the Ministery, for their ordination, is peculiar vnto Bishops, and to the power of their order, whereby they differ from Presbyters and Deacons yea, this power of ordeyning is (in his conceite pag. 106.) so appropriated to the power of order in Bishops, that they cannot communicate it to any others. Wherefore though he should never so impudently stand forth to mainteine that he doth not ascribe a sole power of ordinatiō to them; yet wil it be inevitably concluded frō his owne wordes. For, whosoever have the right or power of ordi­nation appropriated to thē alone, as a prerogative peculiar to their function, and that by the power of their order, yea so peculiar to their order, that they cannot communicate it to men of another function; they must needes have the sole power of ordination. If therfore Bishops have the power of ordination, so appropriated to them alone and to the power of their order; (as is before shewed from the D. owne wordes) it followeth of necess [...]y, that they have a sole power of ordination given vnto them. This is also implied in those speaches so often repeated (lib. 3. pag. 72. 86. 93. 97.) that the power of ordeyninge was in the Bishops, and not in the presbyters; And that Bishops had the power or right of ordeyning, which presbyters had not. And of ordination and jurisdiction jointly, as he constantly main­teineth them, to be the principall and most essentiall parts of the episcopall authority: (lib. 3. pag. 68. & lib. 4. pag. 78.) so he flatly denyed the charge of these affaires, to belonge vnto presbyters The Doct. must [...]ay by his slander and graunte that he gi­veth sole power &c. to Bi­shops, or else, he co­tradict [...]h himself of­ten. (lib. 4. pag. 79). And speaking of those precepts which Paul gave to Timothe for ordination and Church government, 1. Tim. 5. 19. 21. he saith, (pag. 77.) they were not cōmon to other Christians, or other Ministers, therefore peculiar to Bishops. So that we may safely conclude, (neither can the Doct. impugne it, without appa­rant contradiction to himself) that our Bishops are sole-ruling. Bi­shops, and that the singularity of preheminence (or preheminent power) which he ascribeth vnto Bishops, as an essentiall part of their function, is in deed, a sole power of rule, or monarchicall su­periority.

The 5. Chapter. Concerninge the s [...]ate of the Question, and namely of the D. distinction, of ius apostolicum, & divinum.

Thus have we done with the first, come we now to the second point before proposed to be examined. viz. in what sense the sole Sect. 1. ruling Bishops, (such as ours are) is to be esteemed a divine ordi­nance. The Doctor often acknowledgeth it to be a divine ordinance in respect of the first institution, as having God the author thereof. But he can by no means indure his Refuter to say, that he holdeth their function to be divini juris (or [...]de jure di [...]i [...]o) and perpetu­ally or generally necessary for all Churches; yea his choller [...]i, so kindled thereat, that he chargeth him with untruth, cal [...]m [...]tion, wilful depraving of his assertion, as we may see both in his answere to his Refuters preface pag. 2. and in this defense, lib. 3. pag. 22. & lib. 4. pag. 138. But it is already shewed in the defense of that pre­face, that the Doctor abuseth the refuter, & depraveth his words and meaning, in as much as he had an eye onely to the first institu­tion of the episcopall function, when he sayd that the Doctors ser­mon tended to prove that the sayd function is to be holden jure divino, (by Gods lawe) and not as an humane ordinance. And sithence, was reserved to this place, the more full handling of those nice conceits in the Doctor, which were then overpassed (touching the difference betwixt things that are divini juris, and others that were apostolici; and that absolute necessity which he placeth in those things that are divini juris; we are now to enter vpon the cō ­sideration of these particulars.

First therefore, because he now seemeth in this defense (lib. 3. pag. 26. & 116. & lib. 4. pag. 137. & 139.) to allowe in his owne judgement, that distinction betwixt those things, that are divini & those that are apostolici juris: which in his sermō pa. 92. he proposed in the name of some other divines (viz. that the former are gene­rally The Doct. neyther doth nor can make good his distinctiō. perpetually & immutably necessary, the later not so) he might have done wel, to have warrāted this distinctiō either frō the scrip­ture or frō the testimony of some orthodoxal writers. Frō the Scri­pture he cannot 1. because he hath already laid that ground out of Actes. 15. 28. which will refute it, as is already shewed in defence of [Page 151] the said preface. 2. Moreover, it is well observed of sundry Di­vines, as Aquinas 2 [...]. 2 [...]. q. 55. art. 2. that jus divinum dicitur, quod divinitus promulgatur. And Lubbertus de Pont. Romano. lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 338, that jus dicitur a jussum per apocopē. Where fore as he saith jus divinum est quod Deus jubet; so we may say that jus apostolicum est, quod apostolus jubet, vel ab apostolis jubetur. The true difference therefore, (if there be any) betwene jus divinū and apostolicum standeth onely in this, that the former hath the expresse and immediate commandement of God, to warrantize that which he prescribeth; whereas the later proceedeth from the Apostles, as the Interpreters of Gods will, and his Ministers, which by direction from him, give rules vnto his Church to observe. In which sense the Apostle Paul, distinguisheth his commandement from the Lords, 1. Cor. 7. 10, 12. vnto the married I command (ouk [...]go alla ho kurios) not I, but the Lord. &c. But to the remnant (ego lego, ouk ho­kurios l spe [...]ke, not the Lord &c. Will the Docter now say of the for­mer precept, because it is jus divinum, that it is generall perpetu­ally and immutably necessarie; and of the later that it is not so, as being onely jus apostolicum? I hope rather, he will spare the Re­futer (or his friend), the labor to prove, that the later is no lesse generally perpetually and immutably necessary, then the former. Significat Apostolus preceptum illud (vers. 10.) niti expresso verbi divini testimonio; non autem ex revelatione singulari spiritus san­cti profectum. Piscat. in 1. Cor 7. 10. Suum autem id esse dicit (vers. 12.) de quo nihil desertè expresserit Dominus; non quod ip­se ex se temerè, aut suo arbitrio esset cōmentatus, Id enim se fecis­se negat, infra vers. 25. & 40. Beza in 1. Cor. 7. 12. And ther­fore after many other precepts delivered by the Apostles, in sundry cases not before determined by any direct and expresse verdict of Gods word, as will appeare to him, that wayeth what he teacheth 1. Cor. 8. 9. 13. & 10. 25.-29. & 11. 4.-14. 23.-25.) he bin­deth them all up under one generall charge, 1. Cor. 14. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall, let him acknow­ledge that the things which I write unto you, are tou k [...]riou ent [...]lai, the commandements of God. Dei precepta vocat, hoc est divini­tus inspirata, et ob id authentica. Aret: in 1. Cor. 14. 37. 3. It is well knowne that the doctrine of the Apostles, and their practise recorded in their writings, yeeld us the most direct and expresse [Page 152] warrant, which Christian people and their Teachers have (I say not for the sanctifying of the Lords day, which is our Sabboth, be­cause some great Favourites of the Prelacy, holde it (though vn­justly) to be a varyable ordinance, and alterable at mens pelasure, but) for the estableshing of a settled Ministery in every Church, to feed the [...]lock which dependeth on them, 1. Pet. 5. 3. 4. Act. 14. 23. & 20. Tit. 1. 5. Which (I suppose) all will graunt to be ge­nerally and perpetually necessarye; Byshop Bilson not excepted. Perpet Govern: pag. 106. 107. and 208.) And it is no lesle evi­dent, that there is no generall necessity or perpetuity in some pre­cepts, which Christ himselfe gave to his Disciples, as Mat. 10. 5. 14. and 12. 16. and 15. 20. and 19. 21. & Iohn. 13 14. 15: where­fore the perpetuity or immutability of precepts given in the scrip­tures, dependeth not vpon the authority of the person, frō whom D. dis­tinction falleth to the gro [...]d they proceed immediately; but vpon the generallity or perpetnity of the grounds, or causes which give strength there vnto. So that the things which are Apostolici juris (and none otherwise divine ordi­nances then as they proceedd frō the spirit of God, that directed the Apostles) are generally perpetually & immutable necessary, in the presence and concurrence of those causes and grounds, which­made them at the first necessary. And there is no other or greater perpetuity or necessitie, in any of those things, which are immedi­ately divini juris. Wherefore as the D. acknowledgeth the things which were ordeyned of the Apostle, to be (for the authority of their iustitution) not onely apostolicall, but also divine ordinances: so he must confesse that whatsoever they established, not for a short tyme, but for succeeding ages, the same deserveth to be estemed, as a thing authorized divnio jure, not apostGlico onely.

And herein we have the consent of sundry Orthodoxal writers, Cert [...] (saith D. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. pag. 107.) quod aposto­li ut necessarium sanxerunt, atque introduxerunt, juris divini vim The D. distinction is against the iudg­ment or his own freindes aswell as others. obtinet. And in this very question of the superioritle of Bishops above Presbyters, as it is their cōmon Tenent, that they are equall or rather all one jure divins, (by Gods lawe) so they hold the doc­trine and practise of the Apostles to be susficient warrant to con­clude their assertion, as we may see in Sadeel ad repet: Turrian: so­phism. loc. 12. pag. 403. & 412. partis secundae. And in Chem­nitius exam: Conc. Trident. De sacram ord [...]n: parte 22. sol. 249.) [Page 153] yea Sadeel (pag. 117.) putteth no difference betwene jus div [...]num and an Apostolicall ordinance: for vpon these premisses, Presbyteri certè apostolicis institutis, habent jus ordinandi; Illi vero qui ha [...] ae [...]ate ecclesiam primi reformarunt, erant presbyteri, he cōcludeth: quare primi illi doctores potuerunt in ecclesia reformata, ministros ac pastores ordinare, idque jure divino. In like manner Bishop Bar­lowe (in his sermon on Acts. 20. 28.) as one not acquainted with any difference in perpetuitie betwene [...]us apostolicū & divinum, giveth both indifferently to the episcopall function: gathering out of one word (posuit) in his text, that it was both praxis apostolike, an ordinance apostolicall, and thesis pneumalike a canon or constitu­tion of the whole Trinitie, enacted for succeeding prosterity. Mr. Bell, in his regiment of the Church pag. 117. saith, a thing may be cal­led de jure divino two waies. 1. because it is of God immediately. 2. because it is of them, who are so directed by Gods holy Spirit, that they cannot erre. And in this sense the superiority of Bishops, over other inferior Ministers, maye be called de jure divino, or an ordinance divine. Doctor Sutcliff: (de presb: cap. 15.) presseth among other argumentes apostolorum usum et morem, to prove that the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers doth niti jure di­vino. The same may be sayd of sundry others which at this daye, hold the functiō of our diocesan Bishops, to be an apostolicall and so a divine ordinance; or give them a superiority of jurisdiction, ju­re apostolico. (as the D. himself doth lib. 3. pag. 116.) and are not so scrupulous (as the D. is) to allowe that the superiority of their function is warranted to them jure divino. Neither feare they to conclude the epis [...]opall govermēt to be perpetuall, because it is an ordinance apostolicall.

Wherefore, I would be glad to learne of the Doctor in his next de­fense, (seing he was not in his sermon or the margin of it pleased A request to the D. to tel us where he so lately learned that distin­ction. to tell us) who those Some are, which in respect of perpetuitie doe put such a difference (as he noteth) betwene the thinges that are Divini, and those that are apostolici juris. For as he receyved it not frō any of the forenamed Favorites of the prelacy: so neyther did he suck it from Doct. Bilsons breast the man that gave him in this question so good satisfaction. For, as the title of his booke sheweth that he holde [...]h the government of Bishops, to be the perpetuall go­vernment of Christes Church: so the body of the booke it self, doth [Page 154] plainely demonstrate; that he concludeth the perpetuity thereof, from no other argumentes, then such as the D. urgeth to prove it to be an apostolicall & divine ordinance. Yea it seemeth, that when the D. preached his former sermon of the dignity and duty of the Ministers; either he had not yet learned, or at least, he little regar­ded this distinction. For (pag. 73.) he taketh an ordinance deli­vered by the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 14. for a sufficient arguement, to conclude that a sufficient maintenance, is due vnto the Ministers of the Gospell, jure divino, by the lawe of God.

But let us come (as neere as we can) to his author of this distin­ction: Bellarmin in deed, distinguisheth betwene jus divinum and Apostolicum, atfirming (lib. de clericis cap. 18.) that the mari­age of preists, is prohibired, onely jure apostolico, not divino. Quod enim, saith he, Apostolus praecipit, non divinum, sed apo­stolicum praeceptum est. But with him, jus apostolicum, is no other then jus humanum, or positivum. Ibid. & cap. seq:. More­over, he urgeth the same distinction (as the D. acknowledgeth (lib. 3. pag. 101.) to shewe, what he tooke to be Hieroms meaning, when he saith that a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter, in nothing, save in the power of ordination, that is, saith he, (lib. de Clericis cap. 15.) in this onely he is superiour to other Ministers ju­re divino; but in the power or jurisdiction, jure apostolico. Which distinction, though in this place the Doctor admitteth not; yet elsewhere (lib. 3. pag. 26.) he alloweth it to reconcile those spea­ches of Ierom (ad Euagr: and in Tit. cap. 1. where he denieth the superioritie of Bishops, to be of divine disposition; & yet affirmeth it to be an apostolical tradition. He may be vnderstood (saith the D.) as holding their superioutie to be, not divini, but apostolici juris. But how so­ever he accord with Bellarmin in approving the distinction: yet since he holdeth the episcopall superiority, to be so farre forth a di­vine ordinance as it proceeded from God, in asmuch as the Apo­stles were directed by the holy Ghost in ordeyning it: he cannot (without apparant contradiction to himself) imbrace Bellarmins The D. cō ­tradicteth himselfe which way soever he turneth him. construction of Apostolici juris, who taketh it for jus humanum or positivum. Neither can he easily winde out of the briars of an e­vident contradiction; when he denieth it to be divini iuris, and yet graunteth it to be be a divine ordinance: yea such an holy ordinance of God, as ought at this day (not onely so to be acknowledged but [Page 155] also) to be obeyed and that of conscience: serm. pag. 94. & 98. For if this be so how should it want what perpetuitie, which agre­eth vnto other things, that are in deed divini juris, by the lawe of God?

For out of what fountayne drew the D. this deep learning; which Sect. 3. ad pag. 2. of the D. an­swere to the ref: preface & ad lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. nowe he setteth abroach (answ: to the ref: preface pag 2. and lib. 4. pag. 138. 140.) viz. that the things which are divini juris (by the law of God) are so generally īmutably and perpetually necess [...]rie, that no true Church can be without them. What will he say to the pure preaching of the word, the right administration of the Sacraments, and of the Church Censures, and the orderly sending forth of Ministers, law­fully chosen and ordeyned to theyr severall charges? Are not these things divini juris, by the lawe of God, and divine (or at least) a­postol The D. di­stinction erronious. call ordinances, generally perpetually and immutablie ne­cessarie? for who can take libertie in any of these, to depart from the rule of Gods word, and not be guiltie of sinn against God? yea in that one Sacrament of the Lords Supper, are not all the actions re­corded in the first institution (viz. in the Minister, to take blesse break and deliver the bread, and to take blesse and diliver the cup; and in the Communicants, to take and eate the one, and to take and drinke the other, (are not all and every of these actions I saye) generally perpetually and immutably necessary to be observed, & therfore to be esteemed to be divini juris? else have our divines lit­tle reson to hold them for essentiall parts of the Lords supper, and to urge for proof thereof Christs Commaundement, doo this in re­membrance of me: see D. Bilson ag: the Rhem Apologie (parte quarta pag. 675. in quarto) Bucanus Insti [...] loc. 48. pag. 677. 678 Not­withstāding, I hope the D. will not deny the name of a true Church, vnto every assembly of Christians, which wanteth in any part the puritie of the doctrine, or that syncere form of administratiō, which the word of God pre cribeth for his Sacraments or Church-cen­sures? For he is not ignorant that among divine ordinances and things necessarie, some (yea the greatest som [...]) doe concern rather the welbeing, then the very being of the Church; & a [...]e onely need­ful or behooful for the wel-ordering of the Ch: (lib. 4. p. 103. 104) but not so g [...]nerally and immutably necessary, as though no true Church could be wi [...]hout them. Wherefore to draw this contro­versly to a direct issue; though without any violoence offered vnto he [Page 156] phrase, we might affirme every commaundement of God, (whe­ther generall or speciall, and temporall or perpetuall;) to be jus di­vinum; because the word jus is derived of jussum, (as is before obser­ved) yet because the word is restrayned by the * Canonistes, and by Ius divi­num est quod in le­ge cōtinē ­tur, et e­vangelio, atque im­mutabile. semper permanet. lib. 1. Iuris canon. Tit. 2. cōmon use appropriated to such ordinances, as are layd downe in the holy scripture for the perpetuall use of the Church; I will here acknowledge a generall and perpetuall necessity in those things that are to be holden jure divino: yet place I not so absolute a ne­cessity as the D. dreameth of; in those things that are divini juris, as though no true Church could be without any of them; It is suffi­cient if they be so immutably necessary, that the Church hath no liberty (as it hath in things indifferent) to alter or abolish them; but where they may be had, they may not without sin, be neglected, much l [...]sse wittingly be refused or changed. If the D. shall herein professe an agreement with vs, and say that he therefore denieth the episcopall function to be divini juris, because (though it be law­full to be reteyned as being ordeyned of God by his Apostles for the Churches, which they planted; yet) it is not by any comman­dement, or warrant from Gods word, perpetually imposed on all Churches (for so he seemeth to affirm lib. 4. pag. 145. lin. 6. and 26: I praye leave, to demaund, why (in the 2. page of his answ. to the Refuters preface) he contenteth not himself to disclaime at large that generall and immu [...]able necessity, which is ascribed to thinges that are divini juris. (pag. 94. of his serm) but rather ad­deth this clause, so as no true Church can be without it. If it be not to explaine that necessity, which he spake of in his sermon; to what purpose serveth it? For he found no such clause, nether in the words of the Refuters preface, which he taxeth of vntruth; nor yet in pag. 90. of his answere, where he saith a true acknowledgment is to be founde, in what sense, he denieth the calling of the Bishops to be Divini juris.

But let us see whether the Doctor (both in his s [...]rmon, and in Sect. 4. some places of this defense thereof) mainteineth not the epilcopal function, to be generally and perpetually necessary, and that in as ample manner, as some other ordinances are, that without all con­tradictiō are estemed to be divini juris. 1. He appropriateth or at least attributeth kat hexochen vnto Bishops, yea even to our diocesā Bishops, aswell as vnto the Bishops or Ministers of the 7. Churches in Asia, and that in respect of their function, the name of Angels sent [Page 157] of God, & starres held in the right hand of Christ. serm. pag. 55. & 95. Yea he saith (pag. 55.) They are as cheif Stewards over Gods family, and principall spirituall governours over Christs body. And to them he restrei­neth (pap. 70) the name of hegoumenoi, rulers or Leaders, which the A­postle (Heb. 13. 17.) chargeth to be obeyed. Moreover, he esteemeth them to be the proper pastors of the Church (lib. 4. pag. 141. lin. 18.) and giveth vnto other presbyters (se [...]m. pag. 45.) no other pastorall authority, then what is delegated vnto them, by their Bishops. Where­fore like as he reasoneth to shewe the lawfullnes and excellencie of the episcopall function (pag. 54) so may we, to prove by necessa­ry consequence, frō his owne wordes that it is generally or immu­tably necessary; or perpetually imposed by Christ and his Apostles on all Churches. For if the office of presbyters, which in his opini­on are but assitantes vnto the Bishops, admitted in partem sollici­tudinis, to seed that parte of the Church, which he should com­mit vnto them; be not onely lawfull but necessary also to be retey­ned and that jure divino; then the same may be said much more, of the function of Bishops, that are (as he supposeth) the cheef, and principall pastors, even by Gods ordinance. But if their function be not divini juris, nor generally and perpetually necessary for all Churches; then let the Doctor also professe plainely, that he main­teineth not the office of Presbyters, or any other Ministers to be The Doct. saith as much for the perpe­tuity of Di ocesan Bi­shops, as of any mini­sters of the word, yea & more. divini juris, and generally or perpetually necessarie, for the feeding or governing of the visible Churches of Christ. Yea let him with­out staggering affirme, that it is a thing indifferent (not de jure divino necessarie, but) left to every Churches libertie, to accept or refuse, as they shall see expediē [...], those that are authorized of God, as Starres, Angels, Pastors and guides, to convey vnto them, the light of his truth, and the word or bread of life, and to convert them in the way of salvation

But 2. doth not his reasoning import the contrary, when he saith (pag. 55.) that if every Minister be to be honoured in regard of his calling, with double honour: viz. of reverence and maintenance, which he saith (serm. of the dignitie and dutie of the ministers, p. 65. & 73.) is due to them by the word of God, yea jure divino: thē much more is the office of Bishops, who are the cheife and princi­pall Ministers to be had in honour? Yea, doth he not from the do­ctrine of his sermon in question, inferre these vses, & impose them [Page 158] on the consciences of his hearers (pag. 94, & 96) viz. 1. to ac­knowledge their function to be a divine ordinance; 2. to have thē in honour, as spirituall Fathers, (as the Apostle exhorteth the Phi­lippians cap. 2. 29.) and to receyve them, as the Angels of God, as they are called in his text. 3. to obey their authoritie, as being the holy ordinance of God, according to the Apostles exhortati­on Heb. 13. 17. For, can the consideration of Gods ordinance, appointing their function, & commanding honor and obedience to be given vnto them, in the dayes of the Apostles, binde the cō ­science at this day, if their function were not of necessity to be cō ­tinued? Or can the exhortation of the Apostle, Phil. 2. 29. & Heb. 13. 17. touch the consciences of the people of England, so strict­ly, as he pretendeth; and not reach at all to the conscience of those professors, and teachers of the faith of Christ, that live in o­ther reformed Churches? It is true, I confesse, that such Leaders and Labourers in the Lords worke, must first be had, before they can be honoured and obeyed; but doe not these exhortations, and many other apostolike canons, which prescribe what is required, eyther of Ministers for the good of their flocks; or of people for in­couragement of their Teachers, (as Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 4. & 5. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 1. Cor. 9, 14. Gal. 6, 6. 1. Thess. 5. 12. 13. Heb. 13, 17.) by an equall bond, binde all Churches, aswell to labour for the establishing of such Elders, Bishops and Leaders; as to see that when they are setled, they may both give all diligence to performe their duties; and receive all reverence and honour due vnto them?

And 3, how often doth he tell us in this defense, (lib. 3. pag. 24. 26. 44. 48 55. 59. 63. et alibi passim) that many of his allegati­ons doe testify for the superiorit [...]e of Bishops, not onely de f [...]cto, but also de iure, as giving test mony to the right, and shewing what form of government ought to be, as being in the judgement of the Fa­thers (which he approveth) perpetuall? And though he returne the lie upon his Refuter: (lib. 3, pag 57.) for saying that he plain­ly avoucheth a necessity of reteyning the government of Diocesan Bishops (when he affirmeth, that as it was ordeyned for the pres [...]r­vation of the Church in vnitie, and for the avoiding of schi [...]me: so it is for the same cause to be rete [...]ned) yet he confessed (pag. 64.) that Ieroms judgement, in the place alleadged, was, that Bishops [Page 159] are necessarily to be reteyned for the same cause (to wit, the avoy­ding of schisme) for which they were first instituted. And from the same words of Ierom he collecteth (pag. 111.) that of necessity a p [...]erelesse power, is to be attributed unto Bishops. Wherefore if the Which way soever the Doct. turneth him, he of­fendeth. D. be not guilty of a plaine-lie, and notorious falsification of Ieroms meaning in carrying his words to a necessity in reteyning Bishops; surely, he hath much wronged his refuter, to charge him with the like guiltynes for the like collection. And if he consent not in judg­ment with Ierom, he doth too much abuse his reader, in forti­fying his assertion with his testimony; vnlesse he had given some in­timation, wherein he swarveth in opinion from him.

But 4. he discovereth his owne judgement touching the necessi­ty of diocesan and provinciall Bishops, something more clearely, when he saith (lib. 3. pag. 3.) that of provinci [...]ll or nationall Churches, the metropolitans & Bishops of dioceses a [...]e and oug [...]t to be the governors. For if he had intended onely a lawfullnes, and not a necessity of retey­ninge The Doct. wrongful­ly char­geth his Refuter. their functions, he would have sayd they are and may be, ra­ther then (as he doth) they are and ought to be the governors: yea in his sermon (pag. 32.) doth he not imply a necessity? I say not an absolute necessity (as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter lib. 3. p. 57.) but a generall and perpetuall necessity, for succeding ages, as­well as for the Apostles times; when he saith, that vpon this three­folde superiority of Bishops (scz. singularity of preheminence, du­ring life, power of ordination, and power of jurisdiction) there de­pendeth a three-fold benefit, to every church; to wit, the vnity, per­petuit e, and eutaxie or good order thereof. For who can deny, that those things are generally and perpetually necessarie to be re­teyned in every Church, whereon the vnitie, perpetuitie, & eutaxie of every Church dependeth?

If the Doctor shall thinke to escape by saying, that the perpetu­ity Sect. 5. ad lib. 4 pag. 102, & 147. and eutaxie of every Church dependeth in deed vpon the power of ordination and jurisdiction; but not vpon the investing of the power in Bishops; because his second thoughtes have drawne him to distinguish, betwene potestas and modus potestatis (lib. 4. pag. 102. & 1 17.) we have reason to thinke (as shall appeare anone) that he The Doct. streyneth his witts in vaine to a­void con [...] dreamed not of this distinction, till he had set his witts awork to remove the contradiction which his Refuter objected against him. Notwithstanding he cannot (with all his cunning) avoyde that [Page 160] necessitie, which floweth from the first braunch of episcopall supe­riority. For if the vnity of every Church, dependeth on the singu­larity of preheminence in one duringe life, and that in such sort, as afterwardes he explayneth his meaning, to wit, that whereas there were many presbyters in one City; yet there neither were no [...] might be, in succeedinge ages downeward, frō the Apostles times any more then one Angell in a church, or one Bishop in an whole diocese: how can it be denied, that there is a generall and perpetu­all necessity of episcopall superiority for the preservation of the Church in vnitie? 2. Neyther will the learning of that distinction, which he now putteth betwene p [...]t [...]stas & modus potestatis, free him from placing the like necessitie in the function of Bishops; for the exercise of that lawful power (of ordination & jurisdiction) where­on the Churches perpetuitie & eutaxie or good order dependeth. For (to let passe that which he saith serm. pag. 32.) how the su­perioritie of Bishops not onely did, but also doth consist in that two fold power, no lesse then in a singularitie of preheminence du­ring life: he avoucheth in plaine termes, that the power which Ti­mothie and Titus had for ordination and jurisdiction was not to die with them, but to be transmitted to them that should succeed them in the government of the Church. That the authoritie, yea the function and authority, which they had (consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction) was not to dye with their persons but to be continued in their sucessors (sermon. pag. 75. 79. Defence lib. 3. pag. 72. & lib. 4. pag. 84. 98. and 100). That the commandements and injunctions given them, to be kept inviolable vntil the appearing of Christ; were directed to them a­lone and their successors (serm. pag. 49. 74.) And that the du­ties prescribed for the execution of their office & authoritie, were to be performed by them and their successors till the cōming of Christ (lib. 4. pag. 77.) And which is yet more he addeth, that their successors were Bishops onely, yea Diocesan Bishops: (serm. pag. 75. lib. 4. pag. 85.) and that, not de facto onely, but also de iure. (Ibid.) And that Presbyters neither were nor could be their successors. (lib. 3. pag. 73.) and that neither are those instructi­ons given in generall to presbyters; neyther doth the charge of those affaires belong unto them. (lib. 4. pag. 79.) Wherefore al­so he affirmeth, or rather from the premises concludeth, that the [Page 161] epistles written to Timothy and Titus, were the very patterns and presidents of the episcopall function, and purposely written to in­forme not Timothy and Titus alone, but them and their successors (viz. all Bishops) to the worlds end, how to exercise their function. (serm. pag. 72. 73. Defence lib. 4. pag. 75. 83.) Yea and further saith, that those precepts, 1. Tim. 5. 19. 22. are perpetuall dire­ctions, which are not common eyther to other Christians, or to other Ministers; therfore peculiar to Bishops (lib. 4. pag. 77. Thus It is suffi­ciently proved that the D. holdeth a perpetuall necessity of the e­piscopall function. have we seene at large the Doctors judgement, now (to [...]ay all these things togither): If the power and authoritie and (not so one­ly but also) the function, which Timothy and Titus had, was not to die with their persons, but to be transmitted vnto, and continu­ed in Bishops, because Bishops and not Presbyters were their suc­cessors, even de iure and not de facto onely; And if for the same cause (as also because the charge of those affaires, viz. of ordination and jurisdictiō belongeth not to the Presbyters, nor is cōmon to other Christians or Ministers) the Commandements and injunctions given to Timothy and Titus, to be inviolably kept till Christs cō ­ming were directed vnto Bishops onely; I would gladly heare, with what new distinction, the Doctor (who directly and expresly affir­meth the premisses) cā discharge himself frō implying (or teaching The Doct. himself cutteth the throat of his own distinction, and hath not one hole to hide him­in. by necessarie consequence) that the episcopall function, was ap­pointed for the perpetuall use of the Church, and is necessary to be reteyned in all Churches till the cōming of Christ.

His conjoyning togither Timothies function and authoritie to be continued in their successors, cutteth the throat of his distincti­on, betwixt potestas & m [...]dus potestatis; neither can he flie to that starting hole, wherein he hideth his head (his heeles at least hang­ing out lib. 3. pag. 57. lin. ult.) when he expoundeth his words, is to be reteyned, by, meet or fitt, exped [...]ent, or conven [...]ent, profitable, or need­full, to be reteyned. For he acknowledgeth the powre or authority it In seeking succour the Doct. doth no­thing but contradict in one pla [...] what he [...]aith in a nother. self to be perpetually necessary, as an essentiall or immutable ordi­nance of God. (lib. 4. pag. 102. 147.) Neither will it releeve him to say, as he doth, pag. 146. that Pauls directions (in his epistles to Tim. and Tit.) were given though primarily and directly to Bi­shops; yet secondarily and by consequence, to those who (though they were no Bishops) should have the like authoritie. For he flat­ly secludeth, both the Presbyters and all other Christians or Mini­sters [Page 162] from all right and title, eyther to the powre it selfe or the exe­cution thereof (lib. 3. pag. 71. 72. & lib. 4. pag. 79.) And sayth (serm. pag. 79.) that it is much more necessary for the Churches of all ages succeeding the Apostles; then for the first Churches in their life time, to have such governors as Timothy, & Titus: that is, men furnished with episcopall authority in a preheminent degree above other Ministers.

2. If he shall retire at laste to his first and safest evasion (specially fitted to the question of ordination without a Bishop (serm pa. 43.) viz. that though such ordination be not regular (or lawfull ordina­rily as he sayth pag. 37.) according to the rules of ordinatie church government yet in case of necessity, that is, in the want of a Bishop, it is to be allowed as effectuall and as justifiable: What is this, but in effect to grant, that there is the like perpetuity and necessity of the function of Bishops, as there is, of sundry other ordinances of God, which all esteme to be divini juris? For the cōparison which him­self maketh (pag. 44.) betwene baptisme administred by one that is no Minister; and ordination performed by Ministers that are no Bishops, doth evidently shewe it. The truth is (saith he) where Mi­nisters may be had, none but Ministers ought to baptise: and where Bishops may be had, none but Bishops ought to ord [...]yn: But though neyther ought to be done, yet being done: the former by other Christians in want of a Minister; the later by other Ministers in defect of a Bishop; as the one, so the other also is of force; the Church receiving the partie baptized into the communion of the faith­full; and the partie ord [...]yned as a lawfull Minister. Now if this be a truth, say I, then there must be a truth acknowledged also, in these con­clusions The D. a­gaine saith as much for the per petuitie of the episco­pall functi­on, as of the functiō af other Mi­nisters. that followe. viz. That according to the rules of ordina­rie Church-government, as the right of administring baptisme, is a peculiar prerogative of the ministeriall function jure divino, by the lawe of God; so eodem jure, even by the same lawe, the right of ordination is peculiar to the Bishops. And as all Churches un­der heaven, till the comming of Christ to judgement, are bound to strive for the establishing & reteyning of that Ministerie, which God hath authorized to administer baptisme: so are all Churches by a like band tied to contend for the episcopall function, which hath right to ordeyne. And consequently the calling of Bishops for ordeyning is as generally, perpetually, and immutablie necessarie, as the office of other Ministers is, for the work of baptisme. I add, [Page 163] that, in the D. opinion, there is as perpetuall and immutable a ne­cessitie of the episcopal function for the ordering of every Church; as there is (in the opiniō of many very judicious divines) of wine, for the holy and pure administration of the Lords supper. For whereas he alloweth not of any other forme of Church-governe­ment, then by Bishops, unlesse in case of necessity, where orthodo­xall Bishops cannot be had, and that, because any government whatsoever is better then none at all: (serm. pag. 97:) In the like necessity, where wine cannot be had, they judge it better to take in stead of wine, water, or any other kinde of drinke vsuall in such places; then wholly to neglect the Lords sacrament, or to maime it by an halfe administration, in one onely element. (see Polani Syntag. Col. 3213.) Wherfore as their allowāce of a change in the outward elemēt of the Lords supper, being limitted to such an ex­traordinarie case, doth rather support, then contradict their asser­tion, that the Church hath not libertie, to refuse wine, or to pre­ferre any other element before it:) the D. his excusing other refor­med Churches for enterteyning a Presbyteriall aristocracie, in stead of an episcopall Monarchie, onely in such a case of necessity, as he pretendeth; might give his Refuter just occasion to think (though he affirmed no such mattet) that he held the episcopall governmēt to be divini juris, thereby intending that all Churches are bound to preferre it aswell in their indeavours, as in their judgement, be­fore Sect. 6. ad serm. p. 79. & Defens. lib. 4. pag. 100. 146. 148. and 167. any other forme of government whatsoever.

But there is an higher pitch of the necessity of this function, as may appeare by some words that slipped from the D. in the pen­ning of his sermon, pag. 79. to witt, that the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had, as being assigned to certeyne churches, is or­dinary, and perpetually necessary, not onely for the welbeing, but also for the ve­ry The D. did hold the e­piscopal function perpetual­ly necessa­ry for the very being of the visible Churches. being of the visible Churches. For from hence, it followeth by good consequence, (as his Refuter rightly gathereth answer. pag. 145 and 138.) that seing (in his judgment), the function and authori­tie which they had, was episcopall and diocesan, such as ours is now; therefore also in his judgement, the episcopall power, or go­vernment of Diocesan Bishops, is perpetually necessary for the ve­ry being of the visible Churches. Now herewith the Doctor is highly offended, and chargeth him with mallice, want of iudgemēt, [Page 164] and with ignorant mistaking, or wilfull depraving of his sayings, and that a­gainst sense (lib. 4. pag. 146. 148. & 167.) A great charge in deed; but how doth he avoide the consequence objected? for sooth, to ex­plaine his meaning, he dismembreth his owne speach, & cutteth asunder the knot which with his own tongue and pen, he had knit: for whereas before he spake jointly, (as of one thing expressed by two words) of their function and authority that it was ordinarie and The Doct. plaieth fast and loose, tieth & vn­tieth: but every one may see the sleight, to his [...]ame. perpetually necessarie, now (to shew his skill in playing fast and loose at his pleasure) he saith (pag. 100. and 147.) he meant, that their function was ordinarie, and their authoritie was perpetually necessary.

But as slippery as he is, his Refuter will not suffer him thus to slip his neck out of the coller; all his wit and learning can neyther un­loose nor cut a sunder, that chayne which bindeth him to a grosse absurdity. His wordes (serm. pag. 79) are these. The function & authoritie which Timothy and Titus had, as being assigned to certeine Chur­ches, viz. of Ephesus and Creete, (consisting specially in the power of ordi­nation and iurisdiction) was not to end with their persons, but to be continu­ed in their successors: as being ordinary and perpetually necessary; not onely for the wellbeinge, but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches. Yf the Doctor had meant so to divide the later parte of his speach (as he woulde now perswade) what meant he, not to discover his meaning plainely? It had bin easy for him, to have disioyned their function from their authority, in his whole speach on this manner. q. d. But neyther was the function which Tim. and Tit. had at Ephesus and in Crete, to ende with their persons, as being ordinary: neyther was their authority to dye with them, as being perpetually necessa­ry &c. Therefore had he so ment in deed and truth, as he now pro­fesseth, since there wanted not skill; there must needs be in him a wante of will, to speake plainely vnto the capacity of his reader; The Doct. is guilty of that impu­tation, which he professeth to abhorr. so that he standeth here guilty of that [...]oul imputation which elsewhere he professeth to abhorre (lib. 2. pag. 52.) viz. a desyre and intent of dazeling the eies of the simple, I might say, the eies of all even the moste judicious, as all maye see that reade with a single eie, and weigh with an upright hand what he hath written.

But (to speake what I think) he rather belieth his owne heart in The D. in all likeli­hood beli­eth his owne hart. saying now, that he then meant that, which he never dreamt of, till he had set his witts a work, to finde out some flie evasion, to a­voyde (if it were possible) that perpetuall necessity, which his words [Page 165] doe equally throwe vpon the function of Timothy and Titus, aswell as on their authority. For 1. If he had cast but one cie vpon the propositiō of that brave syllogisme, wherevnto the former sentēce is fitted as the assumption, he might have observed that the word authority is superfluous, & idlie inserted in the later; seing it is wholly omitted in the former. The proposition of his argument is this. The supposed evangelisticall function (he saith not evangelisticall functiō and authority; but evangel: function) of Timothy and Titus, was to [...]nd with their persons, and admitted no succession, being both extraordinary and temporary. Wherefore, to make the assumption sutable to this proposition, he should have sayd (not as he then did, and still doth, the function and authority, but) the function which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches, was not to ende with theire persons, but to be continued in their successors. And thē the words following must of necessity be carried also to their function onely. q. d. their function was not to end with their persons, because it was both ordinary and perpetually necessary &c. And vnlesse he will yeeld to this construction of his assumption (I meane, either to blot out the word authority, or at least to acknowledge that he user [...] those two words (function and authority) as synonima, to expresse one onely thing, to wit, their office or function) he will be infor­ced If the D. seeketh to avoyd one, he falleth into ano­ther evill. to lye downe under this foul imputation also, viz. that he doth sophisticate, and by foure termes in stead of three, utterly marreth the frame of his supposed blamelesse syllogisme.

2. Moreover, if he will vouchsafe to peruse his Defense (lib. 4. pag. 97 98.) he may perceive, that as his purpose was by a newe supply of arguments (as he saith) to prove that Timothy and Ti­tus were Bishops: so his maine argument there set downe conclu­deth, the very function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie and episcopall, because it was not extraordinarie and Evangelicall. For although (to conforme his first argument to his prosyllogis [...]es that follow) he coupleth function and authoritie together: yet the frame of his words doe shewe, that by both termes he understan­doth one thing onely, to wit, their proper function or office, which was, as he confesseth, the onely thing now in question. O­therwise, having sayd in the proposition, that their function and authoritie was eyther extraordinary and evangelisticall, or ordina­rie and episcopall, he would never have set downe the assumption [Page 166] and conclusion, so as he doth. But it was not extraordinary and evā ­gelicall; therfore ordinary and episcopall. For neither grammer no [...] lo­gick Neither grammer nor logick will indure the D. dis­junction. will permit him vnder this one word (it) to comprehend two things so distinct; as he nowe taketh function and authoritie to be; when he affirmeth the one, & denieth the other to be perpetuallye necessarie.

3. But if he will needs begin with that disiunction, with which he endeth; he shall fall into a twofolde absurdity, which he cannot avoid, viz. an untoward laying downe of the question, in the be­ginning; and a shamelesse begging of the question, in the end. For neyther doe they hold the function onely of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie, or their authoritie onely to be episcopall: neyther doe the Disciplinarians teach their function onely to be extraordinary, and their authoritie onely to be evangelicall: but rather affirme, their function to be both extraordinarie and evangelicall; as in the proposition of his first syllogisme he confesseth. And as for their authoritie vnderstanding thereby (as the Doctor doth) nothing else but a power to ordeyne and to exercise a publik spirituall juris­diction: they doe no where affirme it to be eyther extraordinarie or proper to an Evangelist. Yea the Doctor acknowledgeth (pag. 84. and 100.) that his Refuter graunteth, that others were to suc­cced Timothy and Titus in the authoritie which they had; but not in their office; and that their authoritie (though not their functi­on) was perpetually necessarie. Wherefore if he take not authori­ty and function, for one and the same thing, or at least restreyne authotitie to that peculiar power, which distinguisheth their func­tion frō all other ministeriall callings; he hath apparantly falsified the state of the questiō. And (w [...] is worse) in the winding up of his The D. fal­sineth the state of the question. The Doct. bewrayeth the beg­gerie or his cause. dispute, bewrayeth the extreame beggerie of his cause; whē he pro­veth their functiō to be ordinarie, because it was ordinarie. For the conclusiō of his first syllogism (p. 98.) affirmeth the function of Ti­mothy and Titus to be ordinarie: his medius terminus to prove it, is this. It was not extraordinary; which to confirm, he saith, that their func­tion was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors; a [...]d therefore was not extraordinary. And to prove the Antecedēt, he argueth thus, Their function was ordinary; and therefore was not to ende with their persons. So that his whole reasoning-commeth to this issue, Their function was ordinary, and therefore it was ordinary. To a­mende [Page] all these defaultes, since it is apparant that in his maine con­clusion, he affirmeth their function to be both ordinary and episcopall, as before I shewed the word authority to be superflous, so it fol­loweth frō thinges before delivered, that the word, ordinary, in that prosyllogisme, which he laieth downe pag. 99. & 100. (so as he re­ceived it from his Refuter,) is also superfluous and fit to be expun­ged; that the syllogism may run currant in this manner;

• That function which is perpetu [...]lly necessary, not onely for the wel-being but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches; was not to ende with the persons of Timothy and Titus, but to be continued in their successors.
• But the function which they had, whē they were assigned to certeine churches, is perpetually necessary, not onely for the well-beinge; but also for the very being of the visible Churches.
• Therefore, the function which they had, being so assigned, was not to ende with their persons, but to be continued in their successors.

Wherefore the Refuter hath not wronged the Doc. in charging The refut. wrongeth not the D. bur the D. wrongeth himselfe, when to a­void one absurdity, he throw­eth himself into many. him to asfirme that the episcopall power or function is perpetually necessary, not onely for the well being, but for the very being of the visible Churches. The D. rather hath wronged himself, in that, whiles he laboureth to avoide the rocke of this one absurdity, he throweth himself into the gulfe of many others. And to him, more fitly agreeth, that which without cause he saith of his Refuter (pa. 99.) he roves and raves as men use to doe; who being at a non-plus, would faine seeme to answere somewhat.

To conclude then this pointe, seing the direction of the Holy-Ghost (who guided the Apostles in the execution of their functi­on) doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall, to be a divine ordinance: and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts, dependeth not on the authoritie of the person, from whom they proceed im­mediately (whether from God, or holy men authorized from God) but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto: seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be (not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution, but also) such an ordinance, as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause (viz. the avoydinge of schismes) for which it was first instituted: yea such an ordinance, as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth: seing also [Page 168] he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction, are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters, but peculiar to Bishops, as being their successors, not onely de facto but also de jure, and that the Churches of succeeding ages, have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them, then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles: And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops, that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictiō jure Apostolico; & urgeth the cons­cience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function, and to o­bey their authority, as an holy ordinance of God: Lastly, seing he did in his serm. avouch (though now he disclaimeth it in the d [...]f [...]se thereof) the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary, even for the very beinge (and not for the well-ordering onely) of the vi­sible Ch; & he stil mainteineth their functiō to be no lesse necessary, for the ordeyning of Ministers, thē the office of Ministers is, for the baptizing of other Christiā disciples: (seing I say, these things are so evident & apparant truth, that none of them can be denied) it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine, to quench the light that shineth to his cōscience, when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordi­nance as is juris divini, or of generall & perpetuall use for the church­es of Christ. For the reader may easely perceyve, that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes (that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them) to confirme even frō his owne words, that which I now affirme to be the state of the question; but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely; and thus I reason;

The episcopall function (such as ours is at this day) in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution, must needs be reputed, [...]yther such an extra­ordinary and temporarie office, as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evange­listes, specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches; or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Mi­nisters of the Word and Sacraments, fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end; or at least, such an office as was [...]f necessary use onely for the times of persecution, and in want of a Christian M [...]gistra [...]e, as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be.

But in the Doctors opiniō, who holdeth the episcopall function (such as ours [Page 169] [...] at this [...]y) to be of divine institution; it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie, a [...] that of the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists specially ap­pointed for the first planting & establishing of the Churches; neyther of neces­sary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magi­strate, [...] some have esteemed the governing Elders to be.

Therefore the episcopall function (such as ours is at this day) in the D. o­pinion, who holdeth it to be of divine institution; is such an ordinarie & per­petuall function as is the functiō of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word & sacramēts, fi [...]ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end. Or thus.

Whatsoever function was once of divine institution, and still remeineth law­full and good; the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church & Magistrate to receive or refuse: or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary:

But the episcopall function, in the D. opinion, was once of divine institu­tion, and still remayneth lawfull and good, and no [...] arbitrary and at the plea­sure of Church and Magistrate, to receive or refuse.

Therefore (in the Doctors opinion) it is generally perpetually and immuta­bly necessarie.

And consequently, the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon, which he raiseth from his text, and set downe in these words. The episco­pall function is of apostolicall and divine institution; or thus, The function of Bps. is lawful and good, as having divine both institutiō & approbatiō, must thus be understood. q. d. the functiō of Bishops, such as ours are, at this day, (viz. Diocesā & sole ruling Bb.) is such an apostolical or di­vine ordinance, as may be called divinum jus (Gods lawe) as be­ing of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ.

Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office; but also touching the first originall thereof; esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution: yea, seing we deny the function, not onely of sole-ruling Bishops, but also of D [...]ocesan & Provincial Bishops, lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers, to be of divine or Apostolicall institution: I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes, and (as respondent in this question) stande to mainteine the contrary assertions, scz. that the function of Bishops such as ours are, (viz. as himself ex­plaineth his owne meaninge serm. pag. 52.) Diocesan and provinciall Bishops, superiour in degree to other Ministers, having a singularity of pre­heminence [Page 170] for terme of life; and a p [...]relesse power both of ordination and juris­diction) is neyther of apostolicall, nor of divine institution.

And first, because he boasteth, that he hath proved his assertion from the text, which he handled: I will take liberty to follow him, in his rovings at random, and to drawe togither into one continu­ed tract, whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof, that carrieth any colour of argumēt, to justify the doctrine, which he pretendeth, to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text; that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true, when he saith (answ. pag. 4.) that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops; nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth. The which being done, I wil in the se­cond parte, 1. Examine all other testimonies, or arguments, which he draweth from the Scriptures, to justify his assertion, that all men may see, it cannot be a divine ordinance, since it hath no founda­tion in the word of God. 2. Though that first point of his 5. con­cerning the Elders, be (as hath bin proved to this question imper­tinent, yet will I take the like course with him therein. 3 and lastly though he casteth of all the testimonies of the new divines either as incompetent being parties (as he [...]aith) or as misalledged by him; I will prove them both truely and rightly alledged, and as compe­tent as any he bringeth.

Chap. 1. Conteyning an answere to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. booke, wherein he laboureth (but in vayne) to mainteyne the first ar­gument in his sermon, viz. That the seven Churches of Asia (whereof his text speaketh) were Dioceses.

VVEe are nowe at the length come to see, how ar­tificially and soundly he collecteth from his text, Sect. [...]. the Doctrine which he principally insisteth on, viz. That the function or calling of diocesan Bishops (such a [...] ours are) is of Divine institution. He saith (pag. 94. of his sermon.) it is proved by the explication of his text, which standeth in this as­sertion; that the Bishops here meant by angels, were such Bishops (for the substance of their calling) as ours are. His argument there­fore in an Enthymem runneth thus; The Bishops meant by angels, A­p [...]. [...]. 20. were such Bishops as ours are: Therfore the function of Bishops, such as ours are, is of divine institution. And in a playne syllogisme (ac­cording to the course of his owne reasoning, Def: lib 4. p. 2. & 3. thus:

• The function of such as are meant by the angels, Apoc. [...]. 20. is of di­vine institution.
• Bishops, such as ours be, are meant by the angels, Apoc. [...]. 20.
• Therefore the function of such Bishops as ours be, is of divine institution.

Here I willingly subscribe to the proposition, because the name of angels & Starres holden in Christs right hand, doth argue his sending and approbation: but I flatly deny the Assumption, or Antecedēt of his Enthimem, as having no foundation in his text, nor any one sound reason, either in his sermō, or in the defense thereof, to make it good. For though he will at no hand indure to heare, of any solo power of rule, eyther for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops: yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops, and that he doth vnderhand give such a power vnto them (and that, iure a­postolico) if he will strongly conclude, the Bishops meant by Angels. Apoc. 1. 20. to be such Bishops as ours are; he must clearly prove (which he can never doe, nor as yet ever attempted to doe) that the Bishops meant by Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops. [Page 172] But that his owne conscience may be the better convinced, of the weaknes of his reasoninge, and of his abusing the text which he handleth, he is to be put in minde, that himself (serm. pag. 52. 53.) doth thus vnfolde the substantiall partes of the callinge of ou [...] Bi­shops, to wit, that they are Di cesan and provinciall Bishops, superiour in de­gree to other Ministers, having a singularity of preheminence, for terme of life, and a peer [...]lesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction. For hence it followeth, that if he have not proved the Bishops ment by Angels in his text, to be 1. some of them provinciall and and other some diocesan Bishops. 2. & all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers. 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life, and 4. a peerelesse power of ordination, 5. and of jurisdiction: (if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified), then it followeth that he hath left naked, the main point which he should have cōfir­med; namely, that the Bishops here meant by Angels, were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are. Now it is apparant to all that peruse his sermon and the defense thereof, that he never in­deavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mencioned in his text to be a provinciall Bishop, or in the power of ordination to have a peerelesse preheminence above others. For though he tell vs (serm. pag. 18.) that some of the 7. Churches were mother cities and (de [...]. lib. 2. pag. 63.) that some of the succeeding Bishops were Metro­politanes: yet all his strength is spent in proovinge every of those Churches to be a diocese, and consequently their Bishops to be di­ocesan Bishops. And though he speak some what for a preheminent power of jurisdiction in these Angels (serm. pag. 49. & def. lib. 3. pag. 135.) yet in all his dispute of ordination, he is silent of them altogither. It remaineth then that we examine how well he hath proved the Bishops which are called the Angels of the 7. Churches to be like vnto our Bishops in those particulars. sc. that they were 1. Diocesan Bishops, 2. Superior in degree to other Ministers. 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life: & 4. a peerelesse power of jurisdiction or (as he expoundeth himselfe, Def. lib. 3. pag. 135.) a corrective power over other Ministers.

To prove the first, s [...]. that those Angels were diocesan Bishops, Sect. [...]. that is to say, in the large extent of their authority over an whole diocese, like to our diocesans; the onely argument that he hath ei­ther in his sermon or defense, is drawne from the forme or consti­tution [Page 173] of those Churches whereof they were Angels, which he per­emptorily affirmeth (but very weakly proveth) to be dioceses pro­perly The Doct. onely ar­gument to prove, the Angels to be Diocesā Bishops, is unsound, in both pro­positions. and not parishes; he should say, that those Churches were di­oceses, such as ours are over which our Bishops are placed; where­fore to conclude his purpose, he must reason (in an Enthymem) thus.

The 7. Churches whereof those Angels were Bishops were Dioceses such as ours are. Therefore those Angels (or the Bishops there ment by Angels) were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans.

The Antecedent is an erronious fancy forged by the Doctor and hath nether testimony nor reason to support it, as shall appeare by & by. In the meane while, be it knowne to him, that his c [...]sequence also is to be rejected as weak and vnsound. And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogisme, he shall soone discerne it; for to make a supply of the proposition, which is pre­supposed in the consequence of his reasoninge, he must argue thus,

• The Angells or Bishops of such Churches as are Dioceses properly, and n [...] parishes, are Diocesan and not parishonall Bishops.
• But the 7. Churches in Asia, were Dioceses properly, and not parishes.
• Therefore the Angels or Bishops of those 7. Churches, were diocesan pro­perly, and not parishionall Bishops.

In which proposition so supplyed, if there be a necessary truth, then must the Doctor confesse, (though against the haire, and contrary to his former perswasion) that the Bishops of whome mencion is made Acts. 20. 28. & phil. 1. [...]. were diocesan Bishops; because the Churches of Ephesus and Phi­lippi, in his opinion were properly dioceses. And if one of our Bishops may in his visitation apply to al [...] 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 [Page 174] 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 [...]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 functiō 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 Concl [...]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 cō ­clusion before mentioned. The words which [...]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: The [...] starres were the angels of those 7. churches; it cannot be denied but that the Ch [...] 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 writ [...], were great [Page 175] 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 re [...]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 reasō, 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. [...]. but doth not the D. himself frame many cōnexive Syllogismes in [Page 176] 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 becōmeth 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 Divine [...] 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 confirmatiō of truth, & cōfutatiō 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? And doth he not justify that his course of reason­ing to be very proper and fit for Theologicall disputations, & that by the practise both of auncient writers and schoolemen? I take him to be a man not much inferior to the Doct, in the Art of rea­soning; but if he disdeyne the comparison, I hope the Apostle Paul was no wayes inferiour to him: let him see whether he confirmeth not this course. 1. Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 18. &c. Yea let the Reader remember how our blessed Saviour Christ, the Prince of Logicians often vieth them. Ioh. 5. 46. & 8. 39. 40. 55. and 15. 19. 22. 24? Let the D. therefore saye what he will, it is no disgrace to the Refuter, with them that are wise and unpartiall to have used them. 3. Moreover since the Doctor will needes read to his Refuter a lo­gick lecture, to [...]each him how to reduce every Enthymem into a simple syllogisme, how happeneth it that he giveth him no directi­on, how to knowe vnto which of the premisses, every thing pre­supposed in the consequence, must be referred? espetially when more assertions then one, must be supplied, as it is in the argument which himself hath framed, sect. 2. pag. 42. 4. But (to stand no longer in answering him according to his foolishnes herein) know he; his Refuter whom he vndertaketh to teache, hath learning e­nough to discerne (as in many other parts of his defense, so even) in his mainteyning this argument that he scarce knoweth, how to [Page 177] reduce some of his owne Enthymems or hypotheticall arguments into simple syllogismes. For if he will drawe the words wherein his Argument lieth, to conclude the question which here he proposeth to be debated; his Enthymeme must be this. The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called angels, Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities; and not cities onely but also the countryes ad [...]yning. Therefore in the age followinge the visible Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government, were Dioceses properly and not parishes. Now who seeth not the consequence of this Enthymem to be naught, and that for the reasons which the Refuter yeeldeth? 1. Because it presupposeth (that which is not true, to wit) that all Churches in the world at that time, were such as those 7. that is great and ample cities, &c. 2. because it doth not appeare (neyther is it true) that every of those Churches was divi­ded into diverse severall ordinary assemblies &c. Of the later wee shall speake anone. Let vs now see how he wipeth away the for­mer.

The proposition (or consequence) saith he (pag. 45.) is so farr from Sect. 4. Ref. pag. D. pag. 45. lib. 2. presupposing all the Churches in the world to be great and ample cities, that it doth not so much as presuppose those 7. in Asia, to be such. That is pre­supposed in the proposition; but is assumed, or affirmed in the Assumption. Here first let it be observed, that the Doctor assumeth or affirmeth A flat con­tradiction in the D. in the assumption of his argument, that those 7. churches in Asia, were great and ample cities; the falshood whereof is so apparant to his owne conscience, that within a fewe lines after, (scz. 16. or 17.) he denieth it againe, and saith it was spoken onely concerning 5. of those Churches. But 2. to dispute the point in hand, what will the Doctor answere to his refuter (whom he maketh so ignorant in the groundes of logick) if he should argue with him in this man­ner? In every Enthymem what soever is not affirmed in the Antecedent, & yet is necessarily vnderstood to make good the conclusion: the same is presup­posed (or taken for granted) in the consequence of the argument. But in the Doctors Enthymem before s [...]t downe to make good the Conclusion, this asser­tion that all churches in the world were at that time such as those. 7. to wit, greate and ample Cities is necessarily vnderstoode, but not affirmed in the An [...]cedent. [...]herefore the same Assertion is presupposed (or taken for granted) in the consequence of the argument. And if in the consequence of the argument, then, in the consequence of the propositiō, which com­prehendeth both the Antecedent, & conclusion of the Enthymem. [Page 178] Till his answere be heard here vnto, it shall not be amisse to peruse, what he hath already answered to the objection, which himself fra­meth, viz. That what he saith of the 7. Churches, he would have vnderstood of all other Churches, and therefore presupposeth, what his Refuter objecteth. First, he granteth it is presupposed in his argumentation; but not in his proposition. Then he addeth, that as in other places he is not to be blamed for concluding from other Churches to these 7: so neyther here for con­cluding A silly sh [...] & an idle q [...]arel of the D. from thes [...] 7. to all others, &c. The former is a sil­ly shift, and the later an idle quarrell. 1. True it is, the Doct. hath added to the assumption in his argumentation (as he hath framed it pag. 42.) that which his refuter referred, to the consequence of the proposition of his connexive Syllogisme: but how will he justi­fy his new presupposition? viz. that his Refuter erred in referring to the consequence of his proposition, that which the Doct. hath now added to the assumption of his new forged Syllogisme? And 2. to what purpose doth he tell us, he is not to be blamed for con­cluding from these 7. churches to all others? since that which his Refuter blameth in him, is not his so concluding: but his presup­posing an untruth (for the inferring of his conclusion) viz. that all the Churches in the world were (at that time when Iohn wrote his revelation) great and ample cities. &c. Neyther 3. can he salve The D. can not salve his credit. his creditt, by denying that he is herein blameworthy; for 1. that he presupposeth thus much, he cannot deny, seing in his sermon, he did affirme those 7. Churches to be great and ample cities; and now he blusheth not to avouch, that what is verified of these 7. the same may be truely affirmed of the rest. And since in the wordes immediately following (lin. 24. pag. 45.) he saith, that all Churches had not within their circuit great and ample cities, he must acknowledge his former presupposall, to be a grosse untruth. 4. What releefe then can he gaine, by appealing (as he doth) to the testimony of his Refuter to prove, that the forme and constitution of all the primitive Churches is one and the same? for I yet hope that pre­judice hath not so farr blinded him, but he can see the falla [...]y of his former reasoning (ab accidente) when he presupposeth all other Churches to be great and ample cities like as he said, those 7. in The Doct. reason is [...] fallacie of the acci­dent. Asia were; because the forme and constitution of all Churches is one and the same? Wherefore he rageth without reason, in reje­cting (pag. 47.) that reason which his Refuter yeelded for the de­nyall of his consequence, viz. that though it were granted, that those 7. [Page 179] were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoyninge, yet their might be diverse other (as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16.) which were small and bounded within the walle [...] of some small Towne. See you not, saith the D. how he seck­eth about for starting holes? what if there were other small Churches? what is that to this consequence? If th [...]se Ch: conteined each of them, not onely the City but the Country adjoyning, then they were not parishes properly, but Dioceses. his answere if it be well weighed, is an exception against the conclusion &c. I answere. [...]. if he grant there were other small Churches, he then justifyeth his Ref: cēsure; both in denying that to agree to all other Churches, which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities &c. and in rejecting the consequence of his first Enthymem, which in concluding all Churches to be Dioceses, be­cause those 7. were great and ample cities, did presuppose (as him­self acknowledgeth) that what he affirmed of those 7. is verified of all the rest. 2. And therefore he slaundereth his refuter in char­ging him, to seek about for starting holes, and his answere to be an ex­ception The Doct. slaundreth his Refuter against the conclusion. For his answere is a strong engine to b [...]t­ter the consequence of his argumentation, and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himselfe crept into for safe harbor, when he saith, that what is verified of those 7. Churches, the same may be truly af­firmed of all others. 3. Moreover, he much forgetteth himselfe, in affirming (both here and pag. 44.) that his argument concludeth nothing else then this, that the 7. Churches were Dioceses. For as the conclusion which he proposeth in his sermon (pag. 17.) to be proved, was more generall: (of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following) so he doth expresly affirme (pag. 45. of this defense) that in this argument now controverted, he conclu­deth A flat con­tradiction in the D. from those 7. churches to all others. As for his conclusion, (or closing up of this point) wherin he calleth his Refuter a froward ad­versary, because here he findeth fault that he concludeth what these Churches were; and yet in other places accused him, for not con­cluding, what they or the angels of them were; it argueth the D. himselfe to be a froward adversary and a false witnes. His falshood appeareth in this, that as he cannot alleadge one word to prove The Doct. not the Re­futer is a froward ad versary & a false wit­nes. his accusation; so he himselfe acquiteth him thereof when he saith, (pag. 45.) that he is here blamed for concluding from these 7. Churches to all others. And since he knoweth the fault which his Refuter findeth, to be a naughty consequence, which falsly presup­poseth [Page 180] all Churches to be such, as he saith those 7. were, (to wit great and ample [...]ities &c.) what is it else but frowardnes in him, that will rather justify a lye, then acknowledge a truth, which he knoweth?

But since he will nowe restreyne his argument, to the 7. Chur­ches, Sect. 5. to conclude them Dioceses. I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem (before set downe sect. 3. in fine) and set it thus as followeth. The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but also the countries adioyning. Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Pa­rishes; yea Dioceses such as ours are. For unlesse their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are, he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authoritie, like to our Diocesans. Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any directiō for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism, I would advise him to remember▪ that the Medius terminus (which never entreth into the conclusion) must needes be here, the predi­catum in the antecedent, to wit, great and ample cities &c. and to make up the proposition which is wanting, there must be joyned to it, the predicatum of the consequent, to witt, Dioceses &c. be­cause it hath no place in the antecedent. Wherefore the propositi­on to be supplyed must be this. Great and ample cities tog [...]ther with their countries adioyning are Dioceses properly and not parishes; yea Dioceses like to ours. Then follow the partes of his Enthymem in order as they lie. But the 7. Churches who [...]e Bishops are called Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities togither with their countries adioyning. There­fore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly &c. In the assumption of A double vntruth in the D. as­sumption. this Syllogisme, or antecedent of the former Enthymem, there is a double untruth, which the Doctor in his second thoughts dis­cerned; for himselfe pag. 45. restreyneth the name of great and ample cities to 5. onely of those 7. and that which he graunteth of Ephesus (pag. 62.) must be acknowledged also, of all the rest, viz. that the whole citie was not the Church, vntil it was wholly cō ­verted to the profe [...]sion of Christianity. Wherefore to free his ar­gument from both these vntruthes: first he quite shu [...]teth out this cl [...]use great and ample cities; & secondly, whereas before he had said; that the 7. Churches whose Bishops are in his text called angels, were not one­ly the cities, but also the countries adioyning, now he saith, his meaning [Page 181] was, that those Churches conteined in their circuite not onely the Cities, but the Cuntries adjoyninge. Wherfore he contriveth his argument in this forme, pag. 42. & 44.

Churches, whose circuite conteyned both Cities and countryes adjoyning were Dioceses. The circuite of the 7. Churches conteyned the Cities and Countries adjoyninge. Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses. The assumption, he hath made good (as he supposeth) with necessary proofe. And the proposition, which he tooke for granted, will stand (as he saith pag. 43.) vnmoveable, when the foundation of our discipline will be razed. But the issue will shew (I doubt not) that the foundatiō of our discipline will abide firme, when his proposition is shaken into shivers: and that his assumption hath not so much as one probable argument to support it. To make his meaninge a little more plaine, in both the premisses, as himself doth explaine his assumption thus, that the Circuite of every one of those Churches conteyned both the City, & the Country adjoyninge: so (to holde proportion therewith) his proposition must cary this sense, that every Church, whose circuite conteineth a City, and the Country adjoyninge, is a Diocese. And because he must conclude (as we have before observed) that every one of those. 7. Churches was pro­perly a diocese, such as are the dioceses subjected to our Bishops; his proposition must affirme, every Church conteyninge one City and the Country adjoyning, to be such a diocese, as these are, which we beholde at this day in the Church of England. But admit a truth in his proposition (to let passe the Church of London, which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City, & yet was not a diocese but ra­ther a parishe assembly) 1. I object his owne wordes (Cap. 2. p. 39.) Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells, Lichfeild and Coventry, London and Colchester; so in the primitive Church more Cityes thē one, with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese. And for instance in this case, he saith that the Bishop of Hera [...]lea had bothe it and Panion; the Bishop of B [...]e had also Arcadiopolis &c. he addeth (page 40.) that the whole nation of the Scythians ha­ving many Cities Townes and Castles, had all of them by ancient custome, one onely Bishop, and therefore was but one diocese, From hence then, thus I reason. Here with us, the Christian people of these 4. Cities, Coventry, Litchfield, Colch [...]ster, & London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning, doe not make each of them a [Page 182] [...]everall Diocese: the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians, in the cities of Heraclea, Panion, Bize, and Arcadiapolis; and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians. Every Church ther­fore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning, is not a Diocese. And consequently he wrangleth a­gainst the truth knowne to his owne conscience, when he asketh (pag. 47.) how is it poss [...]e that those Churches should not be Di­oceses, which conteyne ample cities with the countries, (such as we call Shires) belonging to them?

And to manifest the more fully, the falsehood of his propositi­on, Sect. 6. I here renew that reason, which his Refuter objected (answer. pag. 54.) against the consequence of the proposition by him fra­med: sc. Because it doth not appeare (neyther is it true) that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies, all of them depending upon some one, as the cheefe; without power of ecclesiasticall government, a part in themselves. For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided: till this ap­peare, how can he conclude, every of those Churches to be proper­ly such a Diocese, as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops, which is the pointe that he must prove, as is before shewed. Not­withstāding the D. in his reply (p. 47. & 48.) insulteth over his Ref: in this maner. Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusiō, is not the de­nial of the cōclusiō an evidence that the answerer is cōfounded? & is not cōfusiō a manifest signe, that he writeth against his conscience, resolved not to be per­swaded, though his conscience be conv [...]ct [...]d? Wherevnto I answer. 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion; Eyther the D. rayleth & slaunde­reth, or els contradi­cteth him­selfe & his maine as­sertion. then in the D. opinion a Diocese, and a Church divided into di­verse severall ordinary assemblies &c. are one and the same thing: so that none other Church, then that which is so divided, can pro­perly or truely be called a Diocese; and consequently, when he saith (pag. 30.) that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations, yet had they (each of them) bene Dioce­ses; his meaning must be this. q. d. though none of those Chur­ches had bene a Diocese, yet each of them had bene a Diocese. In like manner when he affirmeth (pag. 69.) that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes, his mea­ning must be this and no other. q. d. In the Apostles times, the Churches were no Dioceses. Which is to contradict and condemn [Page 183] of falshood, the very maine assertion, which in the second parte of his sermon, he vndertooke to prove. And when he argueth there in this manner (The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes; and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses) his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect. q. d. in the Apostles times, there were no Dioceses: & therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Di­oceses. Behold we, what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason, to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclu­sion. Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded; and that writeth against his conscience, as one resolved not to be perswaded, though his con­science be convicted?

2. For (to returne to the point in hand) as the D. knoweth well enough, that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument: for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this, q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie &c. yet it followeth not that they were Di­oceses (such as ours are) because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies &c. and upon the same ground; the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned, is still to be rejected: to witt, because to make any Churches dioceses (such as ours are) it is not enough to shewe, that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning; he must also demonstrate those. 3. branch­es, which he observeth in the Refut: words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies. 2. that all of them de­pend upon some one as the Cheife. 3. and that they have not any of them, the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in them­selves.

But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter: Sect. 7. (in these particulars) perverteth the drifte of his words, as if he had intended to prove, that those 7. Churches were not dioceses, be­cause they were not so divided &c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye; he ur­geth him (as if he were the opponent) to prove his assertions, hol­ding i [...] sufficient, for him to deny them, till proofe be made of thē. Yet knowing, forsooth, that none of his Opposites are able to prove [Page 184] any of them; & desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren, he wil breifly disprove them. Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde, to an adversary so froward, yea convicted and resolved (as he saith) not to be perswaded? Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake, of whome he hath better hope. Well, let us listen to his discourse; and (having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove) we will waie the force of his argu­ments with as indifferent an hand as we can. The first point where­in he contradicteth his Refuter is, that he saith, It doth not appeare (neither is it true) that every one of those. 7. Churches, was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies. The which if he will disprove, he must make it appeare to be a truth, that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies; now let us heare what he hath to say in this case. As touching the first (saith he) I have often wondred, what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches, which were not divided into parishes, to those that be. But why doth he wonder, where there is no cause of wonder? Let him surcease his wondring The won­der is at the Doct. not at the Refuter. till he shewe; both where his brethren have so argued; and why such an argument will not hold? And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause, to wonder at his proceeding, that wandreth from his purpose; or rather justifyeth his Refut: in that which he vndertook to disprove? For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge, that which now is closely implied; sc: that the ancient Churches re­meyned for a time vndivided.

3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words; we may wonder, what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes, to those that be; and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided, to those which at the first were not. The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove, that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese, though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church; he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche &c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth, pag. 69. The later appeareth by this, that his best reason, to prove that each Church had frō the beginning, the circuite of the citie & country adjoyned; is the practise of succeeding ages (p. 49. & 55.) which after division of parishes, combined them in one body vnder one [Page 185] Bishop. As for his questions following, though I see not how they will serve his purpose; yet will I breefly touch vpon them, and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere. 1. would they have, saith he, the Church of a City & country belonging to it, to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place? I answere; so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge, doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation, I hold it best they continue vndivided, as the first Apostolike Churches did: but when the people of any City and Country are so increased; that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies, it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place. 2. Then tell me (saith he) whether we that doe and of ne­cessity must, consist of diverse congregations, are to followe the example of any ancient Church, as it was before it was divided, or as it was after it was divi­ded? I affirme, that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assem­blies to be multiplied, the practise of the Apostles, & the ancient Apostolike Churches, is to be imitated of us, in giving to those new erected assemblies, both the name and forme or constitution of Churches, and the like power for government, which those apos­tolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye. Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth, I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion, in any one branch thereof. 3. He addeth, They will say perhaps, that eche congregation after the division was as that one before, nothing lesse; let them prove that, and I will yeeld in the whole cause. We say it in deed, and will not shrinke from affirminge, that in the Apostles tymes, whereso­ever the Christians of any City or Country, which at first made one Church, were distributed into diverse, there eche congregatiō was in forme or constitution like to that one before, and if it be not so, why doth he not disprove it? Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent; giving his reader just occasion to thinke, that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe? As for the ages following in Constantines time or there a­boutes, when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoy­ninge to it, their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questiō of divine institution; eyther for the constitu­tion of Church-assemblies; or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and [Page 186] Presbyters, wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved, if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels &c. (before cited as he saith) can convince or perswade the conscience of his oppo­sites, to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance. But to what purpose doth he trif [...]le time in these By-questiōs, which make him forget what he promised to prove, viz. that every of those 7. Churches, was divided into severall ordinary assemblies? Yet in one point more, we must followe him, sc. when he indeavoreth to shew, that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided; for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand; if he had added this clause, that they were Dioceses such as ours are; but he foresawe, that this addition, would have quite marred his mar­ket; notwithstanding attendance shalbe given, to that he hath deli­vered in defense of the point, which he mainteyneth.

It wilbe said (saith he) that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses. Whereto I answere, that the circuite of the Church, in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it, was the same as well before the division of parishes as after. Here for the better apprehending of his meaning, if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same? I suppose, he would send us to those words, which he hath within a few line, after, viz. that the circuit of every Church, even from the begin­ning (aswelas after the multiplying of perishes) included not onely the citie but th [...] countrye thereto belonging. And if this be his meaning (as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant) then behold how he is The D. must [...] gg still. inforced, principium petere, when from hence he inferreth the cō ­clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following (50.) sc. that though the 7. Churches had not b [...]ne divided into severall congregations; yet had they each of them bene Dioceses. And be­cause he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref: I wil as­say, to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme, and if he can be [...]ter the argument, let him take his owne away.

• Every Church, whose circuite, in the intention of the Apostle, or first founder [...]f it, was the same (as including not onely the citie, but the country thereto belongi [...]g) aswell bef [...]re the division [...]f Parishes as after, (every such Church I saw) was a Diocese from the beginning, though not divided then in­to several C [...]ngregations.
• But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches, in the intention of the A­postles, or their first founders.
• herefore they were Dioceses from the begin­ning, [Page 187] though not yet divided into many severall congregations.

Now let the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllo­gisme, with the maine argument which himself contrived (and is before set downe sect. 5.) and if they can finde any such materiall difference in the medius terminus and the premis [...]es, as may give the D. a discharge frō begging the questiō, let them shew it. Meane while I doubt not, but, every unpartiall reader will perceive his po­vertie in this dispute, especially seing he supporteth the Assumpti­on of his principall argument with the same answere pag. [...]4. For who, that denieth any of the Apostolike Churches, to comprehend the whole citie and country adjoyning (as Dioceses in succeeding ages did) will beleeve, that the circuite of those Churches, was the same, when there were but fewe, that it was when many, yea all were Christians? and who, that denieth (as the Refuter doth) the circuite of a citie and country adjoyning, to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese; vnlesse it be divided into many congregations, will not take him for a very trifler, which, to make good the con­trary, shall yeeld him none other argument then this; that a Church not yet divided into severall assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese; If the founder thereof, did intend, that her circuite should include citie and country, as a divided Diocese doth. Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and Both pre­misses of the Doctor argument are vn­sound. downeright answere to his argument last contrived, I at once re­ject both the promisses, as erroneous and unsound.

First touching the proposition; since the Doctor placeth the ve­ry essence (and life if I may so speak) of a Diocesan Church, in her circuite, including both citie and countrye adjoyning; so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable; (as it doth with the Re­futer, who accounteth such a circuite the materiall cause onely, & estemeth the very forme that giveth being vnto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies, as mēbers of one bo­dy:) a meane logician may see, that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding, he should have yeelded us some one or other Medi­us terminus, which might have served to prove, that such a circuite maketh a Diocesan body, although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof. But nowe in arguing (as he doth) that the ancient Churches, though yet vndivided, were Dioceses because their founders intended, that their circuite should extend over ci­tie and countrie, as the later Diocesan Churches did: the errour of [Page 188] his reasoning is no lesse grosse and absurd, then if he had said, Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally; Therefore they were Dioceses properly or The D. rea­soning is grosse and absurd. actually. For all men knowe that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese (as he saith all the first Apostolicall Churches were) the same is actually and in very deed a Diocese; and therefore hath ac­tually and in deed the circuit of a Diocese: but if it have the circuit of a Dioc [...]se, onely in the intention of the founder; and not ac­tually; it is impossible, it should be a dioce [...]e actually or properly, but intentionally onely; especially in their opinion, who place (as the D. doth) the very forme and being, of a diocesan Church, in the circuite of her jurisdiction, conteyninge both City and Country adjoyning. Let the D. here call to minde what he sayd pag. 18. of his sermon, & mainteineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the cheife Cities of any nation, they intended the conversion of the whole nation; and that when having by Gods blessing converted some, they placed pres­byters in any of those cheife Cities; their intent and hope was by their ministery to converte, aswell in the Countries adjoyning as in the City, so many as did belong vnto God. He addeth (in his defence) that they whose ministery was intended for the conversi­on of the City and Country (he should have-sayd of the whole nation) to their care or charge the people of that City and Country or na­tion belonged, both for the first convertinge of them, and for the government of them being converted. Whence it is also that he saith (lib. 4. pag. 131.) that it was from the beginninge intended, that the Bishop: of the mother City should be the cheif in the Pro­vince, notwithstanding he constantly holdeth (lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 21. & lib. 4. pag. 7. & 31.) that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over Mother Cities, were at the first actually but Bi­shops of their owne Dioceses, not actually Metropolitanes, vntill diverse Churches being constituted, and Bishops ordeyned in the severall Dioceses of the province, there was a consociation and sub­ordination of them, vnto one cheefe primate. Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intendinge the conversion of the whole nation, and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops, as the light of the Gospell should spread it self into the severall Dioceses: if this intention I say, cannot perswade the Doctor to take the firste [Page 189] Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches, or Metropolitan Bishops: Surely then he might think us very Id [...]otes, if we should take his bare word (whē he disagreeth with himselfe) for a fit proofe to perswade us, that the like intention (of erecting a Church in any citie or Diocese, vnder an hope of sub­jecting the people thereof to the obedience of the gospel) can make that Church actually or properly a Diocese, till there be distribu­tion of particular assemblies, subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Church and ministery, first erected in the citie.

Secondly, to come to the Assumption, if there be any truth in it, his Refuter may make more advantage by it, to conclude those Sect. 9. Churches not to be Dioceses properly or actually. For,

No Church, whose circuite includeth the citie (wherein it is seated,) & the Country adioyning, onely in the intention of the first founder, but not actually or in execution, is a Diocese actually and properly: if therefore the 7. Chur­ches, were Churches whose circuit included the cities (wherein th [...]y were seated) and tho countryes adioyning, onely in the intention of the first founders▪ but not actually, or in execution. (Then it followeth that) The 7. Chur­ches were not Dioceses actually or properly.

The Proposition is grounded upon that difference which the Doctor himselfe putteth betwixt the actuall being of Metropo­litane Bishops, or Churches, and the intention of those that first fo [...]nded Churches in Mother-cities. And the As­sumption is in effect the Doctors owne assertion, as he explai­neth himselfe pag. 69. 73. & 128; for in the last place quo­ted he saith expresly, that the Coun [...]ries subject to the civill ju­risdiction of any citie, were actually under the Bishops charge after theire conversion, and intentionally before; wherefore without contradiction to himselfe, he cannot rejecte the con­clusion. So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches, shall holde proportion with the groundes of his disputation; he must The Doct. in his next, must change & adde & de­tract as here he doth, or else &c. (in his next) first, change his maine ten [...]t or conclusion, and plainely professe that howsoever he vndertooke to prove, that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses properl [...], yet that was not his meaninge, but rather this, that they were Dioces [...]s intentional­ly, that is, that it was their founders intention that in time to [Page 190] come, (after all the people of city & country were converted) they should become Dioceses actually and properly. And s [...]condly as he hath already (to colour the falshood of his anteceden [...]) with an In­dex expurgatorius, wiped away this clause great and ampl [...] 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 [...]unders, that in time they should conteyne such a circuite. But (to passe forward [...]s) this position is in truth more absurd and incredible then the for­mer. The Doct. propositiō 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 Me [...]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 lump [...]; 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 prota [...]is of his comparison answerable to the apodosis he should have rather said, Even as the subiect of the [Page 191] leven in the intentiō 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 rem [...]ine partes of one lumpe; or that a­mong the loaves more regard should be had to that litle portiō of meale that was fi [...]st sowred, to make of it a Mother-loafe, vnto w [...] the rest of the loaves should owe any homage: so it may seeme (by this cōparison) 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 subor [...]ination of those Chur­ches, that all should be subject to the jurisd [...]ction, of one Ca [...]he­d [...]all Church seated in the citie. But to leave his comparison to his [Page 192] 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 writinge, but by tradition? It is strange a matter of such consequence, for the well-orderinge of all Churches to the worlds ende, should be committed to such an happ-hazzard. 2. And how hath the Church informed the Doctor of their vnderstandinge? hath he received it also by tradition, or from the writinges of the The D. first reasō con­futed by himself. Lords worthies in all ages? Why doth he not either quote us their bookes wherein they affirme it; or give us the catalogue of such as have from hand to hand conveied it to him? Till he hath given sa­tisfaction in these particulars, let him not thinke but his reader will deeme his first reason to be a speach voyde of reason, yea a mōstrous vntruth confuted by himself, as shall well appeare in the examina­tion of his reasons followinge.

His second reason he laieth downe thus; saying. Secondly because that division of Churches which was 300. or 400. yeares after Christe, with their limits and circuites, was ordinarily the same which had bene from the be­ginning, as before hath bene testified by divers auncient Councels. Ordi­narily and from the beginning? So he saith in deed. But 1. doth any Councell that he hath alleadged, (pag. 22. & 37. or elswhere) testify the circuites of the Churches, to have bene from the begin­ning [Page] of their planting by the Apostles, the same, that they were in their owne times? Is not all the question (in those Councells) of Country parishes, or such partes of any Country as neither desyred to have a Bishop, or were challenged of diverse Bishops? The be­ginning therefore (whereof they speake) must be taken for the time of erecting Churches in Country villages, and subordinating them to the Bishop of the City adjoyninge. Neyther yet doe they ascribe this to any ordinance, or intention of the Apostles, or first founders of the Church, in the Citie; but to ancient custome, (as the words of the Ephesin Councell shew, which he hath set downe. Can. 2. pag. 37.) ratified by ecclesiasticall lawes, and Canons (falsly called Canons) of the Apostles. 2. But why saith he, the circuites were ordinarily the same? Meaneth he, it was no cōmon use to al­ter them? Or that it was against order and vnlawfull? It cannot be the later, since he confesseth (pag. 23.) that if there were cause, (sc. for the greatnes of the Charge and nomber of people &c.) the circuites of Dioceses were lessened, & newe Bishoprickes erected. Beholde then, howe worthily the D. reasoneth. The division of Churches with their circuites, remayned till 400. yeares after Christe, the same which it had bene from the beginning of erecting Churches in the remote parts of any Diocese, and subordinatinge them to the Bishops of the Cities adjoyninge, vnlesse the greatnes of the charge required the circuite to be lessened & a new Bishop­rick to be established. Ergo, it was the intention of the Apostles, that the Churches which they planted, should have the same Circu­ite before the division of parishes, that they had after. May not the contrary, with much more probability, be thus argued? When the charge of an whole diocese after the distribution of parishes grewe over greate for one Bishop, & the nomber of people in some partes, desyred to have a newe Bishop: the Circuites of Churches or Dioceses were altered. Ergo it was never intended by the Apos­tles (or at least the Fathers of those times were ignorant of any such intention) that the Circuite of every Church should alwayes conti­nue the same, aswell when all in City and Country were converted, as when there were but a fewe. But let us heare his third reason. Thirdly saith he, because it is confessed by Beza and testified by D. Reynoldes and others that the distribution of the Church, did usu [...]ll [...] fellowe the division of the Cōmon wealth: in so much that those Countries that were subjected to the [Page 194] Civill jurisdiction, [...]xercised in any City, were also subject ordinarily to the ec [...]lesiasticall &c. Is not the Doctors plenty (think ye) turned into mere penury; when (the testimony of ancient Fathers and Coun­cells faylinge him) he is gladd to seeke releife at their handes, whose judgement otherwyse (ordinarily and usually) he rejecteth? And yet (alas for pity) they (whome he meaneth) cannot yeeld him any comfort. For what say they? Forsooth, that in the distribution of dioceses, provinces and patriarchall preheminences, the state eccle­siasticall followed the civill. And when did the Church take up this Course? Doe they say that the Apostles began it, or intended any such matter? No, it was thought a convenient course by the By­shops after the Apostles daies, for the better managing of Church­causes in their Synods, and Meetings, that as for civill justice; so also for ecclesiasticall affaires, recourse should be had to the Cityes and Shire-townes. Neyther was this order vniversall or perpetuall, as the Doctor himself acknowledgeth in Pergamus and Thyatira. pag. 63. yea he affirmeth that by ancient custome, the whole nation of Scythians, having many Cities, townes, and Castles, made but one Diocese: and that the Churches throughout a large Province, were but part of one Paraecia or diocese, as may be sene pag. 10. & 40. of this his defense. Wherefore this reason of his, doth also cō ­fure (and not confirme) his fantasticall conceite of the Apostles in­tention. And it argueth he spake directly against the light of his conscience, when he sayd; that the whole Church of God, ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age, hath so vnderstood (as he doth) the intention of the Apostles, and the first founders of the apostolike Churches. Wherefore since he hath no better ground for his bolde affirmation, (that the circuite of each Church in the intention of the Apostles or first founders was the same before the division of parishes that it was after) we may well take his conclusion which he inferreth thereupon, to be layd in the sand of his owne vaine immagination, viz. that though those Churches had not bin divided into severall congregations, yet had they each of them bene dioce­ses.

But now (to returne to the point, frō which he hath longe wan­dred Sect. 11. ad sect. 6. page 50. at his pleasure, to little purpose) he addeth, that at the time of writing the Revelation, it is more then probable, that they conteyned diverse congregations. If it be more then probable, then, I hope, his argu­mentes whereon he buildeth are more then probabilities, even [Page 195] firme and invincible demonstrations. But if there be not so much as a shadowe of probabilitie, in any thinge he hath alleadged; no man can justly blame his Refuter, if he say; It is more then proba­ble the Doctor is deceived; and seeketh to deceive, with his vaine braggs of proving, what he avoucheth. Let vs therefore examine his best probabilities. The first is, That▪ when Paul had continued but two yeares at Ephesus, the holy Ghost testifieth (Act. 19. 10.) that all which inhabited Asia (so properly called) did heare the word of the Lord. And having both placed many Presbyters amongst them; and continued with thē for the space of three yearees; afterwards sendeth T [...]mothy to be their Bishop, who ordinarily continued among them, vntill his death. And that we should not thinke, there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time, he maketh mention of the Churches of Asia. 1. Cor. 16. 19.

In all this if there be any probability, it lieth in his last wordes, wherein he seemeth thus to argue. S. Paul maketh mention of the Chur­ches of Asia. Ergo, you may not think there was but that Church at Ephesus in his time. The consequent of this Enthymem is subtilly set down. If his meaning be to perswade his reader, that there was more The D. lai­eth downe his conse­quence subtilly. then one Church at Ephesus in Pauls time, because he mentioneth Churches in Asia, his consequence is worse then nought: nothing hindreth his Refuter to think, that there was one onely Church at Ephesus, although there were more Churches in Asia. That epistle to the Corinthians wherein he mentioneh the Churches of Asia. was written before his departure from Ephesus (recorded Acts. 20. 1.) as we maye gather, 1. Cor. 16. 5. 8. 10. compared with Acts. 19. 21. 22. yet, when after this, he had speach with the El­ders of Ephesus (those many Elders which he now telleth us, Paul had there placed) they had no severall titles or cures, but in cōmon attended the whole flocke or Church, as himself avoucheth (serm. pag. 18.) from the very words of Paul, Acts. 20. 28. where he doth apparantly contradict himself, if he now labour to perswade, that there were at that time more Churches (or distinct congregations) A contra­diction in the D. if he &c. then one that Ephesus. But if, (in arguinge as he doth) he intend no more then this; to shewe that in Pauls time, besides that Church at Ephesus, there were in Asia some other Churches; what is this to the purpose? I meane to prove, that in Saint Iohns time, each of the 7. Asian Churches conteyned diverse congregations.

As for that he addeth of Timothy sent vnto Ephesus to be their Bishop, [Page 196] & his ordinary cōtinuance there vntil his death; it is sooner said then pro­ved, as shalbe shewed hereafter; & were it true, it giveth him no help, to justify his former assertion, of diverse congregations in every of these Churches. But 2. he proceedeth to shew that Peter likewise by his preach­ing converted many in Asia. And 3. after the death of Peter and Paul, S. Iohn went into those parts, preached the Gospel for many yeares, ordeyned By­shops & Presbyters where need was. 4. Wisheth vs to add to the Ministery of the Apostles, the preachings of the Byshops and Presbyters ordeyned by them, and Disciples whom they had instructed, by whose Ministery some Churches were brought to the fayth, as that of Colossae (in the Cōfines of Phrigia) in Paules time. From all which particulars in stead of cōcluding, (that which he pretended to make more then propable, viz.) that the 7. Churches of Asia conteyned (each of them) diverse congregations: he appealeth to the conscience of every indifferent reader; whether it be not unlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches, no not in that of Ephesus, there were in the whole citie & country belonging to it, any more then one ordinary congregation, after the preaching of such and so many for the space of 45. yeares. Wherevn­to for answer, 1. I also appeale to the cōscience of every indifferent reader, whether the D. hath not proved himselfe a notable tri [...]er, The Doct. a notable trifler. when he thus disputeth? It is very unlikely that▪ there should not be in any one of those famous Churches (no not in that of Ephesus, that is, in the whole citie & country belonging to it) any more then one ordinary cōgregatiō. There­fore it is more then propable, that they all conteyned diverse congregations. But 2. how often will the D. contradict himself? doth he not confident­ly affirme, (serm. pag. 18.) that in the Apostles times parishes were 10. The D. cō ­radicteth himself. not distinguished, not any Presbyters assigned to their several Cures? And doth he not still maintaine the same position? (def. pag. 69.) onely he excepteth the Church of Alexandria, which was far [...] from any of these 7. And. 3. had not the Churches of Ierusalem & Rome as great helps to enlarge them, by the Ministery of many excellent Teachers, and for as many yeares? yet himselfe denieth any ordi­narie congregations to be multiplied in them. See we what he saith plainely for the one, pag. 92. and 124. and more closely touching the other, pag. 88. And 4. since he acknowledgeth, that th [...]se Churches were much annoyed with heretiks as Paul foretolde; since that which he foretolde, (Act. 20. 29. 30.) did principally concerne the Church of Ephesus, and himselfe complayneth of their generall forsaking him in Asia. 2. Tim. 1. 15. moreover since it appeareth, [Page 197] even by the testimonie of Iohn (or rather of Christ himselfe) that Ephesus, had left her first love; and that partly by persecu­tions and partly by false Teachers; the prosperitie and growth of those Churches was much hindred. Revelat. 2. 4. 9. 13. 15. 20. and 3. 2. 16. the indifferent reader will easily se [...], how li­tle likelihood there is, that there should be eyther in Ephesus, or in any the rest of those cities of Asia, any more then one po­pulous congregation of Christians. 5. Lastly, if any man think, that after the preaching of such and so many, (as he saith) for the space of 45. yeares, it is probable there were more then 7. ordinarie congregations, let him judge indifferently betwixt the Doctor and his Refuter whether it be not more likely his Refuters assertion is true, that there were no more then 7. distinct Churches, (such as Colossae, Magnesia, and Trallis, whereof he speaketh) then that each of the 7. (as the Doctor affirmeth) was divided into severall Congregations.

And this may suffice (I doubt not) to shewe, that the Do­ctor Sect. 12. ad. pag. [...]1. hath sayde nothing to disprove that first braunch of his Refuters reason (for the deniall of the consequence of his Pro­position) when he sayd, that it doth not appeare, neyther is it true, that every one of these Churches was divided into diverse severall ordi­narie assemblies. The other two braunches the Doctor telleth us, he will ioyne togither. And in deed, they must concurre, not onely one with the other; but also both of them with the for­mer. For if he could have proved, by much more pregnant arguments, then he can, that those 7. Churches had bene (ea [...] of them) divided into diverse congregations; yet it will not followe, they were Dioceses; vnlesse it appeare also, that all of them did depend upon one Cathedrall Church as cheife; and had not the power of ecclesiasticall government apart in them­selves. Wherefore all his labour is lost if he produce not bet­ter probabilities, to disprove these two later points.

If, saith he, there were but one Bishop for the Church, both of the citie and Countrye (as there were but 7. in all those seven Churches) 2. If the Churches both of citie & country were subiect to the B. of the citie. 3. If the parishes both of citie & coūtry had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery▪ but [Page 198] Presbyters severally assigned to them. 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City; & not onely they, but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority, (all which I have by moste evident arguments▪ and testimonies proved already) then did the severall congregatiōs and parish­es (which I have also proved were all but members of one body) depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head; neither had they the power of eccle­siasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake, as I have also proved before. All this winde shaketh no corne, a short answere will serve to all these particulars. 1. The matter hangeth yet in question, whether every of those Churches did include, (at least intentionally) the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City? Also whither parishes were multiplied & pres­byters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth; yea the con­trary of this, for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D; as is before observed, 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wher­by he saith he hath already proved the par [...]iculars, which he hear [...] assumeth for vndoubted truthes; they are (every Mothers sonne of them) of vnder age, & neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter, and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question. The reader will remember that the pointe here de­nied, is, that there were in every of these Churches, many congre­gations which depended vpon one as cheife, without power of ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves. All his testimonies are (as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense) farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares, the counterfeyt epistles of Cl [...]mens and Anicetus excepted, which he citeth, (cap. 2. sect. 3.) yet need I not except them, seing the first authour of them, was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie, as the Doctor wel knoweth. Wherefore the rea­der may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthy­mem; drawne out of the best of them, thus;

It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a li [...]le before, that parishes in cities and countries adioyning, were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie, and members of one Diocesan body: Er­go at the time of writing the Revelation, there were in every of the 7. Chur­ches, diverse congregations, which depended on one cheefe, without prower of government in themselves.

At length the Doctor cōmeth to the defense of his assumption, Sect. 23. ad sect. 7. def. pag. [...]2. 54. which affirmeth (as the Refuter truely gathered, from his own ex­presse [Page 199] words (serm. pag. 18.) that the 7. Churches of Asia, were great and ample Cities, and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyning [...], And because his Refuter told him (pag. 54.) it was faulty both in words and matter, the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously; but is not Not the Refut: but the D. is the cavil­ler, or at least slaun­derer. the D. rather an egregious caviller, at least a notable slanderer, if his Refuters censure be true? First for the words, I demaund againe (as his Refuter did before) who ever sayd that the Church of Ephe­sus was a great City? Who knoweth not, that the City, is one thing, and the Church an other? The D. cannot denie the later, but he la­boureth to excuse the former. If (saith he) he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper, had he not so much, neyther ar [...] (I meane rethorick or lo­gick) nor grace, (I meane charitie) as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope, or to explane my speach, by such an enunciation, as the nature of the argument doth require? Why; how could the D. expect so much, ei­ther art or grace at their hands, whom he estemed to be very weak­lings for learning or judgment; and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors; and such as being full of odious cen­sures &c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church? for so he speaketh of thē pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon. If therefore him­self discerned his owne speach to be improper, had he not so much (I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but) grace, that is prudence or charity, to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader; and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites, by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge? Had he re­membred that he was to prove, the Churches to be properly dio­ceses, he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes, would expect proper, and not improper speeches, to conclude his pur­pose. For how hangeth this reasoning togither, in the Doctors lo­gick? The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning; there­fore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly. they were properly Dioceses. Mutato genere predicationis, non va­let consequentia. It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth, who ever heard that starrs were angels? or that the cup is blood? because it is sayd in his text, the 7. starres are the angels; and Christ elswhere saith, this cup is my blood. If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour, old or new, that hath said as he doth, we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach. But when he further demaundeth, whither when he said, the churches were the [Page 200] cities and the Country, his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking (after that most vsuall metonymie) of the Christian people in the citie and countrie, nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him? I answere, in the Refuters behalfe, he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing, (where he speaketh of an intent and hope, the Apostles had, to convert the whole peo­ple of citie and countrie, by the Ministerie of the Presbyters, which they ordeyned in every citie, &c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe, that were already converted to the faith; the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him, for perverting his meaning. Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes: (as he had good cause) yet he stayeth not there, but contradicteth also the matter or meaning; notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so, as the nature of the argument did lead him, viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities, whether already converted, or to be converted hereafter, by the Bishop & presbyters of ech City; for so he seemeth to interpret himself (serm. pag. 19.) But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme, for then the simplest of his readers might have replied, that those Churches (for the present) conteined no more of the people, in City or Coū ­try, then such as were already brought to the [...]aith, which were (as his Refuter truely avoucheth, neither can the Doctor deney it) but a fewe, like to the nomber of Christians which was in London and the townes about it in Q. Maries daies; or which now is in Paris, or some Cities in Fraunce. Wherefore to say as he did, that the Churches were great Cities &c.) might better serve his turne (as the Refuter: judged) to dazell the eies of the simple, that they might thinke the people of those Churches to be (well neere if not altogither) as ma­ny The Doct. useth cun­ning in his purgation but yet in raine as the cities conteyned. Now the D. to purge himselfe from so foule an imputation thanketh God that he [...]s free both from desire and in­tent of dazaling the eies of the simple: but, (this notwithstanding) let the reader observe the cunning which he useth in this purgation. The intent of dazeling he disclaymeth; but he contradicteth not that which his re [...]: objecteth, vz. that he would have his reader to think, that those Churches contayned as many people as the cities did; onely he quarrelleth with him, pag. 54. for strayning his words to The D. quarrell is fond and causlesse. this meaning, as if he had sayd, that all the people in the citie and country had bene a [...] that time Christians; which is in deed a causles quarrell & [Page 201] a fond cavill, seing in the D: logick & divinity, here is a great diffe­rence betwene these two speaches. All the people of the citie & country were Christians, and, the Church conteyned within her circuite all the peo­ple of city and countrey: for though he reject the former as absurd, yet he maintayneth the latter for a sound position. Else why doth he not interprete himselfe to have spoken (according to an vsuall me­tonymy) of the christian people onely? q. d. The 7. Churches were the christians, which then inhabited the cities and countries adjoyning. Why doth he rather choose (pag. 53.) to explaine his meaning thus. The Churches were, (that is contayned) not onely the cities, but the countrie, and to illustrate his interpretatiō by such an instance as this. A man is not onely body but soul also: that is, man consisteth of body and soul; or, whole man conteineth these two parts: for if every of the 7. Churches doth so contayne citie and countrie, or consist of those two partes, as a man conteineth, (or consisteth of) soule and body: then both the whole citie and the whole countrie adjoyning, must necessarily concurre to the very essence or being of the Church; & consequently (in his estimation and vnderstanding) none of those Churches did consist of (or containe,) onely a fewe of the people (as a parte) of citie and countrie, but rather all in generall. Where­fore if he will cleare himselfe of that foule imputation, which he se­meth so farr to abhorre; let him deale plainely and disclaime his construction, he now inforceth (of conteyning both citie & coun­trie) and stick to the usuall metonymie, of the christian people in citie and countrie. So his arguments will stand in this forme.

Whatsoever Church in S. Iohns time was, or cont [...]yned, the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning: the same was properly a dio­ [...]ese, yea such a diocese as ours are.

But every of the 7. Churches of Asia was or contayned in S. Iohns time the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning. Therefore, every of those 7. Churches, was properly a diocese; yea such a diocese as ours is.

If it please the D. (in his next) to give allowance vnto this forme, his assumptiō will (perhaps) be allowed to passe, with some conni­vence till there be some good cause of calling it into question: but he will finde it a labour surpassing all his skill and strength, to make good the propositiō. Wherefore I have litle hope that he will make this exchange; seing he indeavoureth his best, to justify aswell the words as the matter of his first assumptiō aga [...]nst his refu [...]: excep­tions.

Concerning the words, first; is it (saith the D.) so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the citie should be given to the Sect. 14. ad sect. 8, pag. 53. Church? Let him looke back to Apoc. 1. 11. & he shall find that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna &c. I answere, the Ref: (how vnlearned soever in the eies of the D.) hath no need to learne at his hands, that the name of a citie may be (and with ecclesiasticall writers is) put, me­tonymicè, for the Church which was in that citie: yet will it not be very easy for the D. to shew us, that the Apostles used this phrase of speach in their writings. For when they speak (not of the place or citie it selfe but) of the Church seated in any citie, they usually ex­plaine thēselves by some such words as these. The Church which is in Ierusalem or Antioch &c. Act. 8. 1. and 11. 22. and 13. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Apo. 2. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. The Church of the Thessalonians, Smyrni­ans &c. 1. Thess. 1. 1. Apoc. 2. 8. and 3. 14. The Saints at Ierusalem Lidda &c. Act. 8. 13, 22. Ephes. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 2. As for the words of Apoc. 1. 11; (wherevnto he sendeth his Refuter to learne that the 7. Churches were Eph [...]sus Smyrna &c.) let him know, that he hath learning enough, to see that the D. glosse hath no warrant frō the text. The words are, k [...]ipempson tais e [...]clesiais tais en Asia, eis Eph [...]son, The D. glosse is without warrant of the text. kieis Smurnan, &c. And send to the 7. Churches which are in Asia, at Ephesus and at Smyrna &c for it is no strange thing to finde, [...]is put for en: and our latin translators (as the vulgar, Vatablus, Beza &c.) doe with one consent turne eis Epheson &c. Ephesi (vel Epheso) Smyrna &c. I wish the D. to see whether the Holy Ghost himselfe (the best interpreter of himself) doth not turne eis Epheson, eis Smyr­nan &c. Apoc. 1. 11. by en Epheso, en Smyrna, &c. Apoc. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. 14. And, as little skill as the Refuter hath in the tongues, yet hath he observed thus much, that when the Apostles in their writings, doe note the persons to whom any letter or mes­ [...]age is sent, they doe, either use the dative case, (as here tais [...]c [...]l [...]si­ais, so elsewhere humin apestale to you is the word of salvation sent Act. 13. 26. hon epempsa humin I have sēt Timothe to you 1 Cor. 4. 17. see the like Phil. 2. 19. Math 20. 16. Apoc. 11. 10.) or else they take the preposition pros, as when Paul sent Tychicus to the Ephe­sians, Colossians, he saith hon epempsa pros humas. Ephe. 6. 22. Colos. 4. 8. see the like Luk. 7. 19. Ioh. 16. 3. Acts. 19. 31. and 23. 30. Tit. 3. 12. As for the proposition eis in embassages &c. it doth alwayes [Page] note the place and not the persons, as may be seene in these and the like Math. 2. 8. & 20. 2. Luc. 15. 15. & 16. 27. Act. 10. 5. and 17. 10. and 19. 22. and 20. 17. 2 Tim. 4. 12. But this difference is most clearly to be discerned, where the persons and places are mentioned togither. Luc. 1. 26. 27. the Angel Gabriel was sent from God (eis polin) vnto a citie of Galile, called Nazareth (pros par­thenon) to a virgin &c. and 4. 26. vnto none of them (s [...]. the wydowes of Israel) was Elias sent, but onely eis Sarepta &c. (pros gunaika che­ran.) to Sarapta &c. to a widowe there. See Act. 9. 2. and 15. 2. in which last place as some translators take eis for en (as the Syrian in­terpreter, Vat [...]blus and the vulgar) so our english interpreters (elder and later) use a transposition of words, thus, to Ierusalem, vnto the Apostles & Elders; which transposition though they use not, neyther Apoc. 1. 11. nor Tit. 3. 12. (where Paul saith, make hast to come to me pros me, eis Nicopolin) to me, vnto Nicopolis, yet the meaning of the spirit of God in these later places, is the same with the for­mer; namely after the mention, of the persons to whom, to add the places also, vnto which repaire was to be made. And as the D. dis­cretion did see this, in Pauls speach vnto Titus (lib. 4. pag. 107.) to wit, that those words ( [...]is nicopolin) were necessarily added, be­cause else Titus should have ben vncertein; both where Paule was to be found; and whether he was to goe: so doutlesse (if prejudice had not blinded his eies) his discretion would have led him to see also, that those words ( [...]is Epheson &c. Apoc. 1. 11.) were no lesse necessarie, to give vnto Iohn sure direction, unto what parts of Asia he was to sende, and in what cities those Churches had their assemblies, vnto which he was charged to send, the things which were revealed to him. Wherefore, if his learning serve him, to adjudge it a most ab­surd collection, and a sensles perverting of the meaning of Gods spirit, for any man to say that the scripture testifieth Paul to be Ni­copolis, Tit. 3. 12. & the Apostles and Elders to be Ierusalem. Act. 15. 2. then may the indifferent reader very well wonder at the D. The reader may won­der at the D. over­sighte. oversight, in affirming (so confidently as he doth) that the 7. Churches were Ephesus, Smyrna &c. & that this is to be foūd Apo [...]. 1. 11. But 3; to give the D. the utmost advantage he can desire, from those words eis Epheson kai Smyrnan &c. Apoc. 1. 11; (viz. that they are thus to be interpreted, q. d. to the Church at Ephesus &c. and consequently that the name of the citie is put by a meto­nymy [Page 204] for the Church in the citie) how wil this warrant him to say, that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna &c. or rather (as at the first he sayd) that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities &c. It is well known that Achaia was a large countrie and contained sundrie provinces (see Aret: in Act. 18. 27. and Hiper: 1 Cor. 1. 1.) and when the Apostle sayth (2. Cor. 9. 2.) that Achaia war prepared a yeare agoe, for their benevolence to the Saints; it must be confessed that by Achaia, he meaneth (as he interpreteth him­selfe cap. 1. 1.) all the saints that were in all Achaia: yet were it a strange speach (and such as I suppose as the D. learned eares are vnacquaynted with) to say, that they whose harts the Apostle had prepared, were a large country and contayned many provinces.

But to proceed, the D. for a new supplie, telleth us, it is so vsuall with good Authors, speaking of Byshops, to say, they were Byshops of such or such a citie, that he might fill a volum with quotatiōs to this purpose. In deed, The D. hath filled his great volume, with quo­tations, to prove what no man doub­ted of, and leaveth the maine question without releefe. he hath filled a great part of a great volume with quotations and testimonies, that are to as little purpose as these which prove that no mā doubteth of, & left the mayn matter in questiō, destitute of all releife: for whereas he should have shewed, that it is usuall with good authors, speaking of the Ch: in the Apostles tymes to say (as he doth,) that they were great and ample cities, & not cities alone, but also the countries adjoyning: he wholly silenceth this point, and telleth us, that many good authors doe intitle the Byshops of succeeding ages Byshops of this or that citie, but he had reason to doe so; for the former is indeed so vncooth, that he hath not any one good author to cleare him frō singularity in an absurd phrase of speaking: but the later he found himselfe well able to confirme▪ and therefore (to send him home his owne words pag. 54.) ful so­berly he goeth about it, telling us, that he could fill a volume with quotations, but a few testimonie shall suffice, and very learnedly out of his reading he sheweth, that Eusebius saith Evodius was the first, and Ignati­us the second Byshop of Antioch, and th [...] Ignatius writing to Policarpus, stileth himselfe Byshop of Antioch. As if the Church of Antioch must needs be a great citie, because Antioch was so, whereas the D. him­selfe acknowledgeth, that for 200. yeares and more, it could scarcely be verefied of any citie or coūtry, that they were all Christi­ans. All the rest of his testimonies are not onely after division of parishes, (as himselfe sayth) but also after Constantines time, [Page 205] when whole cities with their countries adjoyning were subject­ed to the fayth, and therefore if they proved (as they doe not) that they had sayd, the Churches were then great cities; yet would it not have justifyed him, in so affirming of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time.

To come at length from the words to the mater of his as­sumption, whereas the Refuter told him, that the 7. Churches, Sect. 15. ad sect 8. pag. 54. and 55. and sect 12. pag. 62. could not conteine the people of those cities, because some fewe onely were true christians; the generality of them remeyning pa­gans: the D. not daring to contradict him herein, yet quarrel­leth with his proofes, and faine would maintaine (if he could) that the Church conteyned both citie & countrey though the christians were never so few. First therefore because he shewed out of Eusebius (lib. 4. cap. 15) that Policarpus Bishop or pa­stor of the Church at Smyrna, was martyred by the rage of the The D. scoffeth at at his Ref. and yet justifieth his asser­tion and condem­neth his owne. multitude, and that in the sight of his owne people: the D. (ha­ving scoffed at his learning & reading) addeth that which doth not onely justifie his Refuter assertion; but also confute his own. Every body knoweth (saith he) that in all cities and countries for the space of al­most 300. yeares, the Christians were persecuted by the Gent [...]les. Every bo­dy therefore knoweth, say I, that the Churches in S. Iohns tyme must needs consiste of a very fewe, in comparison of the rest; and therefore neyther were the cities the Churches, neyther did the Churches contein the people thereof. 2. Againe, whereas the Refuter added, that the Church of Smyrna writing of the sayd martyr­d [...]m of Policarpus, intitleth herselfe, the Church of God which is at Smyrna, & therfore asked, whether a whol diocese? or country of Christians di [...]habite Smyrna? the D. sayth, it is an obi [...]ctim scarce worth the an­swering, but yet vouchsafeth it a frivolous answer, vz. that the whole di­ [...]cese was se [...]ted cheefly in the citie, as the soule which is in all the bodie, is sayd to be in the head; and that though by the Church at Smyrna, we should vnder­stand onely, that part which did inhabite the citie; yet the [...]aming it the Church which is [...] Sm [...]rna, excludeth not the Churches in the coun­trye from being of the same body or diocese with it. Whereunto for re­ply, first to the last; what meaneth he to begg that which he should prove rather, (if he could) to witt, that there were The D. beggeth CHVRCHES in the Country, which were parts of the same body [Page 206] with the Church in the citie? for if this cannot be proved; the for­mer part of his answere is absurd, where he compareth the Church in the city to the head of the body. For it is a monstruous body, that hath eyther no body at all, or an head bigger then all the rest of the body. Moreover, to burie in silence his unseemly (may I not say blasphemous) comparison, in comparing a Diocesan Ch: seated in the citie to Gods sitting in heaven; how absurd is he in The D. cō ­parison is more then vnseemely & absurd. comparing the Diocese to the soule, which is in the head and in all the body besides? For what shall the body be (trow ye) if the whole Diocese be the soule? The city (he saith) is the head; the country parishes (belike) are the rest of the members; the citie and coun­try joyned togither, do make the Diocese: yet the Diocese is not the body; but the soule of the body.

Herevnto I may adde, that which is objected (pag. 55. of the Re­futers answ.) from the text of holy scripture. The epistles were dire­cted to the Angel of the Church in Ephesus, in Smyrna, &c. and not of E­ph [...]sus the Church, of Smyrna the Church &c. as if the whole cities were the Churches. The Doctors answere (pag. 62) is, that although the whole citie of Ephesus, meaning Civitas, was not the Church vntil it was wholly converted to Christianity; yet the whole citie (meaning [...]bs) was conteyned within the circuite of the Church, intended by the Apostles &c. neither is it material that the Church is sayd to have bene in Ephesus, seing, in urbe, the Church was cheefely seated, as was said before. I suppose the Refuter is not ignorant of that difference, which the learned hystorians put betweene urbs & civitas. Vrbs (ut M. Varro lib. 1. linguae latinae tradit) ab orbe & urno, quae pars est aratri deducitur: circum dividebantur enim aratro, loca extruendo oppido designata, & (ut ait Servius) sulco muri designabantur. Civitas autem tame [...]si pro urbe oppidove frequenter usurpatur, proprie tamen ipsa est civium koinonia et societas; moribus legibusque institutis gubernata; nam et hi qui passim tractu aliquo habitant, ijsdem legibus et insti­tutis usi, Civitas dicuntur Caesari. (sic habet Ioach: Vadianus in Epitome trium terrae partium pag. 34. & 35. Impress. Tiguri, An­no 1534.) But what use doth the Doctor make of this difference? The whole citie meaning Civitas (saith he) was not the Church till it was wholly converted to Christianitie. Well, then it seemeth, when he saith, the Churches were cities, he tooke not the word citie for civitas, which cheefly noteth the people that live in a communion togither. He [Page 209] then acknowledgeth, he tooke the word citie for that which is cal­led urbs; the walls and how [...]es within which, the citizens, for the greater part, were inclosed. If so; he sheweth himselfe too absurd, to be confuted with any other argument, then such as is framed in Bocardo. If not, we may then (with good leave I hope) conclude, that seing the Church of Ephesus was neythe [...] urbs nor civitas, ther­fore it cannot at all be truely sayd to be the citie, much lesse both citie and country. And to what use then serveth (if I may be so bold to ask once againe) that difference he yeeldeth betweene urbs & ci­vitas? Forsooth the whole citie m [...]aning urbs was conteyn­ed within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles. Well, and may not the same be sayd of the whole citie meaning ci­vitas? Else why doth he tell us, that when the Apostles planted pres­byters in every citie, they intended the conversion of the whole ci­tie and country by their Ministerie? Thus wisely hath the Doctor distinguished betweene urbs & Civitas, that what he affirmeth or A distincti­on without any diffe­rence. denieth of the one; the same in his understanding, must be affirmed or denied of the other. As for that he add [...]th, to shewe his under­standing of the text, sc. that the Church was seated (not wholly but) cheefly in urbe; eyther beggeth the maine question, (as before was noted) if he think there were some other Churches in the Coun­try, The Doct. beggeth, or else cō ­senteh to his refut: that were parts of the same Diocesan body; or he dissenteth not from his Refuter, if he think the Christians inhabiting some townes and hamletts in the country, did ordinarily assemble with those of the citie, for the publick works of Gods worsh [...]p.

Thus have we heard all that the Doctor can say in defense of his Sect. 16. ad sect. 8. [...]. 54. assumption, as he first delivered it, when he sayd, those Churches were great and ample cities &c. As for the change which he hath now made choise of, viz. that they conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning, he hath nothing else in defense thereof, then a naked repetition (in a manner) of that which was before delivered, to help the consequence of his reasoning: yet I will vouchsafe to mē ­tion it, least he should think better of it then it deserveth. If any mā ask (saith he) how it may be said, that the Church conteyned City and Coun­trye, when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen, were in eyther of both. I answere (as before) that the circuite of the Church or Diocese was the same, when there were fiwe, and when there were many, yea when all were Christians. His former answere (whereto he nowe referreth us) af­firmeth the circuite of the Churches to be the same, aswell before [Page 208] the division of parishes as after, (not actually but onely) in the in­tention of the Apostles or first founder. Which limitation he remē ­breth again in that answere, which was last examined in the former section. And if he doe here also vnderstand it, why doth he con­ceale it? Is it, because in those places he had not directly to deal [...] with his assumption, as now he hath; and he would not so plainely discover to his reader, how far [...] ▪ he goeth (in this defence) from the wordes of his assumption as he first layd it downe in his sermon? For, for this cause it seemeth, he chose rather to reject that clause, of great and ample Cities, whiles he was yet in examining the consequēce of his argument. And it had bene too much to lay before the eies of his reader at once, all three changes or alterations; that one of The D. hath 3. alteratiōs, but cannot defend one of them. turning were into conteined, when in stead of this they were cities, he saith, they conteyned the cities &c. is more then he can well defend. But before I come to trie the strength of his defence; I must a litle bet­ter [...]ifte the chaungling he giveth vs in steed of the former assum­ption viz. that the circuite of every one of these 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and countrie adjoyning. First therefore I demaund what he meaneth by citie and countrie? whether those parts of the ancient diocese, which he calleth paroikian kai choran (serm. pag. 25. and def. pag. 13. and 36.) that is the citie with the suburbs and the whole countrie subject to the citie? If so, then this whole circuite, (in his vnderstāding) was the circuite of every of those 7. Churches. But then, I demaund againe, did those Churches containe in their circuite, only the walles, dwelling houses and feildes, and not also the people inhabiting within that circuite? if he should either exclude all the people or include all, (the state of those times being such; that the generall multitude in all cities and countrey were Pagans, as he confesseth pag. 54.) he should contradict both himselfe & the truth which he delivereth, p. 3. & 5. where he saith, that ecclesia in all places of the new Testament (excepting Act. 19.) is appro­priated to the companie of the faithfull, and signifieth a companie of men cal­led out of the world vnto salvation by Christ, that is to say, a companie of Christians. Wherefore, as I will not doe him that wrong, to think he meaneth by citie and countrey, the houses and feildes onely: so if question be made, what people he incloseth, within the circuite of those Churches (or of the cities and countries, which, he saith, they contayned) vnlesse he will depart from the truth, and that with contradiction to himself, he must acknowledge that he meaneth [Page] none other, then the Christian people of those cities & the coun­tries adjoyning. And yet, if he limit every Church to so narrow a compasse, for the people which it conteined; who will beleeve him, (or how will he perswade and prove) that the whole citie meaning Vrbs (to use his owne wordes) and the whole countrie belong­ing to the citie, was conteyned within the circuite of the Church? for since the Church of any citie or place, is nothinge else, but the company of Christians there. If it be absurde to say, that a small companie of Christians (not an handfull to a great heape in comparison of the heathen, that filled citie & coun­trie) did containe in their circuite, an whole citie, with the whole countrie adjoyning: then is it no lesse absurd to affirme the same, of any Church, which is intituled the Church of this or that citie, yea, take all the people of any citie or countrie; who is so simple, but he knoweth that the citie and countrie containeth them, and not they the citie? Wherefore, though, all the people had bene con­verted to Christianity: yet had it bene a grosse error both in logick and philosiphie to say, that the Church did contayne the citie and the coun­trie. To leave then, the naturall and proper signification of citie & countrie: and to carrie the words by an usuall metonymie vnto the people (q. d. they cōteined citie & countrie, that is, the people of ci­tie & countrie) I desire to be informed from his owne mouth, whe­ther he meane those people onely, that had already receyved the fayth, or those also, that were in time to be converted? The former doth beste agree with that foundation, layd by him in this defence (chap. 2. sect. 2. and 3.) where he restreyneth (as before is obser­ved) both the name and nature of a Church vnto a company of Christian people, but so small a companie as at that time imbraced Christianity, will fall farr short of his purpose; not onely of conclu­ding the Churches to be properly dioceses; but also, of inclosing, within that whol flock or Church, over which the Presbyters were made Byshops, (Act. 20. 28.) the whole number of such as belong­ed to God, in citie and countrie; even those that should afterwards imbrace the faith, as well as those that made present profession ther­of, for so he vnderstandeth that scripture (serm. pag. 18. def. pag. 66.) and therefore inferreth (serm. pag. 19.) that the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed to whole cities and countries annexed, that they might both convert them, & feed them being converted: (as a litle after he saith, were provided, not onely for the cities [Page 210] themselves, but also for the Countries adjoyninge, which were converted or to be converted. Which words doe clearely shewe, that by the Cities & Countries (which at first, he said, were the Churches; now he saith were conteined in the circuite of the Churches) he meaneth all the 11. A contra­diction in the Doct. understan­ding of the worde Church, & a childish errour. people in generall, and not those fewe onely that were already con­verted. But in this construction of his words (besides an apparant contradiction with himself, in a maine principle of Christian doc­trine, which restraineth the name of a Church to a companie of Christian people:) he falleth into a childish error (farre vnbesee­ming a Doctor in divinitie) in breaking downe that partition wall, which all sound divines have set, betwene the visible Churches of Christe; and the invisible company of the electe, not yet brought home vnto the faith. For howsoever such as God appointed vnto life, and intendeth in time to call, are in his account members of his The D. as­sumption sensles & absurd: & his defense of it much more. invisible Church; yet it is against cōmon sense, as well as the groūds of true divinitie; to reckon them for parts of the visible Church, which as yet have had no manner of entrance into Christianity. In this sense therefore (which his sermon and the defence thereof aymeth at) I reject his assumption as an absurd and sensles positiō.

And the defense which he tendreth, is much more absurd, when Sect. 17. he saith, that the circuite of the Church was the same, when there were few & when there were many, yea when all were Christians. For vntill countrie townes were converted, and subjected to the over sight of the Bi­shop of the City adjoyninge; how could they and their people, be reputed parts of the Citie-Church, or inclosed within her circuite? Wherefore since it is confessed (serm. pag. 24.) that Country townes remeined heathenish for a time, after the conversion of the Citie; it must be confessed also, that the Churches circuite at the first, did not inclose the Countrie villagies, as it did afterwardes. Notwithstanding, to justify his former assertion; he alleadgeth, that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country, when all were Christians, then when there were but a fewe; the same Bishop of the City ha­ving jurisdiction, over all the Christians both in the City and the Country, aswell when all were Christians, as when but a fewe. He would have said, that the Bishops which succeeded some ages after in the same City, had the same jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country, when they were all converted to the faith; which the first apostolike Bishops, had over those fewe in the City & Country adjoyning, that [Page 211] first yeelded obedience to the Gospell. For he acknowledgeth (Def. pag. 54.) that it could scarce be verified, in any place till Constantines time (which was above 200. yeares after the Apostle Iohns daies) that all the people of City & Country were Christians. But with what bands can the D. tie togither these parts of his rea­soning? with what hands can the Doct. tie togi­ther the parts of his reasoning? The Bishops in Constantines time and after, had the like jurisdiction, over all the people of City and Country, that the first Apostolike Bishops, had over those fewe that first imbraced Chris­tianity. Therefore, the circuite of the Church was at the first, when they were but fewe, the same that it was after, when all became Christians. Is there not much more probability in this cōsequence? The Bishops in Constantines daies and after, had the like jurisdicti­on over all the people of City and Country, that the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe, which at first imbraced Christianity. Ergo, the circuite of the Church and Bishops charge, was farr lesse, whiles there were but a fewe; then it was when all the people of Ci­ty and Country were converted vnto the Christian faith. Which of these two hath more probability I leave to the indifferent reader to judge. Wherefore till the D. can make good the consequence of his reasoninge; all the proofes which he braggeth of for the de­monstration of his antecedent (the ancientest of them being after the first 300. yeares, as appeareth (Def. pag. 36. &c.) doe give just occasion of returning into his owne boosome that definitive sentence, which he delivereth against his opposites, viz. that the ge­nerall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome since the Apostles times, ought without cōparison to prevayle with all men (in perswading thē to acknowledge, that every Churches circuite, was much inlarged, by the generall conversion of all, in Cities and Countrey townes:) above the authority of a fewe, self-conceited persons (such as the D. and his associates) not so singular for lear­ninge, as they are singular in opinion: when they would make the world beleeve if they could, that every Churches circuite, was the same at first, when but a fewe imbraced the faith, that it was after, whē all the people of City & Country, were made members of one diocesan Church. If the D. shall flie (as to a Sanctuary) [...]o his former evasion, viz. that the Ch [...]c [...]uite cont [...]ined at the first both City & c [...]ūt [...]y, in the intētiō of the Apost or first founders, I haue enough already said, to drive him out of this starting hole, unless he cā provide some better for­fication, [Page 212] to releeve himselfe in this behalfe. But he supposeth, that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumptiō; by repairing the breach­es, which his Refuter had made, in the reason, which his sermon tendred in defence thereof.

His words are these, whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Church­es of Asia, numbreth but 7. and naming the principall, and (some of them) mother-cities of Asia, saith, the 7. starres were the Angles of the 7. Sect. 18. ad sect. 9. pag [...]5 56. Churches; it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Byshops. were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but the cou [...]tries adjoy­ning. From hence his Refuter drewe this connexive syllogisme; (an­swere p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbreth [...]ut 9. and some of them mother cities; then they were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone but the countries adjoyning. But our Saiviour &c. Ergo, Now the D. misliking the frame of this argument, referreth him to his former manner of arguing (sect. 2. pag. 42. 43.) where he shew­ [...]th how this lyllogisme is to be framed; and there we find a double proof layd downe in defence of his assumption, as he hath now sha­ped it, vz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuite the cities and countries adjoyning▪ the which he affirmeth to be proved, first joyntly thus, if the 7. Churches within their circuite comprized all the Churches in Asia; then all both in cities and countries. But the first is true: for our Savi­our Christ writing to the Churches [...]n Asia, comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall, and contayning within their circuite all the rest. Concer­ning the Doct. joyntly, let us severally observe: first that he concea­leth his conclusion; secondly, that he departeth from the words laid downe in his sermon: and thirdly that he followeth not his owne directions giuen for the reducing of an Enthymeme, or con­nexive argument, into a simple syllogisme, 3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting. 1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion, the reason is apparant: he con­cludeth not his assumption, which is in questiō. For his propositiō being such as it is, (vz. that if the 7. Churches comprized within theire cir­cuite all the Churches in Asia; then all both in cities and countries) his con­clusion must be this & none other; that the 7. Churches did com­prize within their circuite all the Churches that were both in the ci­ties and countries of Asia: a point farr differing, from that which himselfe proposed to prove; to wit, that the 7. Churches within their circuite conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning; that is, (as himselfe explaineth his owne meaning pag. 52.) the cir­cuite [Page 213] of every one of those 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and country adjoyning for the consequence of his proposition (as he hath proposed it) runneth more currant then it would; if he had sayd, as he should, thus. If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuite all the Churches in Asia; then every of those 7. Churches conteyned in her circuite, the whole citie with the country adjoy­ning. For here a man might very wel deny, the cōsequent; although he sawe better proof, then the D. hath brought, for the justifying of the Antecedent. 2. But when departeth he frō the words of his sermon, both in the antecedent, & in the prosyllogisme or confir­mation therof? when he said, that our Saviour writing to the Churches in Asia, comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall &c. For taking it for graunted that there were more Churches in Asia. then those. 7; and that our Saivour in writing by name to these, did intend vnder their names to write to all the rest: could the D. imagine that any man, which denie those other Asian Churches to be writen vnto, would upon his bare word, imbrace that which now he affirmeth? s [...]z. that our Saviour in writing to all the C ^hes of Asia, comprizeth all vnder these seven as being the principall, and conteyning within their circuite all the rest? This later (I graunt) is more direct for his purpose, I meane, to prove that those 7. chur­ches (at least some of them if not all) were Dioceses; in asmuch as other Churches were conteyned (as he supposeth) within their cir­cuite: but he (as often before) sheweth himself a notable trifler, in begging the question, when he taketh this for graunted, which, he The Doct. beggeth. could not but know, without good proof would never be yeelded: yet he dealt wisely in not attempting, what he could not effect; for if those Churches of Colossa, Hierapolis, & Troas, mentioned in the scripture, were not within Asia (as he mainteyneth pag. 61.) and if those of Magnesia & Trallis, recorded in other writers, cannot be 12. A contra­diction i [...] the D. proved (as he saith p. 62) to have bene Churches in S. Iohns time: all the world may wonder what records he wil bring to prove, that there were any other Churches in Asia▪ then these 7. which his text nameth? And yet unlesse he prove also that those other Churches (how many or fevve soever) vvere conteyned within the circuite of those 7. or some of thē; he must be much beholding to his reader, if he wil take his naked affirmation, for sufficient warrantise in this behalf. 3. And since he rejecteth that connexive forme of reason­ing, [Page 214] which his Refuter gathered naturally from his owne words; he might have done well to have practized here the lesson which he gave his Refuter (pag. 44.) for finding out of the right hypothesis, or thing presupposed, in a connexive proposition. But it was some what an hard taske, and therefore he would not put one finger to it: notwithstanding, that he may s [...]e how willing his Refuter is to learne, and how readie to give him contentment, in framing his ar­guments to his best advantage: the connexive proposition shall first be disposed in an Enthymem thus. Our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbreth but 7. and nameth the principall, Ergo, those 7. Churches (were great and ample cities &c. or since he will needs have it) conteined each of them in her circuite the ci­tie and countrie adjoyning. To bringe this Enthymem into a Syl­logisme, some little change of words must be made, either in the Antecedent, or in the consequent, thus. Whatsoever Churches are specially nūbred or named as principal, by our [...]av. Christ, when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia; those Churches did conteine each o [...] them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning. But the 7. Churches (mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20.) are specially nom­bred and named as principall by our Sauiour Christ, when he wri­teth to all the Churches in Asia. Therefore the 7. Churches (men­tioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20.) conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyninge. Or thus, whosoever writing to the Churches of Asia, numbreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall; he thereby signifieth that those 7. Churches contei­ned in their circuite, each of them, the citie and countrie adjoy­ninge: But our Sauiour Christ writing to the Churches in Asia, nombreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall. Ergo, he here­by signifieth, that these 7. Churches, conteined in their circuite, each of them, the citie & countrie adjoyning. Now to give the D. his choyse of these arguments, (not forbidding him to make a better if he can) since there is no certeine or manifest truth in the The D. dis­puteth by begging [...]. proposition, which conteineth the Hypothesis of his Enthymeme, we may from his owne rule conclude, that he disputeth sophistical­ly, and taketh that for graunted, which he cannot make good, while he hath a daie to live.

Thus have we seen how well he argueth to prove his assumption Sect. 19. ad. pag. 43. joyntly; let us now attēd a little, how he cōfirmeth it severally. 1. The [Page 215] Church of Ephesus (saith he) conteined a great and ample citie (in deed, metropolis, or mother citie) & the countrie subject to it. 2. the Church of Smyr­na a mother-citie and the countrie belonging to it &c. & so proceedeth frō one of them to another, to Thyatira, & Philadelphia, with their terri­tories. But where are his severall proofes, for these severall asserti­ons? It seemeth he is fallen in love with the trade of begging, and The D. beggeth, and is in love with the trade of begging else he would not begg. 7. times to g [...] ­ther. is growne past shame in it, (so as we may be past hope of dryving him from it) els he would never produce. 7. false positions, to con­firme his assumption before atteinted of falshood: For since everie of those cities, remeined, for the greater part, heathenish, in the Apostle Iohns tyme; it cannot be, that any of them did conteine the whole citie, much lesse citie and countrie. The truth is, each of these Churches was conteined within those cities, as a small heape of corne is conteined in a great and large barne. 2. And why doth he here also depart from the words of his sermon; which were that some of those 7. Churches; were mother-cities? doubtlesse he sawe, it was a verie slight and feeble consequence to reason (as he should have done) in this manner. Some of those 7. Ch: were mother-cities; Ergo they The D. de­parteth frō the words of his sermon. were everie of them great and ample cities &c. And had his Refuter thus analysed his words; it is likely the D. would have bin more offended, then he is with that forme which he used, in putting all his speach into one connexive argument. 3. But to take his argu­ment as he hath set it downe, what meaneth [...]e by the countries, which (he saith) belonged to every one of those mother-cities? Is it his meaning that the Ch: of Ephesus Smyrna &c. did conteine togi­ther with their cities, the whole provinces subject to those mother­cities? or doth he limit the countrie to that part onely, w ^ch made a particular diocese? The later best fitteth his first purpose, sc. to prove that every of the 7. Ch: was (properly a diocese: but the for­mer agreeth best, both with his own interpretatiō of his words, p. 63. when he saith, that some of those Churches were Metropol [...]is, that is, not onely mother-cities, but also metropolitan Churches: and with his for­mer speach, which affirmeth, all the Churches in the cities, and countries of all Asia, to be conteined in the circuite of those 7. Churches. Notwithstan­ding if this be his meaning, he playeth the Sophister, in his inducti­on. For by citie & countrie in his conclusion (which is the assump­on of his principall syllogism) he meaneth paroikian et [...]horan, which [Page 216] are the partes of a Diocese; and his meaning must be the same in the two last Churches, Philadelphia and Thyatira. Wherefore well hunge together his argument hangeth togither in this fashion. Of the 7. Chur­ches; 5. conteyned Mother cities & the Provinces subject to them: the other two conteyned Diocesan cities & the countries to them belonging. Ergo every of those Churches were of a like circuite and constitution, in conteyning a Diocesan country togither with the citie. But if that be true which he saith, of Philadelphia and Thyatira, that the one was subject to Sardis, th'other to Pergamus: then were the Churches of Philadelphia & Thyatira conteyned within the circuite of Sardis and Pergamus, as partes of the Country & Province subject to those cities. And hence it will followe that these 7. Churches, were not of one forme and constitution; but of differing condition; some being onely Diocesan, the rest metro­politan or provinciall Churches. So that, like as his first speach ge­nerally delivered of all 7. (that they were great and ample Cities) is now limited to those 5. mother Cities: (pag. 45.) so in his next defence, he may doe well to restreine vnto the same 5. Metropoli­taine Churches, that which now he affirmeth of all 7. viz. that they comprized within their circuite, all the Churches that were in Asia, whether in the Cities or in the Countries therevnto belonginge. But since the spirit of God, giveth equall honor to every of those Churches, & no prerogative to any one above another, his proofes had need to be very pregnant & demonstrative, that shall perswade the contrary. And this may suffice, to shew how little cause he hath, to bragg (as he doth p. 52.) that he hath made good his assump­tion The D. braggeth without cause. by necessary proofe: for in both his proofes (first joyntly and then severally) his antecedent is false, and his consequence sophis­ticall.

Let us now cast a look a little vpon his dealing with that frame of argument; to which his Refuter reduced the proofe of his as­sumption. Sect. 20. ad. sect. 9. pag. 56. And first, because he denied both proposition and as­sumption, he complaineth, (and very justly) that his hap was so hard, that scarce any one proposition or assumption in his reasoning might be acknow­ledged to be true. But he comforteth himselfe in vaine (as the issue hath already, & I doubt not wil hereafter shew) when he sayth, his re­futers happ is so hard, that he is not able to prove any one eyther proposition or assumption of his, to be untrue. To infringe the proposition, it is an­swered, [Page] that though it were graunted that our Sauiour wrote those epistles, to all the Churches of Asia; yet it will not follow that all the rest depended as children vpon the mother. For put the [...]ase, the Emperour finding some abuse commonly reigning in Asia, should have written to those principall and mo­ther-cities, for the reforming of those abuses, with intent that all other cities and townes, should be warned by his reproofe of them; might a man cōclude thereup­on, that all other cities and townes of Asia, were subject to the government of those 7? The D. reply is, that this put case is worthy to be put in a cap case; and therefore that all his readers may see he deserveth to have the [...]loak-bagge: he putteth a new case in this manner. But say I (quoth he) put the case the Emperour should so doe, with that intent, that what he writeth to them, might by and from them be notified, to those towns & villages, which were within the circuite of their jurisdiction: would it not strongly prove that all those other townes & villages were subject to thē? As if he had sayd, grant me but thus much, that all the rest of the townes and villages in Asia Will th [...] D. never cease cra­ving.? were within the circuit of the jurisdictiō, of those 7. Churches or cities: & then I can strongly prove, that they, were subject to them. He addeth some ex­periment from our selues; when the King or his Councell would have any thing intimated to all his subjects in certaine countries; their warrants are di­rected to the Leiftenants of ech countrie and from them the high to constables, &c. And when the Archbishop would have any thing imparted to every pa­rish, he directeth his letters to the Byshops, the Byshops to the Archdeacons, and they to their officers in every Deanry &c. (which sheweth a subor­dination of officers in greater and lesser circuite of jurisdiction) even (so saith he) by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the Churches; it may be gathered that the rest of the particular Churches were subject to them. And it may well be, that when our Saviour; writing to every one of the Angels severally, and concluding each epistle with this Epiphonema. Let him that hath an eare, heare what the spirit saith to the Churches, would have it vnderstood, that what he writeth to the Angel, he writeth to the Churches, which were vnder his charge. To all which I answer, 1. to make his similitude cleare and sutable in the later part to the former, he should have sayd, that Christ in­tending to admonish or reprove all the Churches in Asia, directeth his letters to the provinciall or metropolitan Churches; they to the diocesan, the diocesā to the particular congregations vnder them. Or else, that what he wrote, to the Angels of the metropolitan Churches, they imparted to the diocesan Bishops, & the Diocesan [Page 218] Bishops to Parishe-Presbyters. But then he should have assumed that which he cannot prove, neyther by Scripture, nor tradition; wherefore it is plaine that his similitude halteth downe right. 2. The D. si­militude halteth. And since the 7. Churches are equally written to; and the Angells of each Church are equally honoured with a several epistle directed to them; we may very well perswade our selves, that none of those Churches or Angels, was subordinate, or subject to the other. And therefore it was never intended by our Saviour Christ, or his Apos­tles; that the ecclesiasticall state should follow the civill, or that the Churches planted in Mother-Cities or Shire townes, should con­teine within the circuite of their jurisdiction, the townes & villages, or Country, subjected to the government of the City. 3. I also [...]dd, that though he could prove, that the Angels and Churches specially written unto by Christ, did impart the letters, unto o­ther Churches and their Ministers; yet would it not strongly but strangely conclude the rest of the Churches and their Ministers, to be subordinate or subject to those 7. Churches & their angels. For come we (for triall hereof) unto our selves and our owne stories. The Archbishop of Cāterburie in the dayes of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner, then Bishop of London, for the abolishing of candles, ashes, palmes, and Images, out of the Churches, with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie; a [...]d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write, (see his letters, Act. & Monuments, pag, 1183. last edit.) May I ask the Doctor nowe, whether this doe strongly prove, that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie, were subject vnto the Bishop of Lon­don, and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time? If he know the contrary, then I hope he will confesse, that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches, what he would have imparted to all the rest, doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these. 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant, let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge. It was Christs intent, in speaking as he doth to Peter, Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn. 13. 8. 10. & 21. 15, that the rest of his fellow-Apostles, should take notice of all that he spake [Page 219] to him, for the i [...] instruction and consolation. Ergo the rest were in subjectiō to Peter. Againe, the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection, and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen, Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen. Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth, writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia, yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he wri­teth to the Church at Colosse, he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans. Col. 4. 16. Ergo, the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse. And to the Church of Corinth, was not onely all Achaia, but all other Churches in the world subject, to her jurisdiction. But, who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed, if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning? 5. As for that Epiphonema, which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church. (Let him that hath an eare, heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches) if he had not first conceived that it would be some ad­vantage to his cause, to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did (every one of them) conteine many severall congregations within their circuite; he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words, as he now cōmendeth to us, viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel, he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge. For as he hath no ground for it; either from the coherence of his text, or from any interpreter old, or newe; so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him; seing as it is con­futed by himselfe; so it overthroweth one maine part of his building. Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe, in the ende of his table (pag. 5.) of the signification of the word ecclesia; where he taketh the word Churches, in the conclusion of each epistle, indefinitely for any company of Christians, not defining eyther the place or societie; whether of a nation, or citie &c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations, which were parts or members of that citie-Church, which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradi­ction? in the D. beginning of each epistle. And if there be a truth in his construction of those words, (viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel, he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge;) then [Page 220] those Churches were interessed with the Angell, in all that which is cōmended or reproved in him. And hence it will followe, that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered (as he conceiveth serm. pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135.) from the cōmen­dation or reproofe, given Apoc. 2. vers. 2. & 20▪ then the Daugh­ter-churches distinguished, either in City or Country adjoyning, were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof, in that corrective power over Ministers; which he labou­reth (in the places before alleadged) to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely.

Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition. In Sect. 21. ad sect. 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes, in asmuch as it cannot be proved, either that all other Churches in Asia, were written vnto, as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7; or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City. To make the vntruthes of the former apparant, he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia, distinguished by historians into Asia Major▪ Asia minor, and Asia more properly so called. Concerninge the first; because it is vnlikely, (or rather impossible) that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World (which was not much lesse then both the other) should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it; the Refuter professeth, he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that M ^r. Doct. would have us beleeve, that all the Churches in Asia Major (which conteined the great Kingdome of China, with the East-Indies, Persia, Tartaria and a great part of Turky) should be parishes, belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches. Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor; because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it, (as Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch in Pi­sidia, Perga in Pamphilia, and diverse Churches in Galatia;) he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Dioce­san Churches, as to imagine, that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore, to come as lowe as may be, and to vnderstand by Asia, that which is properly so called, and otherwise Sarrum; even there also or neere, we finde di­verse other Churches, as those of Colosse, Hierapolis & Troas mē ­tioned in the Scriptures, (to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recor­ded in other writers) which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare, that our Saviour intended not to [Page 221] write to all the Churches of Asia; but onely to those 7. that are na­med. Loe here the sum, & almost the words, of the Ref. answer touch­ing the first parte of the D. assumptiō: now let us see the parts of his reply. First, he chargeth him, either to be a man of no learning, or else to [...]vill against the light of his conscience: seing he could not be ignorant, but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps, is meant onely Asia properly so called. Secōdly he saith, he maketh a great flourish, part­ly to shew some small skil in Geography, but cheifly to dazell the e [...]es of the simple, in shewing how vnlikely it is, that the great kingdoms of Asia major, and the many famous Churches of Asia minor, were but dependants on those. 7. Thirdly to teach him (if he doe not knowe) that none of those countries were conteined in that Asia whereof the Ho. Ghost speaketh; he saith that by comparing. Act. 2. 9. 10. & 6. 9. & 16. 6. 7. and 1 Pet. 1. 1; he may find that manie parts of Asia minor, are reckoned as diverse countries, from that Asia, which is mentioned in the scripture. Fourthly he addeth, that if the Ref. would needs have shewen his skill in Geography, he should have done well, to have set downe the bounds and limitts of this Asia, whereof we spake. And because the Ref. should not prevent him, that he might have all the praise for skill herein, he vndertaketh to doe it. Fiftly, he cōmeth at length to refute, that which his Ref. ob­jected cōcerning those Ch: which he mentioned to be either in Asia, properly so called, or nere there abouts. Now come we to our an­swer: and first concerning the crimes, wherewith he chargeth his Ref. I appeale to the indifferent reader, whether the D. himselfe be not guilty of them? I meane, of labouring to dazell the eyes of the sim­ple, The D. is guiltie of what he imputeth to the [...] and of cavilling against the light of his conscience: seing it is cleare, the Ref. mentioneth the two first acceptions of the word Asia (not as though he were ignorant how it is to be taken; nor yet to perswade his reader, that the D. doth so largely streach it; for he professeth the contrarie, as before appeareth) but onely to fortify his argu­ment, whiles he sheweth that which way soever the word be taken; it cannot be, that all the Churches of Asia, should be reputed as parts of those 7. or subjected vnto thē. Next, touching the bounds of Asia properly so called, because it is a point of skill and can­not easily be determined, the D. to shew his varietie of reading, indeavoureth to reconcile the scripture and those that write of Geography, who varie from him (as he confesseth) in this point. [Page 222] According to the scriptures, in his account, Asia includeth Ionia, Mysia, Pergamene, Lydia, or Maeonia, and perhaps Caria. The ancient Geographers include within the limits thereof all Phry­gia, both the greater and the lesser, wherein Troy stood; and all Mysia, even the greater called Olympina, and the lesse called Per­gamene: which excludeth from that Asia, whereof Iohn speaketh: because Phrygia, and Mysia, Olympina, are reckoned apart from Asia Act. 16. 6. 7. For we are not to merveil (he sayth pag. 60.) that a lesse circuite is assigned to it in the scripture, seing within a lesse compasse then that which the scripture assigneth therevnto, it is circumscribed by others; which seclude from Asia, both Lydia and Caria as he sheweth out of the subscriptiōs in the Nicen councel, & from the speach of Eunapius, in Maximo. But what if Saint Iohn and Saint Luke followe different accounts for the bounds of Asia whereof they speak? A worthy writer (Ioa [...]himus Vadianus) who traveiled much in searching after the true and right situation of those townes and countries, which are mentioned in the new Testament (in his Epitome triū terrae partiū) intreating of Asia mi­nor properly so called, affirmeth that Peter (1, Pet. 1. 1.) & Iohn (in those 7. Ch: of Asia) doe follow the most usuall partitiō in that age received; the same which Ptolomy & P [...]iny set down; & that Luke, (Act. 16. 6. 7.) being lead by another division, which some also thē enterteyned, restreineth Asia within narrower limits. His words are these (in that epitome pag. 467.) Ptolomeus, lib. 5. Asiam pro­priè dictam includit a S [...]ptentrione, Bithynià, a meridie, Pamphy­lia et Lycia, ab ortu, Galatia, ac occasu, Aegeo mari. Quam partitio­nem vt receptam haud dubiè et eo seculo vulgatam, secutus vide­tur Petrus Apostolus. 1. epist. 1. 1. vbi Bithyniam et Galatiā, ab Asia sejungit, nimi [...]um hanc ipsam intelligens, quam Ptolomaeus. Vaeterum enim more, harum tantum regionum, quae cis Tau­rum in Aegeum & Euxinum patent, meminit, viz: Cappa­docie, Ponti, Galatie, Bithyniae, Asiae; ut intelligatur Asiae propriè. minoris esse, quicquid reliquum cis Taurum est, a predictis regi­onibus divisum. Enimverò et Plinius, quinti libri fine, initi­um Asiae de qua jam loquimur, a Lycie fine quondam sumptum esse, testis est. Idem et Iohannes secutus videtur, Apocalyp­sim suam septem ecclesijs Asiae inscribens (viz. Ephesinae, Smyr­naeae, Pergamenae, Thyatirenae, Sardyanae, Philadelphenae et La­odicenae) [Page 223] quae vniversae, Bithynia, Galatia, Pamphilia et Lycia, includuntur. At verò Lucas terras quae minoris Asiae sunt, pau­lo arctius definivit, et terminis contraxit angustioribus, haud d [...]biè et ipse conceptam aliquam et usitatam loquendi consue­tudinem suae aetatis secutus. And then setting downe the words of Luke, Act. 16. 6. 7. he addeth. Ex quibus verbis manife­stum fit, aliter Asiam accipere Lucam, quam Petrus aut Iohan­nes acceperit. Palam enim et Phrygiam et Misiam Asiae demit, cum per cas se profectum testatur, qui tamen Asiam ingredi ve­ [...]itus fuerit. Intelligimus ergo Lucam eam peninsulae partem, propriè Asiae tribuisse, quae ad occasum proxima mari, in Me­diterraneis Aeoliam et Lydiam supra Ephesum et Smyrnam cō ­plectitur. quam certè et Hieronymus specialiter Asiae nominè vo­cari tradit. Hujus partes erunt Ionia, Aeolis et Lydia, fortissimae et cultissi [...]ae omnium Asiae regionum, quae intra Maria, Euxinum et Cilicum prominent. To this testimony, I referre the Doct. because I hope, he will reverence his gray-haires and great rea­ding, though he lightly esteeme the Refuter for his small skill in Geography. And withall I pray the reader to take notice of this, that the Doctor presumeth all men will take his word for the limitts which he giveth to that Asia, whereof S. Iohn speaketh; for he disagreeth with both those accounts, which himselfe men­tioneth, in giving to Asia a lesse circuite, then the former, which include both Phrygia & Mysia major in it; and a larger then the later, which seclude both Caria, and Lydia from it. And though he seeme to grounde his opinion on the testimony of S. Luke in his story of the Actes of the Apostles; yet in truth, he departeth also from him, and so standeth singular in his conceit, without any to support or second him therein. For as he hath rightly, observed, Phrygia and Mysia to be distinguished from Asia by S. Luke, Acts 16. 6. 7. so he might by a better search have found, that Caria also is (in his account) divided from Asia. For it is re­corded by Luke, (Act. 20. 15. 16.) that Paul having determined not to spend any time in Asia, sayled by Ephesus, and therefore from Trogillium, he came to Miletum, and from thence sent for the Elders of Ephesus to come to him; which sheweth that Miletu [...] was not within Asia by his estimatiō; & therfore not in Ionia (wher­i [...] Ephesus stood) although many doe there place it; but in Car [...]a as [Page 224] [...]omy affirmeth; to whose opinion also, Ioach: Vadianus (ut supra.) in this point cleaveth. Now if Saint Luke doth exclude both Caria & Phrygia from his Asia; it will follow that Saint Iohns Asia is of a lar­ger circuite; in asmuch as it includeth Laodicea, which with Pto­lomy is a citie of Caria; but more generally is reckoned within Phrygia.

To come now at length, to his refutatiō, of that which is objected Sect. 22. ad pag. 61. of the D. by his Refuter why our Saviour writing to the 7. Churches, should not vnder them comprize all the Churches in Asia: the objection standeth thus, even there or neere, we finde divers other Churches, as thos [...] of Colossa, Hierapolis and Troas mentioned in the scripture (to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers:) which did not belong to any of these 7. The D. answereth, first touching the 3. former, that none of them was in Asia properly so called, whereof Iohn speaketh; because Troas (forsooth) was the same with Phrygia minor, and Hierapolis and Colossa were cities of Phrygia Major? Why is it possible that the D. who hath perused so many Authors both Geographers & others, should be ignorant, that Troas is not alwayes the name of a countrie (or taken for Phrygia minor) but sometimes the name of a citie in Asia, called Antigonie, or Alexandria? or is he so vnacquaynted with his Refuters opinion concerning the forme & nature of visible Chur. that he should conceive he would entitle an whole countrie (such as Phyrgia minor is) with the name of the Church of Troas; and Doth not the D. ca­vill against his owne consci­ence? joyne it with the Church of Colossae and Hierapolis, which he hol­deth to be but particular congregations▪ shal I say, that here also, he cavilleth against the light of his conscience? for can he thinke that Troas (which is mentioned Act. 16. 8. 11. and 20. 5. 6. and 2. Tim. 4. 13.) was the countrie of Phrygia and not rather, some ci­ti [...] Troas urbs marit. in littore Asiae Aret. in Act. 16. 8. in the sea costes, either of the same country or some otherwhere adjoyning? The truth is, (as the learned in Geography who have examined the townes and countries in S. Lukes history do [...] con­ceive) that the Troas which is pointed at in the forenamed places, was a citie in that countrie called Troas, as appeareth by Pliny lib. 5. cap. 30. 16. who placeth Alexandria in Troas; that is, the citie Vide dicti­nar: Histor Car. Step. in Alexan­dria [...] or towne of Troas in the countrie of Phrygia minor. Ioach: Vadi­anus (in his forenamed Epitome p. 487) intreating of those parts of Asia, which are called Aeolis & Troas, and having placed Assos (whereof Luke speaketh Act. 20. 13.) in Aeolis, he saith. Ha [...]d [Page 225] procul Asso, promontorium Lect [...]m attollitur, Aeoliam et Troada disterminans, Plinio. Inde Troas oppidum, Colonia Romana, et Apostoli etiam aetate Alexandria dictum, proximum Helles­ponto, & Tenedo Insulae, in ipsis Hellesponti faucibus jacenti; at (que) hinc Lecto, illinc Sigaeo promontorio septa. Ejus Lucas meminit Act. 16. 8. 11. c. 20. 5. 6. meminit ejus urbis, et ipse Paulus. 2. Tim. 4. 13. But as the D. saith) of Colosse & Hierapolis, w ^ch were cities of Phrygia major: for so he will affirme of Troas, a citie of Phrygia minor; that neither the one nor the other were within Saint Iohns Asia: because Saint Luke severeth Phrygia and Troas (that is in his vnderstanding, Phrygia major and Phrygia minor) from Asia, Act. 16. 6. 8. But the answere is already made, that the D. is de­ceived in taking Iohn and Luke to imbrace one and the same par­tition of Asia; for the limits thereof. The Apostles Peter and Iohn doe follow the most usuall vnderstanding of those that gave vnto it a larger circuite (as appeareth in reckoning Laodicea, a citie of Phrygia or Caria within Asia: and therefore the Churches mentio­ned by the Refuter (viz. Troas, Hierapolis and Colosse) being all within Phrygia, are inclosed in Saint Iohns Asia. But the D. hath some other evasions, which cannot yeeld him the releife he expe­cteth. It is recorded (saith he pag. 61.) by Eusebius (in Chron) that in the yeare of Christ 66. and 10. of Nero, these 3. cities Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colosse were overthrowne with earth quakes; and although Laodicea florished againe in S. Iohns time; and Hierapolis not long after; yet of Colosse as Calvine observeth, that shortly after the epistle written to them, that Church with the rest perished; so that it stood in S. Iohns time he readeth The D. shifteth not &c. A poore shift; for, to make the best of all the allegation for his purpose; it is no more then this; he neither readeth nor remembre [...]h any mention, of any Church at Colosse, i [...] S. Iohns tyme: nor of any Church florishing at Hierapolis, when he wrote his Revelation, and there­fore he thinketh that his Refuter might have spared the mention of these. And what if his Refuter should gratify him herein? yet hath he no reason to deny a florishing Church at Tro [...]s, and ano­ther at Miletum (a citie in the borders of Caria, which himselfe estemeth to be within S. Iohns Asia) since the Apostles made choise of that place, to call thither the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 27. and there left Trophimus behind him sick, 2 Tim. 4. 20. not to speak of Assos; where the writers of the centuries (Cent. 1. Lib. 2. [Page 226] Cap. 2. 16.) doe think there was a Church, because Paul was con­ducted thither from Troas (Act. 20. 13. 14.) there to meete his companions 2. Yet if that be true, which the Doctor saith, that Papias was made Bishop of Hierapolis by S. Iohn; let the reader judge, how vnlikely it is (which he would perswade) that at the writing of the Revelation there was no Church at all there; seing S. Iohn lived not above 4. yeares after: for he wrote Anno 97. & died (as the Doctor will have it) Anno 101. but in the account of some others Anno 100. 3. Againe what necessity is there in this conse­quence, which the Doctor taketh for vndeniable? Those 3. citie▪ were overthrowne with the earthquake, Ergo the Churches whic [...] there flourished before, did then perish with the cities. 4. And why doth he answere nothing touching the state of those Churches, whiles they stood in that prosperity, which the scripture ascribeth to them? Col. 4. 13. 16. & Act. 20 6. 7. If none of them then, did owe subjection to Ephesus, or any other of these 7. churches; how should they (or so many as remayned in S. Iohns time) become subordinate vnto them? When all is done, he must seek to his first answere, and see if he can make it good; viz. that they were with▪ in S. Iohns Asia. Wherefore he may in his next defense bu [...]ie this in silence as an idle flourish, to dazell the eyes of the simple, or to shew some smal skil in histories. He addeth one slender propp bor­rowed from Theodoret▪ to prove that Colossae was no part of Asia. Theodoret (saith he) being of opinion that Paul had bene at Collossae, proveth it, because it is said, that he went through Phrygia. Neyther l [...]t any man object that Paul was forbidden of God, Act. 18, for Luke speaketh of A­s [...] and Bithyni [...], not of Phrygia. I graunt that Phrygia was not within S. Lukes Asia: and I have proved that it was within S. Iohns Crambo bis imo sepius po­ [...]ta. Asia; and therefore the Doctors oft bringing in of his lame conse­quence, cannot make him any better, but the more loathsome rather. And to confute Theodoret (if he were more direct for him then he is) I could send him to Hierome, who (in his pro­logue to the epistle to the Colossians) saith Collossenses et hi, si [...] Laodicenses, sunt Asiani. Some other authorities also might be ad­ded, to sway the ballance with the Refuter; which accounteth those Churches (of Collosse, Hierapolis and Troas) within the li­mitts of Asia, properly (and in Saint Iohns vnderstanding) so

As touching Magnesia and Trallis, his answer is, it appeareth not that they were as yet converted to the faith, and when they were con­verted Sect. 23. ad p. 61. & 62. they were inferiour to those 7. which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subiect to Ephesus. If the Doctor had re­membred nowe upon his second thoughts, what he spake upon his first, (or at least wrote in his sermon, pag. 62.) he would ne­ver have vsed this poore shift: to make it a quaestion whether A poore shift in the Doctor. Magnesia and Trallis were converted to the faith, when Iohn wrote his Revelation: for there to proove that Onesimus was that Angel of Ephesus, to whom Iohn directed his first Epistle; he thus reasoneth. When Ignatius wrote his Epistle, he testifieth, that at that time Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus. Now he wrote, whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome, as appeareth by his first epistle ad Ma­rium Cassob. that is to say, betweene the 90. yeare of our Lorde and 99.; in the middest of which time, the Revelation was given. There­fore it may well be supposed, that the Angel of the Church at Ephesus▪ to whom the first epistle was directed, was Onesimus. Yea he build­eth so confidently on this supposall, that without any stagger­ing, he sayth he is able to shewe that Onesimus was at that time Bishop of Ephesus, as the very man whom the Holy Ghost calleth the an­gel of that Church (Defenc. lib. 1, pag. 34. and lib. 4. pag. 40.) With a little change the Doctors premisses will serve to justify the Ref: against himselfe in this manner. When Ignatius wrote his E­pistles, the Churches of Trallis and Magnesia flourished and enjoyed their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons; neyther were any thing inferiour in estimation and honour unto other Chur­ches; as appeareth by his Epistles written to them, and placed before others. Nowe he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome, that is, betwixt the yeare of our Lord 90. and 99. And S. Iohn wrote his Revelation in the yeare 97. Therefore it may well be supposed (yea it is so evidently proved, that the Doct▪ cannot contradict it) that the Churches of Magnesia and Tral­lis were flourishing Churches, when S. Iohn wrote his Revela­tion. 2. But we will not make an advantage to our selves, by the D. errour. For that which he now affirmeth (sc. that Ignati­us wrote his Epistle a litle before his death) is more agreable to the truth, if we may beleeve Eusebius (to whom the D. in his sermon referreth us for the better confirmatiō of his assertiō) seing Eus [...]bi▪ Lib. 3. cap. 35. [Page 228] affirmeth, that the epistles of Ignatius to the Churches of Ephe­sus; Magnesia, Trallis &c. were written in his journey towards Rome, as he passed through Asia; when he was sent thither to be martyred there, which fell out (by the D. owne account pag. 72. of his serm.) in the yeare of our Lord 107; but as others think, was later, to wit, in the yeare 109. or 111. (See Bucholcer Ind: Chrono. log. & Euseb: in Chron.) yet Nicephorus (lib. 3. cap. 2. refer­reth it to the 3. yeare of Trajane, which was at the utmost but 6. yeares after Iohns writing the Revelation. Wherefore since it ap­peareth by Ignatius his epistles to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis, that they were at that time (not newly converted, as the Doctor intimateth, but) perfectly established and furnished, aswel with Bishops as with other officers, (as is before noted) Let the reader judg whether it be not more likely, that those Churches had a beginning, at least of their standing at that time: then that they were not converted to the faith, as the D. would perswade; espe­cially seing they were within the Province of Ephesus (as he affirm­eth) which had so many helps to spread the faith of Christ though­out all the corners thereof, that he thinketh it absurd (as we sawe before in answ. to his 6. section & pag. 61.) that any man should make any scruple to yeeld, that many particular cōgregations were settled before that time, within the Diocesan circuite, of that Ch: of Ephesus. For is it not much more likely, that Churches should be erected, rather in some cities within the Province, thē in some vil­lages within the Diocese? and if in any cities, what are more likely then these wherof we speak? But what shall we say to the last branch of his answere, viz. that if they were Churches at that time; yet they were both of them subiect to Ephesus? These are his words, heare we now his proofes; and then give him his answere; it appeareth, saith he, by the sub­scriptions in the councell of Cal [...]edon; and by the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperor. Why? doth it there appeare, that Magnesia and Trallis at their first conversion, were subjected to the Church and Byshop of Ephesus? No, but it appeareth there, that in time of the councill held at Chalcedon and in the dayes of the Emperour Leo (both which were at least 350. yeres after Iohns death) the Byshops of Magnesia and Trallis, were subject to the Byshop of Ephesus, as their Metropolitane. And he taketh it for granted, that what soe­ver Churches were subject to any Metropolitan citie, or the Bishop [Page 229] thereof; in those times (of the Chalcedon councell and of Leo the Emperour, they were subject to the Church and Bishop of the same citie, from the tyme of their first imbracing the fayth. But what The Doct. beggeth of his Refuter in one place, what he denieth to himselfe in an other he now taketh for a knowne truth, in the next page (63) he shew­eth to be an apparāt falshood: for there he affirmeth that Thyatira was in S. Iohns time subject to Pergam'; but in the time of the coū ­cel of Chalcedō subject to Synada, & in the Emperor L [...]os dayes, sub­ject to Ephesus. And in the same Emperours dayes, Pergamus w ^ch anciently had bene a Mother-citie, was now subjected also unto Ephesus. Wherefore he himselfe hath said enough to infringe the consequence of his owne reasoning. viz. that the Churches of Ma­gnesia and Trallis were frō the first erection, subject to the Church of Ephesus; because they were so subjected 350. yeares after S. Iohns dayes. Perhaps he exp [...]cteth (as it seemeth by his conclusi­on in this section, pag. 62.) that his Refuter should prove the cō ­trary; but he is forgetfull and must be remembred, that in all this controversie he is the opponent, and his Refuter the respondent: & therefore without reason expecteth it; yet to let him see, that his Refuter was ledd by reason, and not by idle conceits, I will tender him these probabilities. 1. In the civill distribution of provinces, and administrations for government, Philadelphia was subject to Sardis & Thyatira to Pergamus, as he noteth pag. 63. out of Pli­nie, lib. 6. cap. 29. and 30. but in ecclesiasticall government the Churches of Philadelphia, and Thyatira, were nothing inferiour to Sardis & Pergamus: for they were all honoured with the name of candlesticks, and Churches, in the middest whereof Christ walked. Apoc. 1. 11. 20; and their Angels equally dignifyed, with the name of starres held in Christs right hand, vers. 16. 20. and equally salu­ted by a severall epistle directed to them. Cap. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. & 3. 1. 7. 14. none is reproved for the defaults of the other, but his own; none admonished to oversee the other, or to be subject to an other. Wherefore unlesse some other reason can be alleadged, then the D hath yet found out) it may be esteemed for a truth not to be dou­bted of, that the Churches of Magnesia & Trallis, were not subjec­ted to the jurisdiction of the Church or Bp. of Ephesus; although for civil government, they were within that Province. 2. And if there had bene any such subjection, or subordination in these Churches, who shall better knowe it, and who more [...]tt to have intimated it: [Page 230] then Ignatius who wrote to every of those Churches? I meane to Trallis, Magnesia, & Ephesus. But there is not the least shadow of any such thing to be gathered from his writings; nay the contra­ry rather seemeth firmely to be collected frō that preeminence, w ^ch he giveth to the Bp. of each Church, as the highest Church-officer under Christ; even in those words which the D. urgeth for his su­periority above other Ministers. Epist. ad Trall. Quid episcopus, nisi principatū omnem supra omnes obtinens. And ad Philadelp. as he injoyneth the whole clergie and laitie (even the Princes & C [...] ­sar) to obey the Bishop: so he subjecteth the Bishop to none other, then to Christ. Episcopus Christo (obediat) sicut Christus patri: et ita unitas per omnia servetur. Which wordes doe prove most clearely, that in his time no Bishop, yeelded subjection to another, as his Metropolitan or head. And therefore neither was Demas thē Bishop of Magnesia, nor Polybius of Trallis, any more subject to Onesimus the Pastor of Ephesus, then he was to eyther of them. So that the Refut: confident conclusion, standeth firme against all the D. attempts to shake it; that our saviour did not under the name of these 7. Churches, write unto all the Churches of Asia; in as much as, those famous Churches, of Troas, Colossae, Hierapolis, Miletus, Magnesia and Trallis, (which then flourished in Asia) did no way depend on any of them.

Thus the former part of his assumption remaineth guilty of that Sect. 24. 2d sect. 12. p2. 62. 63. untruth, wherewith the Refuter charged it: And so will the later al­so, lye still vnder the burthen of that falshood, which is ascribed to it. For if none of them were cities; (as hath bene sufficiently main­teyned already, against the Doctors allegations) how could any of them be Mother-cities? Yet he vndertaketh breifly to declare, that some of them were Metropoleis, that is, not onely Mother-cities, but also Metropolitan Churches. Where first we are to marke the Doctor his, not onely, but also. as if it were a small matter to affirme and prove, that some of those 7. Churches were Mother-cities, he can easily mainteyne that; and for an overplus, he will prove, (which is a mat­ter of more difficultie, and not so easily enterteyned) that they were Metropolitan Churches. Well, let his proofes be heard, they are absolutely denied to be Mother cities; and though some of them may be graunted to be Metropolitan Churches, if thereby nothing else be meant, then that they were such Churches, as were seated [Page] in a Metropolis or mother-citie; yet in the common-vnderstan­ding of our age, which esteemeth them onely for Metropolitan Churches, that have diocesan Churches subjected to them, they may also be denyed to be Metropolitan Churches, and it may be held as false as the former. Those cities saith he, which were capita dioi­ke [...]n, the heads of the civile jurisdiction, where the presidents of the Romane Provinces held their assemblies and kept their courts, were mother-cities to the rest which were vnder the said jurisdiction: But such were. 5. of these &c. May I aske him, what he meaneth by these? what; the cities after­named? Which way soever the D. tur­neth, either he conclu­deth not the questi­on, or is absurd. viz. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Sardis & Laodicea or the Churches seated in those cities? If cities; then he concludeth not the question, for it never entred into the Refuters thought, to deny the cities of Ephesus Smyrna &c, to be mother-cities. If he meane, that the Churches in those cities were heads of the civill jurisdicti­on, &c. he is absurd, who will beleeve him? and he abuseth Pliny, for he speaketh of the cities and not of any Churches seated in them. His argument therfore is none other then this. The cities of Ephesus Smyrna &c. were heads of the civill ju­risdiction, as Pliny testifieth: But the Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna were the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna &c. Ergo th [...] Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna &c. were the heads of the cities jurisdiction: and consequently mother-cities. Thus he justifi­eth one falseshood with another, a lesse with a greater; and for The D. justifieth one fals­hood by another, so well per­formeth he his first promise; his second he forgat want of better proofe, he recoileth back to his first assumption be­fore confuted, to wit, that the Churches of Ephesus & Smyrna &c. were the verie cities. And thus we have heard all that he can say, to shew that some of these Churches were mother-cities: he pro­mised also to prove that they were metropolitan-Churches; but either he forgot it; or he thought it better (in policie) to over­passe it, then to meddle with it. For, vnlesse he could prove that the Angel and Church of Thyatira, were subject to the Angel and CHVRCH of Pergamus: and likeweise, that the Church of Philadelphia and her Angel, were subject to the Angel and Church of Sardis: (which were to controwle and contradict the text of scripture which equalleth them one with the other) it were in vaine to affirme, and indis­cretion to vndertake to prove, that any of these 7. Churches were metropolitan Churches.

And this may suffice for refutation of all that he hath sayd in defence of that one and onely argument, which he proposed, as grounded on his text, to prove that the Churches were properly dioceses. That which followeth in his serm. pag. 18. touching the course which the Apostles tooke for the converting of any nation (viz. first to preach the gospell in the cheife citie thereof and after the conversi­on of some fewe, to ordeine Presbyters, in hope by their M [...]nisterie to conver [...] the rest,) was carried by the Refuter to conclude (by a new prosyllo­gisme) the maine point of the former argument, to wit, that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities, with their countries ad­joyning? And he had reason so to referre it, because he found both pointes thus knitt togither, it cannot be denyed that the Churches whereof the Angels were Bishops were great and ample cities &c. For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation, first prea­ched to the cheife-cities &c. But because the D. changeth the Analysis, and carrieth it from the particular question of the 7. Churches, to the generall Thesis, which his sermon proposeth (touching all the visible Churches, which florished, aswell in the age following the Apostles; as in their owne times) I will, for the present, passe by it whiles we are to examine, what he alleageth more directly to con­clude, his explication of the text, that he handleth; to witt, that the Angels of the 7. Churches were diocesan Byshops, such as ours are which is the third point of his 5. mentioned in his sermon, and handled in the 7. chap. of this booke, and wherevnto perteineth the handling of that 3. & 4. sect. lib. 1. cap. 2. which there was re­ferred to this place.

Cap. 2. Concerning the number of the angels mentioned in the text, and whether they were Diocesan Bishops.

We are nowe come to examine how well the D. opened that doubt, which his Refuter tolde him, (answ: pag. 3.) he either did not or would not see. The doubt is, whether by the Angel of the 7. Churches, Sect. 1. ad sect. 3. and 4. cap. 2. lib 1. of the. def. pag. 31 32. 33. 34. be meant 7. singular persons onely, which were 7. cheife Pastors or Byshop [...] in those Churches; for in his sermon he had taken this for graunted, as if there were no question to be made therof; now though he & Bishop Bilson also (as his words shew; perpet. govern. p. 235. 289) are therein very bold, yet least the Refuter should seeme to be void [Page 233] of reason in tendring this doubt, he putteth the D. in mind, that the Holy Ghost doth not (in the vnfolding of the mysterie of the 7. starres and. 7. candlesticks) so precisely limitt, the nomber of the Angels, signified by the starres, as he doth the Churches figu­red by the candlesticks: and therefore urgeth the D. in this man­ner. If M. D, will needs have these Angels to be diocesan Byshops, he must giue us, at least, some likely reason, why the Holy Ghost limiteth not the nom­ber of the Angels, aswell as of the Churches to 7. and no more: which [...]e spake to provoke him, (if he meant to defend his sermon, and the argument which he draweth there, for the justifying of our dioce­san Byshops in their function) to giue us some probable reason; why the Ho: Ghost hath not so clearly limitted the nūber of the an­gels to 7; as he doth the nūber of the Chur. But albeit the D. took notice of those words of the Refuter, yet hath he not yeelded (in al his defense) any shewe of reason, to give to his reader or Refuter any satisfaction in this point, neyther answereth he directly to that which his Refuter objected; but in his name setteth downe such a Th [...] D. dealeth deceitful­ly. frame of reasoning, as might best serve his turne, both to divert his reader from expecting any such matter at his hands, as was de­maunded; and to perswade, that his Refuter reasoned over-weakly, to prove that the number of Angels was not limitted. In which la­ter point, (not to insiste vpon the former) whosoever judiciously compareth the Refuters owne words with those which the D. as­cribeth to him; he may soone discerne how deceitfully this D. dea­leth. For 1; whereas the Refuter (in viewing the whole verse where­of his text is a part) observeth that the Holy Ghost doth not so plainely and expresly limitt the number of Angels vnto 7. as he doth the number of the Churches; the D. not daring directly to contradict this assertion; (for if he should have affirmed, that the number of the Angels, are in the words of his text, limitted to the number of, 7; as plainely as the number of Churches, are in the words following; every child might have seene that he falsified The D. clippeth the Refu­ter words and pre­venteth his pur­pose. his text; therefore) he giueth his Refuters a more generall propositi­on to prove; to witt, that the Holy Ghost hath not (at all, any where, or any way) limitted the Angels to 7. And secondly, that he might the easilier drawe his partiall readers to apprehend the weaknes of his Refuters arguments, he blusheth not both to clipp his words, and pervert his purpose. He clippeth his words [Page 234] in making him to speak peremptorily, that the Holy Ghost would have said, the 7. starrs are the 7. Angels &c. whereas he speaketh compara­tively, The Doct. clippeth the refut: words and perverteth his purpose & by way of probabilitie, that as it is said. The 7. candlestick [...] are the 7. Churches; in like manner the Holy Ghost (it seemeth) would have said, The 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, in case, he had intended to signifie no more but 7. Angels. He perverteth his purpose, in drawinge this speach to prove the former, which (being taken as it was ment) needeth no proofe. For the words of the text doe shewe, that the nomber of 7. is not given to the Angels, in such expresse termes, as it is to the Churches. This therefore being in it selfe evi­dent, the Refuters meaning was, from hence to inferre a probable reason, to prove that the Holy Ghost, in explaninge the misterie of the 7. starres, had no intent to teach, that the Angels signified by those starres, were. 7. persons onely, and no more. His reasons may be thus disposed.

• If the Holy Ghost hath not limitted the number of the Angels to 7. by say­ing the 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the Churches: then it seemeth, he inten­ded not to signifie that they were but 7. and no more.
• But he hath not by so speaking limitted their number to 7.
• Therefore it seemeth, he intended not to signifie, that they were but 7. and no more.

The consequence of the proposion (being the onely point that can be doubted of) is confirmed by this prosyllogisme.

• If the Holy Ghosts meaning to limit the nomber of the Churches, be cleare­ly discovered, by twise mentioning the nomber of 7. Churches, (in saying that the 7. starres are the Angels of the 7. Churches, and that the 7. candlesticks are the 7. Churches:) then it seemeth▪ he would have saide the 7. starrs are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, in case he had intended to signify no more but 7. angels.
• But the former is evident: Therefore the later cannot be denied.

To all this the Doct. giveth no other answere, then (in pag. 32) that the Holy Ghost hath more plainely limitted the number, then if he had said so. For if he had said, they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, a captious Sophister, would have expounded, septē. 7. by septeni, seven a peece; but when he saith. The 7. starrs are the angels of the 7. Churches, he plainely signifieth, that there were iust so many of them, as of the Churches. But hath this Doctor (think you) any fellowes among men of his degree and learn­ing, [Page] that will subscribe to this answere, and say as he doth, that the words of his text doe plainely signify, that there were just The Doct. hath not many fel­lowes in shifting. so many of the angels as of the Churches, and that they doe more plainely limit the number of 7: then if it had bene said. The 7. starres are the 7. angels of the 7. Churches? Or did it ever en­ter into the heart of any other, who agreeth with him in the in­terpretation of his text, to imagine, that the Holy Ghost did therefore say, that the 7. starres were the angels (rather then the 7. angels) of the 7. Churches; because he would give no occa­sion to any captious Sophister, to expound [...]eptem by septeni, so to co [...]clude, there were just 7. in every Church? When the Holy Ghost saith (1. Regum. 20.) that the King of Aram had in his army 32. Kinges with horses and chariots, and went up with them to beseege Samaria; if the Refuter should d [...]ny the num­ber of the horses and chariots, to be just 32. as were the Kings there mentioned: it seemeth that such a captious Sophister as the Doctor is, would be ready to contradict him, and to answer; that the number of horses, in that army is more plainely limitted to the just number of 32; then if it had bene said, that those 32. Kinges had 32. horses; for if it had bene so sayd, the later number of 32. might have beene expounded by 32. a peece. But why strive I to discover the vanitie of the Doc­tors false and captious shifts, which lye open to the viewe of all that are not blinded with over grosse partialitie?

Since therefore it is apparant that his text limitteth not the number of Angels unto 7, as it doth the Churches; there is no reason he should so lightly overpasse those things from thence inferred by his Refuter as he doth saying, (pag. 33.) It is not materiall what the Refuter in [...]erreth from the not [...]mutation of them. Let the reader weigh the inferences with his answeres to them and then judge. The inferences are these, That the Hol [...] Ghost in not limitting them to any number, woulde have vs to vnderstand. 1. that there was moe angels or Bish [...]ps then 7 in these Churches (as that place. Actes 20. 17-28. concerning Eph sus sheweth) and conse­quently they were not Di [...]s [...] Bishops. 2. Where the [...]s [...]ription of every epis [...]le written to these Churches, is to the ang [...]l in th [...] singular num­ber; it must not be taken literally for one onely, but figurativ [...]ly, and by a sy­ne [...]hdoche, the si [...]gular for the plural [...], for more th [...]n one. But because [Page] there is a vaile that hideth the light from his eyes, though he i [...] scoffe desyreth his Refuter to helpe him remove it; yet will I yeeld to his request in good earnest, and afford him some help, by refu­ting his arguments produced which hung in his light, and where­by he perswadeth himselfe (as it seemeth) the Angels of those Churches were just 7. and no more, which done: his Refuters in­ferences will stand good for any one word he hath said to the con­trarie. His first argument is thus framed by himselfe.

The starrs which Christ held in his right hand, were just. 7, or limited Sect. 2. to the number of 7. Apoc. 1. 16. and, 2. 1.

The Angels of the 7. Churches, were the starrs which Christ held in his right hand Apoc. 1. 20.

Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. or limitted to the number of 7.

A word or two to the assumption, and then three or foure to the whole argument. The assumption is false and not proved by the place quoted, which saith, that the 7. starrs are the Angels of the 7. Churches, and not as the assumption saith, the Angels are the 7. starres. And I hope when the D. shall consider it, he will finde (not that they are all one, but that) there is a great difference betwene them. For when it is said, the 7. starrs are the Angels, it is a metonymie of the adjunct, as if it had bene said, the 7. starrs doe signifye the Angels of the 7. Churches: but so it cannot be said, that the Angels sig­nifie the starrs: These 2. sentences therefore are not all one, there is a sallacy in the aequivocation.

To the whole argument I shall need say little more; for if the D. will but draw the curteine and looke a little vpon these argu­ments which are of the like forme and figure; he may without any further helpe or more a doe, discerne the deceit of his owne ar­gumentation.

1. The ramme which Daniel sawe (cap. 8. 3.) was one onely individu­um or singular thinge.

The Kinges of the Medes and Persians were that ramme vers. 20. There­fore the Kinges of the Medes and Persians, were one onely individuum or sin­gular thing.

2. The hornes which Zacharie sawe (cap. 1. 18.) were just 4. or li­mited to the number of 4. so were the Carpenters which he sawe, vers. 20.

But they that scattred Iudah were those hornes; and they that frighted them away, were the Carpenters.

Therefore, they that scattred Iudah were just 4 persons, or limitted to the number of 4. and so were they also that frighted them away.

3. Aholah and Aholibah were two weomen, the daughter's of one mother &c. Ezech. 2. 3. 2 3. 4.

Samaria and Ierusalem were Aholah and Aholibah vers. 4,

Therefore Samaria and Ierusalem were two weomen the daughters of one mother, &c.

4. The wise virgins which tooke oile in their lamps to meete the Bride­grome were just 5. or limitted to the number of 5. So were the foolish virgins which lacked oile in their lamps, Math. 25. 1-4.

But the syncere professors of Christ and his truth are the wise virgins, and the profane or hypocriticall professors are the fo [...]lish virgins (as all agree in their comments.)

Therefore the syncere professors of Christ & his truth are just 5. or limit­ted to the number of 5. And so are the profane or hypocriticall, &c.

Thus I could goe on, a tribus ad centum, but by this time, I hope, the D. seeth the aequivocation which lyeth in his owne ar­gument: for either he lacketh the word starrs in a double sence, to witt, for the tipe in the proposition, and for the antitipe or thing signified in the assumption; or else (and rather) the aequivocation lieth in the word were, which in the proposition is taken, substantiue, but in the assumption significatiue. For seing himselfe doth thus in­terprete his text (serm. pag. 2.) The 7. starres are (that is, doe signifie) the Angels of the 7. Churches, his assumption is false, vnlesse it be thus vnderstood, q. d. The Angels of the 7. Churches, were signified by the 7. starrs, which Christ held in his right hand. And if it be so vnderstood; then to avoide foure termes, (which marre the fashion of his argu­ment) the proposition must be thus changed. The persons whose Mi­nisterie is represented by the 7. starres, which Christ held in his right hand are just 7. But this is so grosse an vntruth; that the D. cannot but see it, and unlesse there be an other vaile to shadowe him wil be asha­med to avouch it; much more to alleadge the words of the Holy Ghost (Apoc. 1. 16. & 2. 1.) to mainteyne it; seing he acknowledg­eth all the Ministers of the gospel to the worlds end, to be, by their office, starres and shining lights (so his sermon of the dignitie of the Ministers, p. 61.) And in this sermō in quest. p. 55. he saith of Dioc: [Page 238] Bishops in generall that they are starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand; yea he affirmeth the same of our Bishops at this day (pag. 98.) Wherefore there being no need of any longer discourse, to remove the vaile of this first argument, I might here proceed to the second. But before I come to it, (to prove the contradicto­rie to his conclusion, I thus reason;

All the Ministers of the word that had charge to feed and oversee the Christian people, in those 7. Churches, were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand.

But all the Ministers of the word, that had charge to feede; and oversee the Christian people, in those 7. Churches; were more then 7. singular persons onely. Therefore the persons signified by the starres, which Christ held in his right hand, were more then 7. singular persons onely.

The assumption needeth no proofe, (more then what is after gathered from Act. 20. 28.) since it is of all our adversaries ac­knowledged, and the deniall of it is the utter overthrowe of their whole building. For how should this text justify the superio­ritie of Bishops above other Ministers; if there were not diverse Ministers in each of these Churches, subject to one Bishop? And if there were but onely 7. angels, (that is Bishops) in these 7. chur­ches, there was then but one onely angel or Bishop in each severall Church; but it is cleare by that place of the Acts, that there was more then one in that Church of Ephesus, seing it speaketh of Bi­shops in the plurall number ordeined, and set over that Church by the Holy Ghost; and it must needs be with the rest of these 7. as it was with it, and others, Phil. 1. 1. Act. 13. 1. 2. & 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5.

The Proposition is a truth not to be denied, seing it is also con­fessed by the Doctor (serm: of the dignitie of the Ministers, pag. 46. and 61.) and easy to be proved, if any man else should gain [...] say it. For 1. the true reason, why the name of Starres is vsed to signify the Ministers of God, and to explane their function is this, viz. that as the starres are set in the firmament to shine upon the earth (Gen. 1. 17.) and to governe the night: (Psal. 136. 9.) so it is the office of the Ministers in generall (& not of Diocesan Bishops in particular) to shine as lights vnto the Churches in all puritie of doctrine and holynes of conversation (Mat. 5. 14. 15. Ioh. 5. 35. Phil. 2. 15. cum cap. 1. 1.) that men which naturally are in dark­nes [Page 239] (2. Cor. 4. 6. Eph. 5. 8.) may have their hartes enlightened & converted, Act. 26. 18. Dan. 12. 3.) and still directed in the way of obedience. Psal. 119. 105.) Wherefore since it is the office and du­tie, of all Ministers in generall, thus to s [...]ine and enlighten others; it must needes be granted, that the name of starres doth equally a­gree to all. 2. And in this sense the word is vsed, when it is sayd, that the third part of the starres was darkned (Rev. 8. 12.) & that the Dragons taile drew, the third part of the starres of heaven, and cast them to the earth, (Rev. 12. 4.) For hereby we are to vnderstād the corruption and apostacie (not of Bishops & Archbishops one­ly, but) of preachers & Teachers in generall; which in huge heaps and multitudes, were drawne to imbrace & teache, haeresy, super­stition, and idolattie. 3. Moreover, although it be so with the Mi­nisters of the word, as it is with the starres, that (as one starre dif­fereth from an other in glory. 1. Cor. 15. 41. some here excelling others in guifts and labours, (1. Cor. 12. 4. 11. & 2. Cor. 11. 23) shall also exceed them hereafter in glorie: (1. Cor. 3. 8.) yet it no where appeareth in holy scripture, that the name of starres is given to any one degree, or order of Ministers; much lesse appropriated to the episcopall function, to declare their preheminence, digni­tie or advancement above other preachers. 4. Neyther is that gra­cious protection and safetie which is assured to the Ministers of Christ (by his holding the 7. starres in his right hand. (Rev. 1. 16. 20. & 2. 1.) any priviledge proper to Bishops, but a favour which he communicateth to all, that faithfully serve him, in their Mini­steriall function whatever it be, for the promise both of Christs pre­sence and assistance (Exod. 3. 12. Mat. 28. 20.) to protect or deliver from evill. Ier. 1. 18. 19. Ezek. 2. 6. & 3. 8. 9. Act. 18. 9. 10.) & to preserve from falling. 2. Tim. 4. 17. 18. Rev. 12. 4.) doth e­qually agree unto all, without any respect to their outward pre­heminence, or lower standing. Wherefore to prove the propositi­on against all gaynsayers thus I reason,

All that in those 7. Churches, were bound by office to enlighten o­thers and to guide them in the way of life by the light of their doctrine, and had the promise of Christs presence to assist protect & preserve them: (all such I say) were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand.

But all the Ministers of the worde, that had charge to f [...]ede, [Page 240] and oversee the Christian people in those 7. Churches, were such persons, a [...] in those Churches stood bound by office, to enlighten others, and to guide them in the way of life, by the light of their doctrine, and had the promise of Christs presence, to assist, protect, and preserve them.

Therefore all the Ministers of the word in those 7. Churches, were sig­nified by the starres, which Christ held in his right hand.

And from hence it followeth, that all the Ministers of the word in those Churches (which were many, or at least) more then one in each Church) are also comprehended vnder the name, of the angels of the 7. Churches; For,

All the persons (which then living in those Churches) were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand; were comprehended also vn­der the name of the angels of those 7. Churches.

But all the Ministers of the word which attended on the feeding of the flock of Christ in those places, were signified by the starres which Christ held in his right hand.

Therefore, all those Ministers (which were divers in each Church a [...] is before shewed) were cōprehended vnder the name, of the angels of the 7. Ch.

But there wilbe a fitter occasion hereafter to fortify this con­clusion: I will therefore passe to the D. second syllogisme, which standeth thus;

• Of [...]. monades or vnityes, such as be 7. singular person, the number is iust 7.
  Sect. 3.
  The angels were 7. monades or vnityes, as being 7. singular persons,
• Therfore, of the angels, the number is iust 7.

May I demand of him, what moved him to add this clause to his propositiō, such as be 7. singular persons? Did not his science and con­science tell him, that there are in the scriptures sundry monades or vnityes of men & angels, which are not to be taken for so many sin­gular persons; but rather for so many severall rancks or societies? so that if this clause had bene omitted, he foresawe his propositiō had bene liable to just reproofe. Againe, when he saith that the nō ­ber is iust 7. doth he not meane, that the number is just 7. singular persōs, or 7. individua? Who then hath such a vaile before his eyes, The Doct. proveth idem per idem. as not to see, that this argument is a frivoulous trifling and a vaine stryving to prove idem per idem? for thus he reasoneth,

The angels were 7. monades, as being 7. singular persons;

Therefore they were iust 7. individua, or 7. singular persons.

Wherefore, for a direct answere to the argument as it standeth, [Page 241] it shall suffice, to reject the assumption, as a palpable begging of the question. And it is as palpable an vntruth which he adjoyneth: for the proofe thereof, when he saith. That it appeareth by the inscription of the 7. Epistles writē to them, that the Angels were 7. singular persons. For it The D. assumption beggeth the questiō and he proveth it by an vn­truth. cannot appeare by those inscriptions, till he hath proved, 1. that the Angels of the 7. Churches, signifyed by the 7. starrs in his text, were none other then those Angels, to whom the Epistles were di­rected; and that the Angels written to in those inscriptions, were 7. singular persons. There are, I confesse, which graunt the latter & yet deny the former. For though they primarily vnderstand to [...] pro [...]stata, the president of the Presbytery by that one Angell noted in the inscription: yet they restraine not the name of starrs or An­gels in his text to those presidents onely; but intend thē also to all the Ministers of the word, that attended one the feeding of these Churches. Wherefore, he should have proved, and not assumed without proofe, this point, viz. that the Angels in his text are the same in number, neyther more nor lesse, then those Angels that are (according to their sense) primarily poynted at in those inscripti­ons. Others there are, who though they acknowledg a president in every societie of Ministers, throughout those Ch; yet they limit not that title in the inscriptiō to the president onely; but take it for the whole society. Wherefore this is a second poynt, which the D. ought strongly to have cōfirmed, if he would have reasoned sound­ly. For whereas he addeth, that whosoever is able to count 20. may easily The D. a­gaine pro­veth idem per idē, or one vn­truth by a­nother. finde just 7. if he meane (as he must, to conclude his purpose) just, 7. singular persons, what else doth he againe but trifle, in justifying one vntruth by another, or rather in labouring agayne to prove idem per idem? And may it please him in his next defense, to recite them plainely and as he ought, in this manner. The Angel of the Church at Ephesus, was one singular person; the Angel of the Church at Smyrna, was a second singular person, and so of the rest. I will (if his Refuter cannot) keepe tale for him and tell in the ende, that (notwithstāding his boast) he hath 7. times together begged, The D. beggeth 7 times togi­ther. what he should and would have proved, but cannot. For he hath already been put in minde (and that with more shew of reason then he can remove,) that in the inscriptions of those epistles, the word Angel in the singular nūber, noteth the whole company of Angels or Bishops, which were in each Church, and not one singu­lar [Page 242] person onely.

If his meaning be, (as it seemeth by his last words, (7. Angels neyther more nor lesse) to reason thus. The Angels to whome the 7. epistles were written, were, 7. Angels, or 7. monades of Angels, neyther more nor lesse. Therefore they were, 7. singular persons; though the falshood of the con­sequence appeareth by that already saide; yet to make it more ap­parant, I here tender to his veiwe these fewe arguments.

1 The Angels by whom the Gospell is sayd to be published. Apoc. 14. 6. 8. 9. were 3. Angels or 3. vnities of Angels, neyther more nor lesse, Therefore they were 3. singular persons.

2 The Kings meant by the 7. heads of the beast. Apoc. 17. 9. 10. were 7. neyther more nor lesse: Ergo. 7. singular persons.

3 The Virgins mentioned Math. 25. 1. 2. were 10. neyther more nor lesse, The two fives there noted shewe the account to be just ten, as every one that can tell 20. well knoweth.

4 The King of the South and King of the North Dan. 11. 5. 15. were two monades or vnities.

5 The parties refusing the marriage banquet were 3. monades or vni­ties, so reckoned one by one. Luk. 14. 18. 19. 20.

6 So were the servants that had the tallents committed to them Math. 25. 15. 18.

7 The men sound in the feild at the last daye are onely two vnities, so are the wo [...]men at the mill, Math. 24. 40. 41.

Shall we therefore conclude, that every of those were so many singular persons, neyther more nor lesse?

8 And must we also limitt the number of those 144000. men­tioned Apoc. 7. 4. 8. to so many persons, neyther more nor lesse, because 12. times 12000. do [...] precisely conclude that number? It is well knowne that in these scriptures, a certaine number is put for an vncertaine and vnlimited; and that in some of these, (where a distribution is made of diverse vnities) we are thereby to vnder­stand, not so many singular persons precisely; but so many rancks or orders of persons agreeing in one thing. as Apoc. 14. 6. 9. three rancks of Ministers succeeding one another, and concurring in one course of doctrine. The 7. Kings and the two Kings above men­tioned. Apoc. 17. & Dan. 11. were so many orders or states of go­vernment. The parties refusing the marriage feast, were so many companies agreing in one excuse &c. In like manner, if the Refu­ter [Page 243] shall say, that those 7 monades of Angels reckoned up, Apoc. 2. & 3. were so many societies of Ministers, conjoyned in one charge of one Church; the D. may see his interpretation is backed, by many like speeches in script. where one monade or vnitie, is put for many linked togithe in one societie.

Passe we now on to his 3. argument; from which we might well Sect. 4. passe seing it might have bin better spared then ill spent; it being nothing but a new repetition of what he urged before, to prove the assumption of his second; onely he hath here set in forme of reaso­ning the strength of that which was in substance of matter there delivered when he [...]ayth. The inscriptions of the 7. epistles written to the Angels, doe sh [...]w that they were 7. singular persons. But least he should judge better of it, then there is cause, I will not refuse to examine it, and this it is.

To whome the epistles were written; they were just 7. (for they were writ­ten singul [...] singul [...]s, th [...] first to the first &c.)

To the Angels of the 7. Churches, the 7. epistles were written.

Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches, were juste 7.

Once againe I must demaund wha [...] he meaneth by just. 7? If 7. singular persons onely; the proposition is grosly false; and that also which he addeth for the proofe thereof: for those epistles were not written singulae singulis personis, each to one onely person, but rather singulae singulis soc [...]ita [...]ibu [...]; each epistle to that societie of Angels or By­shops, which attended on the Church, in that citie mentioned in the inscription, and not to them alone, but also to the whole Ch. (as is manifest by Apoc. 1. 11.) and consequently (in regard of that communion which all Churches have one with another) to the rest of the Churches, yea to every one that hath an eare to heare; as the conclusion of each epistle sheweth chap. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29. and chap 3. 6. 13. 22.

As for the testimony of Arethas & Ambrose, they nothing help to conclude his purpose, scz. that the Angels in his text were onely 7. persons. For, as we need not deny, the Angels to whō the epistles were writ­ten, to be (as Arethas saith) iust of the same nūber with the Churches: so we may graunt with Ambrose, that these 7. Angels, were the 7. [...]lers of the 7. Ch. And yet it followeth not, that by the Angels mentioned in the D. text, are ment onely 7. overseing Angels, other Angels or Mi­nist. excluded, as shalbe shewed hereafter in answ. to his next sectiō. [Page 244] the testimony of fathers and new writers also, they are mo [...] that are with us, then with him in this point, namely that by the An­gel of the Church in each inscription, is to be understood more then one Minister or Church-ruler. Mr. Fox in his meditations on the Revelation (pag. 7. 9. 17.) gathering and conferring togither the opinion of all interpreters that he could meet with, sayth they all consented in this, that vnder the person of an Angel, the Pas [...]o [...] and Ministers of the Churches, were vnderstood; let the reader see what he sayth there concerning Augustin; Primasius, Hay [...]o, Be­da, Richard, Thomas and others. I will also here shewe what some of them saye. Augustin (epist. 132.) sayth thus, Si [...] enim in Apoca­lypsi legitur Angelus &c. Q [...]od si deAngelo superiorem C [...]lorum, et non d [...] pr [...]positis ecclesiae; vellet intelligi, nō consequenter dice­ret habeo adversū te &c. whereby he plainely sheweth, that though he spake afterwards but as of one; yet he vnderstood it of more then one, as his, 2. homely upon the Apocalyps sheweth. Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae, habeo adversum te, dicit prepo­sitis ecclesiarum. That he sayth to the Angel of Thyatira, I have some­what agaynst the, he sayth it to the rulers of the Churches. And though By­shop Bilson alledgeth him to prove the contrary in the self same e­pistle, (the words following) Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepo­situs ecclesiae; the ruler of the Church is praised vnder the name of an Angel; yet have we reas [...] to think, he ment not to appropriate to one one­ly person, eyther the title of prepositus ecclesiae, or the praise there spoken of; seing in the selfe same epistle compared with his 2. home­ly before named, he includeth both the company of Presbyters & the whole Church, and it is easy to shew out of other his writings, that by prepositus ecclesie, ruler of the Church, he vnderstādeth all them that had authoritie to preach the worde, and to rebuke men of sinne, &c see his Tract on Iohn, 46. and de civitate dei lib. 1. cap. 9. and Mr. Fox his meditations in Apoc ex August: in Apoc. Hom. 2. Interdum Angelorum nomine, ecclesias catholicas voluit intel­ligi: ne (que) enim soli (opinor) minîstri, sed et universitas totius ec­clesiae vocatur ad poenitentiam.

I could add to him Chrisostom. in cap. 2. ad Tim. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. 10. Ierom on the same place, and Phil. 1. 1. Gregory in his moral: on Iob. lib. 11. cap. 3. Beda in Luk. lib. 2. cap. 7. [Page 245] Rupertus Tincinens. lib. 1. in Apoc. c. 3. Albin. lib. 1. in Ioh. 1. Are­tius in, Apoc 3. 1. Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Angelos ecclesiasticarū in dextra sua habet Christus, hoc est, pastores omnes et episcopos seu verbi Ministros potestate sua regit &c. And that it was not his meaning, by the Apostles meaning of the word Angel in the singu­lar nomber in each inscription (as the D. would have it) to vnder­stand one onely cheife Pastor or Byshop over the rest, but all the Ministers of each Church vnder that name, may appea [...]e by that he sayth, that the 5. epistle was written vnto the Pastors of the Church which was at Sardis, in cap 3. 1. & againe in cap. 2. 1. verisilmile est &c. It is very like, that not some one of the ecclesiastical governors is noted here & in the places following, but the whole succession of the Byshops &c.

To passe by our owne writers, Mr. Fox, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bright­man and others, I will onely note what D. Ful [...]e saith in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1. 20. S. Iohn (saith he) by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should weare on their heads, myters, and hold crosier staves in their hands, like dead Idols: But them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods word, and utter and declare the same. Againe they are called the Angels of the Churches, because they be Gods messengers unto the Churches. But to shut up with the D. own testimonie, (of more worth in this case then all the rest) in his sermon of the dignitie & dutie of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. he telleth us and that with proofe from scripture; that neither the name of Angels nor the whole title Angels of the Churches, doe argue any preheminence in degree. Wherefore (to ende this point) since I have made it cleare that the D. hath neither proved the number of Angels in his text, to be limited to 7. nor removed that which his Refuter objected to shew that their nomber is not limitted; the Refuter (or his freind) hath done enough to pull that vaile from his eies, which was the occasion (as it seemeth) of his wandring so farre as he doth, out of the right way of truth in his sermon, and the defence thereof. For vnlesse a man would freely yeeld vnto him (what he assured to prove, but neyther did nor can; name­ly) that the Angels in his text are 7. singular persons and no [...] he hath no colour (though never so light) to inferre (as he doth) that they were Diocesan Byshops.

But howsoever he cannot by strong arguments overthrowe Sect. [...] [Page 246] his Refuter as he wisheth; yet by opposing him with a few que­stions, and 2. syllogismes pretended to be drawn from his words, he doth his best to weaken his cause. In answering the questions I will begin with the last first; and because his 2. syllogismes are grounded upon the 3. last questions, I will take them in by the way.

First therefore, whereas he asketh whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations, seing his Refuter saith, that in Eph [...]sus there were more angels? I answere (as his Refuter had told him before, and he could not but heare) that the Church of Ephesus was then one onely congregation. And that many angels or Bishops in Ephesus, cannot prove that there were in Ephesus many particular congre­gations. For since the holy Ghost calleth the Christians at Ephe­sus, one Church and one flocke (Act. 20. 17. 28.) neyther dare I nor the Refuter, without better reason then the Doctor doth yet bring any, forsake the grammaticall sense, and expound him, as speaking of more then one particular congregation.

To the next question, whether the Refuter (answer. pag. 2.) taught not, that the angels (mentioned Apoc. 1. 20.) were such Bishops or Mini­sters as were Pastors onely of particular congregations? I answere, that the last time I talked with him, he told me, he tooke the word An­gels, to belong in cōmon to all the Ministers of the word, whether they be such as are properly called Pastors; or such as are more pro­perly named Doctors or Teachers. And therefore, when he saith, that the Bishops signified by angels, are Ministers, Pastors onely of particu­lar congregations; that last clause is added to exclude, not any such as have the office of Teachers in one congregatiō: but the D. Bishops, such as exercise a Prelacie over an whole Diocese; & in that regard have appropriated to themselves, the name of Angels, or Bishops or Pastors. And here to put in an answere to his second syllogisme, the Doctor may be pleased to knowe, that his skill in reasoning much fayleth him; as will soone be seene, if his Refuter (who is as he saith but a smatterer in logick) doe but devide his one argu­ment (as it must be) into two. The first is this,

• Where are many Pastors of particular congregations, there are more parti­cular congregations then one:
• But at Ephesus there were many Pastors.
• [Page 247]Therefore, at Ephesus there were more particular congregations then one.

The Doct. syllogisme hath 4. termes. Behold here 4. termes in stead of three: wherefore the conclu­sion may be, and is false, though both the premisses be true. If the Doctor wil amend his fault, he must change his assumption & say, thus, But at Ephesus there were many Pastors of particular congregations. The which as it is evidently false; so it is no lesse slaunderous, to fa­ther such a saying on his Refuter whom he calleth his adversarie. If The D. as­sumption false and slanderous. he shall strive to make good the assumption thus changed, by that secōd argument, which is closely infolded in his reasoning, he must argue in this manner,

Where were many Angels, there were many Pastors of particular congre­gations: At Ephesus were many angels,

Therefore there were at Ephesus many Pastors of particular congregations.

And then I must returne him his proposition, as having no co­lour, eyther of allowance from the refuters words, or of confir­mation in his owne defense. In deed if he had said, that many angels of particular congregations, are many Pastors of severall cō ­gregations, his proposition might have passed without controle­ment: the word Pastors being taken in a large construction for all Ministers which breake the bread of life to their people. But then he should be as farre to seek for the proofe of that which he must assume, viz. that at Ephesus there were many angels of particular congregations; for it hath bene already sayd, that the Refuter hol­deth the Christians of Ephesus, to be but one Church or Congre­gation, though it had many angels or Bishops, to oversee and feed the same.

Now by this that hath bene spoken, the answere to his 3. que­stion (or 2. as he hath set it downe) and of his first syllogisme, will ask no great study or labour. For whereas he demaundeth, whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one? I answere that the word Pastor (being in a large sense put for every one, that by his office, is bound to oversee and feed the flock over which he is set) may be given to many in one congregation, aswell as the name of a Bishop is, Actes 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. (so teacheth D. Bilson. Perpet. Govern. pag. 284. & D. Whit: de Pont. Rom. pag. 351.) And in this sense the Refuter taketh the word (as is be­fore noted) when he saith (answ. pag. 2. and 4.) that to be ST ARRES of heaven, and ANGELS in this kingdome, is not [Page 248] proper to di [...]cesan Byshops; but common to all true Pastors of particular con­gregation; and that by Angels (in the Doct. text) are signified such Pastors. For finding that the D. confoundeth these names (serm. pag. 2.) of Angels, Byshops and Pastors, he was well content to forbeare all strife about words, and thought it sufficient to seclude diocesan Byshops, by restrayning the Angels mentioned in his text, to the feeding and oversight of particular congregations: Wherefore the D. reasoneth deceitfully, and seeketh advantage by adouble con­struction of the word Pastor, when he thus disputeth.

The Pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation is but one.

But each Angell of the Churches (saith the Refuter) did signifie a pastor The D. reasoneth deceit­fully and seeketh advantage by the double constructi­on of the word pastor. or Byshop of a particular congregation. Ergo each Angel did signifie but one. For the proposition is false in the Refuters construction of the word at large, viz. for every one that hath such an office, as the Apostle vnderstandeth by the word Byshop in his writings. And though the assumption be true, rightly vnderstood, yet is it false in the D. vnderstanding; both words appropriated to one that is principally interressed (above other Ministers of the word that are his helps and assistants) in the feeding and oversight, of any particular congregation. Wherefore howe­ver the Doct. indeavoureth to wring out of his Refuters an­swere; 2. conclusions directly (as he saith) contradictorie to some other his assertions; yet as he hath not effected his pur­pose; so hath he discovered falshood and deceit in his owne reasoning. Sect. 6.

And thus at length are we come to his first question, where­in he would knowe of his Refuter, 1. what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall sense, in vnderstanding by the Angel (in each inscription) more th [...]n one. And secondly where the Holy Ghost speaketh but as of one, how he dare without good reason, expound him as speak­ing of more then one? There were of the Iewes, who having seen many great signes wrought by Christ, yet, (as if he had ne­ver yeelded any signe at all) saide vnto him, we would see a signe of thee Math. 12. 38. and 16. 1. and what signe shewest thou? Iohn 6. 30 And the D. is not vnlike them herein. Could he be ignorant that his Refuter (answ. pag. 3.) yeelded reasons, why he interpreteth the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle, not literally for one person, but by a syne [...]doche for the whole compa­nie [Page 249] of Angels in each Church? Yea & though he twise taketh notice of his reasoning this way (pag. 31. & 33.) he hath not once put one finger, towards the removing of that which is objected in this behalfe. Wherefore there is reason to demaund of him, 1. with what face he dareth suggest, so false a conceit into the mynde of his readers, viz. that the Refuter hath either no reason at all; or at least no good reason, to vnderstand by the Angel (in the inscripti­on of each epistle) more Angels then one? And 2. why he should so stiffly urge the literall sense, when he hath not answered that which is urged to infringe it? Notwithstanding, to move him once againe, to enter into the consideratiō of this point, I here tender him one of the Refuters reasons, in forme of argument, thus.

If there were more then 7. Angels in the 7. Churches; then the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle, must not be taken literally, for one onely person, but synecdochically for more then one.

But the first is true; (as that place of the Act. 20. 17. 28. concer­ning the Church of Ephesus) sheweth: for there it appeareth, how there were more Angels or Bishops then one in the Church at E­phesus, and therefore more the 7. in then 7. Churches.

Therfore the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle, must not be taken literally, for one onely person, but synecdochically for more then one. And se­ing the D. here reasoneth with his Refuter, for the superiority of Bi­shops, frō the name Angel, as Hart doth w ^th D: Reinolds for the so­vereigntie of the Pope, or of one Preist, from the name Priest; it shall not be amisse, to fit him with the same answer, that D. Rei­nolds gave Hart. Not so; (saith D. R. p. 252.) The name of Preist in Deut. 18. 3. this law signifieth the Preists &c. The law giving sentence, against him that disobeieth the Pieist, meaneth the Preists, according to a kind of speach, wher­in the whole i [...] noted by the part. And giving the reason why he so in­terpreted the singular by the plural, he saith: It is cleare, by reason that the punishment of the transgressor, hath relation to the lawe; and the lawe wil­leth Deut. 17. 9. men to goe to the Preists. If D. R. for that cause had reason to for­sake the grammaticall sense, why not the Ref. here? seing the scrip­ture sendeth us to diverse Byshops in one Church, Act. 20. 17. 28.

But to proceede in the refutation of his assertion or aunswere before expressed; since it is graunted there were more Angels or Byshops then one in each of those 7. Churches: the reader is to be advertized, that now the controversie is come to this issue, whe­ther [Page 250] the singularity of the word Angel, be a reason of more weight to carrie it to one onely person, then the plurality of Angels in each Church is, to interprete it by a synecdoche for the whole compa­ny. The D. affirmeth the former, and (to countenance his cause) putteth this difference betwene the name of an Angel or Byshop in generall, and the Angel of this or that Church: that where there are many Ministers in one Ch., though every one be an Angel, yet one onely that hath prehemenēce above the rest, is to be honored with the name of the Angel of that Church. On the cōtrary, I affirme the later, & therfore wil vndertake to prove, that where there are many Ministers or Angels (such as he acknowledgeth to be in everie of the 7. Churches) they have, everie of them, in regard of their fun­ction, equall right to be called, the Angel of that Church; and thus [...] reason.

If all the Angels or Ministers in each Church had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church, wherein they administred; then this title, the Angel of the Church, ought to be vnderstood synecdochically for the whole company, and not literally for one onely.

But the first is true. Therefore also the second.

The assumption is thus proved.

All Gods messengers sent to oversee and [...]ed his flock, have equall right to be called the Angels of that Church, wherein they minister. All the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches, were Gods messengers, sent to oversee and feed his flocke.

Therefore all the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches, had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they minister.

The proposition is the D. owne assertion. (serm. of the digni. of the Ministers pag. 61.)

The assumption is his owne also, (in the next section pag. 34.)

The conclusion therefore I hope will passe for currant.

Moreover it is no lesse absurd to say, that this or that Minister is an Angel or Byshop, but not the Angel of the Church which he overseeth; then to saye, he is an Elder or Minister, but not an Elder or Minister of the Church &c. 2. yea, to yeeld the name of an An­gel simplie, or the Angel of the Lord, to agree fittlie to everie Mi­nister of the word, & yet to restraine this title, the Angel of the Church to one that hath a preheminence above other Ministers, is to de­ceive himselfe and others by a mistaking of the cause, why the Mi­nisters [Page] represented by the Starres, are called the Angels of their Churches, rather then the L. Angels: for the onely true cause is to distinguish them from the heavenly Angels, who are more usu­ally called, the Angels of the Lord. 3. And if these 2. titles be cōpa­red; the name of the Lords Angel, is much better to expresse a prehe­minēce in him, that is so intitled, thē the Churches Angel; seing this la­ter debaseth his Ministery, much more thē the former. But as these names, the L. Minister or servant, and the Churches Minister or servant (Phil. 1. 1. 2. Cor. 6. 4. cum. 4. 5. and Colos. 1. 24. 25.) are in­differently taken, for one and the same person or function; so can there no reason be yeelded, why also these titles, the Lords angel, and the Churches angel, should be devided into severall functions.

To conclude, if neyther the singularitie of the number, doe argue a singular person; nor the right reason of the whole title, im­plieth a preheminence in one above others, seing it is graunted, that there were many Angels; and proved that the title here used, is (in regard of the signification of the phrase) cōmon to all; the D. hath no reason to say, that his Refuter doth without reason (yea good reason) forsake the literal sense of the number.

But albeit enough hath bene said to shew that this title: The an­gel Sect. 7. of the Church, is to be taken for the whole societie of Ministers in every Church; rather then for one singular person▪ set in a singular preheminence above the rest; yet to satisfie those which perhaps may demaunde, why the Sonne of God should give in charge to Iohn, to write vnto the angel, as one; rather then to the angels, as to many; it shal not be amisse to add this that followeth. 1. I grant that as the number of the Churches particularly named, fully an­swereth to the 7. golden candlesticks, which represented those Churches: so it was very fit, the epistles directed to the Angels of those Churches, should in their inscriptions, proportionate the number of the Angels, to the number of the starres, by which those Angels were shadowed: which could not have bene, if there had bene expresse mention of more Angels then one, in each in­scription. Notwithstanding as it were absurd, from the precise number of 7. Ch. to gather that there were not in all Asia more then 7, Churches; or that they kat hexochen are called Church. 5, to note a preheminēce in jurisdiction or governmēt over the rest: so it [Page 252] were no lesse absurde to inferre (from the literal mention of one Angel in every Church) that there was but one onely person in that Church, to whome, the name of the Angel of that Church, did by speciall right apperteine. 2. Their vnitie in the Ministeriall fun­ction, & joynt commission to attend vpon the feeding and gover­ning of one Church, (which ought to be accōpanied with a cōmō care, and joynt labour, as it were with one hand, and heart or af­fection, to further the Lords work in the peoples salvation) is much more fitly declared, by the name of one Angel, then of many; if we observe the phrase of speach, used else-where by the Holy Ghost, and in other names or titles, to the like purpose. We often find the name of (one) prophet, (Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Esai. 3. 2. Hos. 9. 8.) or Preist, Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Ezech. 7. 26. Hos. 4. 6. Malach. 2. 7.) and Angel or messenger, (Isay. 42. 19. Malach 2. 7.) to be put for the generall body of the Ministerie (or whole multitude of Prophets or Preists &c.) in the Church of Israel or Iudah; when the spirit of God intendeth to reprove, threaten or admonish them, as occasion serveth.

3 Neyther need it seeme strange to us, that a multitude or com­pany of Ministers, should be vnderstood vnder the name of one Angel; seing a multitude of heavenly Angels (imployed in one ser­vice for the good of Gods Saints) is sometymes in the scripture shut up, vnder one Angel in the singular nūber, as may be gathered from Gen. 24. 7. 2. King. 19. 35. and Psal. 34. 7. compared with Psal. 91. 11. Gen. 32. 1. and 2. King. 6. 16. 17: seing also a mul­titude of Devils or evil Angels, (joyntly labouring in any one worke) is set forth vnder the name of one evill or vncleane spirit. 1. King. 22. 21. 22. Mar. 1. 23-27. and 5. 2-3. Luk. 4. 33. 34. and called the Devill or Satan, Luc. 8. 27. 30. 1 Pet. 5. 8. Heb. 2. 14. Ephes. 6. 11. 12.

4 Moreover, seing it is a thing very cōmon and usuall, (through­out the whole booke of the Revelation) by the name of one Angel to vnderstand a multitude or some whole societie of Mi­nisters and Teachers; it was very meete that the beginning of the booke, should be sutable to the other parts; and that the first vision should have none other construction, then such as might holde proportion with, (or rather as a line leade us to the right vnderstanding of) the rest that follow.

Here Iohn seeth 7. starres in the right hand of the sonne of man, which are interpreted, to be the Angels (or Byshops and Mi­nisters) of the 7. Churches; and he writteth 7. epistles to so many Angels. In another vision, he seeth 7. Angels, to whom were given 7. trumpets, (singulae singulis) to everie Angel one trumpet, and they blewe theyr trumpets successively one after another, and with differing effects. Rev. 8. 2. 6. 7. &c. After this, he sawe. 7. Angels and 7. vialls given vnto them (singulae singulis) in which vials were 7. plagues, successively also powred out by every Angel in his time Rev. 15. 6. 7. &c. 16. 1. 2. &c. In these latter visiōs, (like as in the for­mer) some of our best Interpreters do vnderstād by Angels, the Mi­nisters and preachers of Gods word; for in every age, they lift vp their voices as trumpets, (Esa. 58. 1. Num. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 12.) to shew the people theire sinnes, and to proclayme the will of God vnto men. And when they denounce his judgments against the contemners of his truth and binde them vp in their sinnes (Math. 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 23.) they after a sort, poure out the vials of Gods wrath vpon their heads, (Ier. 1. 10. and 25. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 10. 6. Rev. 11. 5. 6▪) Now there is none so foolish as to think; that (in the tyme of every vials powring out, or of every trumpets blowing) that one Angel precisely mentioned, was one supreme Bishop, that had a prehemenent pastorall authoritie over all the Ministers of that age: it is acknowledged rather of many judicious divines, that every of those 7. Angels standeth for a multitude of faithfull Mini­sters, which in their tymes successively with one [...]art, and as it were with one voice, published one & the same truth to the world See amongst others, Marlo [...]at, in A [...]oc. 8. 2. 6. 7. and 15. 1. 6. and Aretius in Chap. 8. 6. & 9 13. The same may be sayd, (yea it is and must be acknowledged) of those 3. Angels, which followed one another (Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9.) to recall men vnto the true worship of God, after it was corrupted by Antichrist. Marlorat on that place▪ Method Collat. pag. 322. and Mr. Fox his meditations vpon the Rev. pag. 286. 290. Wherefore if we compare togither the parts of Christs Revelation; it is much more consonant to the true use of the word Angel in other places, to affirme with the Refuter that one Angel in each of the 7. Churches, signifyeth (not any one onely cheife Pastor, but) all those Ministers or Tea­chers, which with a common care and joynt labour, attended [Page 254] on the service of the Church wherein they lived; so that it may well be said in his defence, that he hath both reason and good rea­son to vpholde his assertion. And (that the D. may have his owne words returned home againe) since he hath no weight of reason to limit (as he doth) the number of the Angels to 7. singular per­sons: it ma [...]tereth nothing what he inferreth frō falsly concei­ted limitation. Sect. 8.

Yet as if he had made all cock-sure on his side, in his next secti­on, he tryumpheth in this manner. Having (saith he) thus manyfistly proved, that the angels of the 7. Churches, were just, 7, and consequently that there was one, and but one in every Church, whome the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church; it wilbe easy both to free my text, fr [...]m the c [...]vils, which more thē once my adversary objecteth against it, and also out of the text to cleare the maine controversy in hand. But it is a meare cavill in the D. joyned with slander, to say that his adversary objecteth any cavil against The D. cav [...]lleth & slandr [...]th. his text. In deed his Refuter hath saide more then once, (and it is so cleare a truth, that he need not blush to avouch it an 100 times) that his [...]ext yeeldeth him no sure soundatiō, whereon to raise any sound argument, to justify the calling of diocesan, Bishops; because he hath no shadow of reasō frō any word in his text, to cōclude that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. singular persons, much lesse so many diocesā Prelates For though he boast that he hath manysist­ly proved the former, yet seing his proofes are disproved, it mought be tolde him in imitation of his owne rethorick (sect. 12. pag. 47.) that his manifestlie is a manifest-lie. But let him be foreborne there­in, and let us see how his proofes doe hange togither in order, to wi [...]t, 1. That the angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. and consequently that there was one and but one in every Church whome the Holy Ghost [...]l­leth the angel of that Church. It shalbe graunted him, that the latter will follow by good consequence from the former. But in his rea­soning (pag. 32.) he made the latter an argument (or rather 2. ar­guments by an idle [...]e [...]etition of one thing) to conclude the former. Wherein also how weakely he reasoneth, is already shewed at large, in as much as he cannot prove, that there was one onely person in each Church, saluted by the name of the Angel of that Church. Neyther will it follow (as is before observed) that the angels of the 7. Churches (men­tioned in his text (are 7. singular persons onely, (much lesse [Page 255] that they were so many diocesan Byshops) though it should be graunted that in the inscription of each epistle, one onely person beareth the name of the Angel of that Church. It will therefore cost him more labour and sweat, then he supposeth, before he can out of his text, cleare the maine controversie which is in hand. For since the D. is here the Opponent, & mainteineth the affirmative, (s [...]z. that the angels in his text were diocesan Bishops) it is not enough for him, (as he well knoweth cap. 3. pag. 62. and chap. 5. pag. 101.) to re­move what his Refuter objecteth; but he must also prove by ne­cessarie and invincible force of argument, what himselfe affirmeth. But as for the latter (to returne backe home his owne swete phrase pag. 105.) he faire and mannerly slippeth his neck out of the coller, and contenteth himselfe to attempt the former. And I may well say to attempt it; for he leaveth the strength of the objection vn­touched, The D. at­temptet [...] but touch­eth not &c. as the reader may easily perceive; if he compare his an­swer with the objection laid down pag. 4. of the Refuters answer, where he saith. That he which consideroth the text and the words thereof shall finde nought to prove his kinde of Byshops, or ought to shew any such qua­litie of their functiō as he īmagineth. For to be lights in the candlesticks, starrs of heaven, angels in this kingdome, the heaven of heavens, which is all the D. doth or any other can shew out of the words; is not proper to diocesan By­shops; but cōmon to all true Pastors of particular congregations, as his owne self [...] confesseth, (serm: of the d [...]g: and dutie of the Ministers pag. 20. 61.)

But to prove the D. once againe and to examine the force of the objection, I will set it in order before his e [...]es thus.

Whatsoever text is such, that neyther the D. d [...]th, nor any other can, fl [...]we out of the words thereof, any thing, proper to diocesan Byshops; but rather cō ­mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations: the same ye [...]ldeth no proofe to uphold his kind of Byshops.

But this text (Apoc. 1. 20.) of the D. is such, as is before sayd.

Therefore, it yeldeth no proofe to uphold his kinde of Byshops.

The assumption which onely needeth to be cleared, may be thus manifested.

The name of starres or angels togither with this title, the angels of the Churches, is common to all true Pastors of particular congregations, and not any one of them properly to diocesan Byshops.

But all that the D. doth, or any other can shew out of the words of the text (Apoc. 1. 20.) is eyther the name of starres, or angels, or at least this title, the angels of the Churches.

Therefore, all that the Doctor doth, or any other can shewe, out of the wordes of his text. (Apocal. 1. 20.) to justify his kinde of Bishops, is commō to all true Pastors of particular congregations, and nothing in it proper to Diocesan Bishops. Here the assumption is in it selfe evident; and the proposition is enlightened by the D. interpretation of the words of his text (serm. pag. 3.) compared with the application thereof vnto all Ministers in generall (serm. of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers, p. 20. 61.) ut supra. For in the former place, he ascri­beth, to the Pastors or Bishops vnderstood by those names or titles▪ none other dutie or dignitie then this, namely, to be as lights set on a candlesticke, or shining in the Church, which is as heaven up­on A contra­dict: in the D two ser­mons earth; and as angels in Gods kingdome, the heaven of heavens. And in the later, he giveth all this and much more to the office or function of Ministers in generall, yea he alleadgeth this very text (pag. 46. & 63.) to prove that they are both starres shining before others with the light of doctrine and good example; and angels of the Lord, or rather angels of the Churches; & therfore to be recei­ved as angels. For as herein they are like to angels (p. 56.) that they are sent forth unto the Ministerie, for their sakes that are heires of salvation, Heb. 1. 14.) so they seeme to have some preheminence, in respect of their Embassage, and spirituall authoritie; seing the preaching of the gospell, is cōmitted to men and not to angels, as appeareth by the story of Cornelius, Act. 10. 6. &c. Neyther hath God sayd to any of the angels at any time, that which he speaketh to his Ministers Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you [...]orgive they shalbe forgiven &c. Wherefore as the D. cannot (without check of conscience) so neyther can any other (without apparant gainsaying the truth) ey­ther deny the names & titles mentioned in his text to be cōmon, to all true Pastors of particular congregations, or restreyn any one of them to Diocesan Bishops.

Having thus layd open the strength of the Ref: objectiō, I come Sect. 9. now to examine the force of the Doct: answere. I answere (saith he p. 34.) that all Ministers who have charge of souls, are in a generall sense, cal­led Angels, Pastors, Bishops, because they are messengers sent from God, to f [...]de and o [...]rsee his flocke: But yet where there are many Ministers (so called) if there be one & but one, who k [...]t hexochen is called the Angel, the Pastor the Byshop of that Church; he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence a­bove the rest, whereof see more in my answer (sect. 12.) to page. 6. Here let [Page] it be [...] against the [...] of [...] or [...] to insinuate (yet [...] [...] ­pressy [...] that it is an honour proper onely to diocesan. By­shops (and [...] cōmon to other Ministers) to be called the Angels of their Churches. But it is already shewed, that the honour of this name or title, cannot be denyed vnto any Minister, that hath charge of soules: since it is a truth and so acknowledged, that all such Ministers are messengers sent from God, to oversee and [...]eed that part of his flock, whereof they have the charge, 2. And where­as he c [...]nningly slideth from the text, which he proposeth to hādle The D. slideth frō his text to the inscri­ptions. to the inscriptions of the 7. epistles, (Rev. 2. and 3.) he is againe to be advertised, that though he could justify the preheminence of one Minister above others from those inscriptions; yet it will not follow that diocesan Byshops, are onely meant by the Angels of the Churches, in the text he made choyse of. But 3. (not to stand up­on this advantage) where he saith, that where there is one and but one, who kat hexochen is called, the Angel Pastor or Bishop of that Church, he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest; it nothing jus­tifieth his cause, but discovereth rather the weaknes thereof; seing he no otherwise proceedeth then he began; I meane in assuming The D. still beggeth. for graunted, what he should have proved; and in pressing us with weake consequences, to stand in stead of invincible arguments. Be­fore he affirmed, there was but one in every Church called the Angel of the Church: now (being inforced to acknowledge that there were many other Angels or Byshops) he will needs have that one to be called kat hexochen the Angel or Bishop of that Church; & so frō thence inferre, that the same one Angel is plainely noted, to have preheminence above the rest. The strength of which reasoning may appeare by these goodly consequences follow­ing.

1. There were others with Paul, whome he might right­ly call his fellowes and helpers; wherefore he entitleth Titus kat hexochen his fellow and helper on the behalf of the Corinthi­ans 2. Cor. 8. 23. and so plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest.

2. In like manner, seing there were others who in a generall sense might be called Apostles or messengers: they whome he calleth (in the same place) the Apostles or messengers of the [Page 256] Churches, were so called kat hexochen, to note in them a prehemi­nence above the rest.

3 The same may be sayd of Paule, when he entitleth himselfe a prisoner of Christ Phil. 1. and Epaphroditus his fellow-ptiso­ner. Vers. 23. Timotheus a brother Col. 1. 1. & a Minister of God 1. Thes. 3. 2. likewise of Peter intitlinge himselfe a fellow-Elder, and a witnes of Christs sufferings 1 Pet. 5. 1.

4. And why then may not Bellarminargue frō Math. 16. 19. & Iohn 2. 15. 16. that though others, in a generall sense may be au­thorized to feed the sheep of Christ, & to guide the keies: yet these things are spoken kat hexochen to Peter, and doe there plainely note in him, a preheminence above the rest.

5 Without all contradiction, the diocesan Byshopprick of E­paphroditus, wilbe dashed in peeces with this argument following, if the D. former reasoninge have any validitie in it.

There were some others at Philippi; who were in a generall sence yoak felowes to the Apostles; wherefore, when he speaketh precisely to one singular person, I beseech the faithfull y [...]ke felow &c. Phil. 4. 3. this one is called kat hexochen his faithfull yoake fellow, and consequent­ly this title noteth in that one, an episcopall preheminence above the rest.

But what if we should graunt asmuch, as his words doe ascribe vnto that Angel of each Church, (viz. that this title is given to one onely, and plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest) will he from hence inferre, that because one angel in each Church, had some preheminence above others, therefore that one was a diocesan Byshop? If so; (as he must to cleare the maine con­troversy now in hand) surely he fayleth grosly in that fault, where­of The. D. fai­leth in the fault im­puted by him to his Refuter. he accuseth his Refuter (chap. 9. pag. 200.) how justly let the reader judge; in reasoning from the genus, to a fained and Platonicall Idea, or Poeticall species, and that affirmativè: for seing there are diverse sorts of preheminence (viz. of order or o [...] dignity; and in gifts, or in degree of Ministerie, or in charge and power of jurisdiction) it is a sillie and simple argu­ment to saie▪ In each of the 7. Churches one Minister had some preheminence above the rest. Therefore he had pre­heminence above them in degree of office or Ministerie. But when he inferreth. Therefore he had the preheminēce of a dio [...]. [Page 259] Bishop; it is no lesse ridiculous, then if he should say, it is a byrd, therefore it is a black swan.

But since he referreth vs to his answere to pag. 6. (which Sect. 10. lieth sect. 12. pag. 46. following) there to see more of this matter, I will search and see, what he there hath for his purpose, af­ter that I have given the reader to understand upon what oc­casion, he fell into the debating of this point. The Refuter perceiving that the Doctor addressed himselfe to shewe, what was the preheminence of these Bishops, in respect whereof, they are called the angels of the Churches, thought it not fitt, to suffer him with begging, to carry that away, which he ought to have proved. to witt, that the BISHOPS which are in­tituled, the Angells of the CHVRCHES, were so called in respect of that preheminence, which he fancied to be in them above other Ministers; and therefore telleth him that they had the name of Angels, in regard of the generall calling of their Mi­nisterie, and not because of any sovereigntie or supremacie, o­ver other their fellow Ministers, as the Doctor implieth here; and plainely, (though vntruely) affirmeth afterwardes. In these fewe wordes, the DOCTOR findeth (as he suppo­seth, to say no worse of him) two vntruthes: the former he saith is an errour the later, a plaine-lie: because, though he give to Bishops superiority over other Ministers, yet neyther sovereignty nor The Refut. cleared of the Doct. slaunder. supremacie. Concerning the lie which the Doctor slaunderous­ly chargeth on his Refuter; I shall have fitter occasion to speak hereafter; here onely will I cleare him of that errour ascribed to him, for sayinge that the Bishops of those Churches are named Angels in regard of the generall calling of their Ministerie. Let vs therefore heare how worthily the Doctor disputeth, to convince him of errour. Though (sayth he) to be called Angel general­ly agreeth to all Ministers, yet for one, and but one amonge many Ministers, in one and the same Church, to be kata hexochen, called the Angel of the Church; is not a common title belonging to all Mi­nisters, in regarde of theire generall callinge; but a peculiar stale, be­longing vnto [...]e, who hath singular prehe [...]nence above the rest, that is to say, a BISHOP. Beholde here how he disputeth; nowe 1. Can any judicious reader (that compareth this speache [Page 260] with that which he delivered before pag. 34. finde in this latter, any one materiall point, more then in the former? When he refer­red us hither, to see more of this matter, we had reason to expect some new argument, and that of more weight, to prove the point, which was before but nakedly proposed. But (if my sight decei­veth me not) nothing else is here to be seene, but the selfesame sen­tence, varied in a few words, that carrie the same sense. A thing which everie novice in grammer schooles, that hath but read his copia verborum, might have done in the turning of a hand, as they say. This slight dealing becommeth neyther so great a logician, nor so grave a divine, much lesse so censorious a Doctor: yet be­holde The D. [...]wisteth a 3. fould cord of va­nyty. a greater fault, or rather two other greater defaults, to make vp a threefoulde corde of vanitie. For he hath neyther convinced his Refuter of error, nor justified his own assertion by him repro­ved.

2 To convince his Refuter he reasoneth thus.

No cōmon title belonging to all Ministers, in regard of the generall calling of the Ministery; is given kat hexochen, to one onely among many Ministers in one Church.

But the name of Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is given kat hexochen, to one onely Minister among many, in each of the 7. Churches.

Therefore, the name of angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is not a cōmon title belonging to all Ministers, in regard of their generall calling to the Ministery. Both propositions are false; for it is already proved, that vnder the name of Angels, (or the Angels of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 20.) all the Ministers of the word, how many soever are comprized; wherefore the D. bare affirmation, that one onely in each Church is k [...]t hexochen so intitled, is no better then a bare broaching of an vntruth, (his owne The D. contradict­eth him­selfe, deli­vereth an vntruth, & beggeth the questi­on. sermon of the dig. and dutie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. (which directly contradicteth this,) being judge) with the begging of the question. And to evince the falshood of the former propositi­on, it is easy to give instance of sundrie titles belonging in cōmon to all Ministers, which yet are sometimes k [...]t hex [...]chen given to one singular person, as when Iohn is intituled The Elder 2. Iohn. 1. and 3. Ioh. 1. Paul a Minister of the Church or a Minister of Christ and of his gospell, Colos. 1. 24. 25. Rom. 15, 16. Ephe. 3. 6. 7. Also when he giveth the name of a fellow-workman, felow-souldier or Minister of God, vnto some one among many 2 Cor. 8. 23. [Page 261] Phil. 2. 25. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Wherefore vnlesse there were more truth then is in his reasoning, he hath small reason to charge his Refuter with error, for affirming that the Bishops, of whome his text spea­keth, are named Angels in regard of their generall calling of the Ministery. 3. See we now, whether he hath any more strength of truth, to mainteine his owne assertion, to wit, That they are called the angels of the Churches, in respect of a preheminēt superiority in power and ju­risdiction over other Ministers. His argument must be framed to this effect.

Whatsoever title is given kat hexochen, to one onely amōg many Ministers in one Church; the same is a particular stile, belōging to one that hath singular pre­heminence above the rest; that is, to adioce san Byshop. But the name [...]f An­gels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is given to one onely, among many Ministers, in each of the 7. Churches.

Therefore, the name of angels (Apoc. 1. 80.) is a peculiar stile belonging to one, that hath singular preheminence above the rest of the Ministers in those Churches; that is, to a diocesan Bishop. And consequently, the name of Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is given to diocesan Byshops, in regard of theire episcopall superioritie above other Ministers, in the same Churches, whereof they were Angels. Here the assumption, (being the same with that in the former arg:, may receive the same answ. vz.) is false & hath no breath of life in it, except to begg the questiō. As for the proposition, the falshood of it, is more grosse, & pal­pable The D. beggeth in the assum­ption and delivereth a flat false­shood in the propo­sition. then the former. For, besides that which is before delivered, to shew that some titles, belonging in common to all Ministers, are and may be given, kat hexochen, to one onely among many, (which argueth that the giving of a title kat hexochen to one, doth not prove the same to be a peculiar stile belōging to one that hath a singular preheminence above others: this may be added, (which was also before observed) that if it should be graunted, that such a title is a peculiar stile, belonging to one, that hath a singular pre­heminence above others; yet from hence to inferre, that it is a stile peculiar to a diocesan Byshop (to use the Doct. words againe) is as ridiculous, as if a man should say, it is a bird, therefore a black swan: or thus, Mr. Dow. amonge many Ministers is a Doctor, therefore he is a Duke, a Deane, a By­shop, or Archbyshop. Wherefore, since both the premisses, [Page 262] aswell in this, as in the former argument are false, the reader may safely reject both his conclusions, as erroneous. And to let him see (not his Refuters error which is none, but) his owne error, the better; I will this once thus argue, against him, and that from his owne pen.

If this text Apoc. 1. 20, (togither with cap. 2. and 3. following) be right­ly applied in his sermon of the duty & dignitie of the Ministers: then the name of angels of the 7. golden candlesticks Apoc. 1. 20. is not a peculiar stile, be­longing onely to diocesan Byshops; but a common title apperteyning to all Mi­nisters in generall.

But the first is true. Therefore also the second. Or thus, If the name of angels of the 7. golden candlesticks (in Apoc. 1. 20. and the two chapters fol­lowing) be a stile peculiar to dioc [...]san Byshops, and not cōmon to all Ministers in generall: then those texts of holy scripture are wrongly applyed to all Mi­nisters in generall; in the D. sermon of the dignitie & dutie of the Ministers.

But the first is true. Therefore also the second: And consequently, which way soever, the D. turne his heade, he cannot escape the blame, both of error in misapplying his text, and of contradiction with The D. misappli­eth his text, & contradic­teth him­selfe. himselfe.

But 4. because in his latter argument the D. concludeth not that assertion, which his Refuter before contradicted: it shall not be amisse to see, if his last conclusion, will necessarily inferre it, by way of consequence. For though he be a Doctor, and his Refuter but a smatterer in logicke, as he sayth; yet shall he doe him that fa­vour this once. And therefore if he will attempt it, he must argue to this effect.

Whatsoever name or title is a peculiar stile belonging to one that hath a­singular preheminence above other Ministers in any Church or countrie; the same is given to that one, in respect of that preheminence.

But the name of Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is a peculiar stile, belonging to one, that had the preheminence of a diocesan Byshop, in each of the 7. Churches. Therefore, the name of Angels, is there given to one onely di [...]cesan Byshop, in each Church in respect of his diocese.

The falsehood of this assumption being already layd open; it shall suffice to shew the vnsoundnes of the proposition; for which purpose observe wee these fewe instances. First, The name of an Apostle given to Paul so often in the epistles is a title pe­culiar to him, who was one, that had a singular preheminence [Page 263] above all other Ministers in that Church or countrie where he conversed, when he wrote those epistles. 2. So also is the name of a Minister of the gospell Ephes. 3. 6. 7. and 3. the name of a pri­soner in the L, Ephes. 4. 1. and 3. 1. 4. the like may be sayd for the title which Peter giveth himselfe 1 Pet. 5. 1. yet, were it absurd, to think that any one of these titles were given to Paul or Peter, in respect of that preheminence, which each of them had above other Ministers in the places where they conversed.

Thus we see, that whiles the D. striveth to convince his Refuter While the D. seeketh to cōvince his Refute [...] of one er­ror, he fal­leth into 3. or 4. of one error, he hath inwrapped himselfe vnder the juste blame of 3. or 4. And this I might hope woulde be enough to stopp his mouth, from pleading for the preheminence of diocesan Byshops, from the name of angels, or the title, the angels of the Churches, in the text which he selected for the purpose; but that I remember his vow (lib. 3. pag. 154.) that he will never give over his Refuters, ill he hath put him to silence.

As for the testimonies cited by him out of Mr. Beza and D. Rey­nolds, Sect. 1 [...]. ad lib. 1. sect. 4. pag. 34. & sect. 12. pag. 47. werevnto he referreth us (sect. 12. pag. 47.) they fall full short of his purpose, to prove that the name Angel is given to note such a preheminēce in one above the rest, or was a stile peculiar to one alone. For it is but a private fancie, peculiar to the D. and some fewe others, whereby they would faine perswade the world, that these Angels were diocesan Byshops like to ours; & as vaine is it, as private. For the Refut: may graunt all that Mr. Beza & D. Rey­nolds say; and yet still deny, that the name of angel is gvien to the president onely, or exclusivè, as if the rest of his fellowe Ministers had no right to that title with him.

As for his idle digression, in assaying (pag. 34.) to shew against Beza, that the president had a perpetuitie in the presidencie; it is not worth worth the answering; being as weakly mainteyned, as it is here vnseasonably inserted. For although we give vnto Timothy (being an Evangelist) a standing presidencie during his aboad at Ephesus; yet the D. reasoneth absurdly, when he inferreth that such as suc­ceeded him in the presidencie, had the like perpetuitie therein; vn­lesse he could prove their ministerial function to be (as Timothyes was) superior to other Presbyters.

No lesse absurd is his reasoning, when he vndertaketh to shewe from the testimonie of the most ancient authors in the Church, who were those singular persons, whom the Holy Ghost calleth the [Page] Angel of the Church at Ephesus, and likewise at Smyrna &c. Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus, as Ignatius testifyeth, and Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna. If therefore Onesimus was but one man, and likewise Poli­carpus; we may be bould to conclude that the angel of the Church of Ephesus, was but one singular person, and likewise the angel of Smyrna, and so of the rest. For answere wherevnto I say, that if Ignatius or any other, had justifyed that Onesimus was the onely person at Ephesus whome Iohn saluted by the name of the Angel (though it may aswell be read, an angel, as the angel) of that Church, and so Policarpus and the rest: the Doct: might have bene bold (not to make his bould conclusion but) to say, that he had one ancient au­thor on his side in that point, though as one swallowe maketh no sommer; so one ancient giveth him no sufficient warrant, that he hath the consent of the moste ancient authors in the Church. But to make the best he can of Ignatius or any other, if they say no more for him, then as yet he hath made them (Ignatius here or others elsewhere) speak, they are too mute, to minister reliefe to that his assertion; which in this 4. section he laboureth to mayntayn as we shall have occasion further to affirme when we come to the last Chap. of this booke, wherein that he saith here concerning Onesimus and Polycarp, (being againe repeated by him. lib. 4. pag. 40. with some addition) shalbe further debated. Let us now goe forwards.

Chap. 3. Conteyning an answer to the D. argument handled lib. 2. chap. 7. sect. 2. pag. 120. concerning the presidencie of the Angels of the 7. Churches.

The D. is willing (it seemeth) to plaie at small game, rather then to set out▪ and to laye hold vpon a slender advantage, ra­ther Sect. 1 ad. D. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect 2. & Ref. pag. then to leave his diocesan Lords, no footing in his text. If an eminent superioritie cannot be gathered from the name of an Angel; yet such a presidency as is given to one above o­thers, in every well-ordered society, shall suffice to convey a diocesan Byshopprick to these Angels. And if b [...]tter evidence fayle, the confession of the Presbyterians shall serve to give them [Page] a Presidencie: And though comonly he refuse the syllogismes, which his Refuter reduceth into forme; yet finding one handsom­ly framed to his hand, (though himself intended, as he saith no such argument:) he is wel pleased to make use of it, and to stand forth in defense of every parte of it. The syllogisme runneth thus,

• The Presidents of the Presbyters were Diocesan Bishops.
• The Angels of the 7. Churches, were presidents of the presbyteries.
• Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were Diocesan Bishops.

Concerning the Assumption, it hath bene already shewed, upon what reasons, we hold it questionable, whether these Angels were 7. onely persons, of cheefe place in these Churches. But here, because the D. grounded himself upon the confession of the Pres­byterians; his refuter answered him, by a distinction of a two fold Presbyterie, mentioned in their writings; the one a Presbyterie of governing Elders assisting the Pastor of each congregation: th'o­ther a Presbyterie of Ministers set over diverse churches. Now be­cause the former could yeeld the Doctor no colour of help, to cō ­vey a Diocesan Bishoprick to these angels; & he had expressly mē ­tioned the later, in the last wordes of the point before handled (serm. pag. 21.) his Refuter signified his dissent from him in the assumption; if his meaning were to give those angels, a Presidencie over a colledge of Ministers, assigned to sundry particular congre­gations. And this he added, that he knewe none that did conf [...]sse the an­gels of the 7. Churches to be some of those Presidents. Now the Doctor taking those testimonies of Calvin and Beza (whom he hath often v [...]lified in other parts of his defense) for plentifull proofe of his as­sumption; he referreth us to that he hath alleaged out of their wri­tings, (lib. 1. cap. 2. sect.) whether if we goe, we shall finde just no­thing to the purpose. For Mr Calvin hath not one word touching those Angels. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 1. 2. And since he there ex­pressly, affirmeth, that the presidencie which one Minister in ca [...]h citie (called a Bishop) had over other Ministers his colleagues, was brought in, by humane consent, and for the necessity of the times; there is no likelihood, that he held those angels in S. Iohns time, to Humano consensit pro tem­po [...] ne­cessitate. be Presidents of such a Presbyterie. Yea his words doe sh [...]w [...] ( [...] 1.) that he speaketh of that forme of government, which took place under the. Bishops that flourished after the Apostles; and before the papac [...]e was discovered. And though Mr B [...]za doe affirme, the [Page 265] Angel of the Church at Ephesus (and so the rest each of them in his place) to be the President of the Presbyterie there, (Annotat. in Apoc. 2. 1.) yet hath he nothing (neither there, nor de Minist. grad. pag. 160.) that can be drawen to shew, that he estemed the Presbyteries or College of each Angel to be (all of them) Mini­sters of the word, and Pastors of severall Churches. But what need words be multiplied in so plaine a case? Affirmeth he not himselfe (serm. pag. 22.) that the parishes were not yet distinguished, nor Ministers assigned to their severall Cures? And must he not then vnderstand those Presbyrerians (with whome he pretendeth to have agrement) to speak of such a Presbyterie, as had the charge of one onely Church, not yet divided into severall titles? Howsoever then he make a shew of justifying his assumption against the Refuters denyal thereof; yet The D. subscri­beth to his Ref. and proveth what was not gaine­sayd. indeed he subscribeth vnto it; and indeavoureth to prove it in a sense, w ^ch now was not cōtradicted; for it is no disadvantage to us in the mayn question, to give way to the assumption in such a sense as Mr. Beza avoucheth it: since such a presidency as he alloweth to those Angels, can never conclude them to be diocesan Byshops, such as ours.

To come therefore to the proposition; because the Refuter re­jected it as false, I will make good his censure both by removing Sect. 2. the D defence thereof, & by proposing some other just exceptions against it. And 1. he cannot prove every president of a Presbytery in the Apostles times to be a Byshop; (much lesse a diocesā Byshop) in the usual construction of the word, opposed to other Ministerial functions. For if some Presbyteries were a company of Apostles & Apostolicall men, who were more then Byshops (as he acknow­ledgeth. (serm. pag. 38. and def. lib. 3. pag. 81.) needs must their president be more then a Byshop. And who doubteth, but that, as Iames the Apostle was president not onely of the Synode Act. 15. but also of the standing Presbyterie, Act. 21. 18? And Timothe an Evangelist president among the Presbyters at Ephesus for the time of his staye there, by S. Paules appointment 1. Tim. 1. 3. so also every Apostle, and Evangelist in the absence of the Apostles, was the president of any Church where they made their residence, though but for a short continuance. Thus was Paul the pre­sident of that Presbyterie, which imposed hands on Timothe, (2. Tim. 1. 6. cum. 1. Tim. 4. 14.) & of the Ephesian Presbyterie [Page] (during his aboade amongst them Act. 20. 17. 31.) And the like presidence even at Ephesus, S. Iohn reteined (doubtlesse) when after his exile, returning thither, ibi denuò sedem ac don [...]icilium rerum suarum collocavit, as Eusebius reporteth eccles. Hist. lib. 3. chap. 15. For it were absurd, either to seclude him from all con­sultation with the clergie of that Church; or to make him inferior vnto any of them. And since the D. acknowledgeth, that so longe as there remained any Apostles, or Evangelists, or Apostolical mē, they were the governors of the Churches (lib. 4. pag. 72.) we have reason to thinke, that he cannot without contradiction, affirme in generall of all the presidents that moderated the first Presbyteri [...]s, that they were properly Byshops; for he accounteth none of the A­postles to be properly Byshops, (lib. 4. pag. 57.) and he subscribeth (serm. pag 86.) to the saying of Tertullian (de prescrip: adv: haere [...].) that in the Apostolick Churches, theyre first Byshop had for their founder and Antecessor, one of the Apostles or Apostolik men. Now if all the presidents of Presbyteries were not properly By­shops; how could they all be diocesan Byshops, yea such as our Di­ocesans are? 2. Certeinly the verie name of a president, that had a Presbyterie adjoyned to him, for the managinge of Church▪ causes, doth strongly argue the forme of Church-government then, to have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy, (such as other reformed Chur­ches have restored) then with a Monarchy, which our diocesans holde. The D. argumēt therefore may be thus retorted against him.

The Presidents of the auncient Apostol [...]k Presbyteries were no dio­cesan Byshops such as ours.

The Angels of the 7. Churches were the presidents of such Presbyteries.

Therefore they were no diocesan Byshops, such as ours.

Or thus, Diocesan Byshops, such as ours, are not presidents of such pres­byteries, as [...]he ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed.

But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaēts of such Presbyteries▪

Therfore, they were no diocesan Byshops.

The assumption of both is the same, that the D. maketh use of for a contrary conclusion. The proposition of the former, if it be denied wil be thus confirmed. Diocesan Byshops such as ours doe governe monarchically (by their sole authoritie) and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbyterie, as the ancient apos [...]o­like Churches enjoyed.

But the presidents of those ancient Presbyteries, did not governe monarchically (or by their sole authoritie) and without the advice and assistance of theire Presbytery.

Those presidents therefore were no diocesan Bps, such as ours.

Both parts of this argument are acknowledged by the D. for the assumption appeareth by that which he affirmeth in particular of Iames his presidencie, lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all By­shops in former ages (s [...]rm. pag. 15. and d [...]f. lib. 1. pag. 191.) where he saith, that in Churches causes nothing almost was done without the advice of the Presbyters: and that their was great ne­cessitie, that the Byshop should use their advice and counsell, be­cause otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a lawe &c. And touching the proposition; as he intimateth (serm, pag. 97. and def. lib. 4. pag. 102.) the government of our Byshops to be monarchicall: so he confesseth that Byshops now have not that assistance of Presbyters, which the ancient Byshops had (lib. 1. pag. 190.) And this confirmeth also the truth of that other propositi­on of the later argument: For if diocesan Byshops, such as ours, have not any such Presbyterie associated to them, for advice and assistance in government; then they are not presidents of such Pres­byteries, as the ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed: But the for­mer is an apparant truth and conf [...]ssed by him, (serm. pag. 16. 17. def. lib. 1. pag. 190.) where he saith, that the assistance of those Seniours that directed the ancient Byshops, is long since growne out of use. Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedrall Churches, be a resemblāce of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time (as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189.) since they have another presi­dent, then called Archi-presbyter, now Deane; how can the By­shops of our da [...]es be their presidents, vnlesse he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads?

But let us see the D. owne defence of his proposition before contradicted. If sayth he, the Refuter wilbe pleased, to take notice of that Sect. 3. which he hath elsewhere proved; that there was but one Presbytery for an whole diocese: the proposition wilbe manifest; vz. that the presidents of the Pres­byters (provided for whole dioceses) whō the Fathers call Byshops, were dioce­san Byshops. The argument is thus digested by himselfe in a con­nexive sylogisme pag. 122.

If the Presbyteries were alo [...]ted to whole dioces [...]s, and not to severall parishes: thē the Bps. who were presidēts of those Presbyteries, were not par [...]onal but D.

But the first is true. Therefore also the second.

The assumption whose proofe is laide downe (viz. chap. 4.) I reserve to be handled hereafter; now I refuse his conclusions for the weaknes that I find in the proposition; if he speak (as he ought) of diocesan Byshops such as ours: for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesā, as he supposeth, the Apostolick Presbyteries were (viz. to worke out their conversion) cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church; & therefore cannot argue their president to be proper­ly a diocesan Byshop. Nay rather, if it may appeare, that the flock already converted, was but one onely congregation of christians; howsoever the Presbytery might be set to indeavour the conversiō of the rest of the diocese; yet (to speak properly (there was a parisho­nall Byshop, and not a diocesā, because the flock or congregatiō al­ready converted, was more like to a parish, then to a diocese. Yea, say he coulde prove, that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses, that is, for many particular congregations in each dio­ces [...]; why might not their president be a parishionall Byshop, in re­gard of his particular Church, which he fedde with the word and Sacraments; although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes? For it is cleare that Mr. Beza (of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Byshops he boasteth, (lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127.) doth hold it as necessary that the president of the pastors of a diocese, should have (as the rest) his particular parish to attende vpon; as it is esteemed fit, that a provinciall Byshop should be more specially interessed in the oversight of one diocese. De Minist. grad. cap. 20. pag. 123. and cap. 4. pag 168. And such were in deed the first diocesan By­shops, after parishes were multiplyed and Presbyters assigned to them; the pastorall charge of the mother-Church the cheife Pres­byter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe, when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to thē. Neyther might he remove his seate from it, to any other Church, though within his own Diocese. Concil. Carthag. 5. can. 5.

3. If the D. shall here tell us (as he doth) lib. 2. p. 117.) that the cathedrall Churches (which were the Bishops seas & Mother chur­ches to the whole Diocese) were never Parishes; nor the meetings there parishionall, but panigyricall: it wilbe but a frivolous exception in this place: for there will still remayne a difference of that moment, be­twixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries & our [Page] diocesans; that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion, that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops, of that kind that ours are. For besides the forenoted disagrement (that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government) it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling, as they were (by the D. owne confession, the truth therevnto inforcing him, lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158.) to preach the word & to administer the [...]acraments, in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick. By this time therefore, I hope, the reader may see, that although we should graunt, the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses: yet that will not warrant him, to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops, such as ours; and consequently, though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries; he can­not necessarily inferre, that they were diocesan Byshops, like to ours at this day.

Chap. 4. Conteyning an answer to the D. last argument draven from his text, lib. 4. cap. 6. sect. 3. pag. 142. handled by the Ref. pag. 155. 156. of his answer.

We are nowe come to that argument; wherewith the D. closeth Sect. 3. all up, lib. 4. cap. 6. sect. 3. the which we might well overpasse; se­ing he hath not one word in it, more then is already answered. Yet least he should think better of it, then it deserveth, I will give the reader a sight of it.

Those, saith he, that are called by the Holy Ghost the Angels of the Churches, and were signified by the 7. starres which were in Christs right hand, had di­vine both institution and approbation.

The diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches are called by the holy Ghost, the Angels of the 7. Churches, & were signified by the 7. starres which were in Christs right hand.

Therefore th [...] Di: Bishops of the 7. churches had divine both institution and approbation.

The proposition which needeth no proofe, he proveth 1. by the [Page 271] name of angels. 2. by the name of starres. 3. by Christs holding the starrs in his right hand. But the Assumptiō which carrieth both these names to Diocesan Bishops, and affirmeth that they also were the starres in Christs right hand, as he tooke it for graunted in his ser­mon; The D. proveth what needed▪ not proofe, & passeth by what he should ha [...] proved. so in the defence thereof he overpasseth it; telling us, that now he went not about to prove it; because it was proved at large in the former part of his sermon. And because the Refuter did againe put him in mind of his doctrine in his former sermō (scz. that all Ministers are starrs & Angels &c. he againe repeateth his answer before refuted, to wit, that these names kat hexochen are attributed to Byshops to signifie their pr [...]heminence. To the rest of the Refuters words, he vouch safeth none other answer then this, that they are th [...] uttring of his splean, and empty­ing of his gall against Byshops. Wherefore I will acquaint the reader with the substance of them, that he may judg, whether they d [...]serve so to be censured. Is there not (sayth the Refuter pag. 155.) prehemi­nence of dignitie to ministers as starrs, vnl [...]sse some of them may be as the sun, from whome all other have their light? all faithfull Ministers shyne as starres in the eyes of the Churches, though they lift not vp themselves, to darken the brightnes of their brethren, by their gl [...]ttring and glorious bl [...]sing. As for the 12. starres, Rev. 12. 1. he saith, they are eyther all Ministers, or else the 12. Apostles onely. For him therefore, to appropriate this to di­ocesan Bishops, is rather to shew his flattering humor; then soundly to expound the text. And then wondreth if the Doct. blushed not and trembled not, when he spake of the prerogative of glorie which his diocesan Bi­shops shall have in the world to come: and when he made the pro­phet Daniel patrone of such Lordly idlenes &c. and sheweth that it is so much the more to be wondred at, & l [...]mented in him, because of that which he knoweth & professeth in his former sermon, that all Ministers are starres & angels &c. as the reader may at large see, pag. 156. In w ^ch words of the refuter there are these 4. Arguments closely couched, which do clearly discover, how the D. abuseth the text he hādleth. The Refut [...] proveth by 4. argu­ments that the D. abu­seth hi [...] text.

1. To appropriate vnto di [...] Bishops, that which is eyther cōmon to all Mi­nisters or proper to the Apostles, is rather to shew his flattering humour, then soundly to expound his text.

But the name of starres (Apoc. 1. 20.) is cōmon to all Ministers; and all Ministers are vnderstood also by the 12. starres. (Apoc. 12. 1.) vnlesse we shall re [...]rte it onely to the Apostles.

Therefore to appropriate the name in both places, to D. Bishops, is rather to shewe his flattering humour; then soundly to expound his text.

2. The name of starres cannot expresse their preeminence, who are as the su [...]s from whom others derive their light:

But such are Diocesan Bishops as both the D. serm. pag. 47. lin. 13. & 54. antepenult, & Bishop Bilson perpet. govern. 291. affirme.

Therefore &c.

3. To appropriate to Diocesan Bishops that prerogative of glorie, which Daniel noteth in the starres he speaketh of: cap. 12. 3. is to make the Prophe [...] a patrone of Lordly ydlenes, or, at least, to give that prerogative, unto a work of another nature, then that which the prophet mentioneth. For that which (by Daniels doctrine) maketh men shine like starrs in heaven, is the turning of many vnto righteousnes, by faithfulnes and painfulnes in the Ministerie of the word.

But the workes which lift up Bishops above other Ministers; are the ordey­ning of Ministers, the suspending of them &c. workes of Lordly ydlenes; & not of painfulnes or faithfulnes in the Ministery of the word.

Wherefore the D. in appropriating to Diocesan Bishops, that prerogative of glorie. Dan. 12. 1. maketh him a patrone of Lordly idlenes &c.

4. He who knoweth and professeth, that all Ministers are starres & an­gels (so intituled. Apoc. 1. 20.) and that the preaching of the word, is the cheefe worke of the Ministerie, to which double honour is due: cannot with­out contradiction to himselfe magnify their Ministerye by the same ti­tles, who eyther claime by priviledge to be exempted from that great and ne­cessary worke of their calling; or load themselves with so many cares and so much busynes not belonging to theire function, that they cannot have an hower to think vpon that service, for which they are cheefly counted Starres & Angels; or which is worse, by their sole authoritie, thrust out painfull labou­rers &c.

But the D. knoweth and professeth as is abovesayd.

Therefore he falleth into an apparant contradiction (which is to be won­dred The Doct. contradi­cteth him­self. at and lamented) in magnifying by the same titles the function of Dio­cesan Bishops, who eyther claime the former priveledge. &c.

Now because the Doctors onely releefe against these arguments of the Refuter standeth in referring us to the former; I onely de­sire the indifferent reader to consider the answeres before and hereafter made to his best proofes, drawen eyther from his text or any other scripture, for the justifying of the interpretation of [Page] his text, or the doctrine of his sermon; and then to judge whether the large proofe he speaketh of, be not meere begging of the questi­on; and a grosse contradicting of himselfe.

Chap. 5. Concerning the argument drawn by the D. from Apoc. 2. 2. and 20. Lib. 3. cap. 5. sect. 20. pag. 135. 136.

Having already sifted all that the D. hath urged from his text for the singular preheminence and diocesan jurisdiction of his Sect. [...]. Byshops; we are now to proceed to that argument; which himselfe syllogistically fram [...]th; to prove that they had a corrective power over other Ministers; and thus he layeth it downe.

• Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering, such in their Church as called themselves Apostles, and were not, or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers; had a corrective power over other Ministers.
• The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, is commended for the former; Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the l [...]tter Apo. 2. 20.
• Therefore, these Angels, (which before I proved to be Byshops) had a cor­rective power over other Mini [...]ters.

The conclusion which the D. first aymed at (serm. pag. 49.) when he laid downe the parts of this assumption, (as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48.) was this; that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct, even those Presbyters which assisted them (as parts of theire Presbyterie) in the government of the Diocese. Wherfore the Refuters answer (pag. 101.) knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition.

If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephes [...]s for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles & were not: And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra, for suffering the Teach­ers of the Nicholaitan h [...]ri [...]y: then Byshops [...]ad majoritie of rule, for correcti­on over diocesan Presbyters.

And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antece­dent, he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops; nor those persons with whom they dealt, Diocesan Presbyters. To this, the D. reply­eth, The D. re­ply is [...]ri­volous, false, and sland [...]us. that the answer is frivolous; because he hath before proved the former, & his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shi [...]. Wherevnto my rejoynder is, that the first part of his reply is frivolous, or rather [Page] false; and the second a ma [...]cious slaunder. 1. For to say he hath proved, and not to shewe where, is meere trifling. And if he have not eyther in his sermon, or any part of his defence before-going, any one [...]yllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point, which he faith he hath before proved; what truth can there be in his saying? 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters; since the Doctor con­fesseth (pag. 124.) the word to be used in some Councels (graun­ting the word may be used in a sense) and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after (as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. & 104. of his answere) is it not a malli [...]ious slaunder, to say, he devised it, a [...]d that for a shift? espetially, seing in the rest of his answere to this argument, he maketh no advan­tage of the word Diocesan. But the Doct. saith (pag. 124.) that he neyther vsed the worde at all; neyther (if he had) would he have used it in The D. un­derstādeth not his owne testi­mony. that sense, scz. for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government; for in his vnderstanding, the country. Ministers are called Diocaesani (Conc [...]l. Agath. cap. 22. & Tolet. 3. cap. 20.) and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop, were called Ci­vitatenses. But to our understanding; it seemeth that the Praesby­ters called Diocesani (Concil. Tolet. 3. cap. 20.) being opposed to another sort, there termed Locales, were not country Ministers af­fixed to particular places; but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyter [...]e, which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Di­ocese. The words of the Councell are these. H [...] verò clerici, tam lo­cales quam Diocefani, qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint, que­relas suas, ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant. Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha. cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters, as the Doctor would perswade but, rather giveth, both names to the same persons. Id statuinus quod omnes jubent, ut Civitatēses sive Diocesani, Presbyteri vel Clerici, salvo jure ecclesie, rem ecclesiae, (sicut permiserunt episcopi) teneant, [...]t vendere aut donare penitus non presumant. But, to leave this quarrell about words, and to come to the matter; seing it is cleare, that the Do: first intended by this argument, to prove that Bishops had corre­ctive power, over those Presbyters, which assisted them in theyre Diocesan charge; is not the Refuters answere very direct and per­tinent (to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning) when he telleth [Page] him, That the Teachers against whom those angels, eyther did or shoulde have s [...]t themselves; were not such Presbyters? Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne, to prove that they were such Presbyters; nor removed the presumptions which the Refut: alleadged for his denyall; doth not the blame of a weak consequence [...]ly still heavy upon his shoulders? Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one, and the defense of the other, and then give upright sentence.

First, touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined, the Refuter asketh (pag. 102.) Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters, Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop, should call themselves Apostles? And ad­deth, any mans reason will give him, that these false Apostles, were men, who cōming frō some other place, would have thrist thēselves into the Church, there, to have taught with authoritie, and by right of Apostleship. And tou­ching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira, he saith, that they also might be such intruders; or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach, having no calling thereto; but how­ever; it no way appeareth, that they were Ministers and members of the pres­byt [...]e, assisting the Angel of that Church. Now what saith the Doct? Doth he make the contrarie appeare, viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie? No, for he will not determine, whether they were Presbyters, or in a higher degree; whether of the Bishops Presbyterie, or not; and whether of the Diocese originally, or come from other places. Onely he saith, it is playne they were Teachers; & that being in their Diocese, the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach, or to inhi­bit them, &c. Wherein observe we, 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere, scz. that it no way appeareth, that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed. 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers; if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers, it is more then he can prove; his bare avouching that it is plaine; doth not plainely cōvince it; yet will it nothing advantage him, nor disadvantage his Refut: to grant it. 3. Moreover, in saying, that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach, or to inhibit them &c.; eyther it is frivo­lous, if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then [Page] is common to every Pastor or Minister, in his owne charge (since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and suffi­cient right to forbidd such companions, or else it is a begging of The D. an­swer is fri­volous, or a begging of the question. of the question, if he speake of such a judiciall licencing or silen­cing, as Byshops in these daies exercise over other Ministers in their diocese. But he will both prove, that these false Teachers, were sub­ject to the censure of the Angels or Byshops, & remove that which his Refuter objecteth to the contrary. The later he attempteth in this manner. If they were not Presbyters (he should say parts of the Presbyterie of that Church) because they called themselues Apostles, be­like; they were better men. Is it not then against sense, to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Byshop; bycause he imagineth these, who were subject to their censure, were better men? Is this the Refuters ima­gination, or is not rather the D. conclusiō grounded vpon his own The D. cannot up­hold his cause but by vn­truthes imagination? Why then may I not returne him his own wordes p. 124▪ Is the D. cōscience no better, then stil to father vpō the Ref: vntruthes for his own advantage? bewrayeth he not thereby, what a cause he mainteineth, that cannot be vpheld but by forgeries? The Refuter; to make good his deniall, of that which the D. pre­supposed in the consequence of his reasoning, (vz. that the false A­postles were Presbyters and parts of the Angels Presbyterie) affir­med that it was against sense to imagine, that any such would as­sume to themselves the name and preheminence of Apostles; and that any mans reason would rather give him, that they were per­sons that came frō some other place. Add hervnto, that if they had been of the Ephesian clergie, and so knowne to the whole Church, to have imbraced an ordinarie calling and settled charge amongst them; how should they with any colour perswade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ? Doubtlesse the very con­sideration of the knowne difference, betwixt the extraordinary Ministery of the Apostles, and the ordinary function of Presbyters, might have been sufficient (without any further search) to discover their lying forgerie, which being knowne to have place among the latter, should usurpe the name & authoritie of the former. But the text sayth, Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be lyars by the wise and diligent care of the angel who examined or tried them; it is therefore more probable that they were rather of the nom­ber of those wandring Prophets, which as greivous wolves from [Page 277] without, entred in to devoure: then of those perverse teachers, which springing up among them, did drawe disciples after them. See Aretius, Beza, and Marlorat, in Apoc. 2. 2.

And touching the false Prophetesse [...]e zabell, seing she is expresly said to be a woman; though good Interpreters doe gather from hence, that woemen were suffred to teach publikly in that Church (see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20.) yet were it too grosse to imagine, that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers, or to the charge of Presbyters. And though it should be graunted, that they were men (not woemen) which are deciphered by the name of that woman Iezabell; yet the very name argueth theire greatnes & theire prevayling by their subtile perswasions (no lesse then Iezabel did by her cōmanding power) to drawe many vn to their wicked wayes. And the title of a Prophetesse importeth, y ^• they boasted of an īmediate calling, & of extraordinary revelatiōs.

Neyther doth the Doctor contradict this: onely he saith, If they The D. tri­fleth. were not presbyters, belike they were better men. A frivolous speach, and an unlikely consequence. For what likelihood is there, that they were better men? seing some of them were found to be lyars in saying they were Apostles? Or how doth the deniall of this, that they were parts of the standing Presbyterie, argue that they were no Pres­byters at all? But say they were of an higher calling (to wit Evan­gelists or fellowe-helpers sometimes to the Apostles) yet now A­postates from the faith (as was Demas and some other) what will this advantage the D. cause? For sooth, because himselfe imagineth▪ that these (who were better men,) were subject to the Bishops censure: therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny, that Pres­byters were subject to his censure.

To come then at lengthe to that which he first proposed, (the reason I meane which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles & Iezabel the false Prophetesse, were subject to the Angels of the Churches, wherein they usurped authoritie to teach) he sayth.

If they were not subiect to them, why is the one commended for exercising authoritie over them, and the other reproved for suffring them? For an­swere, it shall suffice to ask; why he assumeth for an apparant truth, Yet the [...] ­beggeth. that which is rather apparantly false? viz. that the Angell of E­phesus is commended for exercising authoritie over the false A­postles? And why he pre supposeth in the cōsequence of his reason­ing, [Page] that which he cannot justifie? to wit, that the false prophe­tesse of Thyatira, was subject to the Angels censure; because he is re­proved for suffring her. And thus wear lead (as it were by the hād) to see, the falshood of the proposition of the arg. before by himself cōtrived. For a corrective power over Ministers, cannot be firmely concluded, eyther from the cōmendation of the one that examined them which falsly called themselves Apostles; or from the re­proofe of the other, that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people. For put the case, the D. were an Archdea [...]on, (or w ^ch would please him better) a Diocesan Lord; & that in the some parishes vnder his government, corrupt teachers should [...]ind free accesse to the pulpit, but in other places by the carefull enquirie of the Ministers and Church-wardens finding what they are, they should be restreyned: me thinks, in this case he should highely cōmend the honest care of the one, and sharply reprove, the carlesse negligence of the other: yet if a man should frō his cōmendation or reproofe inferre, that the persons so commended or reproved; had the power of correct­ing and silencing Ministers: I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicitie of such a disputer, then vouchsafe him a direct an­swer. See the loosenes of the D. rea­soning. But to leave suppositions and to let him see the loose­nes of his reasoning by a more direct answer; it is cleare that the Spirit of God doth no lesse commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Pauls doctrine, (Act. 17. 11.) then he doth the Angel of Ephesus, for examining them that falsely assu­med the name of Apostles? Wil the D. therefore acknowledge that they had a corrective power over that holy Apostle? And who knoweth not, that it is required of every private Christian, to have their senses exercised in the word, to discerne betweene good & e­vill? (Heb. 5. 14.) to trie the spirits of their teachers, whether they be of God or not? (1. Ioh. 4. 1.) to bewarre of false Prophets and seducers? (Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4.) to trie all things and to hold fast that onely which is good? (1 Thes. 5. 21.) yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them? (1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13.) to marke such as teach contrarie to the doctrine that they have received, and to avoide them, Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the generall bande of love, binde everie one freely to rebuke his neyghbour, & not to suffer sinne upon him? (Levi [...]. 19. 17.) [Page] and doth not the Apostles sharpely taxe the Corinthians for suffe­ring the false Apostles to domineare over them (2. Cor. 11. 20.) Wherefore, if it be a cursed confusion, & subversion of ecclesiasti­cal power, to subject every teacher to the jurisdiction or corrective power of everie private hearer, and to cōmit the managing of the keies or Church Censures, to everie meane Artisan; then the D. may see how grosse an error it is to think; that the dutie of exami­ning or trying, and not suffering false teachers, doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiasticall censur [...] vpon them. And the indifferent reader may perceive, that while the D. labour­eth to vphold the preheminent suprioritie of Byshops, he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Mi­nisteriall authoritie, and to bring in a mere Anarchy.

Perhaps the D. wil reply, that besides this trial or judgement of Sect. 4. discerning (which is cōmon to all Christians, & needfull for their preservation from seducers) there is another and an higher kind, proper to the guides of the Church; and necessarie for the pre­serving of the whole [...]lock, from haereticall infection. This wee acknowledge to be true; but withall we say, it is none other, then a judgement of direction (as Doctor Feild calleth it in his treatise of the Church. lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222.) which endeavoureth to make others discerne, what themselves haue found out to be the truth. And this is cōmon to all the Ministers of the word, El­ders of the Church: as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth cōmon to all the Elders of Ephesus, viz. to attend on the feed­ing of the flocke, and to watch against the danger, both of wolves entring in, and of false teachers springing up amonge them. Act. 20. 28.-31. For how should such danger be pre­vented by theire watchfulnes, if it were not theire dutie, to trye out the leawde behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits; and not to suffer them to spreade the contagion and poyson thereof, in the Church committed to their oversight? This is yet more manifest by sundry canons, prescribed elswhere by the same Apostle; as when he requireth of every Presbyter an abi­litie, to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine. T [...]t. 1. 5. 9. [Page] and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add herevnto the practise of the A­posties, admitting the Presbyters of the Church of Ierusalem, to consultation for the trying & determining of that question, (tou­ching circumcision &c.) which had troubled the mindes of many beleevers at Antioche. Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparant therefore, that in the triall and examination, both of teachers and their do­ctrine, the scripture knoweth no difference betweene Bishops, and Presbyters: so that if Bishops will challendge to themselves a juris­diction and power of correction over Presbyters, because it belon­geth vnto them, to trie or examine, & not to suffer false teaching. Presbyters; then for the same reason, it being the dutie of every Pres byter to trie, the doctrine of Bishops & not to suffer them to spread any errour without resistance; Bishops also must subject thē ­selves, to the corrective power of every Presbyter.

But he will alleadge (as some others have done) that there is a third kind of triall and judgement, proper to them that have cheif authoritie in the Church, (to wit, a judiciall examination of per­sons suspected, in open cōsistory with power to censure, such as are found faulty: which as it is now exercised of our Bishops; so it was then practised by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus. Indeed, if this were true, he might with some colour inferre, that the angels function, was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops; but who seeth not that this plea is none other, then a mere begging of the question? For, they that deny these angels to Still the D. beg­geth. be Bps., such as ours; doe not acknowledge any such preheminēce, in one Minister above another, for the trying and censuring of of­fenders. Moreover, by this reply, the cause is as litle relieved, as if a shipmaster, to stop one leake in the one side of his shipp, should make two or three on the other side, more dangerous then the former. For, to cover the falshood of the proposition; a double errour or untruth is discovered in the Assumptiō. viz. 1. that by the triall which the Angel of the Ephesian Church, tooke of the false The D. to stopp one leake mak­eth two. Apostles, is meant a judicial cōventing of thē in open Consistorie; and proceeding vnto censure against them, being found lyars. 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative, of that one which is here intituled, the angel of that Church.

The falshood of the former doth appeare in part, by some things already spoken; it being before shewed, that the triall and exami­nation Sect. 5. both of teachers and of theire doctrine, appropriated vn­to Ministers in the apostolicall writings, is none other then that judgement of direction, whereby themselves and their people are informed & guided, in this cariage, towards those teachers. I add 1. that the Doctor cannot paralell the words or phrases here used. ou dune bastasai k [...]k [...]us' kai epeiraso &c. Apo. 2. 2. & hoti eas ten &c. ver. 20. with any other text of holy scripture; where the same words do imply such a judiciall triall, as he supposeth to be infolded under them. 2. And since the persons, which are sayd to be tryed & not indured; professed to be Apostles (and therefore such, as chal­lendged an authoritie and calling, superiour to that Angel) what likelihoode is there that they would yeelde themselves subject, to his judiciall examination, and censure? 3. Againe, the text saith onely, that they were tried and found lyars; now if they were in open Consistorie, judicially tried; why were they not upon the discove­ry of their false dealing, enjoyned to give open testimonie of their repentance? And (if they refused so to doe) why did they not beare the sentence of suspension, and excommunication, or de­gradation? Or (if any such proceeding was held against them) why is it not recorded in the text; seeing it woulde have made much more, for the angels commendation, then that which is expresly mentioned? 4. Nay, that is recorded, which soundeth rather, to the confirmation of the contrary; for that bearing which is commended in the same angel. vers. 3. is by good Interpre­ters (and amongst other by Mr Perkins) construed, of his groan­ing under the burthen of those false Teachers, and their haereti­call doctrine, of which he laboured what he could, to disburden the Church. But, however this be taken, there is little reason for any man to thinke▪ that those false Apostles, were in o­pen consistorie conv [...]nted and censured, as the Doctor imagineth. And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe; how will the second point be manifested, which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth? viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers, was the peculiar right of one Bishop, here called the angell of the Church? To tell us that he hath before proved, [Page 282] that by the Angel of each Church; one onely Bishop is meant, will be no sufficient defense; seing his proofes are already disproved, cap. 3. sect. 1. 2. 3. &c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie, viz. that under the name of one Angell, the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood. Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers, may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned, Apoc. 2. 2. & 20; we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops, & for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters, in this manner;

They, who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring, or repro­ved for suffering false Teachers in their Church; had a corrective power over other Ministers.

But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, was commended for the former. Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, was reproved for the later. ve [...]s. 20.

Ergo, those Angels, (which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church) had the corrective power over Mi­nisters.

And since it appeareth by the commandement, which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches. (Apoc. 1. 11.) that the praise o [...] dispraise of every angel, belongeth in part unto the whole Church: (a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters, Calvin, Beza, Mar­lorat, Aretius Perkins &c.) though it should be graunted that one Minister (to wit, the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie) is principally aymed at, in the name of the angel of each Church; yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction, was his p [...]culiar right; nay rather, it will follow, that so farre as his fel­low angels; and (not they onely but) the whole Church, did par­take with him, in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him; so farre also, they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding. Wherefore, if the Doctors meaning be (in his assumption to re­streyne the praise or dispraise mentioned (Apoc. 2. 2 20.) vn­to The D. wresteth the text; or must yeeld the cause. one onely person (whom he reputeth to be the Bishop) his As­sumption is to be rejected, as an erroneous wresting of the text, contrarie to the true meaning thereof: But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption, (viz. that in the praise or re­proofe [Page] of the angel, the rest of the Ministers or Elders, and the whole Church did partake with him) then must he subscribe to this conclusion; to wit; that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch: did partake with the Angel of each Church, in the power of admi­nistring the Church-censures. And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text, or any part of the holy scripture, in defense of the explication of his text, viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches, were 7. Bishops, for the substance of their calling such as ours are. We are in the next place to see, what strength there is in that argument, whereby from the title of An­gels in his text, he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops.

Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same, with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text, handled by him, Lib. 3. pag. 150. &c. against the Refuters an­swere. pag. 105. 106.

LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title (The angels of the Churches) to justify Sect. [...]. the titles of honour, which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates; his argument is this,

The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title, in calling them the angels of the Churches; then if he had called them Lords.

Therfore, we should not think much, that they are called Lordes.

The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositiō, That vnto whōsoever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title; to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour, which is not vniversally true; as the D. (I suppose) wil confesse in many particulars. For the name or ti [...]le of Maior, Bayliffe, Alderman, Constable, &c. I might say King, Duk [...], Earle &c. must needs be (in his understanding) by many degrees inferiour, to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in cōmon to all Ministers of the word, (sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62.) such as are Co-workers, and Stewards of God, &c. But to give the former unto Ministers, were to bringe confusion into the Church, & to overthrow that difference, which the lawes of God & man have set betwene civill & eccles. functions. And though a man [Page 184] should offer to salve this mischeife, with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings &c. (by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops) yet I perswade my selfe, he would not easylie admit of this disorder, yea doubtlesse, he would thinke it a great disparagement, to his reverend Fathers & spiritual Lords, that everie painefull Minister of Christ, should be equalled with them in those honorable titles, which doe now lift them vp above their brethren. And yet (by his owne confession (pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned,) they have (all) right to those titles of Doctors, Fa­thers, Pastors, and Saviours of their brethren, which are more glo­rious, then that name of Angels of the Churches, which he now ap­propriateth vnto Byshops. We may take it therefore, for an evi­dent truth; that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq. is not true. argument; no not, though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature, I meane such, as declare the same kind of honor, either civill, or ministeriall. For, I make no question, but the D. would judge it, as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops, to beare the name of Archdeacons, Officials, or Curates &c. as for Kinges & Em­perors, to be called Dukes, & Captaines, or high Constables. And I judge it much more absurde, to argue (as he doth) from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers, to shew the dignitie of their fun­ction; vnto titles of civill honour, apperteyning vnto great perso­nages, that excell in externall pompe, and worldly glorie.

And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument, when (to shewe the inconsequence thereof) he said, that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither are of a different nature. For An­gels and starres are glorious creatures of heaven, and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office; but Lord, Lordship, and Grace, are termes of civill honour, not so well be sitting the Ministers of Iesus Christ. Hereto the D. replyeth, I confesse they doe not so well befit them, because they come short of the honour and excellencie, which in the name of angels, the Holy Ghost ascri­beth to them: as if the honour of the episcopall function were much abased (not increased (as the world judgeth) by those titles of civill honour, given vnto Byshops, for what else can he meane, in sayinge they doe not so well befitt them because they come short &c. And why then are ye so vnwise (ô ye Princes and Nobles) as to give vnto Byshops, for the honouring of their [Page 285] those titles that doe debase them? Be wise and instructed from henceforth, to deny them these base termes, of Lordship and Grace & to give them those titles of honour, which are peculiar to Christ and not common with them to any other creature; viz. Pastors of soules, the light of the world, and saviour of their brethren (see the D. serm. of the dignitie of the Ministers, (pag 62. 64.)

But why maketh the D. a shew of removing his Refuters answere, The D ma­keth shew of remov­ing his Ref. answ. but doth not once touch it. and yet leaveth it altogether vntouched? For he cannot give his argument a discharge from the inconsequence objected against it, till he shew, eyther that the titles which he cōpareth, are not of an other nature; or that the termes of civil honor cōtroverted; doe wel beseeme those, whose calling is adorned with titles of greater ho­nour, in another kind; to witt, in regard of a spirituall and celestiall dignitie. To attempt the former, were to quench the light of cō ­mon reason: and to indeavour the latter, is to conveye the con­troverted titles of civill honour (by an equall right) vnto every Minister; seing the titles of greatest spirituall dignitie, doe equally belong to all the Ministers of the word, as is before observed. The D. therefore, as one that wittingly will not see, the weaknes of his consequence, spendeth all his strength in fortifying the Antecdēt; viz. that the names of Lords &c. given to Byshops by earthly Princes, is a title of lesse honour, then that which the Holy Ghost giveth them in calling them the Angels of the Churches. I wil not now urge him a fresh to give us some better reason, then any he hath yet proposed, for the proofe of that which he taketh here for graunted; sz. that the Holy Ghost appropriateth vnto Byshops, such as ours; the name of the Angels of the Churches; I will onely exa­min how well he hath proved, that this is a more honourable title: then the name of Lords.

They are called, saith he, not onely Angels, that is, messengers and Am­bassadors of God, as all Ministers are in respect of their Ministerie: but each Sect. 3. of them also, is called the Angel of the Church whereof he is Byshop, in re­spect of his government, and guardianship of the Church; as the holy angels are said to be their angels, over whom they are appointed governours & guardians: therfore the name Lord givē to them in respect of their governmēt & authority, is a title of lesse honor; thē that; which in the same respect is givē thē by Christ. Here also I must passe by a double error (in his words) before dis­covered, [Page] namely that Byshops onely and not any other Ministers, have right vnto this title, the Angels of the Churches; and that more [...] As if it were more honour to be the knight of a shire (in Parliamēt) then to be the Kings [...]eutenant? honour is implyed in this latter, then in the name of the Lords Angels or Embassadors, which he acknowledgeth to be cōmon to all Ministers, (see for that these points, the answ. to his 7. sect. lib. 1. cap. 2.) The weight and worth of his reasoning is now to be exa­mined, which standeth in this Enthymem.

Everie Byshop is called the Angels of the Church whereof he is Byshop, in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church; like as the holy an­gels are sayd to be their angels, over whom they are appointed.

Therefore, the name Lord given to them in respect of their government is a title of lesse honour, then the other that is given in the same respect. Why? if both titles be given to Byshops, in one and the same respect, doth it not rather follow (by good probabilitie) that equall honour is implyed in both? should not then the D. have done better, to have fortified the consequence of his argument, then to leave it naked as he doth? And why (neyther in this, nor in the former En­thymem) supplieth he not the consequence or proposition, which (according to his owne rules lib. 2. pag. 44.) might make a perfect syllogism? at least, why doth he not fill up his comparison, and tell us, from whose governmēt the name of Lord (given vnto Byshops) is borrowed? Perhaps, because he saith (in the next clause of his defence) that Bishops have that title of Lords, common to them with the Lords temporall: he would have us to conceive, that it is for that cause, a title of lesse honour, then that other, which Bi­shops have common to them, with the holy Angels of God. If this be his meaning (as [...]gesse it is, for I know not, what better colour he can pretēd, for the justifying of the cōsequēce of his reasoning) we are then to inquire, whether he be not deceived, eyther in lay­ing downe the reason of the name Lord, given vnto Bishops, or in making that the cause of a lesse honour included in the name? His own words are the occasion of drawing the former into question, when he saith: They are not therefore civil Lords, because they have the title of Lords cōmon to them with the Lords temporall, for who knoweth not the di­stinction? betwene the Lords spirituall and temporal? We are not ignorant of the distinction, so often mentioned in the actes of parliament, but the D. seemeth not to know the right meaning and use there­of. [Page] For if the Bishops be not civill Lords, nor their Lordship a civill honour, because they are distinguished from the nobles of the lay­tie, by the name of Lords spirituall; then it followeth that theire Lordship and honour annexed thereunto, is meerely spirituall. But it is so well knowne to all the world, that Bishops doe partake with temporall Lords in all the appurtenances of civil Lordship and ci­vill honour; that to deny it, were delirare cum insanis, to plaie the madd man. The reason therefore, of the distinction retained in our lawes, is rather to shew the different condition of the persons, then the diversity of their Lordship; because the one are spirituall persons or clergie-men; and the other temporall men or lay-per­sons. Or [...]f the D. will needs have theire verie Lorpships to be di­stinguished by those termes. Spirituall and temporall; then the diffe­rence must be this, that Bishops have, (besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies, common to them with the Lords tempo­rall) an ecclesiasticall Lordship, or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes; in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall. How­ever it be, since he denyeth them to be civill Lords, and acknow­ledgeth the name Lord to be given them, in regarde of the same government, which is implied vnder the name of, the angels of the Churches; he should in reason, derive the Lordship of Byshops, rather from Christs Lordship, which is spirituall, then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil. For if that be true which he conceiveth; Byshops have no more affinitie with noble persona­ges in the name of Lords: then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors. Both may be called Pastors of the people (as he saith serm. of the dig. of Min. pag. 53.) but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies; the Ministers of their soules. In like man­ner, our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes; but the one are civill Lords, the other not so, but spiritual. Where­fore, as he affirmeth (serm. pag. 62.) Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors; because, as he is the Pastor of our soules; so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes, but of their souls; so he maketh (or at least, might from the like ground affirme) Bi­shops, to have the name of Lordes, cōmon to them with Christ; seing as he is a spirituall Lord; so are they also Lords spirituall, and not civill. Wherefore, if wee may measure the greatnes [Page 288] or smallnes of that honour, which any titles convey vnto Ministers, by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons, with whom they, in those titles, are compared: then have wee good war­rant to conclude, the honour included in the name of Lordes, at­tributed unto Bishops; to be by so much greater, then that which is implied, in the other title of the Churches Angels; by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels. But no staied building standeth upon so [...]andy a foundation; for as men shall please to va­ry the things, with which they may (by any title) compare the Ministers of Christ; so theire honour shall rise or fall at their plea­sure, and that vnder one and the same title. For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers (Ephes. 4. 11.) with Christ, the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe. (1. Pet. 5. 4. & Heb. 13. 20.) then is it a name of farr greater honor, then the name of Angels, or Angels of the Churches: but it is by many degrees more base, if it be referred to the shepheards that watch & attend on their flocks in the feilds, from whence (in truth) it was at the first derived. Wherefore, it must be confessed, that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning.

And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed, Sect. 4. scz. that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord, being cōmon to Bishops, with Lords temporall, to be a title of lesse ho­nour, then the name, of the angels of the Churches, that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels. We may with much more probabilitie af­firme, that by how much it is a greater honour, to have a Lord-like government in any Church; then to have a tutorship, or Guardianship therein: by so much, the name of Lorde given to Bi­shops, in respect of their government; is a title of greater honour, thē the other, which expresseth their Guardianship, which in some respect is allowed, to the Churchwardens of every parishe. For, why should we not measure the height of that honour, which ti­tles doe imply, rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradi­cteth him­selfe. the names import; then by the condition of the persons or things, with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled? To end this dispute, let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor; for whereas nowe he graunteth the [Page 289] name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire govern­ment and authoritie: a little after (pag. 153.) he denieththe title to be given them, with relation, but as a simple title with honour & reverēce. For how can it be a simple title of honour, used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them; if it be given them in respect of their government? And thus much for answer to the argument, drawen from the name of Angels in his text, to justifie those honourable titles, of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops.

Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. &c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops, like to ours.

There remayneth some what (alleadged by the D. to shew that [...]e 7. angels were Byshops, for the substance of their calling, like to ours) as yet vnanswered: but it is from humane, and not divine evidence. He promiseth indeed (serm. pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence, that the government by Byshops, was used even in the Apostles times, and not contradicted by them. His scripture proofe is nothing but this, The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse, and for the substance of their calling like to ours, as I (sayth he) have proved. Which proofes, because his Refuter had removed, be­fore he came to that part of the sermon; he therefore tolde him; that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion, but what was already answered: now the D. telleth us, that this is vntrue. For (saith he) I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were By­shops. That they were Byshops? why? that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed; he should therefore say, (and make his saying good) that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours; but so to affirme were to avouch, an vntruth: wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing, but what was before an­swered. Which wrong is the greater, because he could not but see, by his Refuters words following, (answ. pag. 128.) that in so say­ing, he had an [...]ie, to the D. proofes from scripture; which was [Page 290] the thing promised b [...]t not performed: Wherfore he may very wel againe, be once tolde; that [...]ayling in his proofes frō scripture (w ^ch onely is sufficient to make good his assertion) how much soeverhe say besides, he must be beholding to his reader, if he be per­swaded by him. Notwithstanding, let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be, wherein he resteth so confidently. The former (sayth he) though this great Analyser, eyther did not, or would not see, it is this: That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus: Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna, and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus, Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna, and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus, and what is sayd of two, is to be vnderstood of the rest. Indeed, the Refuter saw not this last clause, for how should he see it, be­fore it came into the D. head to deliver it? and now he might well have spared it: vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning. For would he have us to think, that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus; so also the other five, were Policar­pus and Onesimus? If this be not his meaning, why doth he tell us, that what is sayd of two, the same must be vnderstood of the rest? If his meaning be, that as he nominated two; so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest, if he list; he must pardon us, in case we intertayne not the thought; seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names, if he had e­ver mett with any evidence that revealed them.

But why doth this great disputer (who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing) so falsely, and yet wittingly, charge his Refuter (whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser) not to see, or not to mention this his first The D. fal­sly yet wil­lingly slan­dereth his Refuter. argument? Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it, when he saith (pag. 128.) that the summe of all that the D. hath, is comprized in 3. points, 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna; and Onesimus, as it may well be supposed, the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus? 2. that from the 7. angels &c. Had the Refuter put the word An­gel, in steade of the word Byshop which he used; the D. had had no colour of cause, as he had no cause, to quarrel with him: but the old proverbe is verifyed, wrangl [...]rs will play at small game rather then sit out; and men sett to pick quarrells, will take holde of small occasions, rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine.

But to leave his evill and idle wandrings, and to examine his Sect. 2. argument, the first standeth thus in forme.

Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus.

But Policarpit [...] and Onesimus were Bishops, (he should say) By-shops like to ours.

Therefore, two of these angels were Byshops, like vnto [...]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 pr [...]de­cessors 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, as he may easily discerne, if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. The D. contradi­cteth him­selfe. 62. with serm. pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. togither. In thēBCH 4168-0138 [Page 290] the thing promised b [...]t not performed: Wherfore he may very w [...]l againe, be once tolde; that fayling in his proofes frō scripture (w ^ch onely is sufficient to make good his assertion) how much soeverhe say besides, he must be beholding to his reader, if he be per­swaded by him. Notwithstanding, let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be, wherein he resteth so confidently. The former (sayth he) though this great Analyser, eyther did not, or would not see, it is this: That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus: Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna, and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus, and what is sayd of two, is to be vnderstood of the rest. Indeed, the Refuter saw not this last clause, for how should he see it, be­fore it came into the D. head to deliver it? and now he might well have spared it: vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning. For would he have us to think, that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus; so also the other five, were Policar­pus and Onesimus? If this be not his meaning, why doth he tell us, that what is sayd of two, the same must be vnderstood of the rest? If his meaning be, that as he nominated two; so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest, if he list; he must pardon us, in case we intertayne not the thought; seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names, if he had e­ver mett with any evidence that revealed them.

But why doth this great disputer (who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing) so falsely, and yet wittingly, charge his Refuter (whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser) not to see, or not to mention this his first The D. fal­ [...]ly yet wil­lingly slan­dereth his Refuter. argument? Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it, when he saith (pag. 128.) that the summe of all that the D. hath, is comprized in 3. points, 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna; and Onesimus, as it may w [...]ll be supposed, the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus? 2. that from the 7. angels &c. Had the Refuter put the word An­gel, in steade of the word Byshop which he used; the D. had had no colour of cause, as he had no cause, to quarrel with him: but the old proverbe is verifyed, wranglars will play at small game rather then sit out; and men sett to pick quarrells, will take holde of small occasions, rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine.

But to leave his evill and idle wandrings, and to examine his Sect. 2. argument, the first standeth thus in forme.

Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus.

But Policarpus and Onesimus were Byshops, (he should say) By­shops like to ours.)

Therefore, two of these angels were Byshops, like vnto [...]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 pred [...] ­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 [Page] former he saith that Ignatius his ep [...]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 Chrō. & 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 sa [...]th serm. pag. 62.) then his epistles written to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis, wilbe 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 ep [...]stles of Igna [...]tus and Policarp, that now goe vnder their names, saith D. Fulke (in answ. to the Rhem: on Act. 6. 7.) are not au­then [...]k; but gathered out of the Apocryphall constitutions of that counter­ [...]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 sh [...]pp that epis [...]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 [Page 293] 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.

Chap. 1. Concerning the word, Church, handled by the Doct. in his Def. (lib. 2. cap. [...]. sect. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.) of the 2. point of his fer­mon. viz. that the Apostolicall Churches were Dioceses pro­perly and not Parishes.

IN the Doct. first section I find nothing but a vaine Sect. 1. ad [...]ect. 1. & 2. D. floorish, and therefore will overpasse it without an­swer. In his second section, he telleth us, that at first, he intended onely a light skirmish, and therefore finding that his adversary brought a maine ba [...]tell into the feild against him, he thought good to bring in a new supplie; before he put a new life into his former arguments, to make them returne upon his Refuter a fresh. And for as­much as he was to intreate of Churches, Parishes, & Dioceses, he resol­veth first to begin with the names, that are diversly taken, and first with the word Ecclesia, which he telleth us, is in all places of the new Testa­ment (excep [...]ng Act. 19.) appropriated to the companies of the faithfull. For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two companies; the one is the world, which is the kingdome of darknes, conteyning many particular companies, which are all the Synagogues of Satan: the other, the kingdome of God: this later is called Ecclesia, signifiing a company of men as redeemed, so also called out of the world, as the gr [...] word importeth. And so concludeth with his definition of a Church thus. Ecclesia therefore is a company of men, called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ; that is to say, more briefely, th [...] Church doth signify a company of Christians. To all which, I (for my part) most willingly subscribe, and from thence doe inferre, that (in the Doctors vnderstanding for the present) the 7. Churches of Asia (meant by the 7. candlesticks, in his text) were none other, then so many companies of Christians called out of the world, & divided from all the companies of Infidels or Idolaters, which were Satans Synagogues in any of the cities or townes of Asia. And therefore he contradicteth the truth, wherevnto he now beareth The D. cō ­tradicteth the truth & himself. witnes; when he indeavoureth to perswade (pag. 36. 42. & 54.) that every of those 7 Churches, conteyned in their circuite, the whol citie & coūtry adjoyning, although the Christiās at that time, were but a very few in cōparison of heathen: And that the church [Page 2] or flock, which in those (and other) cities, was cōmitted to the care of the presbyters there ordeyned, was, not onely the number of Christians already converted, but the whole number also, of such as were in time to be converted. Whereof we may see, serm. pag. 66. 69. and 88.

As for the Doctors table following in the next page, wherein he presenteth to his Reader in one viewe, the diverse significations of the word Ecclesia, reduced by him unto certaine heades, his rea­der The D. ta­ble of ec­clesia is er­ronious in some par­ticulars. hath reason to think, that he is deceived in some particulars; & namely, 1. in carrying Act. 2. 47. and Colos. 1. 24. unto the ca­tholike company of Gods elect, which is the invisible Church. For 1. all that were there and then (Act. 2.) called by the Ministery of the A­postles, were called to a visible cōmunion; and when their number was much increased, so many of them as dwelt at Ierusalem re­mayned members of that Church, as himselfe by and by acknow­ledgeth, in referring unto it, Act. 5. 11. 2. And why should we not take that Church whereof Paul was made a Minister (Col. 1. 24 25.) for the same, unto which the rest of the Apostles were ordey­ned, (1. Cor. 12. 28.) that is, the catholike militant church, as him­selfe understandeth the later place? 3. And to let passe his refer­ring Act. 8. 3. to the whole militant Church dispersed, whereas it ap­peareth to be meant of that Church of Ierusalem, which was not yet scatterd abroad, as vers. 1. 3. &. 4. compared do [...] shewe; it is 4. more to be wondered at, that he should also carrie to the catho­like militant church, that of 1. Tim. 3. 15. seing he holdeth Timo­thie to be the Bishop of Ephesus, affixed to it, to live and di [...] there. And 5. (not to tell him how those two agree not wel togither) how 2. contra­dictions in the Doct. will he accord his understanding Mat. 16. 18. of the militant part of the Church, with his owne interpretation (p. 106. of this book) where he taketh it, for that vniversall congregation of Gods elect, which is spoken of Ephes. 1. 22. and 5. 25. 6. As for those places which he saith doe definitely signify a Church congregated into a Synode or Congregation; though by the line which is drawne in his table, they seeme to belong to the Church of a nation: yet I guesse, they should have bene referred rather to the Church of a citie or country ad­joyning. And if so; then (although he leave it doubtfull whether it were a set or vncerteyne congregation; yet) he plainely acknowled­geth that by these places (Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. & 14. 23.) is meant the Church of a citie and country adjoyning, gathered into [Page 3] one congregation; and then he forgetteth himselfe in construing those words otherwise pag. 104. & 105. following. Yea though a contra­diction in the Doct. he should now carrie those places as the line draweth them, to the Churches of an whole nation; yet can he not escape the blame of an apparant contradiction, in his understanding of Act. 14. 27; (both places of his book compared;) besides a grosse oversight, in making the Church spoken of Act. 11. 26. & 1. Cor. 11. 18. &c. to be farre more large then the church mentioned. 1. Cor. 1. 2. & Act. 13. 1. And 7. touching the places which he taketh to signifie indefinitely any company of Christians &c. it is strange he should not see, as definite a limitation of the place, and nation or province in Act. 9. 31. & 15. 41. & 1. Thes. 2. 14. as there is in the places foreallea­ged for the Churches of a nation; Rom. 16. 4. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. And no lesse strange, that he which could discerne a church definitely deciphered, Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 14. 19. 34. 2. Cor. 8. 23. 1. Tim. 5. 16. & 3. Ioh. 6. should not discerne asmuch in Act. 15. 3. 4. &. 18. 22. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 1. Tim. 3. 5. & 3. Ioh. 9. 10. And 8. lastly, since he referreth the word Churches Apoc. 2. 7. to the same signification, that he given unto it. ca. 1, 4, 11, 20. viz. definitely to the church of a citie and countrie ad­joyning; how is it that so soon after, he understandeth the same & the like (Apoc. 2. 7. 17. 23, 29.) &c. indefinitely of any company a contra­diction in the Doct. of Christians, not defining the place or societie, whether of nation, or citie &c? And yet (as if he had a dispensation to define what the Holy Ghost hath not defined) hereafter he will tell us (pag. 57.) that by Churches in the conclusion of each epistle (Apoc. 2. 7. 17.) &c. we may very well understand the particular Churches, which were under the charge of every angell, to whom the epistles are di­rected.

Thus much to his significations of the word Church, frō which Sect. 2. to the Doct. 3. sect. pag 6. & 6. (being so manifold as he saith) he proceedeth to shew what is true­ly & properly a Church upon earth. And first he saith, that by war­rant of the word, every company of men professing the faith of Christ, is both truely a church, & also a true church. But it is more then he can prove, as shall appeare in the examination of some particulars following. He addeth, that as the whole company of the faithfull upon earth, is the true Church and spouse of Christ: so also the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ, in any nation or part of the world, is to be termed by the name of a Church. The former I may grant him; but touching the la­ter, [Page 4] I must ask, what he meaneth by this phrase is to be termed? doth it imply a necessity, or onely a liberty and conveniency? If the first, what reason hath he to debarre us from reteyning the phrase of speach, which himselfe confesseth (in the former page) to be usu­all in the new Testament, namely to call the Christians of an whole nation Churches in the plurall number? If the later; whence hath he his warrant? since he hath not (in all his table) any one place which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number, to the faithfull of an whole nation; save onely that of Act. 7. 38. which is spoken of the Iewish people, whiles they were one congregation (not yet divided into severall Synagogues, or Church-assemblies) vnder the guidance of Moses and Aaron in the wildernes. But he argueth a p [...]ri in this manner. The whole people of the Iewes profissing the true religiō were one Church; though conteyning very many particular cōgregations or Sy­nagogues: (which were also so many Churches) Even so, the whole people of The D. rea­soneth in­consequēt­ly from the Church of the Lewes to the Churches of the gen­tiles. England, professing (through Gods mercie) the true Catholike and Aposto­like faith, is to be called the Church of England. The consequence hereof might be denied; for why should the forme and constitution of the Iewish Church vnder the law, be a more fit patterne for us to fol­low, then that form of Church-constitution which was established vnder the Gospell, for the Christians of all nations, both Iewes & Grecians? Is there not more strength in this cōsequence? The Chri­stians of an whole nation are every where in the new Testament, called Chur­ches, & no where by the name of a Church in the singular number: (as Chur­ches of Asia, Macedonia, Galatia, Iudea, Galile and Samaria: 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Thes. 2. 14. Act. 9. 31.) Ergo the Christians, which at this day, professe the faith of Christ in England, are ra­ther to be termed the Churches, then the Church of England; especially se­ing the number of Churches or congregations, is farre greater (in all likelihood) then the number of families was in any one nation in the Apostles times. Notwithstanding, if the Doctor can (as he assaieth) paralell the people of England, with the Iewish nation in that which properly made thē as some think one church; he might take more libertie to include them al vnder the name of the church of England. To effect this, vnto that which some alleadge (viz. that the Church of the Iewes was one, because it was vnder one high-Preist, who was a figure and therefore ceased) the Doctor frameth a double answer. 1. It is evident (saith he) that it was one Church because it was one people or cōmon wealth, ruled by the same lawes, professing the same [Page 5] religion; both before there was one high-Preist, and after there were through corruption more then one. 2. Neyther was the high-Preist a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence, and government over the Preists & people; but in respect of his sacrifice & intercession for the whole people &c. To the first I reply as followeth. 1. It is evident, that the Christian Iewes in Iudea were one people or cōmō wealth, ruled by the same lawes & professing the same religion: yet were they not one but many chur­ches, as appeareth Gal. 1. 22. and 1. Thes. 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Where­fore the Doctor taketh that for an evident truth, which is evident­ly The D. ta­keth for truth that which is false. false, in affirming that the Iewish Church was one because they were one cōmon wealth &c. 2. Neyther doe they affirme who hold the Church of the Iewes one, that their vnitie depended one­ly upon the person of one high preist; but upon Gods ordinance which combined them all (say they) in one body of a church; in binding them to assemble at times appointed, unto one taber­nacle or temple, there to performe the parts of his worship in one vniforme order, under the oversight of one high preist, assisted by inferiour Preists and Levites. But 3. how will the Doctor prove, that they were (as he saith) one cōmon-wealth, ruled by the same lawes, before they had one high-preist? Is not the law of their high preisthood, as ancient as any of the lawes given by Moses, to set­tle them in one forme of a cōmon-wealth? (Exod. 28. Levit. 8. cum seq.) And 4. when through corruption there were two high­preists (Luc. 3. 2.) which executed the office by their courses, one after another (as other preists did in their order) was not the whole administration & exercise of the office in the hands of that one, which was the high-preist for his yeare? (Iohn 11. 49. with Act. 4. 6.) What great difference then of one high preist, between the time of this corruption, and that which went before it?

To the the second, I answer, that it is an idle & feeble flourish, Sect. 3. leaving the maine point of the objection untouched, and weakly performing what he undertaketh. 1. It is observed before, that they who in this point concurre with the Doctor, viz. that the Iewish Church was but one, doe hold their vnitie to arise, from Gods or­dinance, The D. ma­keth an i­dle and feeble flourish. who conjoyned the whole nation in one societie, not one­ly under one high-preist; but also in regard of one tabernacle at the first, & after that, of one Temple, vnto which they were all bound to resort 3. times in the yeare, there to worship God in such sort, as he had prescribed. Which ordinances, viz. of one high preist & [Page 6] of one tabernacle or temple for the whole nation) are now ceased because they were figures and types, which had their end in Christ. That their one high-preist was a figure of our one high-preist Ie­sus Christ, is a truth so evident by the scriptures (especially Heb. 3 1. and 4. 14. & 5. 1. 5. & 8, 1, 2. & 9. 7. & 10. 1. 9. 20.) that the Doctor cannot but subscribe to it. And it is no lesse evident, that the same Christ, was also shadowed out by their tabernacle & tem­ple. Heb. 8. 2. and 9. 8, 9, 11, 12, 24. Ioh. 2, 19, 21. In another respect, one tabernacle compact togither of many parts, and one temple composed of many stones, was a figure of that one catho­like church, which, as one temple or howse, comprehendeth all the elect, as living stones and parts of the building. 2. Cor. 6. 16. E­phes. 2, 21. 22, Heb. 3. 6. 1. Pet. 2, 5. And their assembling togi­ther in that one temple under the Ministery of that one highpreist, was a lively type of the gathering togither of all the elect, unto the heavenly Ierusalem, to the generall assembly & Church of the first borne written in heaven, and unto Iesus the Mediatour of the new covenant (Heb. 12, 23, 24, 25) as sheep which come into one folde under the oversight of one cheefe Shepheard, Iohn 10. 16. Heb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 2, 25. There is an apparant truth therefore in that which the Doctor proposeth as a frivolous allegation, viz. that these legal ordinances were figures and therefore are ceased; especially seing, it is held that there is neyther any one nationall Bishop answering in degree of office and preheminence unto their one high preist; nor any one nationall temple unto which the generall body of the people doe resort for the practise of Gods evangelicall worship. And though the Doct. may perhaps, give allowance unto the for­mer; yet I suppose he will not easily acknowledge the later, to be fit for the times of the gospell.

2. All that the Doctor saith, is no more but this; he denieth the high Preist to be a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence & government over the Preists and people. What meaneth the Doct? neyther in respect of preheminence? no [...] yet of government? be­like then, he was a type of Christ; quatenus a Preist; but not as a high Preist? yet as the scripture (Heb. 9. 7. 8. 11. 12. 24.) so the D. acknowledgeth that the high Preist figured Christ; by his entrāce alone into the sanctuarie, which none other Preist might doe: how then can he deny that he prefigured Christ in the respect of his pre­heminence which was peculiar to his office? and why not also in [Page 7] respect of his government; over Preists and people in things per­teyning to God? what meaneth else that name of great high-Preist; and great Preist set over the house of God? Heb. 4. 14. and 10. 20. But 3. let us heare the D. reasons, why he thinketh that the high-Preist was no type of Christ in respect of preheminence or govern­ment. Forsooth then had he aswell as Melchisedeck, been a type of Christs government and Kingly office, aswell as of the Preisthood: and consequently Christ might have been a Preist of the order of Aaron aswell as of Melchi­sedech. And a little after; Christs government apperteineth to his king­dome and not to his preist hood. As if all preheminence and govern­ment were peculiar to princes, & inseparably annexed to the king­ly office? Surely if Christ have no preheminence nor government in his Church, as he is our Prophet and Preist; but onely as he is King; then is he in these Offices considered a parte, inferior to all other Prophets and Preists that had their part in ecclesiasticall go­vernment. But how can he be a great Preist over the House of God (Heb. 10 21) and sit not onely as a King, but also as a Preist upon his throne; (Zach 6, 13) and yet have no manner of government by his preistly function? Wherefore the government now invested in Christ, might be (yea undoubtedly was) figured a part aswell by the ecclesiasticall government of the high-preists succeeding Aarō; as by the civil government of David and the Kings that sate on his throne. I conclude then that the Leviticall high-preist was a type of Christ, in respect of his ecclesiasticall preheminence and govern­ment: although his principalitie and regall government, joyning in one with the preistly function, was rightly figured (not in Aarō but) in Melchisedek. And, although the conjoyning of both these preheminences togither in Christ, was also praesigured, in Iehoshua The D. pro poseth a weak con­sequence and a false antecedent to justifie an untruth an high preist of Aarons line, (Zach. 6, 11, 13.) yet it were grosse ignorance in the groundes of divinitie from hence to inferre, that therefore Christ might have bene a Preist after the order of Ieho­shua (or Aaron) aswell as of Melchisedeck. It is apparant then, that the Doctor hath proposed both a weak consequence, and a false antecedent; to justify the untruth of his frivolous exception.

Thus have we seen what successe the Doctor hath had, in his in­deavour Sect. 4. to prove, that the name of a Church in the singular num­ber, is to be given vnto the people of an whole nation professing the faith, though divided into many thowsand particular Church­es; He proceedeth to tell us, that likewise the Christian people of any Ci­tie [Page 8] or country adjoyning, whether that which we call a province or diocese, though consisting of many particular congregatiōs; is rightly termed a Church; as the Church of Ierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadel­phis &c. I confesse, that this latter, hath a like right and title, to the name of a Church, with the former: to wit, by the custome of speach & humane ordinance; subjecting the particular Churches of an whole countrie or nation, to one Diocesan or Provinciall Bishop, or to one nationall Synode: But I deny, that the scripture doth give any more allowance vnto the one, then to the other: & I doubt not but his proofes for the later, will be found as weak as the former. To drawe his wordes before set downe, into an orderly forme of reasoning; they must run in this fashion or the like. Such a company of Christians as answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus &c. mencioned in the Scriptures, is rightly ter­med a Church: But the Christian people of any Citie & Country adjoyning, though consisting of many particular congregations, whether in a province or diocese answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem, An­tioch, Ephesus &c. mencioned in the scripture. Therefore, the Christian people of any Citie and country adjoyning, though consisting of many particu­lar congregations, whether in a province or diocese; is rightly termed a Church. Here the assumption is a meere begging of the question, for he is The Doct. beggeth the questiō not ignorant, (as appeareth in the beginning of his 4. sect.) that they, against whom he contendeth, doe hold; that the visible Chur­ches instituted in the new testam [...], were none other then parish assē ­blies, cōteyning one cōgregatiō: & yet he assumeth for grāted (as if they were bound, to take his word for sufficient warrant) that the Christians of an whole diocese or province, distributed into many severall congregations, or parish assembles, doe carrie the same Church-constitution, with the first Apostolike Churches; as of Ierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus &c. The contrary whereof may be ga­thered from his owne positions in his sermō & the defense thereof. For he affirmeth and mainteyneth (serm. pag. 18. and 22. & def. [...]ib. 2. pag. 69. and 121.) that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times. And as here (in the next section, pag 6) he ac­knowledgeth that at the first conversion of Cities, the whole num­ber of people converted, were able to make but a small congrega­tion? so he granteth afterwards (cap. 6. pag. 104.) that the most of the Churches, during the time of S. Paul, did not, each of them, exceed the proportion of a populous congregation. Yet in Pauls [Page 9] time they were perfectly constituted; seing (in his opinion) they had many of them, their Bishop & their Presbyterie and Deacons; which (as now he saith pag 7.) doe make an accomplished or ful­ly constituted Church. Wherefore still there remayneth this diffe­rence, betweene our diocesan and provinciall Churches, and those Apostolike Churches mencioned in the scriptures (as the Church at Ierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and the like) that congregations or parish assemblies, were not multiplied in them, as now they are in ours; so that the name of a Church, given in the scripture to the one, doth not prove that it may be also rightly allotted to the other.

But proceede we on, the Doctor at length discendeth lower, and Sect. 5. ad pag. 6. saith; That in like manner, the Christian people of any one towne or village, conteyning but one congregation (which we call a parish) is truly called a Church, as perhaps that of Cenchreae. And further, that the company of faithfull in one familie, doth deserve the name of a Church, as hath bin shewed (to wit in his table pag. 4. where he citeth for that purpose Rom. 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19. Colos. 4. 15. Philem. 2.) Adding, that to make any particular Church of a whole nation, citie and country, towne, pa­rish or familie (familie I say, being alone, and not a part of a congregation: but an entire church or parish by it selfe) to be a true visible Church, there is required (besides the profession of the true faith, wherein the life and being of a Christian consisteth) the Ministerie of the word and sacraments, and eu­taxie or some good order of government: not that all governours are to be pla­ced in every societie or church: but that the effect and benefit of the govern­ment is to redound to every particular. What shall the reader say to all this? Doth not the considerate beholder hereof, evidently see an ho [...]ch potch, of some self-conceited fancies, mingled with some The D. ma­keth an hotch potch. truthes soundly grounded? Of the later sort, are these, viz. that the name of a Church is given in the scripture both to the Christian people of one towne or village, conteyning but one congregation; and to the company of faithfull in one family. 2. that that which we call a parish, is such a company of Christian people as make but one congregation. 3. and that the Church at Cenchrea was such a parish. For though he speake here doubtfully (with a perhaps) yet afterwards he saith certeinly it was a parish. (pag. 104. following) 4. And there is required (besides the profession of the true faith) the Ministery of the word and sacraments and some good order of government, to make the Christians of any citie towne or family a true visible Church. Of the former sort are these supposals: [...]cz. [Page 10] 1. that the people of an whole nation and citie, with country ad­joyning, may make one visible Church; aswell as the company of one towne or familie. 2. and that all Church government are not to be placed in every visible Church. His meaning is (as afterwards he sheweth) that a Bishop and his presbyterie may not be had in e­very parish: it sufficeth if they be seated in the citie, and that par­ticular parishes in citie and country, doe partake the effect and be­nefit of their government. Which he speaketh (not because he fin­deth in the scripture, any such difference between Churches seated in cities, and those that were in smaller villages; but) because he would perswade the simple, (that will take his words for payment) that there ought to be the like difference for Church-governmēt, which is for civill policie betweene cities and other villages. Not­withstanding I deny not, but it were as absurd to desire a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish (that is to say, such a Lord Bishop as ours are, and such a Presbytery as are the Deane and Prebends of our cathedrall Churches) as to require for every village, a Major and Aldermen, of that state, that they beare at this day in the citie of London. For wee may well say with Musculus in Mat. 9. 35, Deus bone, quis ferret sumptus tot equitum & reliquorum de comitatu episco­porum, si nostri episcopi, quales eos habemus, episeopatus suos circuire cogeren­tur &c. Who goeth on and sheweth how base and unfitting a thing it is, for the great pomp and state of Bishops at this day to visite poore villages; and how unable such places are to beare the charge of their expences in their visitations. No merveile therefore if it be too great a but then for every parish to mainteyn an whole colledg of cathedrall Clercks, togither with the retinew of the Lo. Bishop. 3. But herein the Doct. deceiveth his reader, in conveying into his The D. de­ceiveth his reader by a false conceit. hart, this false conceit; that the state of the ancient Bishops, & their presbyterie, was no lesse unfitting (in regard of their pomp and charge) for a countrie towne; then their condition is, that pretend to be their successors at this day.

Thus have we heard to what particulars he stretcheth the name Sect. 6. ad [...]ect. 4. pag. 6. 7. of a Church as it is used in the scriptures; attend we now to his cō ­clusion. All this (saith he) I have the rather noted, because some having first strongly cōceited, that there is no true visible Church but a parish, have haled the places of scripture, where ECCLESIA is mentioned to the confirma­tion of their conceit &c, whereas in very truth, scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians, as we call a parish, can be alleadged out of [Page] the scriptures. I hope the indifferent reader will discerne by the an­swere alreadie made, that the Doctor deserveth to be censured in The D. de­serveth to be censu­red in his own terms his owne termes; viz. that having first strongly conceited all the differing formes of visible Churches which are now in use (scz. na­tionall, provinciall, diocesan, and parishionall) to be lawfull; hath haled the places of scripture, where ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of his conceit: whereas in very truth he cannot al­leadge any one testimony out of the scripture, which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number; to such a multitude of Christians, distributed into many particular assemblies, as we e­steeme a nationall or provinciall or diocesan Church. And as for parish assemblies which conteyne one congregation, though he cā scarcely affoard us any one testimony, yet it is already shewed, that besides the Church of Cenchreae, (which he acknowledgeth to be a parish) he graunteth that the most of the Churches in the great­est cities during Pauls time, did not exceed a populous congrega­tion. And in his own table page 4. for a Church congregated in­to one congregation he giveth us all these scriptures, Act. 11, 26. The D. cō ­tradicteth himself. & 14, 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 22. & 14. 5. 12. 19. 23. 28. 34. 35. 3. Ioh. 6. which are so many testimonies to justify the congregati­ons which we call parishes. But we need not to goe further then to his words [...]mediately following; for in graunting that at the first conversion of cities, the whole number of the people converted (being sometimes not much greater then the number of presby­ters placed amongst them) were able to make but a small congre­gation: he doth acknowledge every of the ancient Churches, to have been at the first such, as wee call parishes. That which he ad­deth; viz. that those Churches were in constituting and not fully constituted, till their number being increased, they had their Bishop, or Pastor, their Pres­bytery and Deacons; is but a renewing of his old suite, or begging of The D. re­nueth his old suite o [...] begging. the question, if he understand by the Pastor or Bishop, such a dio­cesan Prelate as he pleadeth for. And yet, if by constitution he meane, that forme of a Church, which maketh it properly a Dio­cese, and not a Parish; he overturneth the foundation, whereon he first builded his diocesan Churches in his serm. pag. 18. where he affirmeth, the apostolike Churches to be Dioceses properly, be­cause the Presbyters first ordeyned (when as yet they had no Bi­shop) were trusted not onely with the feeding of those few already converted; but also with the care of indeavoring the conversion of [Page] the rest, both in citie and country; & therefore he applyeth to their Ministerie, that comparision of a little leaven, which by degrees sea­soneth the whole lumpe, now used (in the wordes following) to shewe what was the office of the Bishop and Presbytery. Which point how true or false it is, and how fit or unfit for his purpose, shall have fitter occasion to shew in the answere to his 4. chapter, and to the 6. section of his third; where also I shall meet with that which followeth, touching the intent of the Apostles in planting Churches in cities; to wit, that when parishes were multiplied (as was fit and necessarie upon the increase of Christians) in the cities and countries adjoyning, they should all remaine under the governmēt of one Bishop or superintendent seated in each citie. Meane while the rea­der may see, that the Doctor hath little cause to boast of his con­quest, before he hath put on his harnesse, for the conflict. Where­fore he but bloweth the trumpet of insolent vanitie, when he faith, avain blast of the D. that all the disciplinarians to the world shall never be able to shew, that there were, or ought to have bene after the division of parishes, any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for an whole Diocese. He should remember that he being the opponent in this controversie, the burthen of proving lieth on his shoulders; and therefore it had bene his part to have demonstrated from the scripture, that which he affirmeth touching the intent of the Apostles in the first constituting of chur­ches: for one testimony from holy writ, to shewe, that they inten­ded and ordeyned; that the citie Church should spred her wings o­ver the whole diocese, and cover vnder the shadow thereof all the people, after their conversion and distribution into many parishes writings to justify this assertion) will easily draw us to acknowledg, that diocesan Churches were instituted by the Apostles. But til this be done, though he write ten volumes more, and each of them ten times greater then this: yet he shall never be albe to convince the cōscience of his indifferent reader in the point which he vnder­taketh to prove; to wit, that the Apostolicall Churches were proper­ly (and if not actually yet at least intentionally) dioceses & not pari­shes.

But though he cannot fortify his owne assertion, yet will he as­say Sect. 7. ad sect. 5. pag 7. to throw downe their hold that oppugne it, with this jolly En­thymem: The word Eeclesia signifi [...]th (according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost:) any company of Christians, whether great or small. Ergo the [Page 13] use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit, which īmagine 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 militāt Church on earth; the invisible society of Gods elect, absolutely Ca­tholike; the people of a particular cōgregation 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 cō ­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 givē 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 [Page 14] 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 cōfirm, the point now in questiō, viz. that the 7. Chur­ches (mēcioned in this text) were properly Dioceses & not Parishes.

As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words, Eeclesia, Paraecia, Diaecesis, cōmonly 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 referēce 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 [Page 15] 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 argumēt 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 evidēt 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 &c. But the D. saith, his analysis mistakē, to say no worse, as if he could have justly laid an heavier fault upon his Refuter; if he had not favoured him. And in deed, he loadeth him with a fouler imputation, when (after in the same page) he saith that (in digesting his words before expres­sed, into a connexive syllogisme) he framed a proposition for the nonce to cavill withall. A rash censure, the less to be regarded, because the Refuter may safely appeale to Gods owne tribunall, who knoweth that he dealt syncerely; and was led by the connection of both sen­tences to conceive the meaning to be such as is before shewed. But he should (saith the Doctor) have looked to the end of that which he made the 3. sect. where he should have found this to be the maine conclusion of all that followeth the first argument (concerning the 7. Churches) to that place. viz. that the Presbyters in the Apostles times, were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses. But he thought it needlesse to carrie the word for so farre; when there was need of help to prove the point afore­going. Notwithstanding, let him walk in his owne way, I doubt not, but to make it appeare, that the argument and the prosyllo­gismes thereof framed by himselfe, doe discover both his owne [Page 16] mistaking of his Analysis (to say no worse) and the weaknes of his arguing, aswell now in this defense, as before in the sermon itself. The maine conclusion to which he sendeth us, hath these words (serm. pag. 18. lin: ult. &c. The Presbyteries therefore in the Apostles times, were appointed, not to feverall parishes, but to whole cities, & the coū ­tries annexed, viz. to dioceses; that both they might convert them; & attend and f [...]ed them being converted. The conclusion is long (as you see,) and unfoldeth in it sundry propositions; which since the Doctor hath not rightly distinguished, I will presume (though I looke to be required with shrewd words for my labour) to propose to the view of the Reader in this manner. The conclusion sheweth to what the Presbyteries in the Apostles times, were appointed. 1. Negatively; They were not appointed to severall parishes. 2. Affir­matively; they were appointed to whole cities and the countries annexed. Which is first explayned, viz. to dioceses. 2. amplified by a twofold end of their appointment. 1. that they might convert them. 2. that they might attend and feed them being converted.

So then it appeareth, that in the words of his sermon before Sect. 2. going pag 18. 19. we are to expect the proofe of these. 5. points (for else he stretcheth his cōclusiō beyond the boūds of the premi­ses, which should inferre it) viz. 1. the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were not appointed to severall parishes. 2. they were appointed to whole cities & the countires adjoyning. 3. those cities & countries were Dioceses. 4. one end of that their appointmet, was to cōvert &c. 5. the other end was to attend & feed the cōover­ted. But of these 5. propositiōs, he cōcealeth wholly in this defense the third and last. The former it seemeth he took for graunted; and therefore now coupling the two first togither, he setteth them downe in this manner. The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses; the other was wisely concea­led, because there is not one word in his sermon to make it good; though it be of the greatest moment for his purpose: In deed, he had sayd before, that the Presbyters were in cōmon to attend the whole flock converted, feeding them with the word & sacraments; and to labour the conversion of the residue &c. but how great a difference there is betweene these two ends of the Ministery of the Presbyters, ordeyned by the Apostles; and those that his conclu­siō mencioneth; it is easy for the simplest of his Readers to discern, Whether the change were made unwittingly, or of purpose to de­ceive, [Page 17] I will not determine, neither will I presse him for resolution of the doubt, unlesse he please. It is the analysis of his conclusion and all that apperteyneth thereunto, which we now look after. His cō [...]lusiō (whatsoever it was at the first) is now cōprized in this co­pound axlome before delivered. The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apo­stles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses; which he maketh the an­tecedent of a Enthymem, to inferre the principal questiō (touching diocesan Churches in general) viz. Therefore the Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government, were not parishes but di­oceses. The Antecedent (he saith) is proved by two arguments; the first whereof (not to speak now of the proposition which he omitted) lieth in this sentence. The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were appointed for whole cities & countries thereto be­longing, to labour so farre as they were able, the conversion of all that belonged unto God. And to the confirmation of this he re­ferreth all that which his Refuter carried an other way. For it is evi­dent that the Apostles, when they intended to convert any nation, first prea­ched to the cheife cities thereof &c. to the words, neyther were the parishes. Which halfe perswadeth me, that he hath borrowed his first argu­ment for the proofe of the Antecedent, from the second & fourth points (before noted to be couched) in that conclusiō delivered in his sermō. For other wise his analysis cutteth thē off frō the cōclusiō as superfluous branches; & maketh his first argument to be Cryp­tically inwrapped under the confirmation thereof. Now if it were borrowed thenee; then the wordes following (serm. pag. 18. Nei­ther were the parishes distinguished &c) in all equitie should be, not a second argument, to confirme his first antecedent; but rather a new prosyllogisme to justify the generall proofe thereof. To cō ­clude, whencesoever he derive it; there is so small a difference be­tween the Medius terminus of his first argument, with both the prosyllogismes set to uphold it: & the wordes which in his second argument are of greatest force (as he saith pag. 70. of this defence) to prove that the persbyteries were appointed to Dioceses: that they are little better (when he hath made the best that he can of them) then a beggerly repetition of one thing, or a proving of the same by the same. So that we may well think, if his Refuter should The Doct. proveth i­dem per idem. have contrived his arguments so as himself hath done, he would have bene as readie as now he is to charge him with mistaking his Analysis. [Page 18] But let him make the best advantage of his owne Analysis; & let us trie the valour of his syllogismes, which he profereth to our Sect. 3. view. And first of that Enthymeme, which concludeth the princi­pall question in this manner;

The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were appointed not to pa­rishes but to Dioceses. Therefore the churches indued with power of ecolesi­asticall government were not parishes but Dioceses. This consequence, saith he, the Refuter granteth, ingranting the connexive proposition of the Syllo­gisme, which he fremeth, pag. 58. of the answer. If he did not, it might ea­sily be confirmed, by adding the assumption. viz. To visible Churches in­dued with power of ecclesissticall government, the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed. Loe here the D. reasoning; now what if the adding of this assumption, utterly marreth the fashion of his argument? hath he not then spent his labour well to discover his owne heedlesse oversight, to say no worse? for had he well perused the parts, he might have found 5. termes in his syllogisme. viz. 1. The D. hath 5. germes, in one syllo­gisme. Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles. 2. appointed to Dioceses not to parishes. 3. appointed to visible Churches indued with pow­er of ecclesiasticall government. 4. the Churches (themselves) in­dued with such power. 5. Dioceses and not Parishes. To redresse this grosse fault; if so simple a Scholler as the Refuter might pre­sume to give any direction, to so great a Clerk as Mr. D. me thinks he should have done well, to have exchanged the Antecedent of his Enthymeme, with some Proposition in sense equivalent that might have yeilded the same predicatum, which his conclusiō car­rieth, as thus; The Churches, to which the Presbyteries ordeined by the Apostles were appointed, were properly dioceses (such as ours) and not parishes. Or thus; Dioceses (such as ours) and not pa­rishes, were the whole and onely charge of the Presbyteries ordey­ned by the Apostles. The assumption then to be added, must be one of these; viz. The Churches which in the Apostles times were indued with the power of ecclesiasticall government were those vnto which the Presbyteries ordeyned by them, were appointed. Or thus; The Churches which the Apostles indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were the whole & onely charge of those presbyteries which they ordeyned. So the conclusion would natu­rally flow from these premisses, to wit; Therefore, the Churches which the Apostles indued (or were indued in their times) with the power of ecclesiasticall government, were Dioceses properly [Page 19] (such as ours) & not parishes; which of these soever he shall choose; the proposition is to be refused, as utterly false. Against the Assū ­ption (whether former or later) I have nothing to except. This onely I say, if the Doctor shall dislike the later, as too narrowly li­mited by those wordes, whole & onely charge. I must then tell him, his syllogisme is also herein deceitfull and faultie; that his proposi­tion speaketh of an appointment, differing from that which he inten­deth in his Assumption; the feeding and governing of the visible Churches being but a part (yea the least part) of the charge of those Presbyteries; in asmuch as he supposeth, they were appointed al­so, to an other more principall work, viz. to labour the conversi­on of such as were yet enemies to the faith and not members of the Churches. But if he will acknowledge the visible Churches, to be the whole and onely charge of the Prebyteries ordeyned by the Apostles; then the premisses of his syllogisme doe make warre, the one against the other. For the assumption so understood, di­rectly crosseth the assumption and the fortifications thereof, which are (pag. 65.) fitted to confirme the Proposition or Antecedene of his maine argument; and consequently, through their sides, it pearceth the hart of the proposition itself. For if the visible chur­ches indued with power of ecclesiastical govermēt, were the whole & onely charge of the presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles; then were they not appointed for the conversiō of the rest of the citie & countrie: neither was that work the end or motive that swayed the Apostles to ordeyn them. So that his proposition (which affirmeth that those presbyteries were appointed for whole Dioceses) hath nothing to support it.

Moreover, if he shall dislike the limitation which I have added to his proposition, restreyning it to such Dioceses as ours are, or at least to such Dioceses, as were also Churches: he is to know that his consequence is naught, and such as of which he hath no graunt from his refuter to boast of. For unlesse it be presupposed, that the Dioceses, to which he saith, the Presbyteries were appointed, were Churches, and like to our diocesan Churches; his argu­ment wilbe deceitfull also in a second respect; to wit, because his an­tecedent and the conclusion speak, not of one kind of Dioceses; but of such as differ toto genere, (if the one be churches and the o­ther not so) or at least in specie, if they be Diocesan Churches un­like to ours. For (as is heretofore noted) Diocesan Bishops like to [Page 20] ours, doe require the Churches where of they are Bishops, to be dioceses, (or diocesan Churches) like to ours. This memoran­dum therefore being premised (that by Dioceses in his propositi­on, we are to vnderstand Diocesan Churches like to ours) we are come to examine the first of his two arguments, which himself fra­meth to prove the proposition before denyed in manner & forme following;

They who were appointed to whole cities and countries to labour so farre at Sect. 4. they were able; the conversion of all that, belonged to God; were appointed to Dioceses, and not to Parishes. But the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities and countries thereto belonging, to labour so farre as they were able, the conversion of all that belonged to God.

Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, 3: 44 PM 5/7/2011 were appointed not unto Parishes, but unto Dioceses, that is, to Diocesan Churches, like to ours. This Proposition, saith he, I omitted as taking it for granted. Be it so; yet since he saw, that his Refuter esteemed the consequence weake of that argum: he framed to a conclusion somewhat differing, he mought wel have bene jealous of his rejecting this proposition al­so. For since the Presbyters of which he speaketh were planted in the cheife cities of such a nation, as the Apostles desired to cōvers; what hindreth but the countreyes annexed might be Provinces, or rather whole Nations, and not Dioceses properly? Moreover, how can they be sayd to be appointed to Diocesan Churches such as ours (for to speak of other Dioceses, that are estranged from Chri­stianity, is to rove farre wide from the question) who are appoin­ted unto cities and countries, (not to feed and govern them, as all Churches are by their Pastors; but) to labour their conversion that yet remayned Pagans and Infidels? To provoke him therefore in his next defence, to undertake the proofe of this proposition which he now taketh for graunted, I first contradict it thus; They who were appointed to whole cities and countries, for the working out of the conversion, were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours: Then I take his owne assumption, with the help thereof to conclude; the con­tradictorie of his former proposition, in this manner. The Presby­teries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to whole cities and countries, for the working out of their conversion. Therefore, the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were not set over Diocesan Churches, such as ours. This our proposition opposed against his, may be fortified by this En­thymeme. Those whole cities and countries whose people are generally so [Page 21] [...]stranged from the faith, that their conversion must be laboured, are not di­ocesan Churches like to ours. Therefore, neyther they, who were appointed over such cities and countries, set over diocesan Churches such as ours. The Antecedent is a truth so apparant to all the world, that it were madnes to contradict it: And the consequence is such as (I verify think) no man of comon sense, will ever call it into question. As for the Refuters exceptions against the proposition which he had framed for an other purpose; they are (as the Doctor saith) eavils not worth the refuting; and yet (to shewe his valour) he will needes have a fling at them, though with shame to himselfe. For first, for want of just matter of blame, he forgeth a false calumniation in in saying, That, his Refuter absurdly eavilleth with him, as if he had sayd that, all in the citie and country were in S. Iohns time converted. For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this, that the Apostles ordeyned Preseyters for such an end (as he sup­poseth) yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities & the countries adioyning. And he backeth it with this reason, that, the seed of the word in many places was thick sowne, but came thin up, and the heat of perseeu­tion at, that, time, burnt up the zoale and profession of many. Which if it were too weak to justify the exception, why doth he not take notice of confute it? thinketh he, his unpartiall readers will take it for a sufficient refutation, to say, it is a cavill not worth the refuting? The second exception is of more moment; because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors owne argu­ment before set downe. For the ordeyning of Presbyters for whole cities and countries, to labour the conversion of all that in those places belonged to God; can never prove that they were appoin­ted to the care and charge of diocesan Churches; unlesse there be a necessitie that all which in time were to be converted by their Ministerie, should be and remaine members of the same Church with them. It shall not be amisle therefore to stay a while upon the examination of that which the Refuter hath sayd, to justifie his de­niall; and the Doct. to mainteyn the affirmation, of this necessitie. Sect. [...].

In defense of the negative, it was alleadged (answ. pag. 57) that it is very likely if not certeyne, that they of Cenchrea received the gospell from Corinthe; (for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe, and not farre from it, as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London) yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth; for it is called the Church of Cenchrea. Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply, first [Page 22] layeth downe his own opinion touching this matter, and then in­deavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea, out of his refuters handes. His owne opinion (or rather definitive sen­tence,) quast ex cathed a & satis pro imperis) he delivereth in this ma­ner. I say, that they whose Ministerie was intended for the conversion of the citie and countrie; to their care and charge, both for the first conversion of them, and government of them being converted, the citie and country belon­ged. And the Doctor onely saith it, and dareth the Refuter or a­ny of his vnlearned associates, contradict it? No verily; they will rather assent to him so farre, as truth and reason grounded on the truth of Gods word, will permit them, that is kat [...] & in parr, but not aploos and in generall; for it is most true, that the Apo­stles and Evangelists whose Ministerie was intended, eyther to be­gin, or to bring forwards the conversion of any citie and country, had the care and charge of the people in those parts, aswel for the governing of them whom they did convert, as for the labouring of their conversion at the first. But how long? and how? was it for a perpetuitie, or for a time onely, till they might be furnished with their proper Ministery? And when the faith spread it self from any of those cheife cities which first enterteyned it; into the townes adjoyning (& that with such increase that the number of beleevers in those places, were sufficient to make two or moe Churches or congregations) did they all remaine still parts of one Church; and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies? Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversie; wherefore if the Do­ctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative, he should haue plain­ly contradicted the refuter, and sayd, there was a necessitie, that all which were brought to the faith, in any city and country adjoyn­ing, by the labours of any appointed for their conversion, should remayn (though never so many or farre distāt) mēbers of the citie-Church, which first enterteyned the gospell. Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proofe then his bare word, I say it, to conclude this necessitie. And it was not easy for him to yeeld any sound reason, for the justifying of such an assertion; in wisdome therefore he judged it better, to say and affirme that which (though it beleffe pertinent, yet) might seeme more reaso­nable (viz. that such as were converted by their labours, that were appointed to indeavor their conversion, should submit themselves [Page 23] to be governed by them) and in stead of yeilding any pregnant de­monstration to confute his Refuters exception, to make a shewe of removing that which was alleadged by him. To this purpose he addeth; that though Cenchrea be called a Church, yet was it not such a Church as we now speak of, indued with power of ecclesiasticall government, but subiect to the [...]ur [...]sliction of the Church of Corinthe. Thus he faith; but hath he any other reason, then such as before, (I say it) to shewe the subjection of Cenchrea to the Church of Corinthe? No surely; for though he often reiterateth this affirmation (pag. 46. 105. 129.) yet his best proofe is, most certeynly so it was. I doubt not therefore, but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost, equalling the beleevers in Cenchrea, and those in Corinth with the same name; (calling the one the Church in Cenchrxa, & the other the Church in Corinthe. Rom. 16. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2.) will argue our assertion to be more probable, (when we say, they were distinct Churches, & alike indued with power of ecclesiasticall go­vernment) then his denyall that hath no other confirmation then I say it, or so it was; for what authoritie hath he, eyther to subordi­nate one to another, or to confine in one ecclesiasticall body, those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches?

Thus much for his Proposition; his Assumption cōmeth now to Sect. 6. 2d pag. 65. be examined, which he saith is confirmed by two arguments; the one, the end intended by the Apostles in appointing Presbyters in cities, which was the conversion of the nation, for which themselves first preached in the cheife ci­ties; the other is the motive, their hope by the Ministery of the Presbyters pla­ced in the citie to convert them which belonged to God, both in citie and coun­trie; grounded on the force of the Gospell, testified by our Saviour, Math. 13. 13. Thus he saith, but why contriveth he not his two arguments into. 2. distinct syllogismes, that we might see the strength of each of them a part? Nay, why doth himselfe combine them in one con­nexive proposition in this manner? pag 66: If the Apostles intending the conversion of the nation, as they began themselves to preach in the cheife cities, so they placed Presbyters to the same intent; hoping by them to convert, both citie and countrie; then were they appointed and it was their dutie, to la­bour the conversion of all belonging to God both in citie and countrie. For if the assumption be added to this proposition, is it not as large as that which his Refuter framed and divided into 3. parts, (viz. 1. that the Apostles intending to cōvert any natiō, first preached the Gospell in the cheife cities thereof. 2. and having converted some [Page 24] there usually ordeyned Presbyters. 3. by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie & countrie. Why then should he not take home to himselfe those words of his, wha [...] cannot he bring within the compass of his syllogismes? 2. Moreover, since he saith, that the last of the 3. parts distinguished by his Refuter; is the assumption it self, and inferred on the two former; as he setteth them downe; doth he not confound the assumption, with one (at least if not with both) of the arguments which should confirme it? for if a man should say, that the D. preached his sermon, to enlarge his favour with his good Lord, the Bishop of B. and W. & the rest of the Prelates; who would not vnderstand such a speach to carrie this meaning, that the very end whereat he aymed in his preaching, was the enlarging of his favour &c. And that an hope to gaine more grace with them moved him to vndertake the work? If then himself, or any friend of his should deny and contradict this speach; would he not take him for a trifler, (or rather a slanderer) that should make his boast, he could prove it with. 2. arguments, and yet had nothing else to say, then in a change of phrase, to repeat the same thing in this mā ­ner: The inlarging of his favour with his good Lord the Bishop &c was the very end which he proposed to himself when he preached. And he hoped by this meanes to gaine more grace. Therefore (doubtless) he preached this sermon to enlarge his favour &c. Yet such (and no better) are the Doct. arguments, when he proveth that the Presbyteries were planted by the Apostles in Cities, to la­bour the conversiō of the cities and countries adjoyning; because their conversion was both the end intended by the Apostles; & the thing they hoped by their labour to effect.

3. But perhaps, there may be found (upon due examination) some greater light, or help for the clearing of the assumption in question, then can at the first blush be discerned in the arguments: as they are layd downe. It shall not therefore be amisse to compare them a part, with the point wherevnto they are referred, and to a­void blame (if it be posible) I will stick close to the words of his owne connexive proposition before delivered; & derive frō thence, the Antecedent of each Enthymeme. First then (from the end in­tended by the Apostles) he argueth thus. The Apostles intending the conversion of any nation, as they began themselves to preach in the cheife Cities; so they placed Presbyters to the same intent. Ergo, those Presbyters (or Presbyteries) were appointed to labour [Page 25] the conversion of all that belonged to God both in citie & coun­trie. The pith of the argument, lieth in the later braunch of the antecedent. viz. the Apostles placed Presbyters in the cheife Cities, for the conversion of the whole nation. And it seemeth to be for­tifyed in this manner. The Apostles placed Presbyters to the same intent, for which themselves preached in the cheife cities. But they preached there with an intent to convert the whole nation. There­fore they also placed Presbyters in the Cheife Cities for the conver­sion of the whole nation.

To begin with the conclusion which is the Antecedent of the D. first argument, if there were an evident truth in it, it would serve (if need were) to contradict, the antecedent of the maine argumēt (propounded sect. 4) in this sort; The Presbyters (or Presbyteries) ordeyned by the Apostles, were placed in cheife cities for the con­version of the whole nation. Ergo they were appointed for whole provinces or rather nations and not for dioceses properly. The same will be concluded much more fully, from the proposition of the last syllogisme, and the instances that he giveth (pag 66) to prove the assumption thereof. (For if) Th' Apostles placed Presby­ters in cheife Cities, to the same intent, for which themselves began to preach there: (If also) Pauls intent in preaching and staying at Corinth an whole yeare and 6 monthes, and 3. yeares at Ephesus, was to convert, (not the diocese of Corinth or Ephesus onely, but) the whole nation of Asia, and Achaia (Then it will follow that) Paul in placing Presbyters at Corinth and Ephesus (did not ap­point the for thē for the diocese of Corinth or Ephesus, but for the whole country of Achaia and Asia; to labour as farre as they were able, the conversion of all that belonged to God in those parts.

To the like purpose, his 2. argument tendeth, when (from the Apostles hope) he reasoneth thus. The Apostles hoped by those Presbyters which they placed in cheife Cities, to convert both citie and country, (And this their hope was grounded on the force of the gospell testifyed by our Saviour, Math. 13. 53.) Ergo, those Presbyters were appointed (and it was their dutie) to labour the conversion of all, that in citie and countrie belonged to God. For vnlesse their hope, (the motive that guided their intention) should be absurdly restreined into a farr narrower compasse, then the end which they intended: the countrie whose conversion he incloseth within their hope, and so allotteth to the charge of the Presbyters, [Page 26] as the lump that was to be leavened by their Ministery, must be the whole nation and not so small a portion as one Diocese. But as I purpose not to dwell vpon this advantage; so I need not use many words to remove the ground of both his arguments, since they have no other foundation, then his owne wavering fancie, which doth not well accord with itself. It is time I should compare the Refuters answer & his defence togither, to see whether his second thoughts have any more weight of reason in them then the first.

It can never be shewed (sayth the Refut: answ. pag. 57.) neyther may it be reasonably thought that it was any part, of those Presbyters proper Sect. 7. ad p. 66 duty, to labour the 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 hea­ē also, if they were present in their cōgregatiōs: 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 alteratiō 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 [Page 27] that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock, whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers; or the Doctor who cite [...]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 calle [...]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 presēt) 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 conver­siō of Infidels. For besides the cōmon 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, [Page 28] 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 sus­pence, till he hath made good proofe of this assertion; I seare it will wearie the dearest of his friends, to wait for the proof thereof. All that he hath yet found worth the mencioning, is that the Evan­gelist reporteth, Act. 19. 6. 7. viz. that Paul having found at Ephe­fus certeine Disciples (about 12. in number, that had been parta­kers [Page 29] of Iohns Baptisme) by imposing hands on them, gave them the guifts of the Holy Ghost, so that they spake with tongues and prophesied. From hence he gathereth, 1. that these persons were at that time, enabled by the giftes of the spirit, for the worke of the Ministerie. 2. Yea ordeyned Presbyters & appointed to take the charge of that Church. 3. That they did equall the number of all that were besides converted. 4. And consequently that some­times in Churches newly constituted, the number of people con­verted was not much greater then the number of Presbyters pla­ced among them; for this he affirmed once before. Cap. 1. pag. 6. The first of these may be doubted of, we consider how gene­rally the gifts of the holy Ghost, were at other times beslowed, Act. 8. 12-17. & 10. 44. 46. But I will not contend about this point. The second is more unlikely then the first, and the third more ab­surd then the second, and therefore the last which floweth from these, hath nothing to releive it; for as there is not a syllable in the text, to uphold eyther the one or the other; so it suteth not with the Apostles wisdome, so farre to exceed here the proportio which he held in other places, betweene the number of the Presbyters, and the state of the Churches, to which they were assigned (as him­self confesseth in this 67. page lin. 10.) 2. Moreover it was the usuall course of the Apostles in all places where they came, to plant the gospell, first to continue their own preaching, for the gather­ing of a competent number to the faith, & then to give them Pres­byters, to feed those whom they had converted; (as the Doctor also acknowledgeth in the first of his two arguments, pag. 65.) It were absurd therefore to imagine, that he should now take a pre­posterous and contrarie order; at his first coming to Ephesus to ordeyne them 12. Ministers, and himselfe to stay there 3. yeares af­ter, to labour their conversion, by his owne preaching. 3. Again, we may truely say of preaching Presbyters, that which he saith of Bishops (serm. pag. 65.) there was not that use of them, among a people which was to be converted, before they needed to be fedd, and governed; especially while the Apostles was present, and had the assistance of Evangelists to labour their conversion with him. Act. 19. 22. 4. Were the Refuter as full of questions as the Do­ctor, he might ask him, how 12. Presbyters could have that ho­nourable stipend, which in justice is due to the for their work fake (as himself understandeth the Apostle. 1. Tim. 5. 17. see lib. 1. p. [Page 30] 127.) if the number of converts that were bound to mainteyn the, were but so many persons, or thereabouts? 5. And if he shall ask, to what use, their guift of prophesy was imployed, if they were not Presbyters affixed to the care of that flock? he may take answer from these scriptures, Act. 2. 17. & 11. 27. & 13. 1. & 15, 31. & 1. Cor. 14 29. 31. & 1. Tim, 4. 14. which shewe that all prophe­sying was not inclosed within th breist of his preaching presby­ters. But I have sayd enough to shewe, that we deny not without cause out assent to his idle fancie of a number of Presbyters given to some Churches, by farre too many for the number of persons already converted. Wherefore till he hath yeelded better proofes for this supposall, it cannot conclude his purpose. viz. that the A­postles intended the conversion of citie and countrey adjoyning, by the Ministerie of those Presbyters, which he ordeyned in any citie that had enterteyned the faith.

The 2. last questions before delivered, intimate this opinion selted in the Doctor; that if the Presoyters ordeyned in cities by the Sect. 9. Apostles, were not appointed to labour the conversion of the rest (yea if they did not indeavor it) then there was no meanes to effect their coversion. (Here­to if the Assumption be addeth) But there was a meanes appointed for their conversion; and it was in time effected. (Then this co­clusion will follow) Therefore they were appointed to labour their conversion; and (as their office did binde them, so) they did in­deavor it. But the proposition is false, and discovereth an high presumption in the Doctor, that dareth limit the wisdome & work of God, unto one onely meanes & that such as he fancieth to him­selfe, without any warrant, (yea against the clear light) of the word. For was not the conversion of Infidels unto the faith, the princi­pall work of the extraordinarie function of Apostles, and of Evan­gelists, that accompanied and assisted them in their traveiles? 2. And when the Apostles themselves left any Churches to the care of Presbyters ordeyned by them; did they not use the labour of their fellowe helpers, to finish the work which they had begun? 3. And why doth Mr Doctor take no notice of the meanes menti­oned by the Refuter, to wit; the private labours both of the pres-byters, & of every well affected Christian striving to winne others unto the faith; and the publick exhortations and instructions, di­rected by the Ministers to those heathen, that had accesse to the church-assemblies seing the scripture acknowledgeth that even by [Page 31] these helps, the work of the Lord in the gathering togither of his Saincts hath bene very much furthered? Rom. 16. 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15. 16. & 4. 3. Iam. 5. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 14. 24. 25. 4. But though the Doctor make light account of these helps; yet the Apostles were not ignorant, that his hand was not shortned, who had given them good (as of his blessing upon such weak meanes, so also) of his working out the calling and salvation of such as belonged to his kingdome, by many other wayes. Act. 8. 4. 5. 26. 40. & 9. 38. & 10. 3. 5. & 11. 19. 21. Isa. 2. 3. Zach. 8. 23. Ioh. 1. 41. 45. & 4. 29. 39. & 12. 20. 21. Apoc. 3. 9. And therefore we have no cause to think, that any feare of wanting fit meanes for the con­version of Gods elect, that yet were drowned in paganisme, should carrie them, to comit this work, vnto those Presbyters whom they ordeyned for the feeding of the flock already converted.

So much to the 7. questions, there remayneth 3. more to make Sect. 10. ad pag. 67. 68. up the compleat number of 10; which (though they be nothing to the present busynes, yet) may not be overpassed, least he crow over his Refuter without cause. Were all these Presbyters (saith he) Pastors property of that one flock; or was there but one properly the Pastor or Bishop, the rest being his Assistants? 2. when more were converted, then could well assemble in one ordinarie congregation were not the congregation divided? 3. vpon this division, was there a Bishop and Presbyterie assigned to eve­ry congregation; or onely one Presbyter &c. Because these questions are fitted (as also the former were) not so much to be informed what we hold, as to shewe what himselfe would have to be imbraced; let us first consider, to what issue he driveth the matter, which is dis­covered in the words following, pag 68, where he saith; That the parish disciplinarisns doe shew themselves to be of shallow judgement, & their parish discipline to consist of undisgested favcies, in that they imagin the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers, was so the same, before the division of parishes and after; that now every congrega­tion shall have her Bishop and Presbyterie, like as that one Church had, before Parishes were divided in the Diocese; and that as now Ministers are appointed to atted their severall Charges; so also then it was the proper office of the Bishop and his Presbyterie to attend the flock already converted. No merveile if the Doctors stomach, which afficteth nothing but that which favoureth the Diocesa dis­cipline cannot digest these points; yet will it be hard for him, frō the resolution of his questions, to gather any well digested argu­ment, [Page 32] to prove them vndigested sancies. In the two former; he pre­sumeth (as it seemeth) vpon an agreement with his Refuter in these two points, viz. that of those many presbyters, which the Apostles ordeyned in any one Citie; one onely was properly the Pastor or Bishop, and the rest his Assistants. And 2. that when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinary con­gregation, the congregations were divided. But in the f [...]st of these, he grossely forgetteth himselfe. For how could one of those pres­byters be a Bishop, if that be true, which he peremptorily holdeth, (serm. pag. 69. def. lib. 4. pag. 63.) viz. that the presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles, to labour the conversion of the people, had not any Bishop among them. Moreover in denying the pres­byters which assisted the Bishop, to be properly Pastors of that flock which they fedd in cōmon; doth he not at vnawares weaken one of his best arguments, framed by him against Lay-Elders? lib. 1. pag. III. for the governing Elders in the church of Geneva, are Pastors improperly, (as Beza sheweth de grad: Minist. cap. 9.) If therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus (& consequently the pres­byters mencioned. 1. Tim. 5. 17, being the same with those of E­phesus, Act. 20. 28. as he professeth, lib. 1. pag. 108; If I say these Presbyters) were none otherwise Pastors then improperly; why might they not be Lay-Elders? or how could they be properly Mi­nisters of the word (as he mainteyneth) if they were not properly Pastors? In the answer, which himselfe maketh to the last of his questions; lieth the weight of all that yeildeth him any advantage. And since it inquireth altogither de sacto (what was done) and not de jure, (what in right ought to be done) vnlesse he had kept him­selfe within the times of the Apostles, and grounded his assumptiō upon such records, as may assure us of their approbation, he ar­gueth overweakely to conclude as he doth. 1. that our parish as­semblies at this day, ought to have one onely Presbyter, (and not a Presbyterie to assist their Pastor) because such an order was ta­ken, for those Churches which were multiplied, upon an increase of converts in cities and villages adjoyning. 2. that the first Pres­byters were not (as Ministers now are) set over the flock converted onely, but over the whole citie and countrie to labour their cōver­sion, because upon the divisiō of cōgregations in the diocese when each congregation had her Presbyter to attend it; the Bishop of the citie and his Presbyterie had a generall superintendencie over all, [Page 33] not onely to govern them, and their Presbyters; but also to labour the conversion of the rest. And doth not himselfe weaken the con­sequence of his owne reasoning? when he telleth us (lib. 3. cap. 1. sect. 9.) that the Churches of former times (before Constantines daies) were not in all things established and setled according to their desires; for in time of persecution their government was not alwaies such as they would, but such as they could attaine vnto. But how proveth he, that which he assumeth for a truth not to be contradicted? viz. 1. that upon the first division of congregations, the ancient Mother-Church onely, had her presbyterie to assist the Bishop, the rest of the Churches having each of them one onely Presbyter: and 2. that the Bishops Presbyterie in office and charge differed from the rest of the Presbyters in this; that the presbyters were restreyned to the feeding of their particular Churches; & the Presbytery assi­sted the Bishop; in procuring the conversiō of such as yet remained in infidelity.

It is a knowne truth confessed by the Doctor, that when chur­ches Sect. 11. were multiplied in Asia, after S. Paul had preached & placed Presbyters at Ephesus (and that with an intent as he conceiveth to work out the conversion os all Asia, by the labour of those Pres­byters) each Church was made equall with the Mother-Church of Ephesus, in this, that as she, so they had, (not one onely presbyter, but) a presbyterie togither with a Bishop; or President to governe them. For he teacheth out of his text (Apoc. 1. 20.) that the 7 churches of Asia, had each of them her Presbyterie and a Bishop entitled by the name of an Angell: moreover, he acknowledgeth (Def. chap. 7. pag. 23.) that Timothy and Titus (who were as he faith Bishops, the one of all Asia, the other of all the Churches in Creete) were to ordeyne Presbyters in the severall cities; and that by Pauls direction, aswell by letter as example; and addeth, that he no where readeth, that they assigned severall Presbyters to their severall Cures, ēyther in citie or countrie. So then it is cleare by the Doctors own confessiō, that how many Churches so ever were multiplied within the episcopall charge of Timothy & Titus, they all had (& by Pauls direction ought to haue) a presbyterie, and not a single presbyter in any place to attend them. Wherefore for the better manifestation (I say not of the Doctors wi [...]dome, but) of the truth or falshood of his 2. assertions mentioned in the end of the former sectiō; though I presume not to oppose him, yet I crave [Page 34] his resolution in these sewe quaestions. Were not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to informe all Bishops (even Diocesan Bishops if there were any such ordeyned by the Apostles) and their successors unto the worlds end; how to exercise their function, as­well in respect of ordination, as of jurisdiction? see this maintey­ned, lib. 4. Def. pag. 75. 83. & 85: if then these epistles gave thē no direction for the placing of a singular Presbyter, but rather for the ordeyning of a (Presbyterie, or) company of Presbyters, for those Churches, that were (or should be) multiplied in their charge: doth it not follow that every diocesā Bishop, ought to have a Pres­byterie, (& not one Presbyter onely) to every Church that should grow up in his Diocese? If he shall say that the Apostles charge of ordeyning many Presbyters for one Church, was limited to ci­ties, is it not in effect to deny, that the Apostle gave them, any dire­ction for diocesan Bishops; how to furnish the Churches of their diocese? But was the Apostles care onely for cities, and not for country-townes? Or did he appoint the Bishop, and Presbyters of cities to labour the conversion of the townes and villages, and yet give them no instrustiō how to settle a Ministerie amōg them? must diocesan Bishops fetch their patterne, for the right way of establi­shing particular Churches within their Diocese, from Damasus his pontificall, and the practise of Euaristus and Dyonisius, that were Bishops of Rome, and not from the writings of the Apostles? If it must needs be so; yet how shall this one poore sentence (Presbyte­ris Romae, titulos divisit Euaristus) give warranti [...]e unto these as­sertions? 1. That each title was a distinct Church. 2. That each title had one onely Presbyter and no more assigned to it. 3. that those Presbyters were (as he saith, serm. pag. 46. & [...]0.) Pastors severed from the Bishop, as no part of his presbyterie that assisted him in his Diocesan government. 4. That besides those presbyters so distributed to their cures, there were others which remayned with the Bishop, as assistants unto him in the Mother-church. Till these particulars be supported with better proofes, then yet the Doctor hath produced; I doubt not but the discreete reader will see, he was ledd by prejudice rather then by any sound reason, whō he pronounced it an undisgested sancie, to affirme, that as every particular Church in the Apostles times had; so now it ought to have a presbyterie to governe it.

But, say he could prove by invincible arguments, that the Sect. 12. pa­rish-assemblies [Page 35] which are multiplied in every Diocese, ought to have one onely presbyter, and not a presbyterie, as the first chur­ches had, which were planted in cities by the Apostles; how will he ever be able to make good, that difference which he putteth, be­tweene the presbyters of parish Churches, and the presbyterie of the Mother-church, when he giveth to the later, and denieth to the former, the dutie of labouring the conversion of all, that ey­ther in citie or country, remaine estranged from the faith? It is before observed that in his conceit, the presbyters of Ephesus were placed by S. Paul to indeavor the conversion of all Asia, as farre as they were able: and yet neverthelesse, he giveth to the severall pres­byteries of other cities, as Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira &c. the charge of converting all within their Diocese. Now if the generall charge of the whole nations conversion, first cast upon the presby­terie of one cheife citie, be no barre against the presbyters of other cities, to deny them the like charge, for the rest of each citie and country adjoyning, why should the Diocesan charge of any pres­byterie, in any one citie, debarre the presbyters established in coū ­trey townes, that imbrace the gospell before some others, from in­deavoring the conversion of the rest in the same towne, and the hamlett adjoyning? If he have any testimonie (divine or humane, ancient or moderne) to justify this difference, why doth he over­passe them in silence? If he have none, is it not as indisgested a fancie, as ever was broached by a man of learning? And to come to our owne times, since there is in many Dioceses, great scarcity of able Teachers, and the Doctor is perswaded that without the word preached, men ordinarily cannot atteyne to salvation; no nor yet to any degree thereof in this life (viz. neyther to an effectu­all vocation, nor to justification, or sanctification, as he teacheth elsewhere. (serm. of the dignitie and ductie of the Ministers, pag. 27.) I would faine knowe who there are that stand charged, by of­fice and dutie to labour the vocation of such, as have not any able preacher set over them? Whether the Bishop and his presbyterie; or the preachers that are licensed for the Diocese, or the Idol-mi­nisters onely, that have charge of soules in those places cōmitted to them? For why should not the Bishop & Presbyterie stand char­ged, with the office and duetie of labouring their vocation at this day; if it did of old belong to their office, to work out the con­version of such as remayned in unbeleefe? and yet why should they [Page 36] beare the burthen of this work, since there are many other preach­ers, authorized for the Diocese; and the Idol-ministers are by their institution to their benesices as deeply charged, with the care of souls in their places, as any of the mostable preachers? Againe, if all licenced preachers ought in dutie to lend their help for this work; how shall this dutie (of labouring to reduce vnbeleevers to the saith) distinguish the office of the ancient Presbyters, first or­deyned by the Apostles, from the function & charge of Ministers, which now are allotted to their severall Cures? but if the cure of souls: which is cōmitted to such Idols, doe discharge all others frō the bond of this dutie, how shall the people vnder their charge be brought vnto salvation? It cōmeth to my remembrance at length, that the Doctor saith, our divines in the vniversities, are ordeyned (as the first Presbyters were) to the nationall Church in cōmon; before they be assigned to their peculiar titles or cures (serm. pag. 50. in the Margin) shall the burthen of this work relie on their shoulders? I hope that in his next defense, he will clearely resolve us of these doubtes; meane while, he must give both Refuter and Reader (I think) leave to think, that the office and charge of our Ministers now affixed to their cures, is altogither the same, with the charge of those preaching Elders, which were planted in the first Apostolical Churches, to feed the slock that dependeth on thē? (Acts 20. 28. 1. pet. 5. 2.) & that the conversion of Insidels then, was none otherwise a work of the office of those Presbyters, then it is the dutie of our Ministers now, to labour the vocatiō of those, which in parishes adjoyning to thē doe want the ordinarie meanes of their salvation. The proposition therefore, and the assumption of his first argument (before propounded sect. 4.) being found weak, and destitute of any stay, sufficient to uphold them, we are now to see; if his second argument, be of any more worth to inferre that conclusiō which he indeavoureth to justify. viz. that the Pres­byteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were appointed not to parishes, but to Dioceses.

Chap. 3. Removing the second argument proposed by the Doctor to prove, that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were ap­pointed Sect. 1. [...]d Sect. 3. cap. 4. pag. 68. & serm. pag. 18. unto Dioceses; and not to Parishes.

His second argument, Mr Doctor himself hath thus framed, When the Churches were not diuided into several Parishes, nor Pres­byters [Page 37] assigned to their severall Titles or Cures; but were in cōmon to attend the whole slock, seeding them that were already conuerted, and labouring the conuersion of the rest, so farre as they are able both in citie and country: thē were not the Presbyteries appointed to Parishes, but to Dioceses.

In the Apostles times the Churches were not diuided into severall Parishes &c. Ergo in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appointed to Parishes but to Dioceses. We see here, how he hath himself framed it, now he telleth us how his Refuter, after his perpetuall man­ner propounded the propositiō connexively thus, Is the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times, nor the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures; but in cōmon were to attend the whole flock conuerted, or to labour the conuersion of the residue: then the Presbyters in the Apostles times were not appointed for parishes but for dioceses. Was it a fault in the Refuter (trow ye) to propound the proposition connexively with astrict eye to the words of his sermon? and is it praiseworthy in the Doctor to exchange it for an other cōnexive propositiō, where­in he also made a change of one phrase, for his advantage; for ha­ving The Doct. changeth a phrase for advantage. at the first sayd that in the Apostles times, Parishes were not di­stinguished, now he saith, the Churches in their times were not diuided into seuerall parishes; which later may be true, and yet the former false, as we shall see anon, when we come to his assumption. But (as a man full of charges) he chargeth his Refuter with a worse fault, viz. the suppressing of the force of the connexion, as it inferreth they were appointed to Dioceses, in leauing out (as he saith) the wordes of the greatest force, viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God, &c. A worse fault in deed, were it true; but hath he no other way to The Doct. to disgrace his Ref. ca­lūniateth. disgrace his Refut: then by so false a calumniation as this is? doth he not faithfully set downe his owne wordes, to wit, that the Pres­byters were to attend the whole flock converted, and to labour the conversion of the residue? In deed for brevitie sake he omitted the words following (so sarre as they should be able, both in the citie & countries adioyning:) but doth not himself vse the like abbreviation, pag. 66. The Doct. 2. argumēt is but a beggerly repetition of the point ur­ged in the former. lin. ult. pag. 67. lin. ante penulr, and 68. lin. 14? But though I cōmend him not for this; yet I cannot but praise him for speaking the truth, in saying, that [...]e force of his connexion, as it inferreth they were appointed to Dioceses, lieth in this, that they were appointed to labour the cō ­uersion of those that belonged to God, so farre as they were able, both in the citie and in the countries adioyning. For this maketh good, what before was touched (cap. 2. sect. 3.) scz. that his 2. argument is but a beg­gerly [Page 38] repetition of the same point, which he urged in the former. And seing in his reply, pag. 74. (to his Refuters objecting it an er­rour before refuted) he maketh no other defence then this; that [...]e b [...]th prouid it to be an euident truth & discouered the shallownes of their indg­ment that deny it; It were sufficient to send him back for his answere, to that which hath bene already spoken, to shew the weaknes of his defense. Yet to take from him all evasions; as I wish the reader to see what is further observed touching the state of this argument. (sect. 14.) so I refuse not to examine, what he hath brought, eyther in maintenance of his owne argument, or in removing his Refu­ters answer.

His proposition (as he hath set it) seemeth to be (as he saith) of sect. 2. ad pag. 69. necessary and euident truth, and well may it seeme so to him; but all thinges are not so as they seeme; yet if his reasons be of any worth, I will graunt him a seeming truth in it. First he asketh how the Presbyters could be assigned to severall Parishes when there were no parishes distinguished? And 2. if they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God, in the citie and coun­trey, how were they not appointed to dioceses? Behold here, how the Doctor is driven to disioynt his propositiō, (like as he doth al­so pag. 70. lin. 2. & 6.) and to prove the part thereof a part. Why then doth he count his Refuter (Def. lib. 1. pag. 148.) to be no better then a grosse headed Sophister for the like course? and why then did he not divide it at the first into 2. members, the one con­cluding that the presbyters were not appointed to parishes; & the other, that they were appointed unto dioceses? But (once againe to return him his owne) what cannot he bring within the compasse of one of his syllogismes? Now to answer his questions; touching the first, be it freely confessed, that when Parishes were not at all distinguished, Presbyters could not be assigned to several Parishes. But if the Doctor had not departed from the words of his propo­sition (whether craftily or carelesly, I leave it to his owne consci­ence) I would flatly have refused to assent to his connexion: for the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles might be assigned unto parishes; (that is to say, the Churches unto which the Presbyters were assigned, might be each of them one particular congregatiō) although the Churches planted by the Apostles, were not as yet di­vided into severall parishes, or distinct congregations. And to the second connexiō propounded after the same māner, which he tax­eth [Page 39] in his Refuter with an if, in stead of when, which word his pro­position imbraceth; I answer as before to the proposition of his former argument (sect. 4. cap. 2.) It doth not followe, that the Presbyters were appointed to Dioceses, (that is, to diocesā chur­ches such as ours) although it should be graunteth, that they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God both in citie and countrey.

Neyther doe his questions that follow, give him the least releife, to justify this consquencewhich I disclaim, It semeth his meaning is to perswade his Reader, that the denyall of his consequence will inforce his Refuter to father this fancie; that all the people which belonged to God in the citie and countrie & were afterwards con­verred, belonged to one parish. And the absurditie hereof (he ho­peth) will appeare by this; that after their conversion, they were divided into many parishes both in citie and countrie. For answer, 1. I ask why it should be more absurd to say, that the people of one parish may be (or were) divided into many parishes, then to say, that the people of one Church or Diocese may be & were distribu­ted into many Dioceses or Churches? but he is much deceived if he think, that the denyall of his consequence, will drive us to ac­knowledge, that all the people which in an whole citie & countrie belonged to God as being ordeyned to life and in time to be con­verted, were to be reckoned one parish. For it is flatly denyed, that they did before their conversion, belong vnto any parish, or visi­ble Church at all. And it is a blind fancie in the Doctor to think, that because they belonged to God in his election, therefore they belonged to the Citie-church; for how should they be members of any visible Church or congregation; which yet were drowned in atheisme and insidelitie? yet, as if he had sufficiently fortified the proposition or consequence of his owne argument he leaveth it; & indeavoreth to take from his Refuter the ground where on he stan­deth in contradicting his conclusion: for he seemeth to grant that at the first all the Christians in the Citie and Countrie being assem­bled togither; could make but a small congregation: but he de­mandeth how they could be of one parish, before there was any parish at all? doe you not see the Doctor is wise enough to make his bargaine well for his own advantage, when he hath a foole in hand, that will give him all that he asketh? for in effect he saith, grant me; The Doct. beggeth. but thus much that there was not any parish at all in the Apostles [Page 40] times; and then I can justify my deniall of your consequence, when you thus reason, that all the Christians in one citie & the countrie adjoyning, at the first were but as one parish, because they were but a small congregation, when they were all gathered togither. His last refuge is to tell us, he hath before proved, that the circuite of the Church, and of the Bishop or Presbyteries charge, was the same in purpose and intention at the first, when they were but a few, which it was afterwards in execution, when all were converted; but this discovereth the nakednes of his cause, that inforceth him to lay hold on so bare a covering as I have shewed this to be in the answer to his third Chapter and 6. section.

We have seen how weak his staies are, whereon his proposition Sect. 3. leaneth, but for his assuption he provideth much more weakely. It is that, (saith he) which the Refuter himselfe boldeth. But this defense (say I) is such as the Doctor himselfe contradicteth (pag 74.) The Doct. cōtradict­eth himself and proveth to be a soule vntruth delivered not of ignorance, but against the light of his owne conscience. For there he acknowled­geth that in his assumptiō, the Refuter findeth one error repeated, which was before noted (concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination) & chargeth also the maine points in it to be altogither void of truth. But let us heare what it is, which he saith his Refuter holdeth; Forsooth, that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostlestimes. Wel but can he frō hence conclude, that his Refuter joyneth with him in his whole assumption? Nay rather we may see a threefold trick A 3. folde tricke of cunning in the D. of cunning in the Doctor, namely, in changing the first braunch of his assumption, in justifying it by his Refuters allowance; and in concealing the other parts of his assumption. 1. he changeth the first braunch, because he could neyther challenge any allowance of it from his Refuter, nor yet yeild any sufficient reasō to justify it a­gainst him in that sense, that he taketh parishes in this controver­sy. For he knoweth that his Opposites define a parish to be a parti­cular ordinarie or set congregation of Christians, assembling in one place to the solemne service of God, (see pag. 4. of his sermō) And that his Refuter holdeth the ancient Churches to be parishes, because (although their multitude were great in some places, yet) each of them was one distinct assemblie guided in ecclesiasticall matters, by their owne Presbyters (see answer. pag. 58. and this Defense, lib. 2. p. 74.) Wherefore, to say, that there were no such parishes distinguished in the Apostles times, is all one as to deny, [Page 41] that in their times there were any distinct congregations or assem­blies, which ordinarilie (if they were not by sufficient causes hin­dred, for this exception himself taketh notice of (Def. pag. 83.) as­sembled togither in one place to the solemne service of God &c. he thought it wisdome therefore to let goe this point, and to ten­der another in stead thereof, which might passe without control­ment, viz. that in the Apostles times, the Churches were not divided into severall parishes. But this argueth against, rather then for the D; for­seing Churches which are not divided into severall parishes (or ti­tles and cures for these are one and the same in the Doctors phrase of speaking) doe make but one ordinary congregation of Christi­ans; they must needs be parishes, to the Refuters vnderstanding; yea to the Doct. also, as he delivereth the state of the questiō (serm. pag. 4.)

2. But why doth he relie for the proofe of his owne assertion upon his Refuters approbation? Is it not because in his owne judg­ment, there is no generall truth in it? which may appeare by his own exception; for in excepting the church of Alexādria, he much weakeneth not onely his assuptiō, but his whole argument. For if his study for this defense hath brought him to know (what he knew not when he made the sermon, as he acknowledgeth, pa. 93. to wit) that parishes were distinguished in Alexandria, long before Euaristus his dayes, whom he supposed to have been the first au­thor of that ordinance; why may not his traveile for the next bring him to find out some better evidence, then he hath yet atteined to, for the like distribution, made in some other Churches: yea, he hath already told us (pag 50.) that it is more then probable, that the 7. Churches of Asia at the time of writing the Revelation con­teyned diverse congregations. (see for this point also sect. 14.) And among other reasons to make good that probability, he ob­serveth, that (besides the Churches and Presbyters that Paul & Pe­t [...]r had setled in Asia) S. Iohn also preached the gospell, in those parts for many yeares, & ordeyned Bishops and Presbyters where need was. But if there be any truth in that which his argument presupposeth (to wit, that in the Apostles times, the Presbyteries were not appoīred to parishes, because there was not in any church many parishesin their daies: why then should there not be some probability (sufficient atleast to weaken the consequence of his ar­gument) in the contrary assertion (viz. that some Presbyteries [Page 42] might be appointed unto Parishes; seing some Churches, (as that of Alexandria for certaintie, and those 7 in Asia, in very great pro­babilitie) were even in the Apostles times distinguished into several parishes.

3. As for the rest of the branches of his Assumption; when he should make proofe of them, he wholly silenceth them (not of ig­norance or forgetfulnes, but) of purpose, because he found it easier to wrangle with his Refuter, about some parts of his answer, then to propose any sound argument; for the justifying of the points impugned; which is in deed the perpetuall course of this great dis­puter for the most part.

But let us see whether he hath so just cause as he suppofeth, to Sect. 4. insult over his Refuter, when he saith (to let passe his scoffs more fit for a vice in a play then a Doctor of divinitie, in re tam seria as this is) that his Refuter wrangleth & as a man confounded, yet resolved, to cō ­ntradict, though against the light of his conscience, denieth the conclusion, & cō ­tradicteth himselfe. The contradiction objected, will come to be examined, in his defense of the Assumption. All that is sayd to wea­ken the consequence or proposition, he taketh to be but a bare de­niall of the conclusion. And first he so conceiveth of his quaestion (what if every one of the Churches then, were but one parish &c.) because he cannot see, how it impugneth the consequence, in any respect. But had he had so much charitie towards his Refuter as he would have yeelded to himselfe, he might have supplied that which the state of the question, and the scope of his answer requi­reth, to be necessarily understood q. d. what if (though that were granted which he supposeth) every one of the Churches then were but one parish, which by reasō of the multitude of people had ma­ny Teachers? so he might have seen, that he impugneth his conse­quence; so farre as it inferreth, that the Presbyteries were not ap­pointed unto parishes: and that therfore, he both wrongeth him to say, that in that respect he giveth it no answer at all; and sporteth himselfe in vaine with the hope of a victorie that turneth to his ru­ine. For his quaestion rightly conceived (as before is shewed) doth in plaine phrase of speaking import thus much. q. d. Be it granted that parishes in the Apostles times, were not distinguished in any citie and the country nere adjoyning, nor presbyters assigned to their severall cures? this nothing hindreth, but that every one of the Churches, which by their ordination injoyed a presbyterie (or [Page] companie of teachers) might be one parish; that is, one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither, in one place. And that which is added touching the French & Dutch Churches, ser­veth (not to prove the maine conclusion, as the Doctor supposeth, therein mistaking his Refuters Analysis; but) to justify the deniall of the consequence, by a paralel comparing those outlandish chur­ches, here in England, with the ancient Apostolike Churches in this manner;

It is well knowne that the French and Dutch Churches here in England have first a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them, 2. no parishes distinguished in any citie for them. 3. nor presbyters so assigned to their several cures, as our parish Ministers are. Be it also graunted that the Apostolike Churches in cities had the like: yet the French and Dutch Churches are, (neyther doth the want of distinct parishes, and presbyters assigned to their seve­rall cures, hinder their being) each of them, one parishionall (& not a diocesan) assembly, that is, one ordinarie congregation of Christians, assembling togither in one place. Why then might not those Apostolike Churches be, yea how should the want of distinct parishes &c. hinder their like being? If the Doctor will needs have the comparison brought into a syllogism, it may be thus framed.

• What, hindreth not the French & Dutch Churches, which here in En­gland, have a presbyterie (or company of Teachers) allotted to them; from be­ing each of them one parishonall assembly: that cannot binder the Aposto­licke Churches, which in Cities injoyed their presbyterie (or company of Teach­ers) from being each of them, one parishonall assembly.
• The want of distinct parishes, and presbyters so assigned to their severall Cures as our parish-Ministers are; doth not hinder the French or Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie (or company of Teachers) allotted to them, from being each of them, one parishonall assembly.
• Therefore, the like want, cannot hinder the Apostolike Churches, which in cities, injoyed, their presbyterie (or company of Teachers) from being each of them, one parishonall assembly.

As for his cavils agianst his owne Argument, framed (I will not Sect. 5. say, for the nonce to cavill withall, but) vpon a mistake of his Re­futers meaning; though I might passe by them, as not directly touching any part of the argument before contrived; yet because they contradict some pointers implied in the comparison, I will re­move them out of the way, least any one should stomble at them.

First therefore, whereas he hunteth after some differences be­tween the Apostolike Churches, and the French or Dutch Church­es here in England (thereby to shew that they are not of like con­dition, as the Refuters comparison importeth). I answer, 1. the Doctor cannot be ignorant, that comparisons are not to be rac­ked beyond the purpose of the Author that produceth them; ney­ther is he so simple, but that he may see his Refuter principally in­tended herein to compare the Apostolike Churches, with the Frēch and Dutch Churches; that as the later have; so also the former had, by reason of the multitude of people many teachers to attend thē; and yet remayned one Church assembly, not distributed into se­verall congregations, vnder severall Ministers. Herein therefore, (if the comparison holde, (as himselfe confefseth and argueth for his advantage, pag. 74. 75.) all the differences that he alledgeth (were they as many moe as they are) cannot contradict, or infringe the truth of the Refuters speach, when he saith, doe you not see the like in the French and Dutch churches here in England. 2. But what are the dissagreements which he hath found out? For the most part such as are now questioned concerning the Apostolike Churches; for he saith, Their Presbyterie consisteth for the most part of Lay-men placed a­mong us, not with purpose to convert either the Ci [...] or count [...] to them, but to attend them of their owne Church: whereas contrary wise, the Churches in the Apostles times, had a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed a­mong them; (as leaven is put into the lump) with purpose to convert the re [...] both in Ci [...] and Countrie. As if he would argue, that they agree not in the points assumed by the Refuter for his purpose; because they answere not his expectation in the particulars, which his imagina­tion ascribeth (though his arguments cannot conveigh them) to the Apostolike Churches. As for that other difference (viz. that the French Church in London is but one, among many prosessing the same religion, whereas the Apostolike Churches were not so, before the division o [...] parish [...], but planted among heathen peo-ple) though he make it a chiefe one; yet is it srivolous and of no va­lue, The Doct. pulleth downe with the one hand, what he fetteth up with the other. especially seing himselfe (pag. 72.) compareth the French Churches here with those ancient Christians, who dwelt in Cities replenished with men of another saith, (as with Arrians), as ours be with men of another language.

3. And here by the way observe, how the Doctor at vnawares, pulleth downe with the one hand, what he setteth vp with the other. [Page 45] For against this comparison, (between those churches that lived a­mong the Arrians, and the French Churches among us) alleadged to prove that the later are (as he saith the former were) models of diocesan Churches: I may returne his owne exceptions, thus; The French Churches cannot be Models of diocesan Churches, like as he supposeth the other were; because their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of lay-men, and wanteth a Bishop which they had; neither are they placed and re [...]eined, for the the conversion of the citie and countrie to them, as (in the Doctors conceit) the anci­ent Churches among the Arrians were; for otherwise how should they be converted? as he argueth, pag. 67.

And this also (by the way) weakneth his arguing, to shew that Sect. 6. the French and Dutch Churches among us, are no parish assemblies. For if they be neither diocesan nor models of diocesan Churches, what else can they be then parishes; such at least, as the Refuter in this question, esteemeth to be parishes, or parishonall Churches. 2. But in this point, he sheweth himself what he is; when knowing (as is before noted sect. 3.) in what sense, the Refuter holdeth those The Doct. knowing the Refut, to speak in one sense [...]ieth to an other. Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches, to be parishes; he doth notwithstanding flie to another sort of parishes, viz. such as ours now are, deprived of the power of ecclesiasticall government, and subordinate to an other Church, as members thereof; to his exceptions therefore, in this behalfe this reply may suffice. That which is one Church among many in one citie; is one parish or one congregation, such as (in this question) we define a parish to be. But the French Church in London is one Church among many in one citie, (as the Doctor acknowledgeth, p. 7. 1) It is therefore one parish, as wee understand a parish in this question. Againe, That which hindreth not the french and dutch Churches among vs, fro being, each of them, one ordinary congregation, assembling to one place for the worship of God: doth not hind [...] them from being each of them, one parish: (as we take a parish in this question). But the Doctors exceptions (viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches doe dwel in many distinct parishes, (according to the circuite of our English division of parishes, in London and o­ther places) a [...]d that their Churches are indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government, and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof, these exceptions (I say) doe not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them, [Page 46] one ordinarie congregation, assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God. Therefore neyther doe they hinder them, from be­ing each of them, one parish, as we take a parish in this question.

As for that one speach inserted, touching the French and Dutch Churches (when he saith, they have a Presbyterie as the Church [...] Gene­va hath, to supply the want of a Bishop, which once they had and still might have, in an imitation of the ancient Christinians) me thinks it scarce sa­voureth of truth, or at least argueth forgetfulnes in himselfe. For if that he speaketh, of having a Bishop once in e [...]e, and still in poss [...]; The Doct. speach ei­ther is vn­true or else contradict­eth himself be referred to the French and Dutch Churches here in England; where doth Alasco say, that they once had a Bishop? and how kno­weth he that our Bishops would suffer them to have in each church a Bishop of their owne? If to the Church of Geneva; as he needeth not Alascoes testimonie, to prove that they once had a Bishop; so in saying that they now might have a Bishop, what else doth he, but contradict here what he earnestly pleadeth for, lib. 4. pag. 166; viz. that the Churches of France and Geneva, neyther in the first reformation could; neyther now can obteyne the government of Bishops, to be s [...]tled among them, though they would; but it is no new thing to meet with the Do­ctors slippings this way.

We come now to the Refuters regestion; when he striketh at the Doctor with his owne weapon in this manner; [...] there were no pari­shes Sect. 7. ad P. 70. lin 8, in the Apostles times, how could there be Dioceses; seing every Diocese, consisteth of diverse distinct parishes? The Doctor telleth us, it is but a floorish, and a kind of answer that best fi [...]teth him that is at a non-plus. But it is well knowne that this kind of answer, is very usuall with divines, nothing inferior to him, eyther in schoole learning or divi­nity; & that, to contradict any assertion belonging to the question, aswell as the conclusion principally contraverted, doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theologicall & scholasticall disputations? yea, it is in deed, of speciall use, to put the adverse part to a non-plus; or at least to let the indifferent Rea­der see the weaknes of his argument and therefore no merv [...]ile though the Doctors patience be not a little troubled with it. But see we how he bestirreth himselfe to escape the stroak of it. Good Sir, saith he, what is this to my consequence? Againe, to what end is this spoken; to deny my consequence, or the maine conclusion? And a little after, Therefore, when he would s [...]me to denie the consequence of the propo- [...]tion, he doth not so much as touch it; but by taking a supposed advantage, a­gainst [Page 47] the assumption, he d [...]ni [...]th the principall conclusion. Good Mr. D. with your patience, is there no difference betwixt the deniall of the conclusion; and the retorting of an argument against it? And is it nothing to you, if your maine conclusiō fall to the ground; so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand upright [...]? but it is a fault in the Refuter; when he would seeme to impugne your consequence, to passe by it, and to set upon your conclusiō, when you thought it had been sufficiently garded. Belike you looked not for such a stratageme at his hands, whom you tooke to be amazed at the fight of your argument, (as you say, pag. 71) and so shallow conceited (when he is in his best wits) that (if we may beleeve you, pa. 80.) he can see no further then his nose end. Yet perhaps if you had seene your consequence touched by the former part of his answer, you would not have blamed him [...] for running out a­gainst your conclusion; before he gave the onset to your assump­tion. But (to let your scoffs alone) tell us in good earnest, doe you think your consequence is altogither out of the reach of this his regestion, as you call it? doth it not rather fall with the conclu­sion? for how could Presbyteries be appointed to Dioce [...]es, when there were none? If therefore the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times, doe argue that there were no dioceses; doth it ne­cessarily argue also, that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles, were not appointed to dioceses? But the Doctor we see is a man of that courage, that though he fores [...]e he cannot long escape his ad­versaries The D. [...]eth from one star­ting hole to another till he be shut out of all. hands; yet he will fly from one starting hole to another, till he be shut out of all. For he telleth us, his consequence is this, If there were no parishes, then the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes; but he knoweth I need not tell him, that that is not all; he should have added, but [...]o dioceses. And for us it sufficeth, if one part of his consequence be overthrowne, for the other will fall of it selfe af­terwardes. Againe, I must tell him, that howsoever his consequēce (as he hath now with his detraction proposed it) may seeme in vin­cible; yet himselfe (such is his happ) hath shewed us a way how to crush it. For if the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times will argue (as is afore shewed) that the presbyteries were not ap­pointed to dioceses; then it will also argue that they were appoin­ted to parishes, for he must confess (vnless he will confess himselfe to be ignorant in logick, as he saith lib. 1. pag. 60.) that in this controversy this di [...]unction is implyed, viz. that the presbyteries [Page 48] were appointed either to dioceses as he saith, or else to such parish­es as we spoke of. The disproof therefore of his dioceses, is a direct proofe of our parishes. The which the Doctor (as it seemeth fore­seeing, falleth vpon the examination of the argument, which run­neth thus,

If there were no parishes distinguished in the Apostles times; then Sect. 1. there were no dioceses, such as ours; (for every such diocese con­sisteth of diverse distinct parishes)

But in the Apostles times there were no parishes distinguished. Therefore neither were there any dioceses in their daies, such as ours are.

How necessary this clause, dioceses such as ours, is, I have shewed heretofore, because Bishops such as ours cannot be had without dio­ceses such as ours. And here it maketh the consequence of the ar­gument as cleare as the Sun in a cleare summers day. Yet the Doct. denieth it; because he imagineth that the diocese was the same, and the circuit of the spirituall jurisdiction intended, the same, before parishes were divided, with that it was after they were divided, that is, answerable to the civil: but that is coleworts more then thrice sodden, the falshood and vanity of which evasion is already suffi­ciently discovered, in the answere to his 3. cap. sect. 6. & 8.

It shall here suffice in one word to remember him of this, that his owne wordes doe convince, that the want of parishes distin­guished, argueth there were no dioceses such as ours, which in exe­cution (and not intention onely) comprize all the inhabitants of City and Country. I might put him in minde of another diffe­rence, betwixt our and the ancient dioceses, which in circuite (as he saith) answered to the civill; seing ours doe not so; for some of them conteyn many shires within their circuite: and sundry shires are dismembred by the spirituall jurisdiction, which draweth them to severall dioceses. But let us see how he removeth the piller, that vpholdeth the consequence of the argument, viz. that every diocese (such as ours) consistech of distinct parishes. It is true (saith he) after the distinction of parishes, but not before. But is not this answere miserune An absurb evasion. kersphogeton) an absurd evasion, and no better then a very denyall of the conclusion? For (to borrow the Doctors comparisions be­fore applied to the question of dioceses and their circuit, pag. 53.) when he saith, that every man consisteth of soul and body; and the body consisteth of many members; if one should answere him, [Page 49] It is true, that a man consisteth of those parts, after the conjunction but not before; and the body hath many members after the distin­ction of the members, but not before; would he not censure him for an absurd caviller, and his answere for a poore evasion of one that is at a non-plus; yet such and none other is the Doctors an­swer. And. 2. that it may appeare to what purpose his answer serveth, I will here frame the argument, that fortifieth the conse­quence before denied, and leave it to the readers judgment, to give sentence betwixt the Doctor and the Refuter in this cafe.

Whatsoever consisteth of distinct parishes, that cannot have his being or sub­sistence, before parishes were distinguished.

But every Diocese (such as ours) consisteth of distinct Parishes.

No Diocese therefore (such as ours) can have any being or subsistence, be­fore there be a distinction of Parishes.

Now to answer as he doth, that the assumption is true after parishes were distinguished, but not before; is it not all one in effect as if he had sayde, that there may be and were dioceses, before there there were any parishes? so that vnder a pretence of contradicting the assumption, with a frivolous distinction, he doth in deed (as a man amazed or rather confounded) deny the conclusion.

As for the comparisions, borrowed by him, to justify his answer, Sect. 9. they fall farre short of his purpose. First he saith, a batch of bread con­sisteth of many loaves after the distinction, which before it conteyned undistin­guished in the lumpe. But, he must remember, that a Diocese doth so consist of many parishes, as a Province doth of many dioceses; and a Patriatchship of many provinces. Wherefore as he confes­seth that Metropolitan Bishops and Patriarcks (and consequently provinciall and patriarchall Churches) grewe & followed, th'one, upon the combination of Dioceses, and the other vpon the con­sociation of Provinces (lib. 4. pag. 7) so his Refuter holdeth that these Diocesan Churches and Bishops, had their originall, from the conjunction of many particular congregations subjected to one Diocesan consistorie. And it is evident so to be, in asmuch as, the first Churches planted in cities by the Apostles, were for a while (as the Doctor himselfe confesseth pag. 6. and 103.) but a small congregation; and when more were converted then could well as­semble togither in one ordinarie congregation, the congregations were divided; & still as people in divers places were converted, the Churches (as he also acknowledgeth pag. 67.) were multiplied; [Page 50] so that the many parishes which grewe up in a diocese, were not all distinguished at once, as the loaves of one Bach are, after the sea­soning of the whole lump. And therefore neither were they all cō ­teyned within the bowels of the citie-church undistiguished, as the loaves are in the lumpe before their division: but rather as the first constituted Churches consisted of diverse families, but by the combyning of many christian families in one ecclesiasti­call assembly: so also they became (in process of time) diocesan and provinciall Churches; not by reteyning all the Christians of an whole diocese or province in one confused lump till all were leave­ned; but by consociating many particular Churches (which were distinguished, some at one time, and some at another, as the nom­ber dayly increased,) vnder the the oversight of one diocese or provin­ciall Bishop.

His second comparision (of a man who consisteth of many dis­tinct members after they are distinguished, which at his first con­ception, were not distinct) if it be well weighed maketh more for his Refuter then for himself. For as it is willingly granted, that a man in his first conception hath no distinct members; so it is as freely professed, that it is no man, to speak properly; much less is it such a man as the Doctor is. Wherefore that which he presup­poseth in his comparison, viz. that the Churches planted by the A­postles, before parishes were multiplied in the cities and countries annexed, were Dioceses; even so, as a womans ofspring is a man, before the parts of an humane body are formed and distinguished: this I say argueth with the Refuter and against the Doctor, that The D. ar­gueth a­gainst him­self and for the Refut. it is no less absurd to say, that the first Apostolike Churches, which had no parishes distinguished in their circuite, were notwithstan­ding properly Dioceses, yea such as ours are at this day; then to af­firme, that a childe in his first conception, before the parts of his body are framed, is yet properly a man, yea such a man as all o­thers. that are borne and converse among men.

We have heard how well he hath bestowed his paines for reco­verie Sect. 10. ad sect. 6. pag. 73. of his proposition out of his Refut: hands; it remaineth that we attend what he saith, for the rescuing of his assumption, which hath these parts. 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the A­postles times. 2. that Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures. 3. that they were not onely to attend the whole flock con­verted, [Page 51] but also to labour the conversion of the residue. 4. and that in both these duties they must labour in cōmon. In what sense the first is contradicted by the Refuter we have seen before (sect. 3.) where was also noted how farre it differeth frō that which he now giveth in stead thereof. viz. that the Churches planted in cities (as at Ephesus. Antioch &c.) were not in the Apostles times divided into Parishes; from whence he may recieve a direct answer (which here he expecteth) to his question, (whither the Churches were thō divided into parishes or not?) viz. that although the Apostles did distinguish parishes, by constituting particular congregations, in severall places, (that is, in each towne or citie that enterteyned the faith, one Church-assembly; yet none of the Churches which they established in any towne or citie, was in their times subdivided in­to severall parish assemblies. But what shall we say to that two hor­ned argument, which thus disputeth for his advantage? If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times (as at Alexandria it seemeth to have beene) then was not every Church but one parish: Is they were not; then the Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures; and so the Assumption is true. The Doctor taketh on imediately after these words against his Refuter, for being transported with a spirit of contra­diction; whereof by and by; in the meane time, is not the Doctor The Doct. contradi­cteth him. himselfe a strange kind of disputer, that will contradict one branch of his owne assumption, to justify his maine conclusion; and yet as­sume the same, to confirme another part of his assumption, and then make his boast that his whole assumption is true? But to an­swer him in kind, thus I reply; If the Churches were divided in­to parishes in the Apostles times; then his assumption in the first branch is false: if they were not, then each Church in their times, was but one parish, (that is to say, one congregation) and so he er­reth in his maine conclusion. And that he may see, I use not this regestion; because his argument hath put his Refuter to a nonplus; for a more direct answere, I give him to wit, that his first horn hath a weak consequence; & his second is sophysticall. The one is weak, beause that which maketh an, Church, bearing the name of this or that citie, (as the Church of London or Sarum) to be more thē one parish, is not the distribution of the people of each diocese, in­to many parishes; but the combining of the parishes so divided, in­to one Diocesan body. If therefore, he will prove the Church of Alexandria, or any other which he supposeth to have been divided [Page 52] into sundry parishes in the Apostles times, not to be one parish, he must make demonstratiō of that which he often averreth, but ney­ver proveth by any testimony divine or humane, to wit, that the parishes which issued out of the citie-church by such division, were subordinated to her jurisdiction, as daughter churches to their Mother. The other is sophysticall, because, in saying the Pres­byters were not assigned to severall parishes, untill the Churches were divided into parishes, he taketh the Presbyters not joyntly for the Presbyteries whereof his conclusion speaketh, but singly for each Presbyter or Minister apart. For we may grant that the assignement of one Presbyter to take the charge of one parish, fol­lowed (in course of time) the multiplying of parishes in one Dio­cese; and yet mainteyne that Presbyteries were appointed to seve­rall parishes, (that is to say, to particular congregations) before a­ny Church planted in cities by the Apostles, was divided into seve­rall parishes. Wherefore, had the Doctor regarded in what sense the Refut: taketh these words; Presbyters and Parishes or severall Cures; when he denieth the two first branches of his assumptiō; he would never have made so srivolous a flourish, as he doth, (both here & afterwards, pag. 76) of a false conceited contradiction for his per­swasion that every of the Apostolike churches was but one parish, made him to censure the assumption as voyd of truth, in that it denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times; and the presby­ters (or Presbyteries ordeyned by them) to be assigned unto their distinct charges. Neyther shall the Doctor ever be able to prove (though he strive til his heart ake) that in this impugning of his as­sumption, he contradicteth his owne perswasion formerly delive­red.

But let us see how he freeth his assumption from the errors or Sectiō 11. ad pag. 74. untruthes objected against it? First touching the third point be­fore set downe, viz. that the Presbyters were not onely to attend the converted, but labour the conversion of the residue; he was told that it was but the repetition of an errour, before noted in the former argument: whereto he answereth nothing, but that he hath proved it to be an evident truth. Wherefore his proofes being dis­proved, the errour remaineth unsalved. And the repetition of it (seing he cōfesseth it to be of greatest force to prove that the Pres­byteries were appointed to Dioceses. pa. 70.) argueth him to have ill distinguished his arguments, seing the two are in effect but one, [Page 53] yea one error twice produced for two distinct arguments. Second­ly the last point (of the Presbyters attendance on their charge in The D. 2. arguments are in effect but one, yea one er­rour twice produced for two di­stinct arg. cōmon) which is rejected as unworthy to be ascribed to the Apo­stles appointment or allowance; & that for this reason following, It is at no hand to be indured that the Apostles should be suspected, to ap­point or allow of any disorderly confusion. But to ordeyne many Presbyters or Ministers in comon to attend, not onely the feeding of the whole flock conver­ted; but also to labour the conversion of the residue in the citie and countrey ad­ioyning: is to authorize and give allowance to a disordely confusion. There­fore it is at no hand to be indured, that the Apostles should be suspected to have ordeyned many Presbyters or Ministers for such attendance in cōmon.

The proposition cannot be doubted of, neyther taketh the Do­ctor any exception against it. The assumption he contradicteth, but answereth not the probabilities urged to cleare it. And first the disorder and confusion is declared by a like example, of a schoole erected in some great towne, by some great scholler, who (having entred his Auditors in the principles of grammer, & being drawne away by some occasions) appointeth certeyne Vshers in cōmon to take care of all that were so entred, and to gaine as many more as they could, not of the same towne onely, but of all other townes round about. Now if they thus left to their libertie, shall goe now hither now thither, and teach now these, now those, as it best li­keth himselfe and them; is it not likely (think yet) that there would be good teaching and learning in such a schoole? To this cafe, the Doctor maketh no other answer but this; that he is worthy to be put into a cloakbagg which proposed it; but is not himselfe more worthy of the cloak bagg, that could finde no better answer? Surely if his re­futer had made such an answer he would have sayd so; but I will not, for he sheweth himself to have wit enough to scoffe it out, whē he is at a non-plus. For seing he sheweth not the dissagreement of the things compared togither, who seeth not reason to think, the comparison is much fitter then he would have it. 2. Againe the Refuter asketh how such a cōmon imployment (of preaching here and there at randon) could be orderly then, since it was afterwards disorderly: (for the Doctor acknowledgeth (serm. pag. 20.) that this promiscuous attendance, was taken away by Euaristus, for a­voyding confusion). And 3. he also intimateth, that schismes must needes ensue, when the people being tied to the hearing of no one preacher, might upon their fancie run some after one, some after [Page 54] an other, and so peradventure leave some quite without auditors. To all which the Doctor in his discretion giveth his grave consūre; That which he (meaning the Refuter) bebleth concerning disorder and cō ­fusion, is wholly to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion.

Now that we may not think he wanteth reason thus to censure Sect. 12. his Refuter he asketh (as a man that did not or would not see) in which of the (parts of his assumption) points (as he calleth them) this orderly and [...]nconfounded man, noteth such disorder and confusion? or was not the cō ­fused conceit he spake of in his owne braine? But is the Doctor in deed so shallowe conceited as he would seeme to be? can he not discerne (by the plaine mencioning of the teachers & hearers going to & fro, from one company, and from one towne to another; the one to teach the other to heare, whom and where themselves list) that the disorder and confusion objected, lieth neyther in the first or se­cond branch of the assumption (which concerne the distinction of parishes, and the assignement of Presbyters to their severall cures) nor yet altogither in that which he maketh the third, (scz. that the presbyters were in comon to attend the whole flock) but in this rather, that they were in cōmō to indeavor aswell the conver­sion of the residue in citie and country, as the feeding of the whole flock already converted? Wherefore that which he alleadgeth frō the state of the French and Dutch Churches among us, to shewe there is no disorder or confusion in the three points which himself proposeth; is in deed, but meere babling, and a deceitfull drawing of the reader from the question, which is not whither one parish The D. cū ­ningly withdraw­eth the reader frō the questiō may enjoy sundry teachers cōmunicon [...]ilis it mutuo auxili [...] to attend the whole flock, none of them being appointed to a several charge? but whether one Presbyterie (or company of Ministers) may be appointed in cōmon to the charge of an whole citie & the country adjoyning; so as each of them may at his pleasure bestowe his la­bour eyther in teaching any part of the people converted, where­soever they shall meet togither in an uncerteyne assembly; or in preaching to any of the rest that remayn infi [...]elitie; and in tra­veiling for that purpose from one part of the Diocese to an other, as his owne minde shall guide him? the former is that which the Refuter granteth, and judgeth to be the state of the Apostolike Churches, therein like to the French and Dutch here in England: The D. case is but poor and weak. the later he disclaymeth for the reasons before mentioned. Here­in therefore behoid, and pitty the Doctors poore and weak estare, [Page 55] for wheras before as appeareth, sect. 5.) he renounced the com­parison which his Refuter made betweene these outlandish Chur­ches, and the ancient Apostolike Churches, (though fitly agree­ing in the pointes wherein they were to be compared, as is shewed sect. 4.) Now; (for want of better help, to wipe away that disor­der and confusio objected against that cōmon imployment, which his conceit ascribeth to the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles) he is faine to apprehend the same comparison; & to conceale that disagreement, which (though then it were impertinently urged, yet now) serveth well to shewe, how weakly or rather disceitfully he disputeth. For although in one congregation assembling in one place, many Ministers may without confusion, teach at severall times one after another (as it was in the Church of Corinth. 1. Cor. 14. 31. and now is in the French churches) yet may it be, (yea it is already proved to be) disorderly for many Ministers to attend promiscuously and at their pleasure, sometimes on the feeding of a people converted and that eyther in whole or in part; and sometimes on the instructing of such, as in an whole citie & coun­trey adjoyning doe yet remayne in unbeleefe. Moreover, it is well knowne that there is no such cōmunitie in the charge which the French and Dutch Ministers have of one congregation, as he at­tributeth to the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles; for a­mong these the Doctor giveth no cheiftie or preheminence to any one above the rest, neyther perpetual not tēporarie, 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 cōmon 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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] or flock of Gods elect, knowne onely to himself, yea we may there­vnto The D. co­ [...]radicteth himself, cō 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 [...]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 cōmon, 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 cōfoū-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 [...] 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 [Page 58] flock could be undistinguished, or attended on in cōmon; 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 cō ­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. [...]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 cōopany 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 assumptiō, 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 assumptiō of his Refuters argument; which denieth the word ecclesia to signify any other outward company of [Page 59] 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 wilbe 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 cō ­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 assertiō 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 wilbe found (as his Refuter first tolde him) to have dealt full weak­ly in a point of so great importance.

Chap. 4. Wherein is maint [...]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) frō 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 Dioceses. But however the D. may at his pleasure, wholly leave out the age following, or wander for his proofes beyond that cō ­passe to Constantines daies, and the ages following his time: yet his Refuter must be bound, to the stake, precisely to conclude, that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times, but also in the age follow­ing, Parishes properly & not Dioces [...]s. Yea even then when he discer­neth (pag. 100) that two rancks of Instances are produced, to [Page 61] prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth (the former taken out of the scriptures: & the later out of the fathers:) he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200, years. A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude; then, by direct answer to infringe, that which is objected. But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature (for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles; and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall, of multiplying of parishes in cities, & of combyning many congre­gations, in one diocesan body) I will therefore (with the Doct. leave) first take a view of that which is objected & answered tou­ching the state of the Churches, which were of greatest note in the Apostles times.

To begin then with the objection, which himself propoundeth, Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem (pag 79.) his purpose was to contradict not the maine question (though he so affirmed) but the conclusion of his 2. last argumēts (which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64.) And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question, to make it more strong for his advantage; I will apply it to the point where­at he aymeth; with a supply onely of those words, which are by him suppressed, yet necessarie to be added;

The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles (togither with the presidēts of the Presbyteries) were assigned, each of them, but to one particular ordi­ [...]try congregation, assembling togither in one place.

Therefore, they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese. To the consequent, I add these words, but for a parish, to make the con­tradiction the more full; because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed; not to pa­rishes but to dioceses. And for the same cause, I also add to the An­ [...]ecedent, these words ord [...]yned by the Apostles. The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference,

One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place, is a parish and not a diocese: Therefore, what is provi­ded but for one such congregation, the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese. This latter connexion cannot be impugned. The consequent (or conclusion) is the proposition, [Page 62] which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthy­mem; The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon, on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their as­sertion against whom he disputeth (serm. pag. 4.) and in affir­ming here. (def. pag. 79.) that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument, desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue; he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof. Onely he disli­keth that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition; when he saith, that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations. For (saith he) i [...] proposition have no better hypotheses to support it, I may deny it; seing I have proved before that there were dioceses, in the first conception of the Churches, before distinction of parishes. But I answere, that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof; then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth, I need not seek any new propp to uphold it, it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter (sect. 9.) where he may, (if he shut not his eyes) see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning; that the Apostolike Churches before the di­vision of parishes in the city & Country annexed, could not any otherwise be properly dioceses, then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man, before his body have the distinct members; so that (to returne him his owne phrase) the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before.

Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned; (viz. that the presbyteries (and their presidents) or­deyned by the Apostles were assigned, each of them, but to one particular ordinarie congregation, assebling togither in one place) the Doctor hath no cause to blame us, though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument, which he framed for us; for I suppose, none of our side were so foolish, as to deliver for the proof thereof, that assertion which he tendreth to us; to wit, that in the first 200. yeares, all the Christians in any one great citie, made but one such congrega­tion. Wherefore till he produce his Authour, from whom he recei­ved this argument; I will pray leave to think, he forged it, for his owne advantage, that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest, though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up. For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much; to wit, that all the members of those Chur­ches, [Page 63] wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togi­ther in one place. Against which proposition (rightly vnderstood of the time, when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination) I find no just exception ta­ken, eyther in his sermō: or this defense; seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes, to the age following; whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the ju­stifying of his mayne conclusion. Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was, at the time of giving presbyteries to them; if we say, they exceeded not one congregation; is it not a frivolous cavill to answere, that they farre exceeded the propor­tion of one congregation, in the next age following and the later part thereof? It is apparant therefore, that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares, & in the age following the Apostles, were inserted in­to this question by the Doctor (both here and afterwards pa. 100) onely to give him some colour of a just exception, against his Re­futers reasoning; and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times, to the ages following.

But let us see, how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect. 4. 2d 79. & 80. selfe in this Enthymem. In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordina­rie congregation assembled in one place. Therefore, both the pres­byterie and the president thereof, were assigned but to one con­gregation. First he denieth the consequence vpon this ground; that the Presbyters were provided not onely for the cities them­selves; but also for the countries adjoyning; and in both, aswell to labour the conversion of the rest, as to take charge of them, that were already converted. Which being nothing but a repetition of that he before affirmed, nakedly and without any proofe; his re­futer thought it enough to tell him, that in asmuch as he hath before shewed his answere to be false, the consequence will remain good notwithstanding. And since he now boasteth that he hath proved his Refuters affertiō opposed against his answere, (viz. that it was no part of the presbyters proper dutie, to labour the con­version of the unconverted, throughout the citie and country ad­joyning;) to be an indigested fancie of shallow (if not gidd [...] beades tha [...] see no further then their nose-end; if the reader please to look back to that alreadie layd downe (cap. 2. of this reply; sect. 7. 8. &c.) he [Page 64] [...]lay perceive that the Doctor is very nose wise, and his Phan tasia being bewitched with the sweet smell of the prelacie, hath father­ed on the Apostles, such an intent (in the placing of Presbyters in cities) as never was discovered, eyther to his care by any ancient tradition; or to his eye in any monuments of antiquitie. Wherfore his censure passed against his Refuter more properly belongeth to himselfe, viz. that he slubbereth over the proofe of his owne argu­ments, as having a better faculty in denying consequences, then in proving any of the premisses, whereon his cause relieth; yet as if his dreames were Oracles, he saith (and indeed onely saith it, for proofe he can yeild none) that the ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles instent, as he expoundeth it. He addeth, when all both in citie and countrie were converted to the profession of the faith (which could scarcesly be verified of any citie & country for 300 yeares, after the Apostles began to place Presbyters in Cities, I meane till constantines daies as the Doctor observeth pag 54) they acknowledged the generally care and inspection over them all to belong to that one Bishop of the citie; and themselves to be part of that Church; and therefore concludeth that the consequence of the former Enthymem, will never be made good. But the Reader may see how the D. is deceived in imagining that the former con­sequence is beaten downe by the strength of this last; if he will take notice of that which he now assumeth, contrived for his best ad­vantage, to conclude, his purpose in forme of argument to this ef­fect;

All that acknowledged themselves after their conversion, to be part of the City. Church and so belong to the generall care and in­spection of the Bishop of that citie: (they all I say) were a part of that Church from the beginning, orat least a part of the charge of the Bishop and Presbytery first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that city.

But all the Inhabitants of the City & Country after their cōversiō to the faith, acknowledged themselves to be part of the City Church, and to belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that City.

Ergo all the Inhabitants of citie and countrie were a part of that Church from the beginning, or at least a part of the charge of the bishop and Presbyterie, first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that citie. And consequently though it should be granted, that [Page 65] in the first 200 yeares all the Christiās of any one great citie, made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place; yet it followeth not that the Presbyterie & president thereof, were assigned but to one congregation.

If he can make any better use of his assumption, for any other conclusion, that may be more for his advantage, good leave have he to follow his owne way, meane while I deny the proposition wherein (as we take it) the strength of his reasoning lieth, & wish him to behold the weaknes thereof in this argument following.

All that acknowledged themselwes after their conversion, to be partes of any citie Church &c. were from the beginning partes of that Church &c.

But all the people which inhabited the severall dioceses of any province, as soon as they were converted to the faith (notwithstād­ing they enjoyed their own Bishops to governe them, yet) they ac­knowledged themselves to be parts of the metropolitane Church seated in that cheife citie; & the Bishop therof to be their primate, or head. All the people therefore, which inhabited the severall dioceses of any Province were from the beginning parts of the Me­tropolitane Church, or at least, parts of the charge of the Bishop and Presbyterie seated in the mother citie. And consequently the Churches and Bishops of Mother cities, were (in their first founda­tion) properly provinciall, and not diocesan onely. The assum­ption of this Syllogisme is the same with that which the D. avou­cheth lib. 2. p. 113. lin 25. 29. But the conclusion with the cō ­sequent annexed, crosseth that which he affirmeth pag. 20. 1. 3. and 21. 1. 1; which contradiction if he will avoid, he must dis­claime the proposition, & so acknowledge that he trusted to a bro­ken reed, when he perswaded his owne heart; that the subjection which the inhabitants of an whole diocese yeilded (in the 4. age af­ter Christ) to the citie-Church and the Bishop thereof; could argue invinciblie that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles (300 yeares before) were provided aswell for the vncōverted as for those already brought to the faith.

As for the Antecedent of the former Enthymem, which he re­jecteth Sect. 5. ad pag. 81. with much disdeine; (but with little shew of reason to him that weigheth the matter) because it belongeth to another questi­on (as is before noted) I referre the handling of it to another place; for the present, it shall suffice to discharge the Refuter from those [Page 66] calumniations, which the D. throweth on him, for exchanging it with this Assertion. All the Christians in any great citie and the townes a­bout it, (vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes) made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place. I mislike not (saith the Doctor) his addition of the townes about, so he wilbe pleased not to for­get to take them into the defense of his Antecedent. If he wilbe pleased (say I) to take the Antecedent so, and in such sense, as it is tendred to him; let him never think his Refuter will shrink from the de­fense thereof. But the Doctor is timorous and feareth to be circum­vented with the inclosure of that parenthesis (unlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes) and therefore he would faine have it to be removed, or rather the word although to be set in stead of unlesse; where we may see the old proverb verefied in him, give him an inche and he will take an ell; was his Refuters liberalitie nothing worth, whē he was content to annexe unto the citie, the towns adjoyning that had any distinct Church in them? Did the Doctor at first find him­selfe able, to confound the former Antecedent (which spake one­ly of the Christians that were within the citie) and to prove it not onely false but also unreasonable and incredible? And is he nowe too weak to consute that assertion, which (for his advantage) is tendred to him in stead of the former? viz. that all the Churches in any great citie and such townes adjoyning as had not any di­stinct Church in them, made but one particular congregatiō? must he haue all the townes annexed to the citie; and this also freely grā ­ted, that in some of those townes, there were distinct Churches? blame him not though he affect this well; for he findeth himselfe man good enough, to incounter with such an assertion as this (if his Refuter would mainteyne it against him,) viz. that all the chri­stians in a great citie, and the townes adjoyning (though there were distinct Churches in some of those townes) made but one particu­lar congregation. Meane while, to case his hart of that forecon­ceited feare, which the sight of the parenthesis (in his Refuters Antecedēt) cast him into; 1. he sporteth himself with some unsavo­rie jests, which argueth that the ridiculum caput (he speaketh of) cleaveth close to his owne shoulders; and at length full soberly he undertaketh to shewe, that the inclosure before mētioned, bewray­eth both weaknes in the consequence, and falshood in the Antecedent.

First touching the consequence, he judgeth it as weak as the Sect. 6. former, because he seeth not, to what purpose the townes are added be­cause [Page 67] the parishes be excepted. The former overmuch mirth of the Do­ctor, hath (as it seemeth) marred his memorie, for he sawe well enough before, to what purpose the townes were added; namely to strengthen the consequence of the first Enthymem framed by himself, against one branch of his answere, which affirmed the Presbyters to be divided aswell for the country as citie. For the Refuter (desirous to come as neere to the Doctor as the truth will give leave) acknowledgeth that the Christians which inhabited the townes or country round about the citie, made their repaire vnto the citie, there to joyn with the inhabitants thereof in the publick worship of God, till their number so increased, that they might conveniently enjoy a distinct Church, in some one, or moe of those townes. And as it was meet the Refuter should yeeld so farre to the Doctor: so is it absurd and against cōmon sense; he should be denied to except those townes, that had a distinct Church seated in them. But will you see how strongly the Doctor impugneth the consequence, as it now standeth, with this inartificiall argument, q. d, I cannot see to what purpose that addition serveth. Therefore this later consequence is altogither as weak as the former. Had the Refut: at any time argued so loosely, to infringe any of the Do­ctors consequences; he had been worthy to beare this censure, that his facultie is better in denying consequences; then in proving them. But the Doctor (not being yet returned to his right temper) at this time is to be borne with not onely for this fault; but also for a worse in charging the Antecedent of falshood, when he hath nothing to al­leadge that directly impugneth it: yet let us give him the hearing; By this inclusure (saith he) the Antecedent it bewrayed of falshood; for The D. to charge his Refuter with fals­hood deli­vereth a double un­truth, and yet to no purpose. if there were in the citie and countrey more distinct Churches or Parishes (as here is supposed) and these all subor dinate to one (as I have manifestly proved) then all these will make a Dincese. Behold here a double untruth pro­pounded to conclude a falshood in his Refuters Antecedent, & yet all wil not serve the turne, when he hath done the most he can. For first, the parenthesis in the Antecedent, doth not necessarily sup­pose, that the townes round about every citie had distinct Chur­ches in them; onely it holdeth the matter in suspense, touching some one or moe townes in some countries, because (as the Doctor remembreth) Cenchreae neere unto Corinth, was a distinct church; and in such a case, it excepteth such townes, and annexeth to the citie church the rest. Neyther is it true, that he hath manifestly [Page 68] proved the subordination of many Churches unto one, within the Apostles daynes; no nor yet within the first 200. yeares after Christ. But say there were a truth in both his untruthes; and graunt him also that which he inferreth, to wit, that many Churches subordi­nate to one, will make a Diocese? how doth this convince the re­futers Antecedent of falshood? Did not his passions blinde his judgement, when he imagined there is strength enough in this co­sequence? for thus he reasoneth. Many Churches in citie and country subordinated all to one do make a Diocise; Ergo, all the Christians in a citie, and the townes adioyning, which have no distinct Church in them, must needs make more then one particular congregation.

But perhaps he correcteth his owne errour, in the words fol­lowing, when he faith; I say therefore againe, that though their Ante­cedent were true, yet the consequence were to be denied. The which, what is it, but to run from one errour to another? For it is before obser­ved, that the conclusion which the Refuter slandeth here to main­teyn, is no other in effect then this; that the Presbyters first ordey­ned by the Apostles, were assigned (not to the overfight of many Churches) but to one onely congregation. Now if there be a truth in his Antecedent (which affirmeth that at that time, the Christians in any citie and townes around it (such namely as had no distinct Churches in them) made but one congregation:) the consequence of the argument; cannot be infringed otherwise; then by shewing that the presbyters received from the Apostles, not onely the charge of that one cōgregatiō; but also the govermēt of some other churches established, in some other, eyther more populous or more remote townes. Which to demonstrate, it suf­ficeth not to assume this, that many churches subordinate to one doe make a Diocese; but good proofe must be added also, that this subordination of many Churches in countrey townes to the Church of the citie, tooke place in the time of the Apostles, and was ratified by their allowance.

Having thus freed the Refuters Enthymem from the Doctors Sect 7. frivolous exceptions, I will once againe produce it to his viewe; but in another forme, which shall not affright him, as the former parenthesis did, in a plaine syllogisme therefore (which kinde of argument he best affect [...]th) thus I reason;

All the Christians which in the Apostles tymes dwelt in and about any great citie, and were called the Church of that citie, made but one par­ticular [Page 69] ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place: But all those Christians were the whole or proper charge, unto which the Presbyterie with their President, seated in any citie, was assigned by the Apostles. Er­go, the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their Pre­sident seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles, made but one particular ordinarie congregation, assembled in one place.

The conclusion is the same (in effect) with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered; and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood, according to the explana­tion where of the D. taketh notice. pag 83. Onely that clause (of Apostles times) is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question, vnto the ages that followed the first assign­ment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches, which the A­postles planted. And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth (cap. 6. pag. 102. &c.) the defense of that wilbe sufficient confirmation of this. For if it may appeare (as I doubt not but it shall) that the Chur­ches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, in the Apostles times were each of them no more, then one particular ordinary congre­gation; then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles, made also but one congregation, the Doct. himselfe being Iudge, who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition, I will take in hand the Assumption, which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem; and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. ex­ceptions, I add this one argument following;

The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city, was assigned by the Apostles, is cōprized in those instru­ctions, which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters;

But this onely charge is there comprized; to wit, the charge of all the Chri­stians which in those times, dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie, were called the Church of that place.

Ergo, this onely charge, to wit, the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presby­terie; was the whole charge, to which the Presbytery with their president sea­ted in any city, was assigned by the Apostles.

The proposition cannot be doubted of; seing the Apostle testifi­eth [Page 70] the scripture to be sufficient, for the direction of every Minister of God, and perfecting of him in the work of his calling. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places. (Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17) which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Pres­byters, were none other then those Christians, which were mem­bers of the particular churches, wherein their labours were imploy­ed. For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood, by the shock or Church of God; which they (in the 3. former pla­ces) are charged to feed, to care for; & by the persons, which are (in the two later) comanded to know, love and obey such as laboured amōg thē &c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ, that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie, to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election, I will most gladly listen to it. In the interim, to end this point, I argue with him a concessis, in this manner;

A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government, was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie, ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell. But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times, dwelt in and about any citie, and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasti­call government. Ergo such a company of Christians, was the proper and whole charge, of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles, in any city that imbraced the Gospell. The proposition is in effect, all one with that, which the supplieth to his Enthymem. Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64; where he affirmeth, that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apo­stles, were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ec­clesiasticall government. And the Assumption receiveth approba­tion from that description of a church in generall, and of a visible Church in speciall. cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears, if I thought it needfull; but I hope he will rather sub­scribe to the conclusion, then strive in vaine against the streame. Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove, that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ec­clesiasticall government, were parishes.

Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles (as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch &c.) were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles, one onely particular Congregation, ordi­narily [Page 71] assembled in one place. Which is handled in the answer. pa. 66. and in the defense, lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. &c.

True it is, that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect. 1. p. 100. & 101. Doctors assertion (serm. pag. 17.) setteth downe the questi­on these wordes: Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government, were parishes or no? Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader, that he is to conclude that the Churches, were each of them for the whole terme at the least, but a parish &c. yet looking towardes his proofes, he consesseth (as the truth is) that his argumentation contey­neth two ranckes of Instances: the former taken out of the scriptures, the Later out of the fathers: Wherefore, I hope the indifferent will conceive, that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apo­stles times; and that the fathers are to speak for the age following: and consequently will judge it, but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold (as he doth) the former instances (and the argument which induceth them) unto the whole terme of 200. yeares, specially se­ing he acknowledgeth (pag. 102) that his cheife proofes are boun­ded within the Apostle Pauls time. The Refuters Argument there­fore shall come forth once againe, in that plaine forme that was first given unto it. Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the o­ther three, that he mentioneth, because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it, is bounded also within the Apostles times, as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere (for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect. cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place. And so it lieth thus;

If the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, and Ierusalim (being vi­sible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government) were each of them but one parish: then the other visible Churches indued with the like pow­er; were also each of them, but one parish. But the first is true. Ergo also the second.

To make good the consequence of the Proposition, he said, that it standeth upon the foundation which the Doctor himselfe layd in the first argument; drawne from his text: neyther was he there­in deceived; for in this defense cap. 2. sect. 2. he confesseth, that he presupposed all other Churches indued with power of ecclesia­sticall government, to be like to those 7; because it is not to be doubted, but the primitive Churches indued with that power, were of like nature and constitution. But the Doctor burieth all this in [Page 72] silence; and (as if the Refuter had intreated that the consequence might passe without controulment) he seemeth vnwilling to yeild him so much favour vnlesse it may be lawfull for him, to use ano­ther which he saith is like, viz. that if the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishonall Churches in the first 200 yeares; (he meaneth unto the full end of that terme) then neyther were the Churches of other cities. And then telleth us, But they were not parishonall churches, as for Rome he had proved, and for Alexandria would prove; & there­fore concludeth so of the rest. Well, let us reason a little with him; is the consequence indeed the same? so he saith; but doth he speak as he is perswaded? if not, why setteth he such a face of truth upon a lie? If yea, why inwrappeth he his owne feet in the snare that he layeth for another? for whether he disclaime or allow the conse­quence, and the hypothesis, whereon it is grounded; will he nil he, he must beare the blame of a foule contradiction. To disclaime it, is to overthrow (as before is noted) the foundation of his owne argument, pa. 42. To allow it, is to make way for the utter ruine of A foul co­tradiction in the D. that assumption, which he urgeth for a double advantage, (p. 69 & 122. lin. 1.) for if that may be verefied of all other Churches; which he avoucheth (here and pag. 124) for certeinty, of Alexan­dria; and elsewhere (pag 50 and 122) denieth probable in some others, then by the like consequence (alike grounded on the same hypothesis) we may conclude that all other Churches, indued with power of ecclesiasticall government, were also divided into diverse parishes, even in the Apostles times, deserveth not the D. now to be beaten with his owne cudgell. pag 73. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction, that he should not care, so he may gainsay his adversaries present affer­tion; how shamefally he contradicteth himselfe, yet thus it fareth with the Doctor.

Notwithstanding, I can easily free the Refuter from that disadvan­tage, which the D. conclusion threatneth. For we can and wil hold our owne consequence for a truth on both parts already assented to; till we heare him directly contradict the hypothesis, whereon it is grounded (as himselfe acknowledgeth) viz. that all churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government, were at the first of the same nature and constitution: but the later shall hang in suspence, till he hath proved, that it is grounded on the same hy­pothesis. For in our apprehension, his consequence presupposeth, [Page 73] that all Churches were alike (not in that nature and constitution, wherein they stood at the first, but) in this alteration, wherein A­lexandria & Rome went before others; namely to be distinguished into many parishes, whereas all, at their first planting, were vndi­stinguished as himselfe confesseth.

To passe therefore forwards to the Assumption; because the Sect. 2. ad sect. 2. pag. 102. Refuter saith, it appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars. Mr. D. asketh, whether his syll [...]gismes are so soone come to an end? and perceiving that his cheefe proofs are, that in the Apostle Pauls time, each of them vsed to assemble in one congregation: he further asketh whe­ther this was his Assumption? whereto I answer, that for brevity sake the Refuter omitted the contriving of his proofes into forme of syllogisticall reasoning, presuming (as the Doct. saith elswhere in his owne defense pag 79.) that any man might, from that which the Doct. observeth to be his cheife drift conclude his assumption, thus;

• The Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch and Ierusalem, were each of them in the Apostle Pauls time, no more then ordinarily assembled in one place.
• Therefore, they were each of them, at that time but one parish.

But the Doctor having wronged his Refuter before, by stretch­ing his assumption beyond the age of the Apostles, to the full term of 200 yeares; holdeth on and doubleth the wrong, by reteyning the same addition of 200. yeares; that he might have the more co­lour to cavill with the consequence of the argument; & to charge his Refuter with playing the Sophister, in taking that for graunted, which he did not so much as dreame of; viz. that each of those Churches continued one congregation; and so one parish, for 200. yeares, because they were but one congregation in the Apostles times. Wherefore, what he objecteth to infringe this consequence, I overpasse as unworthy the answer, seing he forged it for the nonce to cavill with. True it is, that the consequence of the En­toymem before set down presupposeth a truth in this assertiō; scz. that those Churches are parishes whose people are no more, then such as ordinarily assemble in one place. And the Refuter deemed it a vame of time and labour, (yea meere folly to call into question that which was of the Doctor assented unto, (serm. p. 4) viz. that (when we affirme and he denieth every visible Church to be properly a parish) by a parish is meant a particular ordinary cō ­gregation [Page 74] of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne ser­vice of God. Wherefore in denying nowe the consequence of the argument before delivered, what else doth he, but play the wran­gler? For he that meaneth truely, to bring the matter controver­ted to the right issue, will never offer to gainsay, what is certaine and confessed. And because he saith, that the reasons of his deniall, are set downe at large, cap. 3. sect. 5. & 6. I must tell him that I finde nothing there, that directly controuleth the hypothesis of our cō ­sequence here; to wit, that every Church which maketh but one ordinarie congregation is a parish. And whatsoever is there sayd touching the point then in hand, it is sufficiently (to use his owne words) overthrown already. Wherfore, let us hear those 2. Reasōs, which for a surplussage (as he saith) he now addeth; The first is this.

If these Churches because they were each of them one congregation, were pa­rishes, Sect. 3. ad pag. 103. before the division of parishes; then they were such Churches, as after the division, parishes were. But they were not such Churches. (I will adde the conclusion) Ergo, neyther were they parishes, before the division of Parishes; because they were each of them one congregation.

First, I praye the Doctor to tell us, what moveth him to tum­ble into the conclusion, and consequent of the proposition this clause; before the division of parishes? Where hath his Refuter sayed, that those Churches of Corinth, Ephesus &c. were parishes before the division of parishes? or why doth he father on him such a senslesse assertion, as this is? For in his owne understanding, it is all one, as if a man should say, that those Churches were parishes, before they were any parishes at all; as appeareth by his descanting upon this point, pag. 69. and 70. But let us see how the Doctor fortifyeth each part of his argumentation. First touching his assumption to prove that those churches were not such, as were the parishes that follo­wed the division, he urgeth 3. differences betwixt the one and the other. 1. parishes after their division, had not a Bishop and a Pres­byterie (as those Churches had) but onely one preshyter assigned to them. 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a Superintendent, (as was the Bishop of those Churches) over other Pastors. 3. nei­ther was any of them intended (as each of those Churches was) to be a Mother-church. These differences being nakedly affirmed, The Doct. argueth like a So­phister. may with a bare deniall be repelled; but the answere at this time shalbe rather this; that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter. For say that he could (as he cannot) [Page 75] mainteyne these differences; those Churches might be (yea were) notwithstanding, such churches as the parishes were after the di­vision: that is, alike in the point, which himselfe taketh notice of (pag. 4. of his sermon) as the substanciall point of the agreement intended; the former being aswell as the later, each of them, one ordinary congregation assembled in one place. But if his meaning be, that they were not such in all points; we may well demurre upon the matter, till the question be debated (which belongeth to another tract) what manner of parishes they were, which received their o­riginall, from the division of one citie Church into many parish­assemblies. In the meane time, to come to the consequence of his proposition, whereas he saith, it may not be denied, specially by them, that would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches; I wilbe so bolde as utterly to contradict this speach, and say the contrary to it, that it may very well be denyed even by such as would have the parishes so framed. For in as much as they desire, not the abolishing of parishes, but the reducing of them to the patterne of the first churches, it is evident, that they in their judgment hold two kindes of parishes; the one differing from, the other agreeing with the forme and constitution of the first Chur­ches. And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defense of that conclusion, which the Doctors argument throweth upon his Re­futer, he must needs distinguish in some respect or other, betwixt the parishes that had their being before, and those that began af­ter that division of parishes, whereof he speaketh; and therefore must of necessitie contradict the Doctors consequence, & say, that the first Churches, which were parishes (in asmuch as they were but one congregation) before that division of parishes, which fol­lowed (when those Churches by reason of their multitude, hugely increased, were parted into more particular congregations;) were not in all points such Churches as the later parishes were.

Thus is the stroake of his first reason warded; let me come now Sect. [...] to encounter with the second. If saith he, that assumption was false, which denied Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times; then these Churches were not onely many congregations, but many parishes also. But the Refuter sayd before that that assumption had no truth in it. (here also must I adde the conclusion) Ergo, those Churches were, not one­ly many congregations but also many parishes. Vnderstand this to be meant of each Church severally, q. d. Ergo each of them was [Page 76] not one onely congregation or parish, but many. And marke what followeth. These two just exceptions (saith he) I have against his conse­quence. So you may discerne how just cause he giveth me, to take up against him, his owne fashion of reply, pag. 72. Good Sir, what is this to the Refuters consequence? Where doth he say, that each of these Churches was but one congregation, and not many? and where, that each was but one parish? Is not the former his Ante­cedent or assumption, and the later the consequent or conclusion? Therefore (to use his owne words, pag. 73.) when you would seeme to deny the consequence, you do not so much as touch it; but by taking a supposed advantage against some other assertion of his; you deny the principall conclusion. I might proceed therefore to rowse him up, with the sweet sound of his owne b [...]lls, pag. 47. and ring this peale into his cares, Is not the deniall of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded &c? but I spare him the rest of his speach and return to the matter. His argument is no other then such as he before ob­jected (pag. 73. and 76.) and is already answered cap. 3. s [...]ct. 10. and 15.) to this purpose, viz. that the refuter in affirming parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times, cannot contradict his owne assertion, which mainteyneth the Apostolike Churches to be parishes; because in his understanding, every particular congrega­tion is a parish. And if it be not so also in the Doctors perswasion, why doth he so often use the wordes indiff [...]rently (viz. severall parishes or congregations) for one and the same thing? Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togi [...]her in this very argu­ment of his; to contradict his conclusion, and so to justify our owne, I tender him for req [...]itall this that followeth.

If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been di­vided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles t [...]me: then the Churches o [...] Corinth, Eph [...]sus &c. Were in that age each of them; but on [...] one­ly congr [...]gation or parish. But that [...]ssump [...]ion [...]s by the D. maint [...]yned to be true, pag. 69. and 73; let him therefore disclaime that Assumptiō, or give way to this conclusion. Therefore, the Churches of Cori [...]th E­phesus &c were each of them, in the Apostl [...]s [...]im [...]s, but one on [...]ly congrega­tion or parish, and not many. But let us heare, what it is that with­holdeth his a [...]sent from the Antecedent (or assumption) of the Refuters, b [...]for [...] set downe.

Though I deny not (sai [...]h he) b [...]t [...]hat [...]t the first, and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect. 3. pa. [...]04. time of the Apostle P [...]ul, the most of the Churches, so soon after their con­version) [Page 77] did not each of them exceed, the proportion of a p [...]pulous congregati­on: yet [...] cannot yeild to all his proofes. Even so, but why doth he not answere directly to the point, by approving or contrarying, that which is sayd of those three churches, Corinth Ephesus and Anti­oche? If it be false in his p [...]rswasion, what maketh him affrayd or ab [...]sht, to d [...]scover the falshood thereof? if true, why doth he not plainly acknowledge it? He hath courage enough to do the one; but it seemeth he wanteth that grace that should doe the other. And touching the proofes, when he saith, he cannot yeeld to all, would not a man think he did allowe of some? and yet snarleth at every one. But if a man should ask him for his best proofes, that he can p [...]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 tak [...]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 [...]pilantha­nomin [...]s cautoū. one congregation, then they were no more unt [...]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 sun [...]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 cōmon sense, if he should haue sayd, that the like might be affirmed of the Church of England. viz. that the whole church cōmeth 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 Dioc [...]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 attend [...]d one flock in common (that is cōmuni cō ­cilso, et mutu [...] auxilio,) and were not assioned to severall parishes, or parts of the [Page 79] flock. For how can that speach, which importeth a cōmon 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 portiō 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 existēce 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 combinatiō 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 he mainteyneth touching Timothy their Bishop, in his account; (serm pag. 79. and 80. and Def. lib. 4. pag. 90.) viz. that he was not ordeyned Bishop, till after Pauls deliverance from his imprisonment at Rome. And if the rest of the churches which were then in Asia (1. Cor. 16. 19.) stood in any subordination to Ephesus, as the Mother-Church of the whole nation; why should not Ephesus have some note of principality given vnto it, above the rest of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. and 2? But himselfe reckoneth them all alike principall; (lib. 2. pag. 43. lin. 2.) at the least e­qualleth [Page 80] 4. other with Ephesus in the dignity of Mother-cities. p [...]. 63. following;

Thirdly concerning the Church at Antioch, rather then the D. will acknowledge, that the people therof assembled togither in one Sect. 7. 2d pag. 105. place (which the Refuter gathereth from Acts. 14. 27.) he indea­voureth to elude the testimony by a frivolous evasion that hath no appearance of truth. It is apparant (saith he) that not all the Church consisting of busbandes and wyues, their children and servants; but some of the cheese and principall, perhaps not many (perhaps not any) besides those of the clergie, were called to that meeting. Thus he saith, but why doth he not acquaint us with the reasons that made this apparant to his senses? doth he think still to win credit by his bare word? when Paul and Barnabas were by imposition of hands commended to the grace of God, for that work which they had now fulfilled, will he say that the laity for the greater part (or at least wives children and servants) were excluded from the Leiturgie, fasting and pray­ers, which were then performed. Act. 13. 2. 3? doth not himselfe acknowledge the Leiturgie to be the publi (que) service of God in the congregation? serm: of the dig: and duty of the Ministers pag. 25. lin. penult. Is it not the judgment of the sound divines? leitourgein significat (saith Aretius upon that place) talieta ergazein, publica obire mu­ni [...]. Collectaerat, eccliā (saith Zanchius de oper: redempt. pag. 714.) quta Lucas ait lcitourgo [...]ntoon autoon. If thē the whole body of that Church (without exception of age, sex or outward estate) joyned in prayer and fasting, when they were separated to the work; shall we think, they disdeyned to assemble the whole, or made speciall choise of few, when they gathered the Church togither, to relate vnto them what God had wrought by their Ministery? Is it not safest, & most consonant to the rules of sound interpreting the text, to vnderstād by the church here, the multitude, and not the cle [...]gie onely, or some few principall men; seing in another case (& not long after) it is ex­pressely sayd, that they which were sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioche from the Synode at Ireusalcm sunagago ntes to p [...]thos) ha­ving gathered togither the multitude, delivered the [...]pistle? y 2 the D. himselfe quoteth both this text (Acts. 14. 27.) and those before handled, touching the Corinthian Church (1. Cor. 11. 18. 23) as signifying the Church of a citie and countrie adjoyning, cō ­gregated into a congregation. (pag 4. of this book). Wherefore, it is apparant, that in co [...]tradicting his Refuters proofes from the [Page 81] scriptures; he doth but labour to obscure the light, which himselfe discerneth well enough; but is loth that others should apprehend.

His other testimonies are out of Eusebius, Ignatius and some Sect. 8. 2d pag. 105. sect. 4. of our owne writers as the D. saith, of all which, this is his grave censure in generall. That they are soarce worth the mencioning; & yet he doth his best to wrest them out of his Refuters hands; let us see how well he doth it. First out of Eusebius it is observed that he eal­leth the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch, paroikias, that is, pa­rishes. And because the D. had inserted (serm. pag. 4. and 26.) something to perswade that Eusebius and others take the word in a larger sense, to wit, for the whole diocese, or at least for citie and suburbs, though conteyning many particular parishes: to make it appeare that Eusebius taketh the word as we doe, for one particu­lar congregation of Christians, he urgeth that phrase, which he as­keth concerning Timothees Bishoprick, which he saith, was of the pa­rish in Ephesus. Now it were, (saith the Refuter) a strange kinde of sp̄ach, [...]r Eusebius to terme the Diocese (or the whole citie and suburbs) of Ephesus, the parish of Ephesus; for who would say, the parish in London, for the Diosese of the Bishop of London; seing the whole citie is not the tenth part of the Diocise? And addeth, that as Eusebius calleth the Church of Ephesus, one parish in Ephesus; so when he speaketh of the Christi­ans in a Province, he calleth their seuerall companies assembling togi­ther in one place Parishes or Churches, as of Creete, Pontus &c. lib. 3. ca. 4. & lib. 4. cap. 22. To all which the Doctor maketh a slight answere, first referring us to that which he hath before spoken tou­ching the ancient use of the word paroikia (cap. 1. pag. 11.) where there is not one word, that eyther taketh notice of the maine objection (touching the parith in Ephesus) or giveth any colour of answer to it; therefore he addeth that Eusebius as he used the proposition en, so some­times kata to the same purpose, the which is false, and hath nothing to cover the naked falshood of it.

Vnto Ignatius who witnesseth, that the Church of Ephesus, in his time, came togither (ipi to auto) into one place, he giveth the like answere, to that which is refuted before (touching the words 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20.) viz. that the faubsull in London may be in like man­ner exhorted (though they be diuided into many congregations) to come ofc to­gither into one place. But he that should so write, would be thought to speak very iproperly & obscurely; seing it is impossible they should all meet togither in one place, for the publi (que) service of God. As for [Page 82] word polupletheia, which Ignatiu useth (as the D. imagineth) of purpose to note, that the Church consisted of many multitudes or congregations; it is but a weak conjecture, unworthy to come frō the Doctor for popupletheia is nothing else, but polu plethos a great multitude; and therefore argueth not many congregations, but ra­ther one great assembly. But goe we forwardes; whereas Ignatius calleth the Church at Antioch sunagogen, a Synagogue, which pro­perly noteth one congregation; as ritch as he is, he hath no other answer to give us, but that it is used in the same signification with ecclesia, which argueth his povertie, in asmuch as he doth therin againe but begge the question. Yea, but he hath another shift wherein he much glorieth, viz. that Ignatius entitleth himself the Bishop of Sy­ria. epist. ad Magnes. & Rom. & as if he had strook it dead, willeth his adversarie to tell him, what manner of parish Syrsa was; and desi­reth that may heare also what he can object against the two epistles; and so giveth all the grace he can to them, closing all up & saying, that he leaueth that most pregnunt & authentique euidence of Ignatius to his aduersary to muse upon. See you not how bragge he would seeme to be, as if he had gotten a great conquest? yet what is this to the pre­sent question? will he thus argue? The Christians throughout Sy­ria in the time of Ignatius (who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Sy-ria) made many Churches or congregations. Ergo the Church of Antioch (where of he had more properly the charge) was more then one congregation. Can there come a worse inconsequence from one that is but a smatterer in schoole disputations?

Thus are wee come to the testimonyes of the new writers. viz. Tindall, Bale, Fulk, Perkins; Our great Church-Bible, and D. Bil­son. Sect. 9. ad pag. 106. & 107. All which, the Doctor saith (excepting two testimonies of Tindall) the Refuter most childishly alleadgeth. But what if his exceptions be more childish, then his Refuters allegations? let us compare them; and leave the censure of both, to the indifferent reader. It is ob­jected that the ancient translators of the new testament into the english tongue, doe turoe the word, ecclesia, congregation; when they speak of the Church of Ephesus, and the rest in the Revelation: and to the same purpose are the rest (but Doct. Bilson) alleadged). And that translation is justified not onely by Mr Tindall Thomas More, but by Iohn Bale sometimes a Bishop, in his expo­sition of the word Churches and Candlesticks, by D. Fulk against the Rhemists aunot, in Ephel. 5. and by Mr Perkins in his exposi­tion [Page 83] of Apoc. 2. & 3. affirming that the 7. Churches were parti­cular congregations. And D. Bilson against the Seminaries affir­meth, that the word is never taken in the new testament for the Preists alone; but for the congregation of the faithfull, and name­ly that it is so taken Act. 20, 28. Frō which allegations it is inferred, that therefore in their judgement, the Church of Ephesus, & other like chutches in cities; were each of them but one particular cōgre­gation, and did not consist of many. Now is not this inference grounded on good probabilitie? for can it be imagined that these learned & worthy men would have so interpreted the word ecclesie, by congregation, if they had not been perswaded, that most natural­ly it expressed the meaning thereof? And if so; must not each par­ticular Church, be, in their judgement one particular congregati­on? If the Papists could prove any one of the 7. Churches of A­sia, to haue consisted of many distinct congregations: were it not a more just exception, then any they haue alleadged, to weaken their interpretation; seing a multitude distinguished into many congregations, cannot properly be called one congregation? But let us heare the Doctors exceptions. First he telleth us, that the ancient english Bibles, doe use the word congregation, not onely where mention is made of particular Churches, but of the universall Church also, as Mat. 16 18. Ephes. 1. 22. & 5. 25. even so; and we know it well; and esteeme the reason to be alike; for as particular Churches are each of them one visible congregation, and not many: so is the Church universall, one invisible congregation; the former gathe­red togither into one assembly; open to the eyes of men at one time and in one place; the other gathered togither into one mysti­call body, which (though hidden from men in this world, yet) is [...]no nituitu manifest unto God, and at the last day, shalbe actually congregated into one assembly in the viewe of men and angels. Secondly the Doctor layeth downe the reasons mouing the first transla­tors of the Bible into English, to avoyd the name Church and in stead there­of to use the word congregation. 1. Because CHURCH more properly signi­fieth the place of meeting, then the congregation it self, which is meant by ecclesia. 2. Because the Papists had abused it, to signify, eyther generally the romish Church, or particularly to import the romish Clergie. And I wish the reader to consider, whether this first reason doth not justify the re­futers affirmation, viz. that in the judgement of those Translators ECCLESIA doth properly note such a congregation as is gathered [Page 84] togither in one place, & whither the second doth any way infringe it?

Thirdly concerning the testimony of D. Fulk; the Doctor saith, Sect. 10. ad pag. 107. the allegation thereof, sheweth extreame want, eyther of indgement or benef­tie: but I perswade my selfe, the want eyther of the one or other, will more justly fall upon the Accuser, then the Refut: when things are indifferently weighed on both sides. For wherein hath he fay­led? Is it not true which he saith, that D. Fulkinstifieth the transla­tion of ecelesia by congregation, as better expressing the Greek then the word Church? & doth not this argue plainely, that he heild the Church of Ephesus (and all other Churches in cities) to consist but of one particular congregation? In deed, if his defense of our Bi­bles, translating ecclesia by congregation, had been limited onely to that text Ephes. 5. 23. (as Mr Doctor indeavoureth to perswade) the Refuter had shewed litle discretion, in the choise of that resti­mony, to argue that which he inferreth: but as the Rhemists (in their annot. on that text) taxe our first english Bibles with corru­ption (not for mistranslating the word in that place onely, but generally) for not using so much at once in all the Bible, the name of Church, but in stead thereof, congregation: so D. Fulks answer is sitted in generall to justify the Translators in so doing. They ra­ther used (saith he) the word Congregation then Church to avoyd ambigui­ty; because this word Church is cōmonly taken for the howse of the assembly of Christians; and that the people might know that the Church is a gather­ing togither, of all the members into one body, which in the name of church doth not appeare. Is it not plaine that in his understanding, the word eccksia signifieth properly, such an assembly of Christians as is ga­thered togither into one body, in one house or place, such as co­monly we call a Church? See I pray, how he interpreteth himselfe in his answere to Gregory Martin Pref. sect. 51. pag. 92. and cap. 5. sect. 5. pag 148. Wherefore, though he speak never a word of the Church of Ephesus in speciall, yet his defense of the translati­ons in generall, doth not onely justify them in calling the Church in Ephesus, the Congregation in Ephesus; but also argue by conse­quence, that the Church there consisted at that time, (not of many severall congregations, but) of one particular Church-assembly onely. Wherefore, the Doctor mought with more judgement & honesty have set a lesse face upon it, then to charge his Refut: with want of eyther, for alleadging his testimony. [Page 85] Fourthly, as touching the testimony of Mr. Perkins, the same in­ference also clearely ariseth from his assertion, viz. that the 7. chur­ches were particular congregations. For he would never have so said vnlesse he thought each of them to be one particular congre­gation; seing it were absurd to entitle any Church, a particular cō ­gregation, which is knowne to consift of many particulars. And for the same cause, who can with reason judge otherwise, then that D. Bilson also took the Church of Ephesus to be one congregatiō, when he alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew, that the Church in the new Testament, is put for the congregation of the faithfull, & not for the Preists alone. Wherefore whereas the D. in the conclusion renueth his challenge, that our new writers are childishly alleadged; what else doth he, but shew himselfe to be set to outface all? The which the more appeareth by that his taxe layd upon his Refuter for al­leadging Mr Tindall which (as he saith) was not a childish mistake­ing, but a wilfull misalleadging of him in both places, there being in the for­mer, no such thing; and in the later a falsifying of the testimony; and to aggrevate the offence, chargeth it upon him as cōmitted againe. lib. 4. cap. 7. sect. 9. But if any fault be here cōmitted (save the mistaking of pag. 135. for 133.) it is in the Doctor, who mought also have amended that mistaking; seing he could not but see it, when he patched up his owne allegation out of both those pages; but it seemeth he had rather make two faults then mend one. And that it may appeare how he falsely accuseth his Retuter; let the rea­der consider, that as the words set downe by him are not Mr Tin­dals words at large; but a breife of them; so they are a true breife of them. For proofe whereof it is cleare, 1. that he maketh Bi­shops, Preists and Elders all one, pag. 53. 54. 251. 345. 2. He saith that by their office, they were alwayes abiding in one place to governe the Congregation there. pag. 251. And 3. (however the Doctor saith, he maketh the word CONGREGATION as large as the word ECCLE­ST A CHURCH, yet he maketh the word Church or Congregation, whereof a Bishop, Preist, or Elder had the charge, no larger, then one particular cōpany assembling in one place as appeareth both by his exposition of Math. 18. 17. (pag. 345.) and by his words at large (which the D. could not but (though he would not) see, when he overskipped them) pag. 133. where speaking of the 2. of­ficers ordeyned by the Apostles for the governing of the Church; he saith. The Apostles disguished no man, but chose men annoy [...]ted with the [Page 86] same spirit (viz. wherewith Christ annointed them) one to preach the word, whom We call after the Greek tongue, a Bishop or Prust, that is, in English, an overseer, or an Elder; how he was annointed thou readest 1. Tim. 3. &c. This Overseer becanse he was taken from his own business & labour to preach Gods word to the parish, bath right by the autboritie of his office, to challendge an honest living of the parish, &c. Likewise in every congregation, chose they another after the same ensample, as is to be seene Act. 6. whom after the gr­word we call Deason, that is in English, servant or Minister, whose office was to help and assist the Preist, to gather up his duty, and to gather for the poore &c. But of Mr Tindalls judgement and words we shall heare more at large when we come to that place, where he saith his Re­futer falsifyeth his testimony againe; in the meane time, let the rea­der judge with what face the Doctor so charged his Refuter.

Thus much shall suffice to shewe, how the Doctor sought but startingholes, in all his exceptions against the refuters testimonies. For when he hath done wrangling with all his proofes, he return­eth to his deniall of the consequence (pag. 111.) viz. that though it were graunted, that each of the Churches for a time did not ex­ceed for their number the proportion of one ordinarie congrega­tion; yet it would not prove them to haue been parishes. As if he could deny them, to be each of them one parish (that is, one cō-gregation) & yet graunt thē to be one onely ordinary congregatiō.

Having done with those 3. Churches of Corinth Ephesus & An­tioch; Sect. 11. ad cap. 5. sect. 8. pa. 89. we are to proceed to that which the D. answereth cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem; viz. to the assumption of that syllogisma which affirmeth (Cap. 5. sect. 8. pag. 89.) the Christians of leru­salem to have cōtinued one assembly meeting togither in one place (during S. Lukes storie) Act. 2. 1. 2. 6. 44. and 6. 2. and 15. 22. 25. and 21. 22. This (saith the D) is false, because the Church of Ierusalem never was a parish so farre was it from continuing so still &c. and the D. dwelleth wholly in a maner upō this answer; but the Reader is to be advertised, that he doth but trifle & quarrell with words, rather then impugne the maine point of the argument, for when the Refuter affirmeth that the Christians at lerusalem continued one parishonall assembly, meeting togither in one place; the later clase is the explication, or rather confirmation of the former. q. d. they continued one parish-assembly, in asmuch as they met to­gither in one place. Wherefore the principall question here for Ie­tusalem, (like as before for the 3. above named Churches) is, whe­ther [Page 87] the Christians there might & did meet togither, in one place? to this purpose those places out of the Acts are quoted, and if the D. can make the contrary appeare, his labour is well spent, other­wise he doth but beat the aier. It is not probable (saith he) that the Church of Ierusate afeer they came to the number of 5000. did ordinarily meet all in one place. Belike he holdeth it probable, that before they arose to that number they did ordinarily meet togither in one place; so that when he striveth to wrest from his Refuter the places alleadg­ed out of Act. 2. he doth here (as before is observed sect. 5.) rather quarrell with his proofes, then contradict the thing thence col­lected. But let us take the particulars of the thing as they lye in or­der. Wee read (saith he) of some Panegyricall meetings, as it were in Sa­lomons porch and in the temple, such as be the meetings at Pauls crosse and at the Sp [...]tle; but their ordinary and as it were parishonall meetings, were by companies in more private places. It is true, wee read of diverse mee­tings, some in more private houses (as Act. 2. 1. 2. 46. and 4. 31. & 5. 42.) and some in more publique places (as the Temple Act. 2. 46. & 5. 12. 42.) but that one were Panegyricall and the other Parishonall (whether simply, or as it were) I for my part never read authour, that hath gone before the Doctor in this distinction; nei­ther doth he yeeld us any shredd of probabilitie to grace his ap­prehension. The maine point now stood for (viz. that the Christi­ans at Ierusalem were but one ordinarie assembly, gathered into one place) is apparant enough by the scriptures before quoted; though in the Doctors eyes they seeme to be eyther ignorantly or ab­surdly alleadged. For however the two first verses of Act. 2. are by some learned Interpreters restreyned to the 12. Apostles, because they think the promise of the holy Ghost belonged to them alone. cap. 1. 4. 5. yet are there others also of good account, that holde it no absurditie to think, that the rest of the disciples (which ac­companied the Apostles, cap 1. 14. 15.) were pareakers with them of the holy Ghost; because it suiteth well with Ioels prophesye, ur­ged by Peter, (cap. 2. 17. 18.) and with that riches of Gods grace, manifested in many others afterwards, cap. 8. 17. & 10. 45. 46. & 19 6. And D. Saravia, (whose judgement should not be lightly rejected of Mr Doctor and his associates) holdeth it (lib. de minist. grad. cap. 5.) for so certaine a truth, that the whole number of 120 received the holy Ghost; that he distributeth them into these [...]. ranks, 12. Apostles, 72. Evangelists, and 36. prophets; which [Page 88] put togither make the just number of 120. But I will not contend for this matter, onely I wish that moderation which is in Piscator. (in Acts 2. 4,) who, though he appropriateth the gifts of the holy Ghost then given, to the 12. Apostles; yet denieth not, but many others, were then assembled with them in the same place. But here­at the D. [...]ombleth, and cannot see, (though it should be granted that the 120. were all assembled togither) how it should be a parishe­nall assemblie, wherein the 12. patriarshes of Christendome were met togither? why? was not Iacobs houshold, at the first, one family, though the 12. Patriarches of the Iewish nation, were there combined in one society? Yea, was not Noahs cōpany in the ark one family, though they were the roote of all nations, and people that filled all king­domes & countries in the world? Or did the comming of Paul & Barnabas (because they were Apostles into the Synagogue at Anti­oche (Act. 13. 14.) alter the nature of the assembly, and make it no longer a parishonall Synagogue?

As for the 6. and 44. verses of Act. 2. they were jointly cited to Sect. 12. 2d pag. 91. shew that those 3000. converts (mencioned vers. 41.) had recourse to one place, both before and after their conversion, for they are included within the mention of that multitude which came togi­ther vers. 6. & of those beleeveres which are sayd to be all epi to auto in one place vers. 44. But the D. telleth us, that Calvin prefer­reth another sense, viz. that they were in one, that is, joyned togi­ther in heart and affection, as is sayd. Cap. 4. 32. and the Doctor knoweth that others preferre the sense the Refuter giveth, yea & ac­knowledgeth also that it may be true; and may signify, they cover­sed togither in one place, which is to grant asmuch as the Refuter asketh. For if the words may be so construed, then it must also be confessed, that as yet they made but one assembly gathered in one place. Not so (saith the Doct.) he speaketh not of their assemblies, for ver. 46. he speaketh of their meetings in the temple. Belike his meaning is, that their Church assembly is mencioned vers. 46, & not vers. 44. if so, there is some kindnes in him, that will give his adversary another text, as sit for his purpose as the former; for if they all met togither for holy exercises in any one place (temple or any o­ther) the Refuters assertion standeth firme. Yea, but the D. will not have his Refuter to be so much beholding, to him, for he ad­deth, that in the temple, they could not meet alone, & that there, nationall r [...] ­ther then parishonall meetings used to be assembled. As if the comuning in [Page 89] of strāgers into one of our parish-Churches at the time of Lectures and sermons, made the assembly to be no parishonall assembly, but somewhat else? (perhaps we shall know of him hereafter what) but how doth this concourse of others weaken the Refuters pur­pose? will the D. say, the Christians at Ierusalem were too many for one congregation; because when they all met in the temple, some others were intermingled with them? doth not the contrary rather follow very strongly? viz. that they all were not more then such as might and did assemble in one place; seing they were all with one accord in the temple, although they could not there meet alone.

Concerning the meetings of the 12. Apostles and multitude of Sect. 13. the Disciples. Acts. 6. 2. and of the whole Church with the Apo­stles and Elders Acts. 15. 22. 25. the D. answer is, they were not pa­rishonall but rather Synodicall (pag. 90.) The later indeed, is comō ­ly taken for a Synodicall assemblie, because the Synode, selebrated in succeeding ages, followed the patterne there given by the Apo­stles; in determining the like questions; but if we looke to the per­sons there assembled, it carried no great resemblance of a Synode; for none were called thither from any other Church or Churches in the Countries adjoyning, onely some were sent from Antioch, to conferre with the Apostles and Elders, which then abode at Ie­rusalem; and they gathered the whole Church of the Citie togither, for the hearing and determining of the matter then controverted; which course was imitated in the next age. (before Synods grew into cōmon use) when one Church by letters and messengers sent, and craved the help and direction of some other Church & their Ministers, in any question of weight, that began to breed distur­bance. But for the Refuters purpose it sufficeth that the whole Church was then assembled in one place as vers. 22 25 shew; & as the same is clearely collected also from Acts. 6. 2: so there is lesse reason to make it a Synodicall & not a parishonall assembly.

There remaineth Act. 21. 22. where it is told Paul, that the whole [...]ultitude would come togither, when they should beare that he was some; which words are, (in all reason) to be refered to those ma­ny thousands of beleeving Iewes, mentioned vers. 20; for of them it is sayd, that they were informed of him, that he taught to for sake Mo­ses, and for their satisfaction, he was directed, to goe into the tem­ple and to shew himselfe an observer of the law, vers. 21. 24; and [Page 90] however the Doctor (after his manner wrangleth) with the al­legatiō, in saying the word multitude may be otherwise understood; (to wit, of the people of lerusalem in generall aswell unbeleevers as beleevers) yet he denieth not, but it may be meant of the beleevers onely, which is a plaine confession, that the beleevers in that Church, were at that time, no more then such as might well assēole into one place. Neither doth the mention of many ten thowsands (in those words, posas muriadas &c. vers. 20. make the number such as by no meanes could meet togither in the publique worship of God, seing it is ap­parant Luk. 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ, & did partake his doctrine, were also many muriades. And albeit he began at the first to speak to his disciples, vers. 2, yet afterwards he spake to all the people assembled, vers. 13. 15. 54. Besides, it is to be observed, that a great number of these beleevers, were stran­gers which were not inhabitants of Ierusalem, but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost: and some of them it may be not actuall members of any Church, but such as are spoken of, Ioh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore, seing it is evident by the wordes of S. Lokes storie, that all the beleevers which belonged to the Church at Ierusalem in that time were assembled togither in one place from time to time as occasion served; it is sufficiently proved (all the Doctors cavils not with standing) that they did not for their number exceed the proportion of one ordinary congre­gation; and consequently (as the rest of the Churches before spo­ken of, so) this was rather a parish assembly, then a diocesan church like to one of ours.

As for the Doctors exceptions sect. 6. pag. 87. (viz. that the Sect. 14. ad sect. 6. pag. 87. Church of Ierusalem was never intended to be one parish among many, but a mother Church to beget others, which were to be se­vered from it, and yet to remaine subject to it; and that it was in­tended that all the Christians both in citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem like as the people of citie and coun­try were all under one high-preist) me thinkes that reader is strāge­ly and strongly conceited of the Doctor, that will enterteyne these points, upon his owne meere conjecture and bare word. For how­ever it is cleare, that many Churches drew their originall from Ie­rusalem, and received the faith by their Ministerie, which had bene for a time members of that Church (Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. & 9. 19. [Page 91] 22.) yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection, that any of those daughter churches, yeelded to Ierusalem, or the pres­byterie there established. And therefore the intention which he dreameth of (concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of Ierusalem, like as all the Iewes were anciently under the high. preist) hath neyther foundation in the holy scriptures; nor can he gather it from the practise of succeding ages; seing their advancing of the Church of Cesarea to the ho­nour of a Metropolitance Church, superiour in jurisdiction to Ie­rusalem; argueth that they were altogither ignorant of it. For, a­mong the many and great thoughts of the Doctors heart, can this enter into it, that they would wittingly depart from that order, which was instituted or intended by the Apostles, to follow the which was instituted or intended the Apostles, to follow the course of that preheminence, which the Romane Emperors (that were enemies to Christ and his truth) should establish in their poli­ticall government? But what need many wordes in a plaine matter? This is enough for resuting so frivolous a fancie, as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it. Thus have we seene how well the Doctor hath proved that the Churches founded by the Apostles were Dioceses properly, like to ours; and not parishes. It now followeth in the se­cond book, that we examine his proofes for his Diocesan Bishops.

Chapter 1. Shewing that in the 4. point of the Doctors sermon and third book of the defense thereof, there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopall function.

IN the fourth point of the Doct. sermon he hand­leth Section. 1. ex professo the superiority of Bishops over o­ther Ministers, and in the 3. book of his defense he indeavoureth the justifying of the same. And first he intreateth in generall of their superiority in degree; but though he boast (serm. pag. 29.) that all antiquity favoureth his opiniō; yet he pas­seth by the Apostolicall writings, as too ancient for his purpose. Notwithstanding, when he commeth to declare the particulars, wherein the superiority of Bishops consisteth; he referreth us (serm. pag. 32.) to the epistle of Paul to Titus (cap. 1. 5.) there to behold that threefold superiority given by him to Bishops; to wit, their singularity of preheminence during life, and their power of ordi­nation and of jurisdiction, not confined to a parish, but extended to the whole Iland of Creete, and to all the cities thereof. A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop, or of a nationall Primate, rather then the calling of a Diocesan Prelare; if he could make good the parts of his reasoning. viz. that Titus not onely had such a threefold superiority, but also was by his calling a Bishop, as he supposeth. But this later (wherein the controversy cheefly stan­deth) hath no foundation in his text; onely he telleth us (pag. 50. of this third book) that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon, by the cōmon consent of the ancient & most approved writers of the Church. The which what is it but a secret confession, that the text of holy scri­pture will not serve his turne, to prove that Titus was a Bishop?

In like manner, when to justify the singularity of preheminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese, he saith, (serm. pag. 33.) that there was one Timothy at Ephesus, one Titus in Creete, one Epaphroditus in Philippi, and one Archippus at Coloss [...]: what else doth he but pre­suppose, (not prove that every of them was a Diocesan Bishop? As if the whole Iland of Creet (with all the cities thereof) made but [Page] one Diocese; and as if we were more bound to beleeve Mr. Doctors word, then the Apostles testimoney, who saith, that there were o­ther Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus, (Phil. 1. 1.) & gi­veth vs to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa, and nothing inferiour to Archippus. (Colos. 1. 7. & 4. 12. Afterwards, when the Cōmission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus, and to Titus in Creete, is urged to prove the power of Bishops, first in ordination, and then in jurisdiction, (to make us a mends for his often begging) he promiseth (serm. pag. 49. to prove afterwards that they were [...]; the which how he performeth, we have heard before frō his own mouth; for his proofes touching Timo­thy & Titus are of the same nature, as shall more fully appear here­after. Now more thē this here noted, he hath not in his whole dis­course, (I meane either his sermon or the defense thereof) touch­inge the superioritie of Bishops to prove by the scriptures, that they have any such preheminence allowed then by God. Where­fore, if the Doctor hath found any cleare text, to prove the episco­pall function and superiority in question, to be a divine ordinance; it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermō and in the fourth book of his defense; where this questiō is at large deba­ted and his Assertion proved as he saith serm. pag. 55. and def. lib. 4. pag. 4. first by consequence, and then directly; whither I will now ha­sten, without any longer staie upon his 3. booke.

Chapter 2. Answering to the 3. section of the first chapter of the Doctors 4. book, and shewing that his reasons prosecuted in his 4. book doe fight one against another.

In the entrance upon his 4. book, before I move one foot fur­ther Sect. 1. ad lib. 4. ca. 1. sect. 3. of the Doct. it is meet we know how he distinguisheth his two kind of proofes which he sayth are first by consequence and then directly. By consequence he proveth the Episcopall function, to be a divine or­dinance, because it is of Apostolicall institution. For he taketh it for an vndoubted truth, (serm. pag. 92.) that what the Apostles did in the execution of their Apostolicall function, they did by the direction of the holy Ghost; and therefore he holdeth their ordi­nances to be divine, as having God for their authour. So then in affirming it to be therfore divine, because it is Apostolicall, we take [Page] his meaning to be this; that this function was first instituted (not by Christ or God immediately, but) by the Apostles, as the im­mediate authors; and therefore is not otherwise divine, then me­diately and by consequence, as all other Apostolical ordinances & actions are. And this to be his meaning, his owne words declare (serm. pag. 92. in the margin) when he saith, that in this sense & no other, he holdeth the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance, to wit, be­cause what was ordeyned by the Apostles, the same proceeded from God. But then, what may wee think his meaning to be, in his second sort of proofes, which must conclude directly (and not by consequence as before) that the episcopall function is of divine institution? Bi­shop Barloe, from whom the Doctor (it seemeth) borrowed this order of proving his assertion (first indirectly or by consequence, & thē directly) when he cōmeth to the later, staggereth not to affirm (serm. on Act. 20. 28. fol. 12. 13. cum 17.) that the Prelacie of Bishops is directly the Lords owne institution. And to explane his meaning, he addeth; that the holy Ghost (not onely by the Apostles who had recei­ved him in great measure, but) even by Christ himself, who (Ioh. 3.) was indu [...]d with the spirit without measure, ordeyned this superiority. And as he buildeth vpon the Fathers in this behalf; so the Doct. acknow­ledgeth this to be the judgment of many ancient Fathers, that Christ instituted the episcopall function immediately by himselfe. fee his defense lib. 4. pag. 48. 49. & lib. 3. pag. 32. Now if his later sort of arguments breifly trussed togither (serm. pag. 92. & 93.) doe bend unto this conclusion; then are his forces like to the troupes of the Midianites, who (Iudg. 7. 22.) set their swords e­very A contra­diction in the D. ar­guments. one against his fellow throughtout the host, for this conclu­sion cutteth the throat of the former; and the former pearceth through the hart of the later; it being no more possible, for one and the same function, to have his first institution from God, both immediately by his Apostles and immediately by himselfe; then it is for one living creature to be both a man and a beast; or for one and the same soul, to have her originall both by mediate derivati­on and by divine infusion. But if in both rancks he aime at one mark (viz. to prove that the episcopall function is medi [...]tely di­vine) then is there no other difference betwixt them but thi [...]; the one argueth their function to be a divine ordinance; because the A­postles by divine direction instituted it; & the other, because God [Page] was their director in the institution thereof; or rather whereas the former principally laboureth to prove, that the Apostles did in­stitute the function; taking it for granted, that in the institution thereof they were led by divine direction; the later proposeth to be proved, that which before was taken for granted; so that his two kindes of proofes, do all come to one generall argument, the former to justify the Assumption; and the later, the consequence or proposition, yet if the maine point be well weighed, which the later rank of arguments doth conclude; (viz. that Bishops were or­deyned of God) it will appeare that his direct proofes (so called) do fetch as large a compasse, as the former; and doe in deed, (not directly but) by consequence onely prove, the episcopall function to be of divine institution. Wherefore, to bleare the eyes of his reader, that he might not see how indirect his direct proofes are; he promiseth (serm. pag. 92.) directly to prove that the episcopal function is of divine institution; or, that Bishops were ordeyned of God; as if the later were all one with the former.

But we must take his arguments as they lie, and examine the Sect. 2. scriptures which he produceth (if he have any) to justify the doc­trine, which he presseth as a necessarie truth to be imbraced. His generall argument, which by consequence argueth the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance is thus framed, (serm. pag. 56.)

What function or government is of Apostolicall institution; that is to be ac­knowledged a divine ordinance.

The episcopall function or government by Bishops, is of Apostolicall in­stitution. Therefore the episcopall function is a d [...]vine ordinance.

To the propositiō of this argument, as the refuter yeeldeth free passage; so doe I, onely with the addition of this caution, that it holdeth onely in such ordinances, as are mediately divine, for no īmediate ordināce of God or Christ, can be sayd to be of Apostoli­call institution. And therefore (were it not that the D. is often found to forget himself) I should wonder, why he now vnderta­keth to prove, that the function or government of Bishops, was instituted by the Apostles, seing in his former book (pag. 32.) he saith, that diverse ancient and approved Fathers teache, that these two degrees of Ministers (viz. Bishops and presbyters) were ordeyned by Christ; & therefore inferreth, that it cannot be denied but that the cal­ling and superioritie of Bishops is of Christes owne institutiō. If it cannot be A contra­diction. [Page 5] denied, why dooth the Doctor vnderhand impugne it? For if it were Christes owne institution, as the Fathers (if we may beleeve the Doctor) doe teache; then it cannot be an Apostolicall institu­tion, as he now very confidently averreth. And because he brag­geth (lib. 3. pag. 24.) that he hath with such evidence demonstra­ted, that the Bishops (discribed in his first assertion) are of Apostolicall institution, that he is well assured, that his Refuter with all his parta­k [...]rs, will never be able soundly and substancially to confute; before I pro­ceed to examine the strength of his evidence; I will give him a little taste of his owne weaknes, in this argument following.

Whatsoever calling or superioritie cannot be deni [...]d to be of Christs owne institution; the same is erro [...]io [...]sly, and weakly mainteyned to be of Apostoli­call institution.

But the calling or superioritie of Bishops, cannot be denied to be of Christes owne institution.

Therefore, the same is erroniously and weakly mainteyned to be of Aposto­licall institution.

To impugne the proposition were to labour to quench the light of reason; and if the Doctor contradict the Assumption; he must not onely eate up his owne words before set downe; but also oppose himself against the judgment of the best approved Fathers, who (as himself testifieth) have taught the contrary; and then the stroke of his owne tongue, (which he whett as a sharp rasor against his Refuter,) will recoile into his owne sides in this manner. Doe the Fathers restify with one consent, that these two degrees of Mi­nisters (Bishops and Presbyters) were instituted of Christ; and hath the Doctor the forhead to denie it? In a matter of fact (as this is, whether Bishops were first instituted by Christ himself, or by his Apostles) for any man to denie creditt to all antiquity; it is a plaine evidence, that he is addicted to noveltie and singularitie, the Doct. himself being judge, for they are his owne wordes lib. 3. pag. 23. Againe, in a matter of fact, the authoritie and testimonie of some one Father, ought to overweigh the whole nation of disciplinariās (as the Doctor saith, but let it here be Episcopalians or Byshop­lings) contradicting the same. I could here give him a large handful of these kinde of flowers gathered out of his own garden, but I will spare both him and them; seing I am to attend upon those argu­ments, which he hath produced to prove his episcopall function [Page 6] and government, to be of Apostolicall institution.

The first argueth that function to be Apostolicall, because it was generally and perpetually used, in the first 300 yeares after Christ & his Apostles, & was not ordeyned by generall councells; which argument since it altogither balketh the whole book of God, and is fitted onely, to make some use of his extravagant learning, and great reading in the Councells & Fathers, & of his long digression in his former treatises, to another question: I shall doe him no wrong to passe by it, for the present, and referr the examination both of it and the testimonies therein vnto a fitter tyme: for the question is not, how long Bishops have had the possession, of that superiority and government, which now they reteine; but by what authority and warrant (of God or man) they were first seased of it: and there is good cause to suspect their title to be naught; when their defendants (not being able to bring forth any authenticall evidence, signed & sealed by the hands of the Apostles from whom they pretend to derive theire tenure) doe laye the weight of their cause, eyther upon prescription of long continuance; or upon the testimony of Fathers, that lived for the moste parte, 2. or 3. hun­dred yeares after the thing was or should be done, which they stand forth to restify. Especially seing the true records of all ordi­nances, delivered by the Apostles unto the Churches of Christ, are neyther perished nor locked up in any private Cloysters or closets; but communicated to the publick viewe of all men, who lift to search what forme of government they prescribed.

Chapt. 3. Answering the 2. Chapt. of his 4. book, and the rea­son there tendred to prove the episcopal function to be of Apo­stolicall institution; b [...]cause it was (as he falsly suppo [...]eth) used in the Apostles times, and not contradicted by them.

In the 2. Chapter of his 4. book, he stayeth himselfe within the Sect. 1. ad lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 1. pag. 17. of the Doct. compasse of the Apostles times, and indeavoureth to shewe that the Episcopall function now in question was then in use; his argu­ment for proofe thereof cartieth this forme, (serm. pag.

That government which even in the Apostles times, was used in the A­postolicall Churches, and not contradicted by them, was undoubtedly of A­postolicall institution.

The government by Bishops, was used even in the Apostles times, and not contradicted by them.

It was therefore undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution.

Concerning the propositiō, how ever it be true in their opiniō, which holde that there was but one forme of government in the Church and the same instituted by the Apostles: yet the Doct. was told by the Ref [...]ter (answ. pag. 127.) that it cannot serve his turn, who by his distinction of gold and silver (sermon pag. 95.) main­teyneth, that there may be an other government in the Church, & that good, besides that which he affirmeth to be of Apostolical in­stitutiō. For the propositiō cannot be true, but vpon this ground, that the Apostles were not to suffer any governmēt, save that which was of their owne institution; and therefore in taking it for gran­ted, he did but reckon without his host. This answere the Doctor laboureth to remove, and then fortifieth his propositiō against all future assaultes. But first he seemeth to repent the delivering of that his distinction of divers Church governments which he compareth for their goodnes, as it is more or lesse to golde & silver; saying he did it in favour of the D [...]sciplinarians, therein clawing a churle, according to the homely proverbe. The disciplinariās (which were that churle in whose favour he spake) were & are the reformed Churches abroad, where the Presbyterian discipline is established, as himselfe acknowledg­eth (lib. 3. pag. 108. & lib. 4. cap. vlt. pag. 145. But his own tongue discovereth the affection of his hart therein, to witt, how The D. be­churleth the refor­med Chur­ches. he spake it as a clawback, in hope to have got thanks, at least at the hands of all that favour the discipline. Which not obteyning of his refuter, in revenge to him, he throweth the name of a Churle on them. And to him he returneth this answere, that he said not sim­ply, that other governments may be admitted, besides that which the Apo­stles ordeyned; but onely there, where that cannot be had. But whiles the Apostles lived, that which they ordeyned might be had.

To these premisses I will adde the conclusion, which the Doct. aymeth at, though he doth not expresse it. viz. That therefore The D. re­moved not the cōtra­diction charged u­pon him by his Refut. whiles the Apostles lived none other government might be admit­ted save that which they ordeyned. But for our better satisfacti­on, because he hath not in our understanding clearly removed the contradiction charged upon him by his Refuter (answ. pag. 1 [...]7. 158.) he and I both humbly pray in his next def [...]nce a direct an­swer [Page 8] to the premisses of these arguments following.

• Whatsoever forme of Church-government is lawfull and good; the same might lawfully be tollerated of the Apostles in some Churches.
• But some other forme of Church-government, besides that which they or­deyned is lawfull and good,
• Ergo, some other form of Church-government, besides that which the Apostles ordeyned, might lawfully be tollerated by them insome Churches.
• Againe Whatsoever forme of Church-government is lawfull and good the same might lawfully be tolerated by the Apostles.
• But none other forme of Church-governmēnt, save that which the Apostles ordeyned, might lawfully be tolerated (or admitted) by them.
• Ergo none other forme of Church-government save that which the Apo­stles ordeyned, is lawfull and good.

The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same, and it is justified by these Apostolicall precepts. 1. Thes. 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. & 3. Ioh. 11. which allowe the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing; and deny them the use of nothing but what is evill.

The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctors allow­ance of the Presbyterian discipline, when he affirmeth it (serm. pag. 95. & 97. to be good as silver, and next to the best, though he deny it to be of Apostolicall institution. And the later assump­tion is the conclusion, of his answere before set downe: wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the cō ­clusions of these arguments, how soever the former conclusion is contradictory to the assumption of the later; and the later conclu­sion directly contradicteth the assumption of the former argu­ment.

Thus the reader may see that whiles the Doctor laboureth to A dubble contradic­tion in the Doctor. winde out of one contradiction, he sticketh fast insnared in two for fayling. Neither let him think here to evade (as before) by saying that he affirmed not simple, the presbyterian discipline to be good, but only then, when the episcopall government cannot be had: for Mr. Doctor were simple, if he could perswade himself, that so slight an answere might free the reformed Churches that want Byshops, from the obloquies of caviling papistes; which he professeth to be his charitable intent, in pleading (so as he did) for them and their discipline. And since silver is simply good, and at all times good, [Page 9] though inferior in goodnes, to golde, he dealt deceitfully & not simply or syncerely, with his reader (in comparing these. 2 kindes of governments, for their goodnes vnto silver and golde:) if he meant not to allowe, the presbyterian government any other or lar­ger goodnes, then for those times or places, where the episcopall regiment cannot be had.

But to look back once againe to the Doctors answere before set downe; what if I should contradict his assumption, and make use of his proposition, to cut in sunder the windepipe of his conclu­sion in this manner'

Where that government which the Apostles ordeyned cannot be had, there some other government might be admitted.

But whiles the Apostles lived, in some Churches that government which they ordeyned could not be had.

Ergo, whiles they lived, in some Churches, an other forme of government might be admitted.

The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his owne. Th'assumption is fitted (indeed) to contradict his, in the sense that he imbraceth, vnderstanding, by the government ordeyned by the Apos­tles, the government by Byshops; so that, whereas he saith, it might be had whiles the Apostles lived, I on the contratie affirme, that in some Churches at that time it could not be had. And this (I sup­pose) will be made good by his owne words elswhere (serm p. 69. The D. contradic­teth him­self. Def. lib. 4. pag. 62.) when he alledgeth the want of sit choise for one reason; why all other Churches besides that of Ierusalem wan­ted Bishops, for many yeares in the life tyme of the Apostles. For how could Bishops be had to governe every Church, when there was not sit choise of persons fit for that function? The same rea­son is more plainly delivered, by others that plead the same cause. Bishop Barloe (serm. on Acts. 20. 28. fol. 6.) saith, that after the conversion of many people, even in setled Churches, the Apostles hasted not, to place a Bishop, because a presbyter fu to be made a Bishop is hardly found. which the Doctor also acknowledgeth (serm: pag. 54.) where he saith. If a worthy Minister be amonge men, as one of a 1000, (as Elihu spukith, Iob. 33. 23) vndoubtedly a worthy Byshop is as one of a milliō. verie hardly therefore will he escape the bryars of another palpa­ble contradiction. And it will be no lesse hard to avoyde the stroak of the cōclusiō, which if he cannot turne aside; then his propositiō now in question, will lie in the dust, overthrowne (not by anie of [Page 10] our weapons, but) by the turninge of those upon him, which he put into our hands.

As for the Arguments which he addeth, to put new life and strength into his proposition; though just exception may be taken, against them (for there is oddes betwixt the use of government, not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches; and the retey­ning of it in all Churches, or the altering of that government which they had once established:) yet will I not prosecure such advanta­ges, seing we are no lesse perswaded then he, that there is a manifest truth in it.

The assumption followeth which hath two parts, the one, that Sect. 3. ad sect. 2. &c. p 38-44. the government by Bishops (such as ours are) was used even in the Apo­stles times; the other, that it was not contradicted by them. both pa [...]ts he indeavoreth to prove first by scripture, & then by other evidence.

His scripture proof for the former, is nothing else then a naked repetition of the explication of his text, scz. that the 7. angels were the Bishops of the. 7. churches and for the substance of their calling like to ours, which, as he saith he hath proved, for I may as confidently avouch we have disproved. But for the proofe of the later, (besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint Iohn, or rather by our Saviour Christ) he alleageth (section. 6.) Epaphroditus the Apostle or Bi­shop of the Philippians, commended by Saint Paul, as his (fun­ergos kai sustratiotes) copartner both in his function & affliction, & the Philippians commanded to have in honor such. Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also Iames the just, Bishop of Ierusalem approved of all, Acts. 15. &. 21. Gal. 1. 19. Archippus the Bishop of Colossa, in respect of his function approved of Paul, Colos. 4. 17. And Antipas, who had been Bishop of Pergamus, commended by the holy Ghost. Apoc. 2. 13. His argument standeth thus,

In the Apostles times Epaphroditus was the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians; Iames the just, the Bishop of jerusalem; Archippus the Bishop of Colossa; and Antipas the Bishop of Pergamus.

But Epaphroditus was commended of Saine Paulas his Copartner in­function and affliction, Iames the juste generally approved; Archippus in re­spect of his function approved by Saint Paul, and Antipas commended by the Holy Ghost.

Ergo, the function and government of Bishops, was approved and not con­tradicted by the Apostles. Here the Proposition, if vnderstood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours, is altogither false; and the D. doth [Page 11] but begg the question, in taking for granted, what he should have The Doct. beggeth proved, if he could. But if it be vnderstood of such Bishops, as the scriptures testify to have bin in the Apostles times; seing they were no Lordly governors; but Pastors or Bishops in another function; eyther higher as was Iames the Apostle, or inferior as Pastors of one congregation, I demaund againe (as the Refuter did once be­fore) what need there was, that the Doct. should spend so many words to prove their approbation. For the approbation of such Pastors can never conclude the approbation of Diocesan Prelates such as ours. He must therefore beare the blame, of equivocating (in the word Bishop) or of begging the question; vntill he prove The Doct. equivoca­teth or beggeth that Epaphroditus, Iames the iust, Archippus & Aniipas, were Dioce­san Bishops like to ours.

The best defence that the Doct. maketh for himselfe is this. Til he can disprove (saith he sect. 6. pag. 43.) the former part of my sermon and of this Treatise; he must give the Reader leave to think they were such as they have bene manifestly proved to be. If he have manifestly proved (in any part of his serm: or defense before delivered) that the four mē he speaketh of or any of them, were Diocesan Bishops, like unto ours, good reason, his reader should have leave to think they were such; but if hitherro he hath not (as it is most certaine he hath not) delivered any one word that carrieth the least shewe of any such proofe; then the reader I hope (whither he have leave or no) will think that the D. is too forward to say he hath proved that, which he never till now proposed; viz. that these foure men were Dioce­san Bishops. The proofe of this Proposition both his Refuter and Reader will call for, till they see it. And I still say, that the proofe of the Assumption, (which in a generallity affirmeth, that they were approved of the Apostles in respect of their function) might well have bene spared. And the Doctor assuredly doth flat­ter himselfe in vaine, while he conceiveth that there is somewhat in this point which his Refuter could wish had bene spared; or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answer. For, what should he have answered, more then he hath, touching the scriptures which the Doctor alle­geth to prove, that the persons before mentioned were approved of the Apostles in respect of their function for no man doubteth, but their functions were approved; all the doubt is, whether their functions were such, as our Dioccsans are; and this the D. witting­ly overpasseth. [Page 12] Notwithstāding, among the scriptures quoted for the approbatiō of their Ministerie; the Ref: (answ. p. 130.) giveth one note touch­ing Sect. 4. ad sect. 6. pag 44. the word, sunergos, Phil. 25, which the Doctor interpreteth a co­partener in function; he saith the Apostle meant not to signify thereby, that Ep [...]phroditus was a Diocesan Bishop; for the Apostle himselfe was none; neyther meant he to equall him to himselfe in the Apostleship; for Epaphrodi­tus was none: but because he laboured in the Ministerie of the word, as the Apostle did; therefore he calleth him sunergos fellow-workman as he doth Ti­mothy and others, 1. Cor. 16. 10. 16. The Doct. answer runneth thus, Though that word doth not prove it, (to wit that Epaphroditus was a Diocesan Bishop) neyther was it alleadged to that end, but as one of the [...] ­ [...]les of commendation given to him; yet the word Apostle which he alleadged, doth prove it. Neyther should the Refuter have balk [...]d that, to lay hold up­on another, unlesse it were to deceive the simple. And then addeth, that it was malipertly sayd by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle. Behold here 1. a free acknowledgmēt that the word sunergos proveth not E paphroditus to be a diocesan Bishop; nor import a Copartenership with S. Paul in that function; I ask then, in what function his copartener­ship with the Apostle is commended by that title? if in the Apostle­ship, why doth he not as freely acknowledge it? if in any other, why doth he not expresly declare it? may he not be justly censured in his owne words, he would never have balked this point, to lay holde upon another, unlesse it were to deceive the simple. But he cannot thus deceive a judicious reader, who observeth that (in contradicting his refu­ter for saying that Epaphroditus was not an Apostle) he secretly in­sinuateth, that he was copartener with S. Paul, in the function of an Apostle, though he dareth not plainely avouch it.

And 2. since the simplest that hath perused the Refuters answer (pag. 130.) may easily perceive, that (in denying Epaphroditus to be an Apostle) he meant, that he had not that function of A­postleship, which under that name is given to S. Paul; I nothing doubt, but every indifferent reader will judge that he is over mali­pertly, and very injuriously censured by the Doctor, when he saith, it was malipertly sayd by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle. Nay it were a malipert speach, for the Doctor to say simply and without addition; that he was an Apostle seing he cannot shewe any one text in the newe Testament, that giveth that title simplie vnto any other, then unto Christ and his Apostles.

3. And wheras he saith, that the word Apostle which he allea­ged [Page 13] doth prove that Epaphroditus was a diocesan Bishop; I demād, why he never alledged the word for that purpose, and shew his rea­der how to discerne a diocesan Prelacie in it? In deed in his next argument, (serm. p. 71.) he bendeth his speach that way: & his Refuters readines to apprehend his purpose, and to join issue with him therein, may and doth (I doubt not) perswade the indifferent reader, that if the Doctor had as plainely discovered any such proof here, he would never have balked it; he plaieth therefore an egregi­ous The Doct. calumnia­teth. calumniators part, in saying that the Refuter balked the word (alledged to prove the diocesan Bishopprick of Epaphroditus) of purpose, to deceive the simple.

4. But I merveile what giddines hath taken hold on the Doct. that he runneth in and out, this way and that way, at his pleasure; before we heard touching the word, sunergos, that he placed that copartnership in the function which Epaphroditus had with S. Paul in the Apostleship, and not in the office of a diocesan Bishop; yet now he saith, that the name of an Apostle given to Epaphro­ditus proveth him to be a Diocesan Prelate. I demaund therefore, if Epaphroditus had none other Apostleship then a diocesan By­shopprick how could he be a copartner in function with Paul, by reason of his Apostleship vnlesse Saint Paul also, had bin a Diocesan Byshop by his Apostleship? And againe, yf his Copartnershipp in­function with Paul, proveth him not to be a Diocesan Bishop; how should it prove him to be his copartner in the Apostleship, vnlesse his Apostleship were a function diverse from the calling of a dioce­san Byshop? The truth is, as the Apostle had no copartnership with Epaphroditus in the function of a diocesan Bishop, so neither had Epaphroditus any copartnership with the Apostle in the Apostle­ship. The word sunergos; signifieth a companion in labour, or a fel­low workman; & not a copartner in office or functiō: for it were ab­surd to imagine, that all were copartners with the Apostle in func­tion, whome he honoureth with the name of his sunergos, fellow­workmen, or helpers in the work of the gosp ll; seing it is given not onely to Titus, Timotheus, Marcus and others which were E­vangelistes (2. Cor. 8. 23. Rom. 16. 21. 1. Thes. 3. 2. Colof. 4. 10. Philem. 24.) but also to some of whome it may be doubted, whi­ther they had any publique ministerie (Rom. 16. 9. Philem. 1.) yea vnto some, which (question-lesse) had none at all: as vnto A­quila and his wife Priscilla (Rom. 16. 3.) In like manner he giveth [Page 14] vnto divers women this commendation, that they laboured much in the Lord (Rom. 16. 12.) and did wrastle (or fight) togither with him in the Gospel; sunethlesan moi Phil. 4. 3.) yet I hope the D. will not say, that those weomen were coparreners in function with S. The Doct. misinter­preteth & con [...]oun­deth Paul. It is therefore cleare, that the Doctor m [...]sinterpreteth the word sunergos, and confoundeth things that differ, in putting no difference, betweene a companion in labour; and a copartener in function.

And touching the diocesan Bishoprick of Epaphroditus, as the Sect. 5. Doctor rightly acknowledgeth it hath no reliefe in the word suner­gos: so he falsly averreth, that the word Apostle, doth prove it. The proofe which here he tendereth, is not worth the mentioning, save to let the reader still see, how the Doct. holdeth on in his trade of begging. It is to be noted (saith he) that the twelve Patriarches of The Doct. still beg­geth. Christs Church, which were sent into the who [...] world, were called the Apostles of Christ; and not the Apostles of any Church in particular (excepting lames who was the Apostle of the Iewes) so those Apostolicall men, who were set over particular Churches, as the Bishops thereof, were for a time called the Apostles of the Churches. So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians &c. If the Doctor could yeeld us, as pregnant testimo­nies from the Apostolicall writings, to shew that Diocesan Bishops were called the Apostles of the Churches; as there are to prove, that those 12, whō Christ sent into the whol world, were called the Apostles of Christ; we should as willingly subscribe to the one, as to the other. But when (to justify his former assertion, that the very word Aposto [...]s given to Epaphroditus, proveth him to be a diocesan Bi­shop) he bringeth no other proof then this, that the Bishops set over particular Churches were called the Apostles of those Churches. And to mainteyne this; he hath nothing to alleadge but that, So Epaphro­ditus is called by S. Paul the Apostle of the Philippians; who can beare with his so shamelesse begging? But more of this (he saith) wee shall heare hereafter, and I finde (in the next Chapter, sect. 12. 13. 14. whereto he sendeth us) some humane testimonies to prove that E­paphroditus was the Pastor or Bishop of the Philippians, & an an­swer to the reasons alleadged by the refuter for the justifying of an other interpretation of the word apostolos, viz. that he was their mes­senger to S. Paul. But touching the question of his Ministeriall functi­on (which the Refuter sayd could not be proved to be a Diocesan Bishoprick) when he should handle it, he flattly refuseth to enter [Page 15] vpon it: yea (sect. 15. pag. 71.) he saith, that there he is so farre from inferring or proving it, that he presupposeth it, as sufficient­ly proved before; and yet in his whole volume, concerning dio­cesan Churches or Bishops (Defence lib. 3.) he hath not a worde that particularly toucheth Epaphroditus. Wherefore, it is appa­rant, that the Diocesan Bishoprik ascribed to Epaphroditus is pre­supposed onely but not proved, to be infolded under the word A­postle. And consequently the commendation which Paul giveth him (Phil. 2. 25.) cannot conclude an approbation of his suppo­sed episcopall function. And here by the way, let the reader ob­serve, what a trick the Do: hath to avoid the proofe of this point, though he were urged vnto it. Now when he should have done it, A trick of the Doct. to shift off a proofe. because Epaphroditus is a principall instance, brought to justify the later braunch of the Assumption (which affirmeth that the go­vernment of Bishops, such as ours, having place in the Apostles times, was not contradicted by them) he putteth us off to the next chapter; and there he sendeth us back to another treatise, where is just nothing for this purpose; and to ter [...]ify his Refuter with his loud (I had almost sayd leud) rayling, he calleth him a notorious ca­viller (pa. 64.) and saith he writeth, as the most of his booke, to bleare the eyes of the simple (p. 70.) for none other fault but this; that he urgeth him to prove, that the function of a Diocesan Bishop, is understood in the name of an Apostle given to Epaphroditus; and that such Bishops were at the first called Rulers or Apostles of the Churches. Yet least the Doctor should conceive better of his dis­course, then it deserveth, I will take a neerer consideration of all that he hath sayd. And the rather, because his assertion will appear to be the more absurd; if he have wrested those names, which he attributeth unto Bishops from the true meaning of the Apostle is the places alleadged by him.

Chapter 4. Declaring that the function of d [...]ocesan Bishops, is not men­cioned in the Scriptures, vnder the titles of Rulers or Apostles; & that a diocesan Bishoprick is not given to Epaphroditus vnder the name of an Apostle Phil. 2. 25. as the Doctor would have it, Def. lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 11. pag. 65.

I Knewe (saith the Doctor) it was objected that Bishops are not menci­oned Vide sect. 1. ad sect. 11. cap. 3. lib. 4. in the Scriptures, the name, Episeopus, Bishop, being given to Presby­ters; and therefore that it is not like, they were ordeyned by the Apostles, of [Page 16] Whome no mencion is in the Scriptures. For prevention of this objection, or assoyling of this doubt; I declared first, that the Bishops in the wri [...]nges of the Apostles are called, sometimes the Angels of the Churches, sometimes the [...] Rulers, sometimes their Apostles. If I should ask the Doctor what it is that doth second his first, he would be ready to snatch at such an occasion, for the renewing of his vnjust quarrell with his Refuter, viz. that I snatch at wordes. And if I should demaund, from what wordes in his sermon, the Refuter might (and ought to) have ga­thered, that those names (which he saith, were attributed to By­shops) were delivered for the prevention of that objection, which he now discovereth; I suppose the Reader should scarce gaine any better answere then this, that his owne intent is best knowne to himself. Yet had his Refuter reason to say; (as he did answer P. 34.) that this long discourse touching the time of ordeyning Byshops, should help to prove that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bi­shops; for he promised (serm. p. 65.) to explaine and prove this point; by shewing the time when, the place Where, and the persons whome, the Apostles ordeyned 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. [...] (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, [Page] 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 argumēt 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 preheminēce 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, thē 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 Īmitate them, thē 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 [Page] 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 vnderstāding of this text, saith that in the ancient [...]nons of the Apostles, (Can. 39. or rather 40.) & in the 2. epistle of Ignatius (ad Trallian:) the text is appropriated vnto Bishops; like as also is the name Prepositi, in the Latin Fathers. First, to answer him in his own terms; in stead of appropriated, he would (or at least should) have sayd, communicated unto Bishops; for I know no mā so foolish, as to appropriate eyther that text, (Heb. 13. 17) or the name Prepositis to such Bishops as ours. Ierome was so farre from appropriating this text to Bishops, that he doth ra­ther appropriate it to Presbyters, which at the first governed the Church (as he saith (on Tit. cap. 1.) communi consilio. Aequaliter inter plures ecclesie curam dividit, Heb. 13. 17. Parete, (inquiens, principibus egoumenois) vestris &c. Augustin (a principall latin Father) often vn­derstandeth. vnder the name, Praepositi; all the Ministers of the word. Tract. 46. in Iohan: Habet ovile domini praepositos, et filios, & mercenarios. Praepositi qui fili; sunt, pastores sunt. Et sunt qui­dem ecclesiae praepositi, de quibus Paulus dicit. Sua quaerentes &c. And de civitate deilib. 1. cap. 9. Ad hoc Speculatores, ho [...]est, po­pulorum praepositi &c. And epistola 166. ad finem. Quod usq [...]adeo celestis Magister cavendum premonuit; ut etiam de praeposi­tis malis plebem securā faceret, ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris cathedra desereretur &c. neque enim sua sunt quae dicunt sed Dei; &c. 2. But if the canons (fasly called the Apostles) haue right­ly appropriated the text unto Bishops; it will follow, that (both by the scripture, and by their judgment that first framed & after­wards approved them) the Pastors care of soules (and consequently the dispensation of the Word and Sacramentes) is proper to the function of Bishops. And if it be so, it will then also followe, and that inevitablie, that those presbyters, whose office is divers from the function of Bishops (in their judgment, aswel as of the author of that Epistle to the Hebrewes) were no teaching Elders, or Mi­nisters of the word. Which to affirme, directly contradicteth the Doctors assertion (peremptorily mainteyned by him, lib. 1. cap. 3.) viz. that there were no other Presbyters in the prim: Church, but Ministers, and that the word Presbyter, noting an eccle­siasticall person, doth evermore in the scriptures, councels and fa­ibers [Page] signify a Minister.

3. If to avoyde this disadvantage, the D. shall choose rather to Sect. 4. ad sect. 12. of the Doct. pag. 65. graunt, that the text is to be vndetstood of Ministers in generall; as he once understood it; (serm of the dignity of the Ministers) thē can his diocelā Bishops find no sure footing in this text; as is alrea­dy shewed.

All his hope and help therefore, must lye in the last title, which he supposeth is given to Bishops, to wit, th' Apostles of the Churches. And to make this good, he telleth us, that he rendred a reason why they are so called; viz. because they succeaded the Apostles in the govern­ment of the particular Churches; and that there of he gave an instance, Philip. 2. 25; where Epapbroditus who was the Bishop, or Pastor of Philippi; is therefore called their Apastle. He should rather have produced some reason, to demonstrate (to ei esti) that Bishops such as ours are so called; then to shewe (to diati) why they are so entitled: espetially; seing he taketh notice of his Refuters quelition, viz. by what autho­ritie that title is appropriated vnto Bishops? Not with standing, if his meaning be, (as it seemeth it is) by the instance which he mentio­neth; to fortify the reason which he rendreth; I wil desire no other demonstration, then a cleare proofe of those premisses, which must inferr this conclusion. viz. that Bishops such as ours, are in the A­postles writings, called the Apostles of the Churches, because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Chur­ches. The which to conclude from the former instance given by him, he must thus argue, Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle (Phil. 2. 25.) because be succeeded the Apostles in the government of that particular Church.

But Epaphraditus was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi in function like to one of our Bishops. Ergo, Bishops, such as ours were called in the Apo­stles writings, the Apostles of the Churches; because they succeeded the A­postles, in the government of the particular Churches.

Both the parts of this argument are contradicted by the Refut: and yet the Doct. harh nothing that can give sufficient confirma­tion to the one or other. Some testimonies he hath, that may serve to uphold (as farr as their strength wil stretch) the one half of each proposition (viz. that Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of Phi­lippians, and that he was their Bishop or pastor) but he hath no shadowe of any testimony or reason, to cover the nakednes, eyther of the first (which saith he was so called, because he succeeded the [Page] Apostles in the government of that Church) or of the secōd (which affirmeth him to be a Bishop in function like to one of ours). All his labour tēdeth to make good against his Refut: answer an other point, (something differing from the former) viz. that he was ther­fore called the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was their Bi­shop or Pastor. Which might be granted, and his purpose, there-by at all nothing furthered. For it is a weak consequence and so­phirticall, thus to argue; The office of a Bishop or Pastor, is noted in Epaphroditus; when he is called the Philippians Apostle: Ergo Diocesan Bishops, such as ours, are in the scriptures called, the Apostles of the Churches. But let us see by what authoritie he is swayed to imbrace that cōstructiō which he giveth to the words of the Apostle (Phil. 2. 25.) humoon apostolon first, in translating thē, their Apostle; and then in saying, he was therefore called their Apo­stle, because he was their Bishop or Pastor.

First touching the translation; however the word Apostolos, be Sect. 5. usually in the newe testament, appropriated unto such as we call Apostles (men immediately called of Christ, to an universall & vn­limitted Ministerie;) yet is it well knowne, both that Epaphrodi­tus was none of them; and that the word (in his most naturall signification) is of as large use, as our English word, Messenger. And in this large fense it is used by Christ, Iohn 13, 16. oude Apostolos &c. Neyther is the messenger greater then he that sent him. Wherefore as the name of a Deacon (though derived from the Greek word diaconos) cannot sitly be given to all those that are in the scripture called diakonoi; for I suppose the Doctor would not allowe the word to be so translated in these and such like places. Mat. 20. 26. and 23 11. He that wilbe (or is) greatest among you, let him be (humoon diako­nos) your Deacon. Rom. 13. 4. for he is (theou diaconos) Gods Deacō for thy good. Col. 1. 25. The 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, [Page] 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 frō 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 & judgmēt, 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 Philippin̄s, because be was their Bishop or Pastor. And even this cōstru­ction [Page] 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 th [...] concurre w [...]h him in his interpretation of the words of the Apostle, espetially (seing in his viewe of the b [...]o [...]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 preh [...]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 Evāgelissa. 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.

[Page 24]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 cōmonly was signified; and that they did by the word Apos­tle vnderstand, not every comon Teacher or teaching Presbyter, but specsalē 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) [Page 25] 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 pretē ­deth 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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 doth acknowledge it. The word apostolos therefore signifying properly any Messenger (as he must also confesse) it is more then probable (even necesssa­rie) to construe those words humoon apostolon, your Messenger, (or at least to take them in this sense, that he is called their Apostle, be­cause he was their Imbassadour sent by them to the Apostle, unless some necessarie reason can be produced to demonstrate the con­trary. Now what saith the Doctor in this case? Hath he any sen­tence, or syllable from the text it self, or any other scripture to justify any one of his Assertions, viz. that Epaphroditus was their Bishop, & that he is therefore called their Apostle? no such matter. What then? Forsooth, it appeareth by diverse of Ignatius his epistles, that when the Churches sent one vpō a Christiā Imbassage; the Bishop was cōmonly intreated to take that Embassage upon him. In like manner the Philippi­ans, being to send, as it were upon Embassage to Paul, Epaphroditus their Bishop vndertook that voyage. He being therefore both their Bishop, and their Imbassadour, it is more likely that he was called their Apostle, because he was their Bishop, then for that he was their Imbassadour. I answere, 1. may I not say that the Churches then sent forth their Bishops, as the Apostles sent forth Peter. Act. 8. 14. & the Church, Barnabas, Act. 11. 22? 2. Touching Ignatius Epistles; will the D. stil presume upon the credulitie of his reader to take his bare word for proofe, that the Churches in his time, sent their Bishops in Embassage, only upon intreatie? There is small cause he should trust upon it, when his reader shall vnderstand, that he learned this evasion of Bellār­min The Doct. learnetn a shift of Bellarmine (de Pont. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 16.) who with this shift putteth off that argument which our Divines urge against Peters primacie from Act. 8. 14. where he is sayd to be sent with Iohn, by the rest of the Apostles unto Samarīa. 3. And touching Epaphroditus; seing he presumeth also that his word wilbe taken, in stead of bet­ter proofe, that he was in like manner intreated to take the jour­ney; he deserveth to heare from me that which Bellarmin doth frō Doct. Whitakers (de pont. Rom. quest. 2. pag. 260.) Num ade­um Philippenses supplices venerunt, & cnm eo precibus egerunt, ut mitteree aliquem Romam, si minus placeret, ipsi proficisci? nil eiusmodi habetur.) even this in effect, there is no such matter Mr D. But be it that he went by their intreatie, as Timothy at S. Pauls intreaty remayned at E­phesus. [Page 28] 1. Tim. 1. 3. May the Church of Welles or rather of Canterbu­rie (for Philippi was Metropolis Macedonia, as aferwards he telleth us, pag. 71.) send their Bishop abroad by the like intreatie, & up­on the like busynes; to wit, to convey their benevolence unto some Bishop, or person of great note, that is a prisoner as Paul was, at that time? Who seeth not, that even this Embassage argueth, he was not a Bishop of that degree & dignity that one of our Bishops bear at this day? Moreover, (to pass by for the present his begging the questiō in asfirming him to be their Bp.) if he were both their The Doct. beggeth a­gaine. Bishop and Embassadour; is it not more likely, that he was called their Apostle, because he was their Imbassadour (seing the word im­porteth so much) then for that: he was their Bp? but he hath better probabilities in store to prove, the cōtrarie; let us givehim hearing.

It is unlikely (saith he) that the name of that sacred function of the Apo­stles of Christ (who also himself is the Apostle of our profession) should be used in Sect. 8. ad pag. 66. & 67. the Scriptures, to signify the Messengers of men. Is it vnlikely? why? doth he not knowe, that the offices of pastors and deacons, are also sacred functions; and that Christ himself is intitled our Shepheard, and Pastor of our Soules. Iohn. 10. 16. & 1. Pet. 5. 25. and the (diaconos) minister of the circumcision, Rom. 15. 8. [...] not­withstanding it is certeine that both these names (poimen, diaconos) are given in the Apostolicall writings to Feildshepheards, and ser­vants of men. Luc. 8. 8. 15. 18. 20. Iohn. 2. 5. 9. In like man­ner, though the word aggelos be the name of that sacred functiō, of the celestiall spirits, and communicated even vnto Christ him­selfe, Act. 7. 35. 38. Revel. 10. 1. 5.) yet it is given also, in the Holy Scriptures, vnto the messengers of men, Iam. 2. 25. where Rahab is sayd to have received (tous aggelous) the messengers and sent them out another way. It is apparant therefore, that neyther the holynes of the Apostolike functiō, nor the worthines of Christs person or office, can yeild any probable argument, to justify the Doctors affirming it to be unlikely that the word apostolos should be used in the scriptures to signify the messengers of men. But heare we him again, he addeth, that in both places (Phil. 2. 25. and 2. Cor. 8. 23.) the Apostle intendeth by this title, highly to commend Epaphroditus and the o­thers; but this had bene but a small commendation, that they were messen­gers of the Churches. But a small? How small soever the commenda­tion seemeth in the Doct. eyes, who esteemeth basely of the church in comparison of their Bishop, yet is it otherwise in their eyes (see [Page 29] Heming: & Hyper: in 2. Cor. 8.) who concurre with us in the translation of both texts; among whom are many (the translators of our Church-bibles former & later) whom he dareth not accuse (Iam sure) to be parties with us in this controversie. But what speak I of their judgment, seing we have the Apostles own testimo­ny; that having given to one this high cōmendation, his praise is in the gospel throughout all the Churches, doth yet enlarge his praise in say­ing, & not that onely, but he was also chosen of the Churches to traveile with us, with this grace which is administred by us, &c. (2. Cor. 8. 18. 19.) and therefore also he signifieth (1. Cor. 16. 3.) that he would not send those that were to carry the benevolence of the Corinths un­to Ierusalem without their letters of commendations. And by these testimonies of the Apostle, we see the falsehood of that which he assumeth in his last reason, specially fitted to prove that they (in 2. Cor. 8. 23.) were not called the Apostles of the Churches, be­cause they were their Messengers; viz. that they were not sent by the Churches. But let us look upon the colour he setteth vpon this vn­truth; it is evident, saith he, that Paul himself sent them, for as it was re­quired of him Gal. 2. 10. so had he undertaken to procure a supply for rel [...]ife of the brethren in Iudea. And [...]o that end having de [...]lt before with the Corin­thians, sendeth Titus and two others̄, to receive their contribution. All which I graunt, but hold it a very lame consequence, and such as the Doctor with all his learning will never be able 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 high­minded 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 [Page] 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 [Page 31] 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 cō ­mitted 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 cē ­sure given forth against the Refut: it wilbe 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 [Page 32] 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 he knew not the signification and use of the words agg [...]los and Apostolos) he bewrayeth his owne, and that in diverse The Doct. discover­eth his owne er­rors, while he offereth to shew his ref. ig­norance. particulars. For (to let passe now the repetition of any thing for­merly spoken for the use of this phrase the angels of the Churches) he had need to have a very favourable interpreter that shal excuse him of errour, in saying, the word Angels absolutely spoken, as a title given to all Ministers sent of God; for, (not to heap up places where it is put for the celestiall Angels) I have before shewed that it is referred to messengers sent of men, lā. 2. 25. 2. And surely that text of Rō. 16. 7. (which saith that Andronicus and Funia were men of note a­mong the Apostles) cannot prove what he affirmeth, viz. that besides Paul and Barnabas, and the 12. Apostles, there were sun­dry other Embassadours sent from God with authoritie Apostoli­call. 3. Neyther can he make good generally his last assertīon, that the word Apostle used with reference to particular churches, signifieth their Bishops. For (besides the places before questioned phil. 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8. 23.) it is apparently used with such reference, 1. Cor. 9. 2. when S. Paul (who was no Bishop over any particular church or Churches) saith, If I be not Apostle unto others, yet doublesse I am un­to you. 4. As for the conclusion which he inferreth, (viz. that in the Scriptures, the word Apostolos, is not used to signifie Messengers sent from men, nether is it to be translated otherwyse then Apostle) I have already shewed (sect. 5.) how much he wrongeth our owne Church go­vernours (besides many other worthy and sound divines) who have taken the word, for any messenger from men, and so transla­ted it. Phil. 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8, 23. Iohn. 13. 16. And 2ly. I have sufficieētly discovered the falshood of his conclusion, having main­teyned against all his exceptions, the Refuters construction of the 2. former places, and the reasons which he propounded in that behalfe. Neyther is it hard to remove that which he objecteth touching the later all that he saith is this, though our Saviour do seeme to speak indefinitely Iohn 13. 16. of the Apostle, (he should say any Mes­senger) and him and that sendeth him; yet it is evident, that he meaneth himself who sent, and the Apostles who were sent. Doth he seeme onely to speak indefinitely? And is it evident that he meaneth himselfe [Page] onely &c? What seeming reason or evident demonstration, hath the Doctor to justifye this? since he hath none, it might be a suffi­cient answere to tell him, (eadem facilitate rejicuur, qu [...]asseritur,) the Refuter maie as easily deny it as he affirme it. But for the Readers satisfaction this I adde. The coherence of the text (both here and elswhere, where the like speach is used as Cap. 15. 20. Math. 10 24.) clearly sheweth, that Christ intendeth to teach his Apostles, that they ought to imitate him in subjecting themselves, both to beare the like afflictions (which is the scope of the other 2. places) and to performe the like services (which he aymeth at in this place) vnto another. To effect this his purpose, he argueth (a genere) in this manner; no servant, disciple, or messenger, is greater then his L. and Mr. or him that sent him. But ye are my servantes disciples & messengers; and I am that Lord & Mr. and he that sendeth you in Embassage. Ergo, you are not greater then I; and consequently, you ought to subject your selves, both to doe and suffer, what ye have seene in me. I could alledge Interpreters old and new, that thus understand the words of Christ, in the generall and largest sense: but it shal not be needful to them, that consider how absurd it is to restreine so generall a sentence, vnto one onely particular. For if I may use the Doct. words, Lib. 1. pag. 226. who shal dare to doe this without very good warrant? The Doct. conclusion be­ing thus removed out of the way, I here again inferre (as the Ref. did once before) that he is deceived & seeketh to deceive by the equivocation of the word apostolos which sometimes in a cōmon and generall sense, is given to any one, that is sent as a messenger, though usually ascribed to those, that were imployed (as were the 12. Apostles) in an high & extraordinary Embassage from Christ.

In the next place Mr. D. labour is to remove this objection, that though it should be admitted, that he was a Bishop, yet it followeth not Sect. 11. ad sect. 15. pa. 70. 71. that he was a di [...]cesan Bishop, like to ours in the substance of his office; & therefore be d [...]ceyveth his reader with the like equivocation in the word Bi­shop, which in the Apostles times (by his owne confession) was cōmon to all Pastors, though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons (ans. p. 136.) This is (saith the Doct.) as if he should have said, I grant that which here you prove; but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not: That the Churches were dioceses & the Bishops diocesan &c: I proved before in the for­mer part; here I am so farre from inferring or proving it that I presupposed it, as sufficiently proved before. Wherevnto, I cannot make him a better an­swer, [Page 34] then to returne him his own a litle before spoken to the Ref. with a litle change. This is written as the most of his 4 volumes, to bleare the eies of the simple; For I cannot think that the D. which vndertooke this course, was so void of judgment, as here he would shewe himself to be, if he wrote syncerely. What is the point (I pray you) which here he had in hand? was it not to prove that the Apo­stles themselves ordeyned Bishops? doth not the title upō the head of every page of this chapter shew it? & what Bishops did they or­deyne in his vnderstanding? were they parish Bishops, or tempora­ry overseers as were the Evangelists? can he justify the caling of our Bishops to be of divine or Apostolicall institution, vnlesse he prove that the Bishops or Pastors, to whom the Apostles committed the care of particular Churches were like to ours for the substance of their office? And, to discend more particularly to the question, which himselfe affirmeth to be debated in all this discourse (pag. 65.) viz. whether Bishops be mentioned in the scriptures vnder this name, the Apostles of the Churches?) is it not to be vnderstood of such Bishops as ours are? If he doe neyther prove this, nor in­tend it, but presuppose it, (or rather take it for granted, without proofe) and if he prove no more (in this discourse, touching Epa­phroditus) The Doct. trifleth, de­ceiveth & shifteth poorely. then that which this objection admitteth (to wit, that he was a Bishop in the generall construction of the word) doth he not shew himselfe to be a trifling deceiver? and what else doth he but bleare the eyes of the simple, when he saith, it is sufficiently proved before? But this is the poore shift (to pay him once again with his owne pag. 71.) which the Doct. usually flieth unto. Whē he hath nothing to justify his assertiōs, he perswadeth himself (such is his judgment) that in the question of Dioceses and diocesan Bi­shops, he hath the upper-hand, (because he hath proved, that there were such Bishops and Churches in the 2. or 3. age after the Apo­stles) and therefore when he is foyled in any of his reasons, that should prove the calling of such Bishops, to be of divine instituti­on, he flieth to this, as his refuge, I have already proved the Chur­ches to be Dioceses and the Bishops Diocesan: and therefore if you grant that the function of Bishops was instituted of God, and that Bishops were ordeyned or approved of the Apostles, then you graunt asmuch as I intend to prove. This then being his best de­fence, the reader may see the Doctors sinceritie, and that he was not wronged by his Refuter when he told him, that he deceiveth [Page 35] his reader by an equivocation in the word Bishop. But in deed, he much wrongeth his refuter, and all them whom he calleth his con­sorts, when (for a requitall) he saith, that they doe deceive their readers, in that they would perswade them, that because the name Episcopus & Pres­byter were confounded, therefore also the offices were confounded. For where doth the refuter or his consorts thus argue? The objection which he before took notice of, and pretendeth in all this discourse to remove, is (as himself setteth it down pag. 65.) that the name E­piscopus in the Apostolicall writings, is given to Presbyters, and that Bishops (such as ours) are not mentioned in the scriptures. For answere whereunto, he said then (and now repeateth it againe) that when Presbyters were called Episcopi, those who afterwards (and now) are called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Chur­ches. This he first indeavoured to prove by that instance of Epa. phroditus Phil. 2. 25; but his fayling therein, is sufficiently disco­vered; now, once againe he attempteth it, let us attend whether his successe be any better.

For (saith he) as I sayd in the sermon; whiles the episcopall power was in Sect. 12. ad sect. 16. pa. 71. 72. the Apostles, and Apostolike men; those who had that power were called the Apostles. And what then? Will he hence conclude, that there­fore Bishops (such as afterwards and now have the name appropri­ated to them) were then called Apostles; doth it not rather follow (much better) on the contrary, that in the Apostles times; the name of Apostles, was given to no other, then to the Apostles themselves, or Apostolike men, which were (as himselfe acknowledgeth pag 72) Evangelists? hath not the Doct. then spun a saire threed, to stran­gle his owne cause? But since he pretendeth to repeat the words of his sermon, why doth he curtoll them? there he said (pag 71) whiles the episcopall power was, for the most parte, in the Apostles & Apostolike mē, those who also had that power, were called Apostles: now he leaveth out these words, for the most part, and also. May I intreat him plainely to informe us, what moved him to make this change? It seemeth, he thought these words (at the first) needfull to be added; (as indeed they were) to conclude his purpose; for unlesse he can make it ap­peare, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presby­ters (which he calleth episcopall power) was in some other besides the Apostles or Apostolike men of Evangelists; and that those also were called Apostles, (or at least the Apostles of the Churches) he cannot inferre his former Assertion, to wit, that those who are [Page] now called Bishops, were then called the Apostles of the Churches. And now (it seemeth) he foresawe, that the testimonies (afterwards alleadged) cannot prove, any other then the very Apostles or E­vangelists (whom he calleth Apostolike men) to beare the name of Apostles, in the apostolicall writings; though his witnesses speak what they can, & he make his best advantage of them. 1. he saith, that Ambrose, by Apostles in some places of scripture (as 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11.) understandeth Bishops: but is the Doctor perswaded, that the spirit of God understandeth such Bishops, as are now questioned, by the word Apostles in those places? If not, why leadeth he his reader into an errour, and perswade him to be­leeve The Doct. leadeth his reader into that error which him selfe dissa­loweth. that which himself dissalloweth? If he be, why urgeth he not those scriptures to prove the maine quaestion? seeing none can be found more pregnant, then these (if that be their meaning) to prove the doctrine of his sermon, viz. that the function of Bishops such as ours, is of divine institution? And why doth he reach the contrary, in saying, as before pag. 70. that the word, Apostoli, absolutely used, is a title of those which were sent of God with authority apostolicall? Moreo­ver can the Doctor be ignorant that Ambrose (in Ephes. 4. 11.) doth also say, that the Evangelists are Deacons? and that Pastors are and may be Lector [...], quilectionibus saginent populum audientem; & that Magistri (so he translateth the word didasca [...]j, Teachers) exor [...]ista sunt, quiain teclesiaipfi compeseunt et verberant inquietos. If therfore the Doct. will have us to believe, that Diocesan Bishops such as ours, were mentioned in the Apostolicall writings, under the name, (not of Bishops but) of Apostles; because Ambrose faith, (Apostoli epis­copi sunt) the Apostles are Bishops; let him freely confesse, that the fun­ctions of Lectors & Exercists (such as the Papists will haue to be se­varall orders of the Clergic) were also established in the Apostles times, & mentioned in their writings (though not under the same names, yet) under the names of Pastors and Teachers (or Masters) Ephes. 4. 11. and that Ambrose testifieth the same in the words a­aforegoing; for if he shall refuse to subscribe to this later inference; he must pardon vs this once, for not imbracing the former.

2. And seing he faith Cyprian, speaketh to the like purpose. lib. 3. epist. 9. Apostoles, ideft episcopos & Prapositos Dominus elegin. The L. chose Apostles, that is, Bishops. Let me againe demaund of Mr Doct. whether he be perswaded that the Apostles whom our Lord did choose (and who after our Saviours ascension chose Deacons, [Page] as Cyprian in the same place testifieth) were Diocesan Bishops, such as ours? If not, howe will Cyprians wordes further his purpose, which is to prove, that in the Apostolicall writings such Bishops are called Apostles? If he be, why is he ashamed (especially seing he hath Bishop Bilson (perpet. govern. pag. 226.) alleadging both Cyprian & Ambrose & Bishop Barlow (serm. in Act 20. 28. fol. 17) urging Cyprian for that purpose to inrowle the 12. Apostles, a­mong other Bishops, which he affirmeth to be ordeyned of God, in his last argument, hereafter following Cap. 6? Nay, why affir­meth he the contrary in this 3. chapt. viz. that some of the Apostles were not properly Bishops. Yea he there acknowledgeth, that it is true­ly affirmed of the rest of the Apostles, Iames excepted; that they had not certeyne Churches assigned to them, and therefore were not Bishops. To conclude, it is apparant to them that (with understanding) read Cyprians whole epistle, that to increase the power and honour of their function who were Bishops in his time, he presseth the pre­heminence, which God gaue to the high-prcifts above the reste (Deut. 17. and Numb. 16.) much more earnestly, then he doth the prerogative of Christs Apostles, above the Deacons. Where­fore the Doctor too much abridgeth the episcopal function of her due antiquitie in deriving the originall thereof (at the highest) fro Christs election of his Apostles. For if this later wil prove the fun­ction of Bishops to be mentioned in the new Testament, under the name of Apostles; then will the former as strongly argue, theire function to be mentioned, in the book of Moses, under the name of that preisthood, which was given to Aaron and his successors.

But drawe wee to an end; at the last (and for the winding up of Sect. 13. adpag. 72. all the Doctor once againe taketh hold of Theodoret, but in vain, seing himself affirmeth (as was before observed sect. 6.) the first Bishops, who were by Theodoret called Apostles, or the Apostles of the Churches; to be no other then Apostles, or Apostolicall men, yt is, Evangelist; for if they were eyther Apostles or Evangelists, then were they not properly Bishops; and if properly Bps, (such as afterwards were chosen out of the Presbyters) the they were not Apostles, nor Evangelists; for otherwise the offices wilbe confoun­ded, which ought to be kept distinct, as shall be shewed more fully in the examination of that which he hath sayd in defence of Iames his Bishoprick (in his 3. chap. sect. 7.) and touching Timothy & Titus in his chap. 4. sect. 11.

As for the question of the time, how long the name of Episco­pus and Presbyter were confounded; and when the Diocesan Bi­shop, had the name Episcopus appropriated to him; it is such as the D. might well have overpassed; save that he cannot indure to be contradicted, in any point of the least moment. The processe of time whereof Theodoret speaketh, when the name of Bishops was appropriated to such, as in his dayes were usually so called, was in the Apostles time, as the Doct. gathereth (not from any words of Theodoret, but) by conference of him with Ierome. But Theo­dorets meaning is best gathered from his owne words, In processe of time (saith he) they left the name Apostle to those that are properly cal­led Apostles; and the name of Bishop, they gave to them that had bene cal­led Apostles. Who seeth not, that in his opinion the name of Bi­shop, was not appropriated to that function, which in his time time en­joyed it, til the name of Apostle was left to those that were proper­ly so called? But the Church-governours were called Apostles for many yeares after their time, as the refuter shewed out of E­piphanius and Isidore. (Answ. pag. 153.) And the Doct. himselfe confesseth that the name of Apostle continued in vse; so long as a­ny Evangelists, or Apostolicall men remayned. But under that Em­perour Antonius Pius (who reigned vntil the yeare 152.) many of them remained alive as Nicephorus testifieth. lib. 3. cap. 22. And as for those Bishops which by Ignatius are distinguished fro Pres­byters, & are said by Ierome to have had their beginning at Alex­andria after S. Mark: the Doctor knoweth well enough, it is easier for us to deny; then for him to prove that they were Diocesan Bi­shops such as ours; neyther is it pertinent to the present question, here to debate that matter: seing we now waite to heare, what can be alleadged from the scriptures to prove, that such Bishops, had their ordination and originall, in the Apostles times, and that with their approbation.

And though he hath insisted long upon this point, being (as he esteemeth) of great consequence: yet his maine assertion (that Bishops such as ours were in the Scriptures, called the Apostles of the Churches) and the instance produced to prove it (to wir, that Epaphroditus the Philippians Apostle, was such a Bishop) doe lie as naked as at the first; having no shredd of Holy writt, nor any peece of reason to cloath them. Wherefore the conclusions that he inferreth upon these premisses (viz that Bishops being then called [Page] Apostoli were superior to other Ministers, who were called Presby­teri & Episcopi; that such Bishops as were superior to other Minis­ters, were in the Apostles times, and mentioned in their writings; and consequently that the offices of such Bishops and of Presby­ters were distinguished, even then when the names were confoun­ded. These are the conclusions, and what are they, but as walles whose foundation is layde in the sande, and dawbed with intem­pered morter; and therefore how glorious soever in shew, yet can they neyther longstand, nor yeild any firme habitation, for our diocesan Prelates to lodge in.

It hath bin already shewed, that (in the judgement of some of the Doctors owne witnesses) Epaphroditus and others called the Sect. 14. Apostles (or Messengers) of the Churches, were Evangelists rather then properly Bishops; now to make the probability of this point the more apparant, I here tender to Mr Doctor, and the indiffe­rent reader these considerations. First, touching Epaphroditus; his imployment in traveile to and fro, agreeth better to the fun­ction of an Evangelist then of a Bishop. 2. and it seemeth he was sent rather for an interim, till Timotheus might be spared to come unto them (Phil. 2. 19. 25.) then to make perpetuall residence there. 3. Moreover there is small likelihood, the cheefe care and oversight of that Church and their affaires, was cōmitted to him by the Apostle; seing he preferreth Timothy therein before him; for of him he saith, vers. 20. 22. I have no man like minded that will natu­rally care for your matters &c. But ye know the proofe of him &c. him ther­fore I hope to send &c. which words doe cast more disgrace upon Epa­phroditus if he were their Bishop then all the titles of commenda­tion given him (verse 25.) can wipe away. For what praise can it be to a Bishop, to be laborious in other places, and faithfull in o­ther services; when in a naturall care for the affaires of his owne Church, he suffreth others to goe before him, and striveth not to excell them? 4. Againe, in this epistle sent (as the Doctor saith) by Epaphrodirus, it is plaine, he singleth out one, whom (though he name not, yet) he honoureth with the title of a naturall or faith­ful yoakfellowe, cap. 4. 3. and beseecheth him to help not onely those weomen, which laboured with the Apostle in the gospel, but Clement also, and the rest of his fellow-labourers. If so much had bene sayd for the singular preheminence of Epaphroditus, the D. doubtlesse would have made his best advantage of it: wherfore me [Page 40] thinkes, it should move him, to make a Quere, why the Apostles should thus single out an other, if the cheife care of that whole Church, and the oversight of all Bishops or Ministers, that there laboured in the Gospell, were the standing right and singular pre­rogative of Epaphroditus. And till the Doctor hath yeilded some stronger probabilities for his assertion, then are yet seene; I nothing doubt, but the indifferent reader, will see and acknowledge, that from the text it selfe, we have more reason to denie, then he hath to give to Epaphroditus the singular superiority of a diocesan Bi­shop, in the Church of Philippi. Secondly concerning those bre­thren, that were sent with Titus to the Corinthians; since the prin­cipall ende of their Embassage, was to stirre up those of Corinthe to make ready their benevolence for the poore Saintes at lerusa­lem (2. Cor. 8. 6. 24. & 9. 3. 5.) it is not likely, that the Apostle Paul would be the author, or approver, of applying in this service any, that were affixed as Bishops, to the selted charge of particular Churches; especially seing there was at that time, store of others that accompanied the Apostle in his traveiles; and might better be spared, as having no setled imployment in any one place. Moreo­ver, it may be probablie (if not necessarily) gathered, from the A­postles description of those men; that they were Evangelistes, rather then Bishops. Of the one he saith (2. Cor. 8. 18. 19.) his praise is in the gospell, throughout all the Churches, and not that onely but he was cho­sen also of the Churches to be (suntcdemos bemoon) our fellow-traveiler, or companion in our journey &c. And of the other (vers. 22.) We have of­tentimes proved him to be diligent (or carefull) in many thinges &c. But there is not one word, that intimateth any bande, whereby they were tied to the selted charge, of any particular Church or Church­es; much less can it be gathered from the Scriptures, that they had the singular preheminence of diocesan Bishops. Wherefore leaving the Doctor to his meditation upon these considerations; let us pro­ceed to some other particulars, urged by him, to justifye the title of his 3. chapter, viz. that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops.

Chapt. 5. Shewing that the supposed Bishopprick of the Apostle Iames, is not supported, but contradicted by the scriptures which the Doct. alleadgeth. And mainteyning the Refuters reasons produced to prove, that he receyved not the episcopall power or function by any ordinatiō, from his fellows Apostles. bandled by the D. (serm. pag. 62. &c. [Page 41] Def. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. and the Res. pag. 131. 132: &c.

THe Doct. 3. argument is thus propounded pag. 65. of his ser­mon, Sect. 1. ad cap. 3. sect. 1. pag. 48. 49. The Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops; and committed the Churoches vnto them Therefore the opiscopall function is (without question) of Apostolicall institution. First, touching the consequence; because the Refuter sayd, it was too nere a neighbour to the proving of idem per i­dim, venlesse by ordination we understand the deputing of persons to that Church; and by institution, the appointing of the calling it self: the Doct. thinketh he did him wrong, to think he would commit so grosse a fault, as to prove the same, by the same; seing he could not but discerne, that he argueth from the ordination of the persons, to the insti­tution of the function. But had not the Refuter (trow ye) reason to doubt of the Doctors meaning? doth he not (serm. pag. 92.) take both these assertions for one and the same? viz. that the episcopall function is of divine institution, and that Bishops were ordeyned of God. For if they be not one, in the D. apprehension; how shall the direct proofe of the latter, be a direct proof of the former? But since he now testifieth that he argueth from the ordination to the institution; I will so vnderstand him. In that which followeth I can­not but commend his honest and plaine dealing; for beholding an oversight in the Ref; (when in this sense, he acknowledgeth the consequence to be good) he himself vndertaketh to lay open the weaknes of it, and confesseth freely that a just exception may be taken against it, viz. that though the Apostles ordeyned the persōs, yet Chirst instituted the function; for that is the judgment of ma­ny of the Fathers; and among the rest of Cyprian, who (Lib. 3. ep. 9.) saith, that our L. himself ordeyned Apostles, that is to say, Bi­shops. Whereto I say, that we are beholding to the Doct. that teacheth us to impugne his owne argument and now, since (by his owne confession) the consequence is not good, he must be behold­ing to us if we permit it to passe without check; for in deed, it is a cleare case, that the ordination of persons, cannot prove the fun­ction it self to be instituted of them, that give the persons their ordination. And here by the way, the reader may see how lightly the D. esteemeth the judgment of the Fathers in this very question wherin he relieth most upō their testimonie. For if al those Fathers (which affirm the Bps to be the Apostles successors; & that the two degrees of Bps or Presbyters, doe answer to the degrees of the A­postles & 72 disciples &c.) doe hold the episcopall functiō to be [Page 42] Christs owne ordinance; (as here he confesseth) and if they that thus teach be so many, so ancient, vnsuspected and approved; that it cannot be denied, but the calling and superiority of Bishops, togither with the inferiour degree of Presbyters, is of Christs owne institution (as he con­cludeth lib. 3. p. 32.) how cōmeth it to passe, that the Doctor hath the forehead eo deny it, and mainteyne so stifly as he doth; that The Doct. contradict­eth him­selfe. the episcopall function was instituted by the Apostles? Thinketh he to salve this difference by saying as he he doth that of this matter he will not contend; when as yet he contendeth very earnestly to make good his assertion? yea he boasteth (lib. 3. pag. 24.) that he hath with such evidence demōstrated the calling of Bishops de­scribed in his sermon to be of Apostolicall institution; as he is wel assured, his Refuter with all his partakers, will never be able sound­ly & substācially to confute. Perhaps his best evidēce is yet behind; for hitherto we have seene nothing that carrieth any such weight with it, that the Refuter should neede to call for any help of his partakers to remove it; let us therefore attend on the proofe of his Antecedent, which he vndertaketh to effect, by shewing the time when, the places where, and the persons whome, the Apostles ord: yned Bishops.

Concerning the time, the Doctor putteth a difference, between Sect. 2. ad sect. 2. p3. 49. 50. the Church at Ierusalem and the rest. For there, because shortly after Christs passion, a great nomber were converted to the faith; and because it was the Mother-Church, vnto which the Christians from all partes, were afterwards to have recourse: the Apostles, before their dispersion, (statim post passionem Domini) ordeyned Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem. From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt. Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē, straight­wayes after Christs passion. Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them. Hereat the Doctor is displea­sed, because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest; for his argument (as he saith) is an induction standing thus. The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches (which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate) Therefore they ordeyned Bishops. He addeth, that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem, because they ordeyned Iames the iust, and Symon the sonne of Cleophas, Bi­shops of Ierusalem;) the former he proveth here, the other afterwards according to the order of the time.

If the D. meaning (when he penned his sermon) was to argue, as he now saith, no merveile, if his Refuter fayled in discerning his [Page 43] Analysis, his genesis being so disordered and confused. For the explayning and proving the former antecedent, he proposeth (as appeareth in this sect. & serm. p. 65) these three things to be shew­ed, 1. the time when. 2. the places where. 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops. He beginneth with the time, when the first Bishop was ordeyned; and withall declareth the place and person: Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops. Now he telleth us, his whole reasoning is one induction, which standeth in an enu­meration of places or Churches. And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme, to justify that which is affir­med for the places. As for the discourse of the time, it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō; unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place. For in order of time Evodias at An­tioch, Linus at Rome, and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus; if the D. be not deceived in his computation, that he delivereth. serm: pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is; his argumen­tations are as Oracles, or rather riddles. that require an other Oe­dipus (rather then such an one as his refut: is) to discover the right order of disposing thē. For who (besides himself) would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned; & distinguished his first probatiō, frō the ensuing prosyllogism, so as he hath done.

But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumera­tion, wherein he coupleth togither, the persons with the places. Sect. 3. First touching Iames (whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles, very shortly after the Lordes passion;) before he prove the truth of his assertion, he yeeldeth two reasons, why that Church had a Bishop, assigned unto it, lōg before any other Church. 1. because a great number, were within a short time converted to the faith. 2. because it was the Mother-Church; unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse. Touching the former, I grant, the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church, within so short a time; but that this was any reason to move the Apostles, to ordeyne them a Bishop, the Doctors bare word in affirming it; is too bare a proofe, to perswade us to enterteyne it; especially, seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches, as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem, when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Super­intendent. [Page 44] For there are (as he knoweth well enough) in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover, if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bi­shop; then the time of Iames his ordination was after their con­version, and not (as elswhere he saith) īmediately after Christs passion. Now touching the later; I confesse also, that Ierusalem was the Mother-church, from which (in some respect) all other Churches sprung. For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem (Isa. 2. 3) & that by Christs own appointmt, (Luc. 24. 47) and from thence, the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles, & others, which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof. Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. & 11. 19. 20. & cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we, but that many Christians, upon spe­ciall occasions had recourse thither. (Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27.) but that the Christians of any other Church (as Samaria or Caesarea &c) were bound to make repaire thither, as unto their Mother-church; to whose jurisdiction they were subject, as childrē to their Mother, there is no syllable of scripture to perswade; much lesse to beleeve, that the Christians of all parts, were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church. For this asserti­on, hath no evidence, eyther of Scripture or ancient Father, to countenance it; let them therefore beleeve it that list; we owe the Doct. no such obedience. But say, there were a truth in this, which he assumeth without proofl; how shall it stand for a reason, to move the Apostles, to commit the care of this Church, unto a Diocesan Bishop? Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea, of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope? If by the Christans of all parts, he meane, of all other Churches in the world; as if seemeth he doth, since afterwardes he calleth that Church, the Mother Church of Christendome, (pag. 60. of this def.) for why should any of the daughter churches, be exempted from the obedience of their Mother, when others (yea the eldest, if any at all) remayn­ned under her government? But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation (the charge whereof, he saith was as­signed to Iames, pag. 52.) it must be the Sea (if of a Bishop then) of a nationall, and not a Diocesan Prelate. For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish, because it was intended, that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest, so) all the Christians of citie and country, should be under the Bishop [Page 45] of Ierusalem; (as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89) then, for the same reason, neyther was that Church a Diocese, or a province; but a nationall Church, as was the church, over which the High-preist was set, under the law. Lastly, to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded, viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians; and partly for the great recourse thither, of unbeleeving Iewes (as well as of beleevers) out of all partes; it was meet that some one of the Apostles, should there abide to feed the converted flock, and to labour the conversion of others: howe can this argue a necessitie, of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place? but of this more hereafter.

His testimonies are to be examined, whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect. 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles. He be­ginneth with Ierome; and to make him the more gracious, with the Disciplinarians, he saith, it is that Ierome, on whose onely au­thoritie almost they rely in this cause; the like words he hath p. 61 following, and lib. 3. pag. 45. and 58; but this is, (I say not, al­most but) altogither a malicious slander. For he is not ignorant, that his refuter every where calleth for proofes from the scripture, as others have done before him, & that his testimonie is then one­ly regarded of them, when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth. But it well appeareth by his citing Ierome so oft in his sermon (40. times at least, well nigh twice as oft as he alleadgeth any other) that he relyeth very much on his authoritie. To him here he addeth Eusebius, Epiphanius, & some others; whose testi­monie in his conceit, should suffice to perswade for such a matter, as this now in question. But his Refuters exception is just, such a ioynt act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church (as the ordeyning of Iames to the episcopall charge of Ierusalem) how should it be proved but by the scripture? and who could better testify it, then the Evangelist Luke, who wrote the historie of their actes? If then he hath not recorded it, it is a strong presumption, he was never Bishop there. The Doct. replyeth saying, as though the Apostles did nothing, but what is recorded in the Actes; and as though we should deny credit, to the ancientest writers, & such as he of best credit, reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the actes. As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses, I overpass that consideration to sect. 15. &c. I am here to advertise the Rea­der, the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought, to releeve the weaknes of his argument. For unlesse he can make sure and certein [Page 46] Proof of this (among other partes of his induction) that S. Iames was ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem; how shall he ju­stify his conclusion before set down, to wit, that the episcopal fun­ction is without quaestion of apostolicall institution? And howe shall certeine and sure proofe of Iames his ordination to the Bi­shoprick of Ierusalem be made from such witnesses, as the Doctor hath produced? Are not the canonicall writings of the newe testa­ment, (penned partly by the Apostles, and partly by Evangelists, which were their companions) best able to testify, what function Iames and other faithfull servants of Christ did beare and exercise, in the Churches, that injoyed their presence? We find many things recorded by Luke, concerning the Ministerie of Paul and Barna­bas, Philip and others, by whose labours the kingdome of Christ was inlarged. Acts 9. 15. 27. & 13. 2. 3. & 14. 14. & 15. 22. 31. & 8. 5. 40. &. 21. 8.) Neyther are the scriptures silent touching Iames and his imployment at Ierusalem, (Act. 1. 13. & 15. 13. & 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9. & 2. 9) why then should this ordinatiō of Iames to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church, be wholly bu­ried in silence, if it had bene the joynt-act of the Apostles, before their dispersion, and an act of that moment, wherein they gave the first president of a new function of greatest use & highest place, for all churches in succeeding ages? Was it not as worthy & more necessarie to be recorded, then the first institution of the Deacons office. Act. 6. 2. 6? Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption, that Iames never had any such ordination; seing there are no footsteps of it, in the Apostolical writings? and seing the Doctors defense is so slight, as it is; mark it I pray; first, he asketh whether the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Acts; a frivolous question. No man denyeth, that as Christ did many things which are not written, (Ioh. 20. 30. & 21. 25) so al­so did his Apostles, but will he argue thus, They did something not recorded in the scriptures, Ergo, they did this, now in questi­on? How doth the Doct. forget himselfe, thus to open so wide a dore unto the Papists, to bring in all their superstitions under the name of vnwritten traditions? Can he give us any one instance, of an Apostolicall ordināce (or of any Apostolike actiō, of like momēt and necessarie use for all Churches) that is not mentioned in their writings; neyther can be proved otherwise, then by the stories & and writings of the Fathers?

And this may serve for answere also unto his second question, whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers &c. re­porting with one consent a matter of fact, not registred in the acts? In some matters of fact, credit is not to be denied to their report (as that Iames the Iust was martyred at Ierusalem; and that Mark the Evangelist preached the gospel at Aleandria) but there are ma­ny matters of fact, testified by many ancients (and those of the best credit as the D. speaketh) which notwithstāding, many worthy mē (nothing inferior to the Doctor) esteem worthy of no credit. I wil instance only in Peters Bishoprick first at Antioch & then at Rome, which is contended for, not onely by Papists, but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacie; let the testimonies be wel weigh­ed, which are brought for the maintenance of Peters episcopall chaire in both Churches (Rome especially) even by Bishop Bilson (perpet. govern. pag. 227. 262. and 264) and they wilbe found to be neyther in number nor in credit, inferiour to those that the D. alleadgeth for Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalē: yet as many other men of singular learning & pietie doe deny credit to their report: so the Doctor also, (as one nothing moved, eyther with the au­thoritie of those fathers, or with the judgement of his great Mr that gave him so good satisfaction in the studying of this contro­versy) utterly secludeth the Apostle Peter, from the office of a Bi­shop, in any of those Churches, as we may see, serm. pag. 81. 82. and in the 7. section of cap. 3. def.

If the Doctor shall say, he hath reason to beleeve the testimony Sect. 5. of the Fathers for the one, and to denie credit vnto them in the o­ther, know he, that we haue reason also to withdrawe approbation from this which he alloweth. But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question. Although (saith he) the acte of making Iames Bishop, be not set downe in the Actes; yet the stori [...] so speaketh of his continu­ance at Ierusalem (Acts. 15. & 21.) of his assistance of presbyters, & of his presidencie in that Councill where Peter and Paul were present; that it may appear, their testimony is true, & agreable to the scriptures, who have reported him to be Bishop there. To the same purpose, afterwards (sect. 9. pag. 61,) he saith. That the same scriptures (togither with Gal. 1. & 2.) doe shew Iames his continuance as Ierusalē, as the Superintendent of that Church, not for a short time, but for 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 [Page 49] in Galath. 1? S. Paul there testifieth that imediately upon his cō ­version, 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 [Page 50] 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. Iames) we account these particulars. 1. that the Iewes had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations; 2. that the church of Ierusalem was in some respect (as is before shew­ed sect. 3.) the Mother-church of Christendome. 3. that Iames was an Apostle principally to the Iewes. 4. and that among the Iewes, those of Ierusalem, and the country round about, did more specially belong vnto his oversight, whiles Peter and Iohn (who were also Apostles, for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9.) were im­ployed in other places. 5. lastly, that during his presidency (in the Councell Acts 15.) he was superiour in order, but not in degree, vnto the rest of the Apostles. But among things more doubtfull, besides the question it selfe of Iames his election or assignement to the function of a Bishop at Ierusalem) I reckon these positions. 1. that a presidencie in honour, or preheminence in order (such as he speaketh of) is intimated by S. Paul, in setting Iames before Pe­ter and Iohn. Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him, in respect of his episcopall charge at Ierusalem. 3. and that in the same respect, he had the presidencie in the councell Act. 15. 4. that [Page 51] he was alwayes (after the time of his supposed election to his Bi­shoprick) superiour in order to the rest of the Apostles, when and whiles they remayned at Ierusalem. 5. that this continuance of that superioritie in him, appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this su­periority or precedence, did growe from the prerogatives, which that Church and people had above others. To these particulars, if the Doctor will have us to give our free assent; he must first inform us, by what authoritie (or consequence of reason) he is ledd to ap­prehend a truth in every of them; and remove the probabilities, which doe incline our judgments to the contrary.

For touching Gal. 2. are not the wordes of the Apostle (ver. 7. Sect. 7. 8.) affirming, that the gospel of the uncircumcision was commit­ted unto Peter) much more plaine for his preheminence above Iames and Iohn in the Apostleship of the Iewes, then the naming of Iames before them (vers. 9. can be) for his primacie above all his fellowe-Apostles. Is it not then, much more frivolous and ri­diculous in the Doctor to extract for Iames a preheminence in ho­nour above Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, from that slender prioritie which Paul giveth him in naming him first; then it is in Bellarmine to ascribe vnto Peter a preheminent dignitie above the rest, because he is usually named in the first place? Why therfore should not that did up the Doctors mouth, that hath dammed up Bellarmines?) Sidrac inter adolescentes qui in ignem coniecti sunt, primus numeratur; neque tamen Sidrac socijs suis prefuit. Sutclif. de Pont. lib. 2. p. 105. Quando multi nominantur, necesse est aliquem primum nominari &c. Gravissime Erasmus (Annot. in Math. 10.) ex ordine recensionis, non ef­ficaciter intelligitur, quis cui sit preferendus. Whit. de pont. p. 27. l. Adde we harevnto that which is of all observed in their answere to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not alwayes kept. Peter which is first placed, Mat. 10. 2. Marc. 3. 16. Luc. 16. 14. Act. 1. 13. is set in the last place. 1. Cor. 1. 12. & 3. 22. & 9. 5. And Iames here first named, (being one of the Lords brethren) cōmeth after the greater part of the Apostles. 1. Cor. 9. 5. when he saith, the o­ther Apostles and brethren of the Lord & Cephas. Levissimum igi­tur argumentum hoc ordinis est, (as Mr Whit. saith, pag. 274.

2. And if no preheminence can soundly be conveyed to Iames from this precedence in nomination; is not the D. strangely delu­ded when he taketh it for a sure truth, that the Apostle intended, (by naming him in the first place) to teach us, not onely that he [Page 52] had a prerogative of honor above the rest of the Apostles; but al­so that the same did arise from his episcopall charge at Ierusalem? for is there any one word in the whole epistle, that giveth the least intimation, of any such difference betweene him & Peter & Iohn, as the Doctor fancieth, when he maketh him properly a Bishop for some; and them Apostles for others of the circumcision? Doth it not rather appeare (by the right hands of fellowship &c. mencio­ned verse 9.) that Imaes exercised among the Iewes the same (and no other) Ministery, that Peter and Iohn did; and that they joynt­ly were Apostles for the Iewes; like as Paul and Barnabas were for the Gentiles?

3. And here by the way observe, that this distribution of persons or places where these were, (after this agreement) to exercise their Apostolicall function, bred no inequalitie, or disparitie betwixt them, in precedence or honour. For if the ancient prerogatives of the Iewes, gave any preferment to their Apostles above those, by whom God wrought among the Gentiles (as the Do. supposeth) then Paul was in this respect inferiour to the other; but the whole scope of his reasoning, tendeth to mainteyne the contrarie; viz. that as elswhere he faith, he was meden busterekenai) in nothing in­feriour to the very cheife Apostles. 2. Cor. 11. 5. & 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the Iewes in generall, gave not to Peter (who had the Apostleship of the circumcision) any preheminence above Paul, the Apostle & Teacher of the Gentiles: how should Peter be­come inferior unto Iames, by reason of any preheminence, which the Church at Ierusalem, might challenge above other Christian Churches?

Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge, Iames his pre­sidencie Sect. 8. to be probably gathered from the text, because he con­cludeth the disputation, adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assemblie. vers. 19. 20. & 28. 29.) so I can by no meanes allowe this presidencie to growe unto him, as his right in regard of his e­piscopall charge in that Church, much lesse can we take the presi­dencie for a sufficient proofe of his Bishoprick there; although the Doctor should tell us tentimes, that it proveth it. For what strings can knit the joyntes of this argument togither? Iames was presi­dent or Moderator in the Synode at Ierusalem. Act. 15. Therfore he was the Bishop of that Church. Was S. Paul the Bishop of E­phesus, because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Actes 20. [Page 53] 28. pag. 2. he fate as president in the Convocation, when the Cler­gie of Ephesus, were by his call, come togither? Or was Peter Iames his predecessor in the Bishoprick of Ierusalem, because he was pre­sident in the choise of Matthias, to succeed in the roome of Iudas Act. 1. 15? Surgit Petrus non Iacobus, vt is cui presidentia discipulorum cōmissa erat. Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes &c. Whit. de pout. pag. 288.

2. But to come to that which he saith doth appeare Act. 15. viz. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick, was superior in order to the rest of the Apostles, when and whiles they were at Ierusalem.) May I aske, with what eyes he discerned in that text, the appearance of this which he affirmeth? In the Embassage which was sent from Antioch to Ierusalem, was there any special respect had vnto Iames above the rest of the Apostles? Or in their interteynment, is there any intimation, of any singular act performed by him, that might any way argue any such preheminence in him? Doth not the text rather, (in the whole tenour thereof) import the contrary? For, to whom were Paul and Barnabas sent? to the Apostles and Elders saith the text, Act. 15. 2. to whom did they deliver their Embas­sage? to the Apostles and Elders and whole Church, which recei­ved them, saith the text. verse 4. who summoned the Assembly, or appointed the time, or place of their meeting? did Iames? the text saith not so; all the record is, that the Apostles and Elders came togither, to consider of the matter. vers. 6. There is no likeli­hood therfore, that Iames had any standing preheminence among the Apostles, before his presidencie in this Synode. And what presumption can he produce frō this text, or any part of the whole storie to shewe that he remayned superiour unto his fellowe Apo­stles, after that meeting was ended? not a syllable out of any text. Wherefore in urging this place to prove, a continued superioritie in order over the rest of the Apostles; seing he is as one, who seek­eth to fetch water not fyer, out of a punish stone, he discovereth The Doct. expumice aquam po­stulat. his extreame povertie in this case: And (which is worse) injurious­ly maketh the Holy Ghost the authour of his owne fond conceits. 3. For is it not a foolish conceit (to speak no worse of it) to īmagin that the function or charge of a Bishop, cast upon Iames, being an Apostle could give him more honour, then he received of Christ by his Apostolicall office? Doth not this overturne that difference of dignitie and degree, which God hath set in his Church, among [Page 54] the Ministers of his word and sacraments, giving the first and high­est place (1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11.) unto his Apostles; and subjecting unto them all other functions, aswell of Bishops and Pa­stors of Teachers, as Prophets and Evangelists? And doth it not strongly favour of their madnes, (see Doct. Reynolds conference with Hart, cap. 2. divis. 3. pag. 119. & cap. 3. divis. 1. pag. 126) who acknowledging the Apostles to be all equall in the power & honour of the Apostleship; doe yet ascribe unto Peter a prehemi­nence above the rest, in regard of pastorall or episcopall jurisdicti­on?

But to proceed on to the last place; Act. 21. 18. &c. what is there Sect. 9. in it to be found, that can give the Doctor any releife? when Paul came Ierusalem and went in unto Iames, he found the Elders present with him, verse 18. he saluted, (not Iames alone, but) all that were present; and declared what things God had wrought a­mong the Gentiles by his Ministerie, vers. 19. & upon the hearing thereof, they all glorified God, and sayd, Thou seest brother, how many thowsands of Iewes there are which beleeve &c. ver. 20-25. From hence the Doct. rightly collecteth (I grant) that Iames had the assistance of the presbyters (as he saith pag. 52.) in that coun­sell and advice, which was given to Paul for the purifying of him­self and shaving of his head &c. vers. 23. 24. But if he shall pro­ceed from this assistance of Presbyters, to inferre that therefore Iames was their Diocesan Bishop: First I wil make so bold as to de­ny the consequence; for why should not Iames his Apostolicall fun­ction inable him, to hold a presidencie, or cheife place amongst the Presbyters of Ierusalem, during the time of his aboad there? we heard before, that Pauls presidencie, in the assembly of the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 17. &c, did not make him their Diocesan Bi­shop. Who doubteth (see Iunius his Animadvers. in Bellarm. Cōt. 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. not. 25.) but that wheresoever any Apostle or E­vangelist made stay for a time; there he was acknowledged, (in re­gard of his singular gifts, and for the prerogative of his calling & authoritie) worthy to haue the oversight or presidencie, before the rest of his fellow labourers? The presidencie therfore which Iames had in the assembly of Elders at Ierusalem, proveth not, that he was their diocesan Bishop, in office or preheminence like to one of ours. 2. Nay rather, we may (upon better grounds) conclude the contrary; for it is cleare, by the words of the text aforesayd, that [Page 55] Iames neither spake nor did any thing in that assembly, of his own head, or by his sole authoritie. The Elders were joyntly interessed with him, both in receiving frō Paul, the report of things wrought by his Ministrie; and in giving him advice, howe to remove the offence, which the beleeving lewes had conceived against him. But it is otherwise with our Bishops; in their Diocesan government. They have no such assistance of Elders, by whose advice and assent their sentēces are ratified: neitther doe they consult with the rectors of their parishes, for the ordering of any ecclesiasticall causes; but impose their command on them to execute their decrees. S. Iames therfore, (though he were an Apostle yet) exercised not that preemi nēt authoritie over the presbyters at Ierusalē, which our dioces. Pre­lates doe over their presbyters; and consequently, he was not a Di­ocesan Bishop, in function & preheminent superioritie like to one of ours.

Thus the Reader may see by speciall viewe taken of the pla­ces, Sect. 10. ad sect. 4. pa. 51. 52. also. which the Doctor alleadgeth for the episcopall superintenden­cie of Iames, over the presbyters and Church at Ierusalē; that there is no warrant from the scripture, to convey to him any such functi­on. Now to lay them togither, let us try if they will affoard him any better proofe, for that 30. yeares continuance, which he giveth unto Iames, in his Superintendencie of that Church. When Paul went to Ierusalem 3. yeares after his conversion, to visite Peter, there he found Iames the Lords brother, Gal. 1. 18. 19. he was present also and President in the Councell held at Ierusalem. Act. 15. (which was the very time that he mencioneth Gal. 2. 1. as ma­ny divines of best note doe judge.) Againe at Pauls last comming to Ierusalem, Act. 21. (about the yeare of Christ 56. and 7. yeares before Iames his death) he was there found among the Elders of that Church. In a word therefore, this is all that those scriptures doe testify for the Doctor; viz. that in 30. yeares space Paul com­ming 3. or 4. times to Ierusalem, found Iames the L. brother there. Is he not then strangely besotted with prejudice, that can perswade himselfe, that these scriptures doe shewe his continuall residence at Ierusalem, as the superintendent of that Church for the space of 30. yeares, that is, from Christs passion till his owne dying day? What hindreth, (save onely a prejudiciall conceit, of his supposed Bishoprick there) but he might think; that (like as Paul and Pe­ter did, so also) Iames might spend many yeares in other places; [Page 56] and yet have recourse thither, (as they also had) so long as the Iewish policie remayned in force? Was he not ordeyned of Christ to the office of an Apostle, aswell as the rest, with an ample commission and charge, to goe forth into all the worlde, beginning at Ierusalem & so proceeding throughout all Iudea and Samaria, and vnto the vtmost partes of the earth &c? Mark. 16. 15. Math. 28. 19. Luke 24. 47. & Acts. 1. 8. and doth not Mark testify of all without exception (vers. 20.) that (as Christ had commaunded them, so) they went forth and preached every where? I, but the Doctor will here perhaps, urge that (which he hath alleadged sect. 4. p. 51. 52.) though our Saviour bad his Apostles to goe into all the World, yet his mea­ning was not that every one should traverse the whole world, for great incon­venience disorder and confusion would have sollowed thereof. Therefore the Apostles by the direction of the Holy Ghost, before their dispersion from Ie­rusalem, divided the worlde among themselves in such sort, that one beinge assigned to one part and another to an other, every man walked within his owne compasse, and did not usually build vpon the foundation of an other &c. 2. Cor. 10. 13.-16. Now as they were carefull to provide for other partes of the world; so would they not all forsake Iewrie and Ierusalem, but assigne one of their company to take charge thereof, who though he were an Apostle yet being as­signed to the peculiar church of one nation, might not vnfitly be called (as he was in deed) the Bishop therof. And hence is it, that although the Apostles were commaunded to goe into all the worlde, yet Iames stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death. Loe here the Doctors wordes, but doe ye not see, that his conclusion weakneth the credit of S. Markes testimony, in like sort, as he doth elswhere (pag. 116.) one speach of Ieromes. viz. that vntill factions arose in the Church (which occasioned the bring­ing in of Bishops) the Churches were governed by the cōmon councell of pres­byters. This, saith he, is vnture, in respect of the Church of Ierusalem; which had Iames for her Bishop, before any Presbyters were there ordeyned. So albeit S. Mark saith, that the Apostles went forth (as Christ commaunded them) and preached every where: yet the Doctor saith in effecte, It is vntrue, in respect of Iames, for though he li­ved. 30. yeares after Christ, yet he went not forth to preach a­broade, but stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death. But whether Ie­rome doe contradict himselfe or not, (for how trulie the Doctor so supposeth, we are not now to examine:) his testimony is too weak to exempt Iames from partaking with the rest, in that which Mark affirmeth of all without exception. And it is no small wrong [Page 57] both to Iames & to his fellow-Apostles; to make them all guilty of transgressing Christs command, the one in neglecting, & the other in procuring the neglect of the Apostolike functiō. in the principall work thereof: to wit, in traveyling to make disciples, and to con­stitute Churches among such as had not yet received the faith. Sect. 11.

True it is, that every one was not to traverse the whole world; this was not imposed on every one of the Apostles severally but on all joyntly: and they were by the spirit of God directed where to imploy their labours, Notwithstanding, it is no true vision but a deceiptful dreame of the Doctors owne hart, to īmagin, that the Apostles before their dispersion frō Ierusalem, by the holy Ghosts direction, divided the world among themselves, as it were into. 12. provinces, or rather Patriarch-shipps in such sort that none entred into the line or circuit of an other. For had this been so, then Pe­ter was too blame, to stay at Ierusalem with Iames, when the rest were gone into other parts, Gal. 1. 18. 19. and to make so many yeares residence as he did in Iudea, Acts. 19. 32-43. & 10. 23-48. and 11. 2. and 12. 3. 2. And by what right could Paul attempt the planting of the Gospel in so many countries, & so far distāt one frō an other, as he did; (Act. 26. 18. & 11. 25. 26. & 13. 2. with 14. 26. & chapters following) if all the world had ben divided vnto the 12. before their departure from Ierusalem? 3. Or why should Paul & Barnabas be joyned in one cōmission, as joynt traveilers in the same line, (Act. 13. 2.) if all the rest had a severall circuit, allotted to each a part? 4. Againe, doth not that agreement, Gal. 2. 9. (when a distribution, not of Countries, but of people (Iewes and Gentiles) was made betwene Paul and Barnabas; and those 3. pil­lars Iames, Peter, and Iohn) argue very probablie, that there was no such distribution of the vniversall world into severall partes (as the Doctor imagineth) formerly ratified by the holy Ghost? 5. Lastly it is apparant, that Paul, (for the coast into which he tra­veiled) had not his whole compasse allotted him at once, but was guided by speciall direction from one place to an other. Act. 13. 2. 4. & 16. 6.-10. & 18. 9. 11. & 19. 21. And as in his own af­fection, he alwayes strived to preach the gospell, where Christ was not named, least he should build upon an other mans foundation (Rom. 15. 19, 20.) so he had from time, to time, the measure of his line, distributed unto him of God. 2. Corinth. 10. 13. Wherefore as I freely acknowledge, that every one walked within [Page 58] the compasse of his owne measure allotted to him by God: so I flatly deny, that there was any such generall division of the world, made at once. And concerning Iames, though (for the reasons be­fore named) I perswade my selfe, he spent not all his dayes in Ie­rusalem; yet I graunt he had as good warrant, for the stay, which he made there, and the recourse he had thither, as any the rest of the Apostles had, for their traveile into more remote parts of the world: to wit, the direction of the holy Ghost, and not an assign­ment from his fellow-Apostles onely. But as the direction or as­signement which Paul had, to publish the gospell in Macedonia, or at Corinthe (Act. 16. 10. & 18, 9.) made him not the Bishop of those people, or countries; neyther did Peters portion of the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia &c. 1. Pet. 1. 1.) argue him to be their Bishop: so in like manner, though I should graunt, that Iames his circuite was for the most part (or al­togither if the D. will) inclosed within the countries of Iudea, Ga­lilee and Samaria: yet this limitation doth not prove him to be, the provinciall or natonall Bishop of those Churches. The D. there­fore buildeth upon that weak and sandy foundation of his own (or other mens) fancie, in affirming, that he might be fitly called, and was in deed the Bishop of that one nation.

And he is no lesse deceived, in avouching, that the charge of that one Church or nation, was peculiarly allotted vnto him, īmediately after Sect. 12. Christs passion; or at least about the time of their generall dispersion from Ie­rusalem: For, besides that, these two cannot stand togither, (there being a good space of time betwixt them, (as many appeare Act 1. 14. and 9, 27. and 11, 1. and 12, 2, 3.) he that deligenly obser­veth the tenour of S. Lukes storie, touching the state and govern­ment of the Church at Ierusalem shall meet with many presumpti­ons, which stronglie argue, that for many yeares after Christs pas­sion Iames had no such prerogative; eyther of superioritie in or­der, above his fellowe Apostles; or of Superintendencie over the presbyters and people of that Church, as is thought to be annex­ed to his episcopall function.

The first act of note after Christes ascension, was the choyse of Matthias into the roome of Iudas; wherein the text sheweth, that Peter stood up in the middest of the Disciples and proposed the matter to the Ass [...]mblie. Acts. 1. 15. 26. whence as the Fathers (Chrysostome & Oecumen: in Actes 1.) doe gather, so our owne [Page 59] writers doe acknowledge, that Peter and not Iames had the presi­dencie (Whitak: de Pont. pa. 288. Chamier de Oecum: pont. p. 431. Reynold Conf. cap. 4. Divis. 1.) 2. In like manner, on the day of Pentecost, after they had all received the Holy Ghoste; Peter standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice, (Acts. 2. 14.) and as the mouth of all, answered for all (see Chrysost: Oecum: & Marlorat: on the place) to wype away that infamous slander of drunkennesse wherewith they were all charged. At which time he also poured forth those gracious words of reprehension and exhor­tation, which gayned in that day 3000 soules to God, Act. 2. 22-41. 3. Within a while after, the taking a new occasion to preach (Act. 3. 12.) had such successe, that many of his hearers imbra­ced the faith, (cap. 4. 4.) And this he did, when Iohn was in com­panie with him, (cap. 3. 1. 4. 11.) like as afterwards, when they both stood as prisoners, before the rulers of the Iewes; he so clear­ly maynteined their innocencie, that they were both set at libertie (cap. 4. 8. 21. 4. Likewise, when the Apostles were (all at once) brought into question, for their preaching Christ; Peter (as the prolocutor or cheife-speaker) maketh the apologie for himselfe & the rest. (cap. 5. 18. 27. 29.) 5. Moreover, when Ananias & Sa­phyra kept back part of the price of the possession sold, and layd downe the remaynder at the Apostles feet; their lying and dissimu­lation, was discovered, and punished, not by Iames, but by Peter: for at his word, they both fell downe dead, to the great terrour of all that heard the report thereof (cap. 5. 3-10.) If therefore this corporall punishment stood then in place of excommunicati­on (as some affirme. See D. Dove, Def of Church-govern. pag. 21.) it will follow that (as before in preaching; so here also) in censuring of offenders, w ^ch is deemed one principall part of episcopal prehe­minēce) Peter as yet caried a greater stroke, thē Iames or any other the Apostles, in the Church at Ierusalem. 6. Yea he was had in so high estimatiō, or rather admiratiō among the multitude, for ma­ny other miracles wrought by his hād, y ^t they brought their sick, & layd them down in the streetes, that at least, his shadow when he passed by, might shadow some of them. cap. 5. 15. 7. Adde here­unto his r [...]sidence at Ierusalem, [...]o well knowne abroad, that Paul 3 yeares after his conversion, came thither of purpose to visite Pe­ter, and found him there, Gal. 1. 17. 19. and though after this, he spent some time in other parts of Iudea, as at Li [...]da, Ioppa & Ce­sarea, [Page 60] in every place winning many to the faith (cap. 9. 32. 35. 42. & 10. 24. 44.) yet he returned back to Ierusalem (cap. 11. 2.) and not long after, was there cast into prison, cap. 12. 3. 5. Neyther did this drive him (after his deliverāce thereout) wholly to forsake Ierusalem: for though for a time he went into an other place (cap. 12. 17.) yet repaired he thither againe; and was there, before the Synode that determined that controversy mentioned chapt. 15. 7. Wherfore until this time (which was about 18. yeares after Christs passion; see D. Whitak. de pont. pag. 345) if any of the Apostles had any standing preheminence above the rest, eyther in the order­ing of their meetings, or in the government of the Church of Ieru­salem; we haue better warrant to give it unto Peter; then the Do▪ can alleadge for Iames or any other. So that if we should take (as the D. doth) this superioritie or superintendencie for a sufficient proofe of an episcopall function; wee might hence inferre that Pe­ter had it (and not Iames) at least for 12. yeares after Christs passi­sion, (see Doct. Whitak. vbi supra pag. 341) that is, till the second yeare of Claudius the Emperour. But I purpose not to inforce any such conclusion; it shall suffice from the former premisses to con­clude, that S. Lukes storie contradicteth their testimonie, which report Iames to be ordeyned by the Apostles (Peter Iames & Iohn) Bishop of Ierusalem, imediately after Christs passion. For it were absurd to think, that Peter should consecrate him to the office of a Bishop in that Church, and reteyne in his owne hands (for so ma­ny yeares after such consecration) the cheefe power and prehemi­nence, that is supposed to belong to that function. Wherefore, as the Refuter had reason to except against the Doctors evidence first alleadged, being altogither humane & not divine: so I doubt not, but himselfe will see, (if he wink not too hard) that he abuseth the scriptures, which he cited to grace their testimonie on whom he principally relieth.

But to (passe forwards) let us now see what successe the D. hath Sect. 13. ad sect. 4. pag. 31. in answering the rest of the refuters exceptions. And first that ob­jectiō which himselfe setteth downe sect. 4. p. 51. in this manner,

If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem; then they gave him the episcopall power. But they gave him no power, which the Lord had not before invested in his person, as an Apostle. Therefore they did not or­deyne him Bishop. With the Doctrs leave I will change the assump­tion, and distinguish it from the confirmation thereof, which li­eth [Page 61] more cleare in the Refuters owne wordes (answ. p. 131.) The argument therefore must stand thus, If the Apostles ordeyned Iames Bishop of Ierusalem; then they gave him the episcopall power. But they gave him not the episcopall power: Ergo, they did not ordeyn him Bishop. The assumption as it now standeth, is thus fortified;

The power of ordination and jurisdiction, was not given to Iames by the Apostles (for both were invested in his person, by the Lord himself; so as he being an Apostle might use eyther of them freely as occa­sion was offred, wherever he became.) But the episcopall power (in the Doctors understanding, form. pag. 32. 69. 73.) is the power of ordination and jurisdiction. Ergo, the episcopall power was not given to Iames by the Apostles. Now what is the D. answer? I answer (saith he) by distinction. The power of order, (if I may so terme it) Iames had before, as those who are Bishops sine titulo: but the power of iurisdiction was cōmit­ted to him, whē he was designed Bishop of Ierusalē &c. The edge of this an­swere, is bent directly against the assumption of the Refuters ob­jection; and against the proposition of the prosyllogism added for the confirmation thereof. Onely whereas the Refuter affirmeth, the power both of ordinatiō & of jurisdictiō to be invested in the person of Iames by Christ, when he made him an Apostle (& ther­fore neyther of them given him, by his fellow-Apostles) the Do: telleth us that Iames received frō Christ onely the power of order; but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him, when they designed him the Bishop of Ierusalem. So, in stead of power of or­dination & power of jurisdiction, into which the Refuter distribu­ted all episcopall power (and that according to the Doctors own direction, as is before shewed) he now yeeldeth us a new distribu­tion of episcopall poewr, into power of order and power of juris­diction; The D. is driven to make new distributi­ons. and yet utterly silenceth both the difference and the reason of the change; which a man that loveth plaine dealing should not have done; especially, when he hath to deale with such, as are of a very shallow conceit; (as he saith, lib. 3. pag. 103.) for though they may from henceforth rest perswaded, that he confoundeth not the power of order in Bishops, with their power of ordination; (because he maketh the later, but a part of the former, (lib. 3. p. 102. 105.) yet they may stand in doubt, whether the power of ju­risdiction, which now he opposeth to the power of order, be the very same, that before he distinguished from the power of ordina­tion. If the same; then his answer is both false and absurd, yea [Page 62] contradicted by himselfe. For when he reduceth all episcopall power, wherein they excell presbyters, unto the power of ordina­tion and the powre of jurisdiction; he carrieth the later unto pu­blick The Doct. contradict­eth him­selfe, and dealeth absurdly, or delu­deth his reader &c. government, in foro externo, with authoritie over presbyters and people, both to guide and direct them as their rulers, and to censure and correct them as their judge (serm. gag. 45-51.) Now it Iames had nothing to doe with this power, by vertue of his A­postleship how should the rest of the Apostles, which were not made Bishops (as the Doctor avoucheth sect. 7. pag. 58.) have the same authority in this behalfe; wheresoever they came; that Iames had at Ierusalem: or Timothe at Ephesus? as the Doctor confesseth cap. 4. pag. 96.

Againe, how often doth he tell us, that this power of jurisdicti­on, (aswell as that other of ordination) was derived vnto Bishops from the Apostles, and that the Bishops are their successors in this power of government? serm. pag. 45. 70. and in this defence pas­sim.) yea he saith, That the Apostles each of them, reteyned this power in their owne hands, whiles they continued neere vnto, or meant not to be long from the Churches, which they had plan­ted; and for proofe thereof, citeth, 2. Thes. 3. 14. & 1. Cor. 5. (serm. pag. 65. Def. pag. 63.) I aske therefore whence they had this power, which they reteyned in their own hāds for a time, & cōmitted to others, whē it seemed good to thēselves? he cannot say they received it by any such assignement to some particular church or Churches, as Iames is supposed to have to Ierusalē; seing he denieth them to be properly Bishops. And if he shall say that the power of governm ^t or jurisdiction, was inclosed in that Apostolicall cōmission, which they had from Christ (Mat. 18. 18. and 28. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. and 21. 15. 16.) is it not both false and absurd, to deny that this power was invested in the person of Iames when he was made an Apostle? Now, if (to avoyd these inconveniences) he shall acknowledge that he taketh jurisdiction in an other sense; his market is utterly marred; in asmuch as he doth onely in shewe (to delude his reader) impugne that which his refuter affirmeth, whereas in deed he justifyeth him in his whole argument. For, if both those powers, of ordination and jurisdiction wherein the D. placeth the power and superioritie of the episcopall function; were given vnto Iames by Christ; and neyther of them, by his f [...]llowe▪ Apostles, thē he received not the office of a Bp. by their ordinatiō.

Having thus freed the Refuters objection from the force of the Sect. 14. shewing 6. errors in the D. an­swer. Doctors answer, the Reader is to be advertised of these errors, which Mr Doctor hath broched therein. 1. that the Apostles re­ceived from Christ the power of order onely, and not the power of jurisdiction. 2. and therefore, by their Apostleship, were but as Bishops sine titulo. For since the D. giveth vnto Iames, in regard of his Apostleship received from Christ, none other power then that of order, which made him as a Bishop sine titulo; he must acknow­ledge that the rest of the Apostles, were also as Bishops sine titulo; and not indued by Christ, with that power of jurisdiction, distin­guished by him from the power of order; unlesse, to avoid these rocks; he will fall into the gulf of an other errour, no lesse absurd, viz. that the Apostles were not all equal in power by their Aposto­licall function. And if it be so as he saith, that Iames had power of jurisdiction given him by his fellowe-Apostles; when they de­signed him Bishop of Ierusalem it will follow from hence. 3. that the Apostles gave him a power which themselves had not: And 4. that those Apostles which were not made Bishops (as Iames was) never had that power of jurisdiction, which he enjoyed. Yea 5. the episcopall charge which Iames had at Ierusalem, gave him a pre­heminence above his fellow-Apostles (not onely in superioritie of order, while they remayned there; as before he affirmed; but also in power of jurisdiction. 6. And consequently all other Bi­shops ordeyned by the Apostles, were in the like power superior, to the very Apostles, as many as were not properly Bishops. These are the Doctors absurdities, and the very naming of them, is sufficient to abate the edge, and weaken the force of his answer: yea (under correction be it spoken) as it may well make him blush at the reading of his bragge (preface pag. 17.) where he saith, in his conscience he is perswaded, that no one of his proofes in all his sermon is disproved; nor he convinced of any one uintruth throughout the body thereof; so it may be a good motive to him, no longer to strike, against the power of the truth; seing the answer which he hath framed to oppugne it, is not onely evill and absurd; but (though perhaps against his will and meaning) giveth way unto it, for from his owne graunt, I thus argue to infringe that as­sertion, which he laboureth to confirme.

1. Whosoever is ordeyned the Bishop of any Church; he recei­veth the power of Episcopall order, from the handes that ordeyne [Page 64] him.

But Iames received not the power of episcopall order from the handes of the Apostles. Ergo, neither was he ordeyned by them the Bishop of any Church.

2. Againe, Whosoever by his designement to the charge of any Church, receiveth onely the power of jurisdiction; to execute there that power of order, which was before invested in his person; he re­ceiveth no new function by that designment.

But Iames the Apostle by his designement to the charge of the Church at Ierusalem received (in the Doctors opinion) onely the power of jurisdiction, to execute that power of order, which be­fore was invested in his person.

Therefore, he received no new function, by that designement. And consequently, he was not ordeyned, to the function of a Bi­shop in that Church.

To these arguments grounded on his owne answere, I add this that followeth, which the Doctor was willing not to see in the Refuters answere;

3. Whosoever by Christs ordination received all Ministerial power, with ample authority to execute the same inall places wheresoever he became; he neyther did, nor could receive any new power (eyther of order or jurisdictiō) by a designement to the over­sight or care of any particular Church.

But Iames the Apostle by Christs ordination received all Minis­teriall power, with ample authoritie to execute the same, in all pla­ces whereever he became.

Ergo, he neyther did nor could receive any new power (eyther of order, or jurisdiction) by his designment to the oversight, & care of a particular Church, such as the Church of Ierusalem.

Thus leaving the Doctor to his best thoughts for his rejoynder in this behalf, let us proceed to the next exception.

Chapt. 6. Answering the Fathers alleadged by the Doctor for Iames his Bishopprick Def. lib. 4. Chapt. sect. 4. pag. 52.

THe next exception concerneth the age or antiquitie of those Sect. 1. ad sect. 4. pa. 52. & sect. 2. pag. 55. Fathers, upon whose testimoney the Doctor buildeth his faith, for Iames his ordination to the office of a Bishop in the Church of Ierusalem. The Refuter (finding the ancientest of his witnesses to [Page 65] be Eusebius, about the yeare 320. &c.) demaundeth (answer p.) whither he had none of the Apostles Disciples, which lived then to testifye his ordination? the Doctor stoppeth his mouth, with an o­ther question; what one of them whose writings are extant, he could have alleadged, whom he would not reject as counterfeit? which is a plaine confession, that in deed he hath none, that is worth the mentioning. For though he tell us, that Clement the Disciple of the Apostles; doth call Iames the Bishop of Bishops, governing the Holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem: yet (as if his consci­ence tould him that his epistle was but a counterfeit) he addeth, But suppose that none of the Disciples of the Apostles, in those fewe writings of theirs which be extant, had given testimoney to this matter: were not the testimony of Egesippus and Clement, who both lived in the very next age to the Apostles) sufficient? No verily, their credit is too weake (as shalbe seen sect. 17.) to o­verweigh the presumptions before alleadged, to shewe that Iames received no such ordination from the Apostles, as the Doct. stan­deth for. It is therefore, but his vaine bragge, easier to be rejected then justifyed, to say as he doth, It is not to be doubted, but that Iames his being Bishop of Ierusalem, was a thing as notorious and as certeynly known among Christians in those times; as there is no doubt made among us now, that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterburie in K. H. the 8. his time; For is it not rather much to be doubted of; seing that among all the writings that are extant, of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and sun­dry others in the first 300. yeares, the Doctor cannot find any one testimonie fit for his purpose. Rem adeo illustrem nullum habere auto­rem sui seculi, aut secundi &c. portento simile est. Sic Chamierus de Simo­ne. De Oecum. pont. lib. 3. pag. 456. sic ego de Iacobo. As for that counterfeyt Clement before named, he rather confuteth then con­firmeth the Doctors assertion. For I may say of the Doctor as he doth of the Pope, how he can digest that lofty title Bishop of Bishops, (which Clement giveth unto Iames) I knowe not. For doth not this title (usually ascribed to him as the Doctor acknowledgeth) as strongly argue him to be an universall Pope; as the mention of his governing the Church of the Hebrewes, in Ierusalem, can con­clude him, to be their Diocesan Bishop? And since he is sayd, to govern not onely sanctum Hebraeorum ecclesiam Hierosolymis; sed et omnes ecclesias, quae vbique Dei providentia funda [...] sunt: if prejudice had not forestalled the Doctors heart, he would never haue forbidden his [Page 66] Refuter (as he doth pag. 55.) to collect from thence, that he was no otherwise Bishop of Ierusalem, (that is, not in any other functi­on) then over all other Churches. For, doth not the D. measure the meaning of this phrase by the line and levell of that large juris­diction, which had no being in any Bishop, for many hundred yeres after the Apostles, when he saith, that the Bishop of Cōstantinople though called vniversal Patriarch, yet was the Diocesan Bishop of Cōstantino­ple alone; and that the Pope himselfe though he clume to be vniversall Bishop, yet is specially Bishop of Rome? Yet as if he were hired to wrest this te­stimony out of their handes, that bend it against the Popes supre­macie; he telleth us, that in an edition of that epistle of Clement published by Sichardus at Basil. anno 1526) he readeth thus, Sed et omnibus ceclesijs. which signifyeth that Clemens directed his epistle, not to Iames onely, but also to all Churches. But this is to corrupt the text by a false finger, for the former reading doth best agree with the title before given to Iames, Bishop of Bishops. And if Clement had meant to joyne any others with Iames in the inscription of his epistle, he would (in all likelihood haue said, sed et omnibus e­piscopis per omnes ecclesias &c. so joyning to him the Bishops of other Churches; rather then the Churches themselves.

In the next place because the Doctors witnesses are all of them Sect. 2. ad sect. 4. pag 13. such as lived in the 4. or 5. age after Christ, his Refuter put him in minde of Bishop Andrewes wordes, who in the like case saith (serm. pag 34. preached at Hampton court 1606.) They wrote things they sawe not, and so framed matters according to their owne conceits, and many times 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 successiō 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 cōtinuance? (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 Graeciās. Men receive reports of things done before their time, from hand to hand, one frō an other abasanistons) without examining & trying of thē: 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 c [...]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 garmēts 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 secōd 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 [Page 69] 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, and after him Simon, to that Bishoprick, because they were our Saviours kinsmen according to the flesh. For certain­ly they had learned better of their Lord and Maister, when he preferred his spiriti [...]all kindred before his carnall &c. Ye have heard the Refuter, now listen to Mr Doctor; and weigh the answer.

Thus is he able (saith he) as it were with a breath to blow away these wor­thy Sect. 4. ad sect. S. p. 60 Authors &c. What is this but a slanderous scoffe? for all men may see, the Refut: indeavoured to salve their credit; as farre as the love of the truth, would permit him; neyther concealed he the rea­sons, that lead him so to censure them as he did; yet as if he had yeelded no reason of his censure, the Doctor asketh, why vnsavou­ry? & why carnall? and assayeth, by reasons of his owne, to wype a­way those imputations. 1. was it not (saith he) a speciall honour for one among the Apostles, without that traveile and wandring wherevnto the rest were subiect, to be set over the Mother Church of Christendome; and to be the Apostle of that people &c. In the Apostleship of the circumcision Peter and Iohn were joyned with him, Gal. 2. 9. and herein if a­ny had preheminence or precedence before the rest; it was Peter verse 7. But since by Iames his Apostleship of that people: the D. meaneth his supposed Bishoprick at Ierusalem, I statly deny, that this gave him, any precedence in honor before his fellow. Apostles. And I have often shewed that the prerogatives of that Church and people, could not convey unto their Bishop, any such prehenminēce, (sect. 7. and 18. neere to the end of each) & that he assumeth more then he can prove, in affirming him to be wholly exempted from that traveile which the rest indured. See sect. 10. I now adde, that his residence at Ierusalem, gave him onely some more ease; but not greater glorie; nay the lesse, if Doctor Bilsons third interpretation of the Apostles words, 1. Tim. 5. 17. be (as he saith they are) cō ­fonant to the words and intent of the Apostles. viz. that those Mi­nisters which labour in the word, that is to say, traveile to and fro [Page] to visite and confirme the Churches, are in honour to be preferred before resident Pastors. I might ask the Doctor, whether it be the greater honour, to haue the commission that the reverend Iudges have, which traveile from one shre to an other to execute their of­fice; or without such traveile to be the Major of some one towne or citie? But since he urgeth the same reason for Iames, that Bel­larmin doth for Peter; he shall haue the same answere that Doctor Whitakers (de Pont. Rom. quest. 2. ca. 9. sect. 10. pag. 255) yeel­deth him. Imo Pauli videtur multo honorificentius fuisse munus. Latior enim Pauli provincia. Et Christi regnum erat brevi Iudaeis auferendum &c. By this time, I hope the Refuter, may have his discharge frō wron­ging Clemens, in saying his speach was vnsavoury. Yet is it much more unsavoury and absurd; if that reading be received, which ma­ny excellent divines, doe approve. Non sibi vendicabat primatus glo­riam, sed Iacobum qui dicitur Iustus (episcopon apostoloon) apostolorum epis­copum statuerunt. They challenge not to themselves the glorie of the primacie; but chose Iames the Iust, to be the Bishop of the Apo­stles. See Calvin and Marlor. in Act. 15. 13. Cent. 2. col. 193. Catalog. test. verit. in fol. col. 89. And if D. Sutcliffe, a great freind of the prelacie be not deceived (de pontif. lib. 2. cap. 1. pag. 67. & 68. this reading is to be preferred. Sed exemplaria (saith he) et graeca et latina habent Apostelorum; quibus potius fidendum est, quam Parisiensibus aut Ʋaticanis. Et cont extus Eusebij pro nobis facit. Eus [...]bio enim propositum erat, Iacobi prerogativas dicere preterea primatus gloria ipsi tributa, maius quiddam quam vnius vrbis episcopatum subinsinuat. But although the Doct. give Iames a precedence in honour, and for order, above the rest of the Apostles; and that in respect of his Bishoprick: yet he is loath (as it seemeth) to allow him this title; the Bishop of the Apo­stles. Perhaps he conceiveth, that it had bene arrogancie to receive it, though offred unto him; and that it would have advanced him to an higher degree of Ministerie, which he truely denieth to agree with him; seing there was none higher then the Apostleship. But I would faine knowe, how he can deny him, an higher degree of Ministerie, if that precedence in honour, which he ascribeth to him, above his fellow-Apostles, arose from an other function (that is his Bishoprick) which he alone injoyed? for I hope, he will grant the functions of an Apostle & of a Bishop, to be different degrees. And I suppose he knoweth, that among differing degrees (as Dea­cons or Presbyters &c.) the precedence of honour groweth from [Page 71] the higher degree, and not from the lower? But perhaps, he drea­meth that Iames his Bishprick at Ierusalem (though a degree infe­riour to the Apostleship) set him notwithstandinge in an higher place of honour above other Apostles; even as at Rome the title of a Cardinall presbyter or Deacon given to a Bishop (though in it self, it be a degree inferiour to the episcopal function) doth yet ad­vance him in dignity and honour above all other Bishops. But this dreame sureth much better with Cardinall Bellarmin, then with D. D. profession, and so I leave it.

Touching the next imputation, the Doctor asketh, whether they Sect. 5. were not bound in respect of that love and reverence which they did owe to Christ, topreferre his neere kinsmen according to the flesh, being at the least equall with others? and addeth, that it is certeyne, that Iames for his ad­mirable piety was wonderfully honoured, &c. Of this admirable piety, who doubteth? But wil that prove him, to be every way equal in all spiritual graces? The Apostle Iohn hath this title given him in holy writ; The Disciple whom Iesus loved, Iohn 13. 23. and 20. 2. & 21. 20, 24. & since the ground of his love was not kindred in the flesh, ought we not to judge, it was some preheminence in true piety, or some other spirituall grace? It is cōmon saying and a true, Invidia virtutis comes est. Envie is the companion of vertue. Wherefore, seing the envie and malice both of Herod, and the rest of the Iewes seazed upon that other Iames the brother of Iohn, Act. 12. 2. 3. that he became the first Martyr among the Apostles (as Steven was among the Deacons, Actes. 6. and 7.) is it not probable, that some preheminent grace occasioned their malice to breake forth into such extremitie? S. Peter, (who was at the same time im­prisoned, like as he was before, cap. 4. 3. 8.) hath many titles of preheminence given him by the Fathers, which our owne divines (Sutcl: de pont. lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 123. Whit. de pont. quest. 2. cap. 17. sect. 2. pag. 316. D. Reynolds Conf. cap. 5. divis. 3. p. 224.) doe acknowledge to be in part, grounded upon an excellencie a­bove the rest in vertue and grace. For, Augustin (de Bapt. cont. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1.) saith, his primacie was conspicuous and prehe­minent with excellent grace. And Eusebius (lib. 2. cap. 13.) calleth him, reliquorum omnium Apostolorum, propter virtutis amplitudinem, faci­le principem. Wherfore, if the Doctors meaning be, to equall Iames, every wayes with his fellow-Apostles, in all spirituall grace, that a­dorneth the function of a Minister of Christ; he must be beholding [Page 72] to his Reader, to take it upon his owne word, for it will be hard to make good proofe of it. But if he limit the equalitie he speaketh of, to the power of the Apostolike function (which is all the equa­lity that he can with reason maintein:) he shall shew himselfe too absurd to avouch, that onely for kindred sake vnto Christ; he was worthy to be preferred before the rest; or that the Apostles were bound to be lead by this respect, in the distribution of ecclesiasti­call honours. This is in deed carnall divinity, and such as argreeth not with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Mat. 12. 48. 50. Iam. 2. 1. Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 16. and 12. 5.

It might be asked, (if in respect of love and reverence to Christ the founder of the Church at Ierusalem, it were necessarie to pre­ferre one of his kindred to the Bishoprick thereof, before the rest, that were otherwise equall:) whether the like respect ought not to haue place, in the choise of such as were to succeed any of the Apo­stles in the Churches which were founded by them, and in such as are at this day, to succeed men of special reputation in any Church whatsoever? For, S. Paul testifieth, of Andronicus and Iunia (Rō. 16. 7.) that they were his kinsmen, and fellow-prisoners; & (which giveth them a singular note of preheminence above many others, they were episemoi en tois apostolois, famous or of speciall note, among the Apostles, and before him, in Christ. Yet we never reade that they were preferred to a Bishoprick, in any of the Churches (which were many) that Paul had founded. Is it not a shrewd presumpti­on, that he was ignorant of any such president, since he had no care to walk by the same rule? Againe, may I ask M. Doctor, why Iames was not, aswell before his election to his Bishoprick as after; for the same reason honoured by his fellow-Apostles, with that precedēce, which they gave him, when they made him a Bishop? To conclude, if any such primacie of honour above the rest of the Apostles, ac­companied Iames his ordination, to that supposed Bishoprick; why should it not, by cōmon consent, be rather cast upon one of those, whom Christ preferred before the rest? for were not all his disci­ples bound, to give most honour to them, whom he most honou­red? If then Peter, Iohn, and Iames the brother of Iohn, were by Christ preferred in honour, before his Iames (though for his pi­etie surnamed the Iust) was it not an injurie (I say not to them, but) even to Christ their Mr, in controwling that order of preheminēce, which he had set among his Apostles, to give one of their inferiors [Page 73] a place of dignitie above them? Wherfore, as the Refuter wronged not Clemens or Egesippus, in charging the speach of the one to be vnsavourie, and the respect alleadged by the other to be carnall: so it is no injurie to Eusebius (who buildeth vpon their reportes) to say, he was too credulous, in interteyning for truth upon their words, that which upō due examination, appeareth unworthy of any cre­dit. And the same, is the fault of the rest, which in later time with­out any further search, gave credit vnto their testimony. Which sottish imitation (as one Mr. Bell calleth it, epist. before his tryall of new religion, pag. 1. Survey of popery. part-3. cap. 7. & pag. 342.) if it were the cause of many errors, even in matters of doctrine, (as is for instance shewed in the errour of the Chiliasts) I see no reasō to the cōtrarie, why it might not also be a cause of ma­ny errors, in matters of fact or historie. Yet the Refuter did (and so doe I still) so farre tender their estimation, that wee withdraw not any assent from their report; but when there is better warrant, (ey­ther of scripture or sound reason) leading another way.

Now whereas the Refuter saith, that Iames neyther was properlie Sect. 6. ad sect. 5. Bishop of Ierusalem, nor might be, because he continued in his Apostleship, a distinct office from it; The D. (to make him odious with his Reader) replieth, that he giveth all his witnesses the lie. But (though he be a Do­ctor he useth a false finger to justify his suggestiō, thrusting out the word properly (which the Refuter inserted. pag. 132. of his answ.) and charging him to say plainly, that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalē, not could be. It is plaine, (and the Doctor acknowledgeth it) that the Refuter here denieth vnto Iames, he doth it (not so much of himselfe as) from the mouth of some late writers of worthy ac­count, D. Whitakers, D. Reynoldes, Bishop Iewell and others. In charging him therefore to give his witnesses the lie; what else doth he, but through his sides, wound their credit; seing the fault (if any) ligteth on their heads. But the truth is, neyther he nor they doe oppose the former denaill to the testimonie of the fathers; but to their assertion, which from the name of a Bishop, given to Iames or Peter, in the writings of the Fathers, doe inferre that Iames or Peter, were properly Bishops. For the Refuter (in his wordes imediately before going) saith, that the Fathers might will call Iames, by the name of a Bishop, which then was of greatest dignitie; seing it is certeyne he had, (though an higher, yet) the same place in Ierusalem, that afterwards Bishops claimed and possessed in other Churches. And elsewhere (answere [Page 74] pag. 143.) he explaineth his judgment more plainely in the words of Doctor Whitakers (de pont. pag. 303.) who saith; that when the Fathers call Iames or Peter a Bishop, they take not the name of Bishop pro­perly, but call them Bishops of those Churches, in which they aboad somewhat long, &c. I now adde the words of D. Reynolds (Conf. with Hart Cap. 4. divis. 2.) because the Doctor to finding the place quoted, thought his name was used onely for a shewe: concerning Iames, he saith, that he which maketh him a Bishop of one citie, whom Christ made an Apostle to all the nations of the earth, bringeth him out of the hall (as they say,) into the kitchin. And in answer to Chrysostome, (alleadged by Stapleton, and Hart, (as he is by the D.) to confirme his supposed Bishoprick) he addeth. It seemeth he spake it vpon the word of Clemens apud Euseb: lib. 2. cap. 1.) And when Hart sayth, he should not help him with such shifts against the 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. & ( [...]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 ex­ceptiōs 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, [Page 75] of one particular Church: and now (in cōmon 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 thē 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 Thadd [...]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.) [...]ot onely the sonne of Ioseph; but also one of those brethren of [Page 76] 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 n [...]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 cō ­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 Ierusalē, 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 cōmendeth 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, [Page 78] 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 sophrist [...]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 exēpt 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 Ierusalē? 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 [Page 79] 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 alligat [...] 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 ductū semper sequendum esse, quocun (que) [...]os ipse vocaret, eo continu [...] profiscendium, ij sedes suas certis quibusdam locis affixas habuissent? nunquam certe. But of these fortifications the Doct. taketh no notice; onely to the assumption, which himselfe framed, he answereth by distinguishing the times. scz. that though none of the Apostles, had any provinces or partes of the world allotted to them by Christ, when he gave them their indefinite cōmission: yet the holy Ghost (for whose direction they were willed to stay at Ierusalem directed them to goe, not confu­sedly, but distinctly some to one part of the world, and some to an other. This is that which he delivered before (sect. 4. pag. 52.) and is already answered (sect. 11. of chap. 5.) but what is it to purpose here? For when they were directed to goe, some into one part and some to an other, had they then every one his peculiar Church assigned to them? and were they bound to feed the same as every Bishop is to attend his owne flock? I suppose the Doctor dareth not affirme it; he rather yeeldeth the contrarie, in saying, they ceased to traveile in their old dayes; and then were reputed Bishops of that place, where they rested. Well, did they all traveile till they were old? and is that the time whereunto his distinction of times referreth us, for the assigning [Page 80] of Churches vnto them? Not so neyther; for he saith, Iames did not traveile at all as the rest, from one country to another. So then, howsoever he maketh a shew of answering by a distinction of times; yet indeed, the very marrow and pith of his answere, is by a difference in the persons, to contradict the assumption: and to give Doctor Whita­kers the lie (if I may use the Doctors owne homely phrase) for in plaine termes he saith, herein Iames differeth from the rest; for to him at the first before their dispersion, the Church of Ierusalem, was assigned. And againe, the assumption therefore, which is true of the rest of the Apostles, is not true in Iames; and were to be denied, If the syllogisme, were thus framed. Bishops had certeine Churches [...]ssigned to them. Iames had not a certeine Church assigned to him. Ergo, he was not Bishop. This assumption (saith he) I have disproved. But the best is, his disproofe of this assumpti­on (though he hath proportioned it also to his owne strength) is sufficiently declared to be nothing worth: For he neyther hath nor can prove, that nay, much less many ancient Fathers, as he hath al­leadged, doe affirme Iames to be a Bishop in that sense which he imbraceth; sc. properlie a Bishop, and ordeyned to that function, by his fellow-Apostles. But it shall not be amisse for the Reader to observe the Doctors cunning in changing the Medius terminus of The Doct. cun̄ingly changeth the medius terminus of the obj: the objection, which he undertaketh to answere. And since he will have it specially fitted to Iames, I will do it, and so leave it to all indifferent judgment, whether it hold not in Iames aswell as in Peter. Every Bishop hath one onely flock, to which he is affixed, to feed it as his owne.

But Iames had not any one onely flock, to which he was affixed, to feede it as his owne.

Ergo, Iames was no Bishop.

I hope the Doctor will not say, he hath disproved this assumpti­on Section 3. as it now standeth: for this cannot be disproved without proofe made of the contrary, sc. that Iames had one onely flock assigned to him, and was affixed to it or bound to attend on the feeding thereof. But he is so farr from having confirmed this, that he hath See how the Doctor hovereth up & down not cer­teinly rest­ing any where. not yet bin heard so much as once to affirme it. And if he meane (in his next) to make it good, first let him tell us, which was that one onely flock that was assigned to him. Here he saith it was the Church of Ierusalem; and his proofes from the Fathers, make men­ciō of no other; yet elswhere (pag. 56.) he saith, it is more then pro­bable that the Church of Iurie, was peculiarly assigned to him; and (p. 52.) [Page 81] he coupleth both togither, saying, that the Apostles would not all forsake Iurie and Ierusalem; but assigned one of their owne companie to take charge therof. And in the words īmediately following, he saith, he was assign­ed to the peculiar Church of one nation; and therefore was in deed the Bishop therof; which argueth the whol body of the people of the Iewes, as­well those that were scattered in other countryes (to whome he wrote his epistle) as the Inhabitantes of Iurie, to be his peculiar charge: vnless he speak improperly, in taking the whol for a part onely. If therefore the Doctor will say, that Iames had one onely flock assigned to him; let us know whether the whol nation or the province of Iudea onely, or rather the diocese, (for I know, he will not say, it was the parish Church) of Ierusalem; I give him this choise, so be that he will be constant in that he chooseth, and not hover up and down as he doth, not knowing (as it seemeth) where to rest. The first is so repugnant to the testimony of Saint Paul, who testi­fieth Gal. 2. 9. that Peter and Iohn joyned with him in the charge of the Iewish nation, that I think he will be ashamed to stand forth in defense of it. And if he will mainteyne the second; he must pro­claime to the world, some prerogatives more thē ever were knwon in former ages) which this Church had above all other Churches. For whereas the Churches planted in other Mother cities, were at the first but Dioceses, (in the Doctors perswasion) and by the cō ­bination of severall Dioceses, in one Province, each of them be­came a provinciall Church: this contrarywise, was, at her first esta­blishing, and bringing into order a province; and upon the mul­tiplying of Churches in Iudea; it was distributed into sundry Dio­ceses. And whereas other Churches had presbyters, before they had any Bishop; this had a Bishop who was actually a provinciall prelate, before there were any, eyther presbyters inthe Diocese, or Diocesan Bps in the Province; which later is contrary to his Tenent in this defence often avouched. (lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 20. lib. 4. pag. 7.) viz. that the Bishops of Mother cities, were origi­nally but Diocesās, & not actually Metropolitās; till other ci [...]ies in the provīce were cōverted, & subordinated to him as their Primate.

Moreover, if the state of Iudea, (Ierusalem excepted) be consi­dered▪ what it was before the Apostles were dispersed abroad; it will be found to be a body of people voyd of Christianitie; & ther­fore no flock for a Bishop to feed; but rather a charge fitt for an A­postle, to work upon, in indeavouring their conversion. And [Page 82] since Peter bestowed great paynes that waye in diverse parts of Iu­dea, for many yeares after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles; (as is before shewed from Lukes storie, cap. 5. sect. 11. 12.) it vvill be hard for the Doctor to prove, tha [...] the inhabitants of Iudea, wer allotted to Iames as his peculiar flock to feed and attend up­on. The last therefore, wilbe the fittest (as it seemeth) every way for the Doctors purpose; and if he will stick close unto it; let him recall those speaches of his; which make shewe of the other two, & gather his witts togither for the confirmation of these particulars. 1. that Iames was confined, or restreyned (for the execution of his ministery) unto so narrow a compasse, as the Church of Diocese of Ierusalē. 2. that he was affixed to that Church; or bound there to abide, and during life to attend on that flock: For unlesse he have some sound testimony or reason, to perswade his hart in these points; he shall shewe himselfe to be lead by self-conceit, rather thē by sound judgement; in contradicting the assumption last propo­sed; for it naturally floweth from the assumption of D. Whitakers argument before delivered in this manner, None of the Apostles had one onely flock, which he was bound to feed as his owne peculiar charge. But Iames was an Apostle. Ergo, he had no one onely flock, which he was bound Sect. 4. to feed as his owne peculiar charge. And now if he will deny the pro­position of this argument, I must recall him to the fortifications before mencioned. The first concludeth the pointes necessarily & inevitablie in this manner;

Whosoever were by Christ commanded, to goe into all the world, to preach the gospell and to make disciples; and being mindfull of their imbassage did ac­cording to their charge; they had not, (any of them) one onely flock unto which they were bound, to feed the same as their owne.

But all the Apostles, were by Christ cōmaunded to goe into all the world, to preach the gospell and to make disciples; and they all being mindfull of their Embassage, did according to their charge.

None of the Apostles therefore, had one onely flock, to which they were bound, to feed it as their own.

The proposition, is of it selfe cleare enough. The assumption, for the first part of it; as it is grounded on the wordes of Christ, Mat. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 15. so it is acknowledged by the Doctor; and we doe allow his interpretation of their cōmission (pag. 51. line penult. and 57. line 6.) viz. that Christs meaning was not, that every one should traverse the whole world: yet their cōmis­sion [Page 83] was indefinite and without any assignement of provinces or parts of the world to any. Now, if he make question of the latter part of the Assumption, I referre him to that which is observed, (cap. 5. sect. 10.) out of Mark, 16. 20; and I wish him to be wel advised, least he be found to give that Evangelist the lie; if he ex­empt Iames from that obedience to Christs charge, which he testi­fieth of all without exception, viz. that (as Christ had before com­manded so) they went all forth, and preached every where. For who shall dare without good warrant, to restreyn the generall sense of the holy Ghost, in the one more then in the other? Either ther­fore, let Iames be exempted from partaking with his fellowes in their Apostolicall cōmission; or let him partake with them in the praise which is given them, for obeying the charge which they re­ceived. If he will needes exempt S. Iames from preaching every where as the rest did, (that is to say, here and there in diverse pro­vinces, or countries, without restreynt to any one) because Eu­sebius and others say, that Iames had the charge of Ierusalem, and governed the Church there: then let him also except S. Iohn, to­gither with Thomas and Andrew; because Eusebius saith, (lib. 3. cap. 1.) that (in the distribution of the world among the Apostles) Thomas obteyned Parthia, Andrew, Scythia, and Iohn, Asia. But though he confine Iames to Ierusalem (or at least to Iurie) yet of the rest he saith, they were not confined to any one province; but traveyled from one country to an other. To come then to the 2. fortification, it argueth also uncontroulablie in this sort; None that knewe they ought alwayes to follow the direction of the holy Ghost, and to goe forthwith whither soever he should call them, might have their seates fast­ned to one certeyne place or flock.

But all the Apostles knew, that they ought alwayes to follow the direction of the holy Ghost, and to goe forthwith, whither soever he should call them.

Therefore, none of the Apostles might have their seates fastned to one certeyne place or flock. And consequently, none of them had one onely flock, on which he was bound continually to attend; For it were a wrong to them to thinke, that they or any of them would doe, that which they knewe was not lawfull for them to doe.

Against the proposi [...]ion, I suppose the Doctor will take no exce­ption; and if he shall pick any quarrel against the assumption; he must say, eyther in generall that none, or in particular that some, and namely Iames knewe no such dutie that they did owe to God, [Page 84] as to attend alwayes on his call and direction for the imployment of their ministeriall paines. If the former; let him consider what is already said (cap. 5. sect. 11.) to shewe that the Apostles had not before their dispersion, each of them his severall circuite, measured out to him once for all, by the directiō of the holy Ghost as he sup­poseth. For since they were to wayt for the holy Ghosts direction whither to goe; (as the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 57.) if they had not their whole line or compasse layd out at once; must they not of necessitie, remaine alwayes ready, to goe, whither soever God by his spirit should call them? And if this be apparant in any one: (as it is in Paul, Act. 13. 2. 4. & 16. 6. 10. and 18. 9. 11. & 19. 21.) ought we not to judge the like of all? For why should any one Apostle be freed from that attendance, which another is tied unto, and that for the performance of his Apostolicall function? And when the Doctor stretcheth in cōmon unto all the Apostles, (pag. 52.) that which Paul speaketh of himselfe; and such as assisted him within his Apostolicall line; doth he not assume it for an un­doubted truth, that in the execution of their Ministerie, they all walked by one rule? It were absurd therefore here to except Iames frō that cōtinuall attendāce upō the holy Ghosts direction, wher­unto his fellow-Apostles were bound. And consequently absurd to give him one onely flock, and to affixe him for his whole life, to the service thereof; when the rest were bound alvvayes to be ready to goe, whither soever the holy Ghost should direct them.

Thus much for the justifying of the first reason, against Peters Sect. 5. ad sect. 7. pag. 58. Bishoprick; the second reason against it, is thus applyed by the D. (pag. 58) unto Iames, If Iames were Bishop; then by the same reason o­ther of the Apostles were Bishops: But the other Apostles were not Bi­shops properly; Therefore not Iames. The Doctor should have added D. Whitakers conclusion, and applied it to Iames in this sort,

If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certeyne place; then neither had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem. But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certeyne place. Ergo, neyther had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusa­lem. The Doctors answer is, that he hath shewed sufficient rea­son, why he should not graunt the consequence, in setting downe the difference between Iames, and the rest of the Apostles. But are the differences such as he can and will mainteyne, that they neces­sarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop; and the rest nor? o­therwise they neyther are, nor can be a sufficient reason of his de­niall [Page 85] of the cosequence. Let us therfore peruse them. First, he saith, that Iames herein differeth from the rest; that to him at the first, the Church of Ierusalem was assigned. I answer, that an assignement to the over­sight of one Church; maketh not a Bishop, unlesse he be also con­fined unto it alone, and that for perpetuitie. But the Doctor can never prove that Iames was so cōfined to the charge of the Church of Ierusalem. Moreover we have better evidence for Pauls assigne­ment, to the Church of Corinth; (Act. 18. 9. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9. 2. & 2. Cor. 10. 13.) then can be alleadged for Iames his assignemēt to Ierusalem: And (if we may beleeve the D.) he telleth us (pag. 52.) that at what time Iames was assigned to Ierusalem; the rest were assigned also, to their circuite, one to one part and an other to an other. This first difference therefore, is eyther none at all, or not such as can give the function of a Bishop to the one; and deny it to all the rest. Secondly the Doctor addeth, that Iames did not tra­veile as the rest from one country to an other, being not confined to one pro­vince. But it is shewed in the former section, that Iames was neyther confined to Ierusalem, nor debarred from traveil abroad; and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth, will confine some o­thers to certeine countryes (as Thomas to Parthia, Andrewe to Scythia, and Iohn to Asia,) no lesse then Iames to Ierusalem. And let me aske him, what proofe he can make (worthy of credit) that Matthew, Matthias and Iames (that was martyred at Ierusalem, Act. 12. 2.) spent their daies in traveil frō one country to an other? And if Iames be to reckoned a Bishop, because he rested at Ierusa­lem, when others traveiled from place to place; why he should de­ny the rest to be also properly Bishops, when they took up some speciall place to rest in, as he sayth, Iohn did at Ephesus &c. spe­cially seing the fathers intitle them Bishops of those places where they rested. Thirdly, an other difference he noteth. scz. that wheras the other Apostles having planted Churches, when they sawe their time, cō ­mitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames cōmitted the Church of Ierusa­lem to no other. But can he tell us, to what Bishops the Churches of Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, and sundry others planted by Paul, were cōmitted. For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches, which being planted by him, received no other Bishop to governe them; if this reason proveth Iames to be the Bishop of Ierusalem? The consequence therefore of the ar­gument abovesayd is nothing weakned by the differences, which [Page 86] the Doctor putteth betwene Iames and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth. Notwithstanding, that the reader may see, how grossely he erreth in combyning these two functions (of an Apostle & a Bishop) in one person I will here propose some of the reasons, which D. Sutlif (a zealous mainteyner of the episcopall governmēt) hath pressed against Peters supposed Bishoprick at Rome. De pont lib. 2. cap. 10.

The Apostles (saith he) and Pastors or Bishops properly so called, are [...]o distinguished, that an Apostle is one thing; and a Pastor or Bishop is ano­ther. Sect. 6. He hath given us (as saith Paul. Ephes. 4. 11.) some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors & Teachers. What can be spoken more cleerely? he hath given some Apostles & others Pastors and Teachers. (quosdam dedit Apostolos, alios autem Pastores et Doctores.) Wherefore (as he concludeth concerning Peter, so doe I concerning Iames) if Iames were an Apostle, he could not be a Bishop & Pastor to speak properly; vnlesse we will confound both the gifts of Christ, and (membra dividentia) the members of the division set down by the A­postle. 2. The Apostles had this priviledge that they were called & sent by Chrst īmediately, Mark. 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops, it is farre otherwise; they were not called īmediately of God, but by men. Paul prescribeth lawes vnto Timoth [...] what manner of men were to be chosen Bishops, & warneth him to lay no hands suddenly upon any man. 1. Tim. 3. 2. and 5. 21. Seing therefore Iames was by Christ alone, & not by men, called chosen and ordeyned, whēce could he have a Bi­shoprick given him? As for those Fathers which say, that Iames was by his fellow-Apostles ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem, we have al­ready (Cap. sect. 22.) heard Doctor Sutliffs answer, this onely now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop; seing he saith, that Iames receyved the episcopall power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo, as is also before shewed cap. 5. sect. 13. 14.

3. The office of Bishops is farre inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it; for the Apostles ordeyned Bishops & heard their causes &c. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonicall scriptures, and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into al truth. Iohn. 14. 26. & 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative; for there were none more greivous schismes raised in the Church, neyther any more foul heresyes sprang from any, then frō Bishops. Wherefore seing Iames was an Apostle, quid opus erat, ut quasi capite diminutus, ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem, ve­lut [Page 87] Patritius ad plebem transiret? I might adde his 4. and 9. argu­ments, but because they come nere to things already urged, I passe them over, onely that it may appeare, he putteth no difference be­twene Peter and Iames, in the limitation of their ministrie as the D. doth; I will close up all with that which he hath elswhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec Iohannem, nec Iacobum Apostoluns propri [...] dicimus fuisse Episcopum; rationē (que) hanc reddidimus; quia Apostolici officij [...]ines nul­l [...] eran [...], Episcopi aut em suas habuere certas dioceses et provincias. Yea saith he, we say not that the Apostle Iohn, or Iames, was a Bishop properly & we have rendred this reason for it, that there were no bounds or limitts of the A­postolicall function; whereas Bishops had their certeine dioces [...]s and provinces. Which reason, seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at, as being vnable to answer it, I hope the Doct. will not doe him that favour, to op­pose himself therein to D. Sutliffe, specially seing he hath already yeelded thus farre (pag. 58.) that if any be not perswaded of this point, he will be content to suppose that Iames was not a Bishop of Ierusalem.

Notwithstanding, as if the whole cause in a manner wholly re­lied Sect. 7. ad sect. 8. pag 58. & 59. upon this instance of Iames; he indeavoreth by it to confute the lear­ [...]eder sort of disciplinarians, who holde that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree, nor yet for termes of life; and therefore (if we may believe him) deny that Iames was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at Ierusalem, or President of the pres [...]yterie, otherwise then in his course; & not for any contynuance. Of these conceites he maketh Mr. Beza the Author, and because the Refuter [...]ould him, that he wronged Beza, seing there is not a sillable, nor a letter at all of him, in the place he quoteth, he saith, all this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margent, c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23; which (if it be not againe miscarried by his printer) seemeth to be foysted in, I know not how. For in the same Chap. and pag. (Impress. Anno. 1592. by Ioh. le Preux there are no such words as he alleadgeth. But say that Beza in some later edition, (which I have not yet mett with) hath such a saying (viz. that though Iames the brother of our Lord, was in order first, in the church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in de­gree, superiour eyther to the Apostles, or else to his fellow Mini­sters) what hindreth but that the Refuters answer might stand, to wit, that by his Bishopprick or presidencie he was not superiour to any degree, but in order onely? for when he compareth togither the differing functions of Apostles, Evangelists and Bishops or Pa­stors; [Page 88] he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise, an imparitie and difference betwene them, not in order onely, but also in degree and power. In istis functionibus (ex Apost: Eph. 4. 11. [...]tearepetitis) inter se computatis, non simplicem tantum ordinem, sed etiam gradum agnos­co. cap. 1. pag. 5. To which purpose also he speaketh cap. 3. pag. 20. & cap. 9. pag. 53. But to let the Doctor see how much he wrongeth him; these wordes are fittest, pag. 9. Apostolatus function [...] fuisse illos 12. propria, non tantum ordinis, sed etiam potestatis eminnetia prala­tos, absit ut inficiemur; ut mer am calumniam esse omnes intelligant, quum no­bis hoc mendacium tribuunt. In which he calleth it no better then a calumniation, to charge him as the Doctor doth. And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza, that Bishops were in degree supe­riour to other Ministers, why putteth he not his hand, to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza, to shew the contrary? Quant [...] majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare; sive fundamentum illarum ponere; quam superstruere et structas regere: tanto magis istum gradum vtgere inter ipsos Apostolos oportuit. 2. Et si tum esset (ut nonnulli contendunt) ve­lut ipsa natura precipiente, in omni sacro caet [...], gradus iste, ad servandum inter collegas consensum necessarius; saltem quam diu simul Hierosolymis congrega­t [...] fuerunt Apostoli (nempe saltem ad illam dispersionem▪ quae Stephani mor­tem est consecuta Act. 8. 1.) v [...]um quempiam jam tum supra suos co apostolos extitisse oportuisset. (Wherevnto I will add the assumption and so in­ferre the conclusion.) But among the Apostles there was no supe­rioritie in degree. 2. neyther was it necessarie for the preserving of vnitie and consent among them, that one should hold such a supe­riority above his fellow-Apostles, whiles they remained at Ierusa­lem; before the scattering that followed the death of Steven.

Wherefore it is not likely that among the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches, there was any one superior in degree to the rest. 2. neither can it be necessarie (as some suppose even by the light of nature; that in every sacred societie, for the preservation of con­sent among colleagues, one should have such a superiority) in de­gree among the rest.

But, to leave Mr. Beza, let us see how the Doctor can make good Section 8. his purpose from this instance of Iames, vz. that Bishops were superi­our in degree to other Ministers, and had a singular preheminence over them for term of life. Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appeare? for he is much deceived, if he think to gaine his cause, by such a sophism as this,

Iames was superiour to the presbyters of Ierusalem in degree, and held a superiority over them during life. But Iames was a Bi­shop. Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles tymes, superiour vn­to presbyters in degree, and that for terme of life.

For though we should graunt the assumption, which is before disproved, the argument is no better then if a man should argue in this manner,

• Iames Mountague (to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon) is superior in degree of Ministerie to al the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells.
• But Iames Mountague is the Deane of the K. Maiesties Chappel.
• Ergo, the Deanes of the K. Maiesties chappell are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministery.

I doubt not but the Doctor can well discerne in this latter a double deceipt, (because it inferreth a generall conclusion, from premisses that are but particular; & as­signeth a false cause of that superioritie above other presbyters) And, if he winketh not hard, he may well see the same defaults are to be found in his reasoning. For besides the generality of his cō ­clusion; there is an evident mistaking of the cause, both of that su­perioritie in degree, which Iames had above the Presbyters of Ie­rusalem; and of his continuance in and about Ierusalem to his dy­ing day. To begin with the former; whereas he should shewe that his Bishoprick gave him a superioritie in degree above the Presby­ters of that Church; it is apparant, he hath no other Medius termi­nus to prove it then this, that he was an Apostle and his honour & degree by his Bishoprick not impaired; so that, in effect he reaso­neth thus, Iames being an Apostle and a Bishop, was superiour in degree to the Presbyters of Ierusalem. Ergo, all other Bishops, not being Apo­steles as he was; have the same superioritie above other Presbyters.

The Doct. proofe therefore, which he presupposeth to be plaine and pregnant for his purpose, is a plain inconsequence, which with all his skill, he can never justify. Neyther can he easily mainteyne that which he assumeth for a truth, (viz. that Iames his honor & degree by his Bishoprick was not impayred) for as (is already shew­ed cap. 6. sect. 1.) the authority of Clemens is too weak to up­holde it: so it will soone appeare, that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith, that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē, it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings & so an abasement, and not a preferment to him. For what is it? It is not (saith he) a clipping of his wings, more then of the rest of the Apostles; when by [Page 90] mutuall consent, every mans province as it were, or Circuite and charge was assigned to him. As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned, to clipp the wings of all the rest for company, & to testify one vntruthby another. For as he cannot prove; so I have dispro­ved (cap. 5. sect. 11.) his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his se­verall Province or circuite by mutuall consent. And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them; why should he deny them to be properly Bishops, every one of them in his circuit? or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their autho­rity; (and so a clipping of their wings) to be confined within one province, or to one nation; when as by their Apostolicall function, they had authority to preach, and to execute all ministeriall duties, in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come? ye [...] of all the rest, Iames his share must needs be by farr the least, if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church. Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle, or at least a Titular Apostle onely; for as he saith of titular Bishops. lib. 3. pag. 130.) that they were such as had the bare name, but not the authority of a Bishop: so he must also affirme of Iames, that he was but a titular Apostle; seing th' au­thority of an Apostle (which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shalbe offred; and in planting Churches, where none were &c.) is denied unto Iames; if his whole authoritie be confi­ned to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem, which was already founded to his hand. And if it were a punishment to Meletius, and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church, to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie; though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops; how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour; to haue his whole authority confined to one Church, (as other Bishops) although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle?

As for the next point (viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect. 9. pag 62. Doct. & Refuter pag. 134. for; o yeares, even till his dying day) to omit what is already sayd (cap. 5. sect. 10. & 25.) for the contrary; we are now to examine, whether the cause of his stay there, was (as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church, in the function of a Bishop? The reason of his continuance there (saith the refuter) was not so much the ruling of the Christians, that were converted (which might have bene other­wise performed) as the converting of multitudes, both of Iewes and of other na­tions that vsually flocked thither, which was a work of the Apostolicall fun­ction. [Page 91] Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth, that it is nothing to the pur­pose, to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed; vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed. But he is to be advertised, that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apo­stles residence there; then he shall shew himself verie voide of rea­son, to make the government of that Church, eyther the onely or the principall cause, of his so long remayning in that place. And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight, then that the Refuter mencioneth; it is but a wrangling part in him; to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion, in this case. Neyther is it any thing to the purpose, to urge him to shew that the church of Ie­rusalem was otherwise governed; vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government, rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there, after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts.

And where he sayth, There is no doubt, but that Church had a Pa­stor assigned to them by the Apostles &c. eyther he doth but trifle; or (which is worse) dissembleth his owne knowledge; for if by a Pa­stor, he meane a Diocesan Bishop, he knoweth very well, that it is not onely doubted of; but flatly denyed, that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles. But if he take the word at large, for every or any one that feedeth (whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle; or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the or­dinarie calling of Presbyters, Act. 20. 28.) then he sheweth him­selfe a meer trifler; since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant, that Iames was (in this large constructiō of the word) their Pastor, by a temporary assignment; and that besides him, they had other Pastors, even so many as there were presbyters in that Church. But when he saith, there is no doubt to be made, but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth. of his staying there 30. yeares, was the same, with the cause of the stay of Si­mon, and the rest of his successors till their death: he doth too apparant­ly begg the question. For the cause which the Refuter propound­ed (and the Doctor contradicted not) ceased before Simons electi­on to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem; for his election was not till Ie­rusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth, lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore, there was no such recourse, eyther of Iewes or of o­ther nations unto the Temple there in Simons time, or his succes­sors; as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection; for the generality of them, took place, after that deso­lation [Page 92] made by Titus & his army; there was not the like need (now as before) for one of the Apostles there to reside to labour the cō ­version of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place.

There remaineth one speach of the Doctor, which (in the Re­futers Sect. 10. ad sect. 8. pag 61. apprehension) bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up, as was shewed by this argumēt; That charge (saith the Doctor, sermon pag. 68) which the Apostles had in cōmon, whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames [...] particular. But that (saith the Refuter p. 134.) was not the charge of Bishops, but of Apostles. Ergo, neyther was the charge which Iames had, the charge of a Bishop, but of an Apostle. Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense? The proposition is his owne, he loveth his credit, and he will not recall it; what then? Doth he contra­dict the assumption, and say, that the Apostles whiles they gover­ned joyntly the Church of Ierusalem, had the charge not of Apo­stles, but of Bishops, in the very function of Diocesan Bishops: such as he supposeth Iames and his successors to be? no; for then he should throttle his owne answer to Doct. Whitakers first argument (pag. 57.) where he flatly denieth any of the Apostles (Iames ex­cepted) to be properly Bishops. And by his distinctiō of the times, (both here and page 52) he playnly signifyeth that the indefinite commission of the Apostles to goe into all the world, received no limitation, till by the Holy Ghosts direction, they dispersed them­selves some into one part of the world, and some into an other. What then? When plaine dealing will not help; an aequivocating answer must serve the turne. As though (saith he) the charge of the Apostles, is not by the Holy Ghost, called episcope (Act. 1. 20.) that is, Bi­shoprick. And as though Iames, who before was an Apostle absolutely; did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes. As though say I, the holy Ghost doth not use the word episcope (when he so entileth the charge & function of the Apostles, Act. 1. 20.) in a larger sense, for an vniversall and unlimited Bishoprick, then the word episcope & episcopo [...], is taken eyther in other parts of the apostolical writings (as 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1.) when it is applyed to such as had the standing charge of one Church; or in the Doctors understanding, when the name of Bishop, or Bishoprick is given to Iames and his successors. And as though Iames did not receive a great change, in regard of his charge and functi­on, when being at the first an Apostle absolutely, he was made [Page 93] the Bishop of one particular Church by his assignement to Ierusa­lem. As though also the Doctor did not, at unawares, justify his refuters assumption; in graunting that Iames before his assignmēt to the particular charge of Ierusalē, was an Apostle absolutely. For if he were absolutely an Apostle; whiles he ruled the Church of Ie­rusalem in cōmon with the rest of the Apostles; then they also in that time were absolutely Apostles, and consequently their charge there, was not the charge of Diocesan Bishops, but of Apostles as the Refuter affirmeth. Wherefore, unlesse he will recall that which as yet he standeth forth to mainteyne (viz. that the charge which Iames had in particular, for the government of the Church at Ie­rusalem was the same (and no other then) that the Apostles be­fore had in cōmon) he must bear the losse of all his labo [...]r in plea­ding for Iames his Bishoprick; for it will followe necessarily upon the premisses of the argument before set downe; that Iames his charge at Ierusalem, was the charge not of a diocesan Bishop, but of an Apostle. And thus much shall suffice concerning Iames; let us now heare what the D. can say for the Bishopricks of Tim: & Titus.

Chap. 8. Answering the first 8. Sections of the Doctors 4. chap. lib. 4. and shewing that Timothy and Titus were not ordey­ned Bishops, as the Doctor supposeth.

FRom Ierusalem the Doctor traveileth to Ephesus and to Creet, Sect. 1, ad sect. 1. & pag. 74. of the Doct. in hope to shewe the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops. And that first out of the scriptures, for so he promiseth pag. 72. of his sermon. And to make it good, he saith; That it is apparant by the epistles of S. Paul to Timothy and Titus, that he had ordeyned Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Creete; the epistles themselves being the very patternes, and precedents of the episcopall fun­ction. For as the Apostles had cōmitted unto them episcopall authoritie, both in respect of ordination and iurisdiction; which in the epistles is pre [...]upposed: so doth he by those epistles informe them, and in them all Bishops, how to exercise their function, first in respect of ordination (as Tit. 1. 5. & 1. Tim. 2. 22) and secondly in regard of iurisdiction, as 1. Tim. 1. 3. & [...] 19. 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Titus 1. 10. 11. and 3. 9. These are his wordes and the very pith of his arguments. Where first, let the reader observe, that he bindeth himselfe to mainteyne this assertion, viz. that it is appa­rant by the epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit. that he had ordeyned the one Bishop of Ephesus, and the other Bishop of Creete. Which [Page 94] if he had as soundly confirmed, as he did confidently vndertake, actum esset de certamine; the controversy had soone bin ended. But how should this be made apparant by S. Pauls epistles, when he nei­ther doth nor can produce from thence any one word that sound­eth that way? Yea it repenteth him (as it seemeth) that he had said, It is apparant by his epistles; for in his defence, to prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus & Creet, he maketh this his first reason; (pag. 74.) because in his epistles written to them, it is presupposed that they were by him ordeyned Bishops of those Churches; and the Antecedent he proveth (pag. 75.) by this argument, because it is presupposed in the epistles, that the Apostle had committed to them episcopall authority, both in respect of ordination and juris­diction, to be exercised in those Churches. Whereas if he had stuck close to the wordes of his sermon; in dissolving (as now he will needes) his first sentence into a two fold reason; he should have argued thus;

It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that the Apostle had cōmitted episcopall authoritie to them both in respect of ordination and jurisdi­ction &c. Ergo, it is apparant by those epistles, that he had ordeyned them Bishops. But (though he sawe it) he was ashamed to be seene to The Doct. reasoneth loosely; changeth his termes and argu­mentes: and then taxeth his Refuter for not an­swering his argu­ment. argue thus loosely, and as we have often done, so againe must wee give him leave, to change at his pleasure not onely his termes or phrases, but also his very arguments. But when he taketh this li­berty, he wrongeth his Refuter against all equitie to taxe him (as he doth, both here and hereafter pag. 78. lin. 16.) for not answe­ring his argument. For who can answer an objection before he heare it? And who that considereth the tenour of his first sentence before set downe, would haue dreamed a twofold reason to be in­folded therein? Nay, who would not have judged (as the Refuter did) that the later clause, had bene a confirmation of the former? But to take his arguments as he hath nowe tendred them, when he saith, It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul had ordeyned thē Bishops of Ephesus and Creete; if his meaning be that their ordination to the episcopall charge of those Churches, is presup­posed by the Apostle in his epistles written to them; I utterly re­ject his assertion, as a false presupposall (or rather forgerie) of his owne, which hath no warrant from any line or letter in those epi­stles. And to his proofe thereof (viz. because it is presupposed in those epistles, that the Apostle had cōmitted to them episcopall au­thoritie [Page 95] both in respect of ordination & jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches:) I answer, that he mingleth (and that deceipt­fully) truth and falshood togither. For thought it be true, that the epistles doe presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction cō ­mitted to them: yet is it false, (and he but beggeth the question, in assuming it for truth) that the authority of ordeyning and censu­ring, is an authoritie episcopall, that is, proper to Bishops onely; and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction, was given them, eyther then and not before, when they were ap­pointed to stay in those places; or there and no where else to be ex­ercised by them. A bare deniall of these particulars (falsly presup­posed by the Doctor) is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Pauls epistles; that they are by him, presupposed in them.

His second argument (in his owne Analysis) is the same which Sect. 2. ad pag. 75. & sect. 2. p. 75 76. & 57. his Refuter tooke to be the first, and it standeth thus,

If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patternes and prece­dents of the episcopall function, whereby the Apostle informeth them, and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function; then Tim. and Tit. were Bi­shops.

But the Antecedent is true; Therefore the Consequent.

To discover the weaknes of the consequence or proposition; the Doct. was told (answ. pag. 137.) that the consequent dependeth not upon the Antecedent; but with this supposition (which is false) that the Apostle by describing in these epistles, the rules to be ob­served in ordination and jurisdiction intended to informe Tim. & Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops, how to carry them­selves in those matters. And if the Doct. had bin as willing to ap­prehend his right meaning, as to pick occasiō of quarreling with­out any just cause given; he might have discerned that the suppo­sition whereof he speaketh is not of the naturall hypothesis of the proposi [...]ion impugned, but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption, as is necessary to be supplyed if he will have the pro­position or consequence to passe vncontrouled. Wherefore, as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref: (A­las good man; you know not what the supposition of an hypotheticall propositi­on [...]) so, had he weighed his owne rules (lib. 2. cap. 3. sect. 3.) for the fynding out of that hypothesis, which in a cōnexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogisme; perhaps he mought have perceived the weaknes of his consequence, which he would seeme [Page 96] not to see. For the true hypothesis; which is implyed in this con­nexive argument; and must be supplyed to make it a perfect simple syllogisme; can be none other then this; They must needs be Bi­shops and ordeyned to that function to whom such epistles are di­rected as are patternes and presidents of the episcopall functiō &c. Or more generally thus, Every persō to whom an epistle or speach The Doct. discerning the weak­nes of his arguments exchang­eth it. is directed, which conteyneth the patterne or precedēt of any fun­ction or directions how to exercise it; is vndoubtedly invested in the same function. And why now, I pray you (good Mr. Doct.) may not this proposition be denyed or doubted of? I will spa [...]e la­bour in refuting it; for I suppose, your self perceived the weaknes of it, and therefore gave us the exchaunge of an other argument, though you pretend another cause of the exchange. And since you will not argue with T. C. (to whose answerthe Ref: directly point­ed, as with the finger) but are willing to let him rest in peace: ney­ther will I argue against Doctor Whitgift, but affoard him the like kindeness. Onely, whereas you aske the Refuter, how he could be so ignorant, or without judgment, as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop conteyned in those e­pistles, did meane onely that description of a Bishop which is set downe. 1. Tim. 3; to requite your kindnes, I demaund how you could be so ignorant, or void of judgment, as to think, that (when Doctor whitgift said, that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim: declareth him to be a Bishop; seing therein is conteyned the office and duty of a Bishop; & diverse precepts peculiar to that function) he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop, that Mini­stery which is comon to all Ministers? for so you seeme to inter­prete his wordes, when you affirme (pag. 76.) this to be his mea­ning, that directions were given to Timothy, throughout the epistles, for the discharge of his office, eyther in respect of the Ministery cōmon to all Minist­ers, or of his episcopall function, cheifly in regard of ordination and jurisdictiō. And herein you tender his credit lesS then you would seeme when you make him to argue in this fashion. The epistles written to Timothy doe give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function, Ergo they doe declare, that he was a Bishop: for this were to make him guilty of your owne fault, in begging of the question The Doct. beggeth the questi­on. as you doe, when you add to your assumption or Antecedent, that supposition before examined; for if that be (as you say it is) the playne meaning of the assumption; then your second argument [Page 97] beggeth the question in pittifull manner, thus; The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim: and Tit: was to informe them as Bi­shops; how to exercise their episcopall functiō. Ergo, those epistles shew that they were Bishops. No merveil therefore, if the Doctor were desirous, to cover the beggery of his reasoning with the Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. & 78. sect. 3. shredds of a new shaped syllogisme, which disputeth thus,

• Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus & Creet, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof, to be performed by them and their successors till the cōming of Christ; doth pl [...]inly describe the office and authoritie, and pre­scribe the dutie of Bishops: he presupposeth them to be Bishops, the one of E­phesus, the other of Creete.
• But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, describing unto them their office and authorittie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet &c. doth plainely describe the office, and prescribe the dutie of Bishops.
• Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Creet.

Into this new frame he casteth his argument (as he pretendeth) because the Refuter had confounded himself, with his owne hypo­theticall proposition: but the reader is rather to judge, that a false supposall of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze, that he hath confounded himselfe in his owne The D. cō ­foundeth himselfe in his owne reasoning. reasoning. For where he should (according to his own project, sect. 1. of this chapter) haue given us a second reason for his first con­clusion; (scz. that Timothy and Titus were ordeyned Bishops by S. Paul) he now tendreth us a second prosyllogisme, to confirme the antecedent of his first argument. But to let him goe free with this fault, I will answer this argument as it standeth; & first to the pro­position which (although it never sawe the Sun before his defence came abroad) he taketh for graunted: because T: C: and his Refuter have assailed it in vaine. So he flattereth himself in his owne conceite, but all in vaine. For a meaner Scholler then T. C. or his Refuter eyther, may easily discerne the inconsequence of his proposition; although he may seme to have fortified the presupposall which he concludeth, with a double bulwark, both of describing the autho­rity and of prescribing the duty of Bishops. For S. Paul in his speach to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts. 20. 18. &c. describing his owne office and authority as he was the Superintendent of that church & president of the presbyterie there, plainely describeth the [Page 98] office and authority of all Superintendents or presidents in parti­cular churches; & consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed, by all such as should succeed in the like office, till the comming of Christ. Notwithstanding it were absurd frō hence to inferre, that the Apostles speach there, presupposeth his ordina­tion to the office of a superintendent or President of the Presbyte­ry, in that Church of Ephesus: wherefore neyther doth it follow, that the Apostle in his epistles to Tim: & Titus presupposeth their ordination to the office of Bishops in the churches of Ephesus and Creete, though it should be graunted, that in describing their au­thority, as they were governours of those churches; and in prescri­bing their duty (such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christs comming) he both described the office, and prescribed the duty of Bishops. But this which he assumeth for a truth, I reject as an assertiō no lesse voyd of truth then the main cō ­clusion now in question; for it is grounded upō this false suppositiō that none other then diocesā Bishops, had in those times or could have by succession, the government of particular Churches. Now let us heare what he can say in defence thereof.

The Assumption I prove (saith he) by those particulars, wherein the e­piscopall Sect. 4. ad sect. 3. pa. 78. authoritie doth chiefly consist, both in respect of ordination. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of iurisdiction, they being the censures of other Mi­nisters doctrine, 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. & 3. 9. & Iudges o [...] their person and conversation, 1. Tim. 5. 19. 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofes he answereth nothing. Answered nothing! no merveile if he had no answere to these proofes as they are now fitted to the as­sumption of his new shapen argument: if this be his meaning, his best friends (I think) wil scarce cōmend his honesty or discretion. But if his meaning be, that these proofes before layd downe in his sermon received no answer at all; dooth he not too much for­get himself? since he taketh notice in the next page following, of this reason yeelded for the denyall of his assumption, viz. that those instructions (comprised in the places alleadged) were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops; but particularly to them as Evange­lists, and in generall to the Presbyters, &c. But since this answere is in his eyes no answer at all; let us trie whether it may not be sayd with more truth that his proofes whereof he boasteth, are no clear proofes, eyther of the principall points before denied; or of those which he now assumeth. He knoweth full well, that his refuter flat­ly [Page 99] denieth (that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assum­ption both before and now, to wit) that S. Paul had any intention to informe Timothy and Titus as Bishops; or any other Diocesan Bishops by them, how to demeane themselves in those particulars of ordination & jurisdiction; hath he any argument to prove this? or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mencioned? At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumptiō, why are not the proofs thereof (if he have any) contrived into form of arguments? are his syllogismes so soon at an end? Me thinks he should not expect any help in this case from his refuter, whom he judgeth to be but a ve­ry bungler in the art of Syllogising? Yet if it must needs be done to his hands, I will doe my best, to give it the best coate I can, and that is this,

• Whosoever describing vnto Timothy and Titus, their office and authority, as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christs cōming; doth describe their office, & prescribe their duties in those particulars; wherein episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth: he doth (in so descri­bing & prescribing) plainly describe the office and prescribe the duty of Bishops.
• But S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus describing their office & authoritie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete, and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christs comming; describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie, in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth. (For he describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, as the places before quoted doe shewe. And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction e­piscopall authoritie chiefly consisteth.)
• Therefore S. Paul (in so describing the authoritie and prescribing the du­ty of Timothy and Titus) doth plainely describe the office and authority, and prescribe the duty of Bishops.

Behold here (good Reader) how the Doctor after many wind­ings in and out is retired back to that which he assumed (as you may see sect. 1.) for the proofe of his first argument. viz. that epis­copall authoritie standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdic­tion: This was then taken for graunted, and so inforced to prove that Timothy & Titus their ordination to the function of Bishops, was presupposed by S. Paul in his epistles to them, in as much as they had that authoritie cōmitted to them. Here it is againe pro­duced [Page 100] to justify the same cōclusion; because if episcopal authority cōsist in those particulars; thē S. Pauls describbing of their authority and prescribbing of their duty in the same particulars, argueth the authority & duty of Bishops to be describbed in those epistles &c. So to make a shew of some variety of arguments; one assertiō must come twice upon the stage, for one purpose; & that with an im­pudent The Doct. beggeth stoutly. face to begge, rather then with [...]ound reason from Gods word to cōfirme, what is well known to be one of the main points controverted.

For his adding the authority of Gregorie Nazianzen, Chryso­stome, Sect. 5. ad sect 4. pag 78. 79. Oecumenius, and Gregorie, who testify (as he saith) that the episles teach Bishops how to behave themselves in the church of God; is a secret confession that he knoweth not how to cōclude from Saint Pauls owne words, that which he vndertooke to make apparant by his epistles to Timothy & Titus.

But because the Doctor will needs fitt to this last assumption & the proofe thereof, that answere which was given to another; I wil first reduce it to the parts of his reasoning; & then peruse the for­ces which he bendeth against it. Whereas therefore he saith, that episcopall authoritie, cheefly consisteth in those particulars (of or­dination & jurisdiction) which Timothy and Titus had in charge; if by episcopall authoritie he meane that; which Bishops haue now gotten into their hands, and appropriated to themselves, then the proposition is false; and the falsehood thereof made plaine by that supposed case (of a Democracie in time changed into an Aristocra­cy, and afterward into a Monarchie) layd downe by the Doctor in his Refuters wordes. pag. 79. but if he understand by episcopall authoritie, that which in the Apostles times, and with their allow­ance, was seated in the function of diocesan Bishops; then the as­sumption and the proofe thereof is contradicted by the Refuter; when he saith, that the directions given to Timothy and Titus (for ordination and jurisdiction) apperteyned not to diocesan Bishops; (for the Apostle dreamed of no such sovereigntie) but in particular unto Timothy and Titus by an higher power, as Evangelists: & in generall to all the presbyters, as having the charge of those affaires in their severall congregations in the Churches right to administer them. To impugn this answer, first he laboureth by two argumēts, to prove that Timothy and Titus did not perform those things by an higher power. viz. 1. because, they were to be done by a power which [Page 101] was to continue in the Church untill the end. 2. because the power whereby Bishops doe the things that Timothy and Titus had in cōmission, is so much of the Apostolicall power, as was to continue to the end. But if the Doctor had observed his Refuters meaning, (who by an higher power, un­derstandeth that power of office, which was invested in the persons of Timothy & Titus for being Evangelists, he might perhaps have perceived the deceit, that lieth in his own reasoning. For although the power of ordeyning and censuring considered simply (and in generall as the Refuter speaketh) be such as was to continue in the presbyters, though now by Bishops appropriated to themselves as he also granteth:) yet this hindreth not, but that (as the Apostles, so) Timothy & Titus being Evangelists, did performe those works by an higher power, that is, a power seated in an higher office. But if his meaning be, that Timothy and Titus did those things by ver­tue of an office that was to continue; and that the power of doing those works is derived to Bishops by apostolicall allowance; what else doth he, but continue his old trade of begging? 2. In like manner he deceiveth himselfe and his Reader, when he fastneth a contradiction on his Refuter in saying, the Apostles dreamed not of any such sovereigntie, as now is in Bishops, above Presbyters; when he had before sayd, that Timothy and Titus did the same things by an higher power (to wit of their Evangelisticall function) which Bishops have now appropriated to themselves. 3. And he argueth too loose­ly, when to prove a falshood in the refuters assertion (viz. that those instructions were given to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists) he sayth, they were given them as they were particularly assigned governours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete. For it was not repugnant (but ve­ry agreable) to the office of Evangelists to be assigned vnto the go­vernment of particular Churches at the pleasure of the Apostles, on whom they attended. 4. In deed, if the Doctor could give us a­ny one sentence in those epistles to Timothy & Titus, shewing the charge of those affaires to belong properly to Diocesan Bishops; I would freely confesse the Refuter had erred in denying it; and af­firming the charge thereof to belong in generall unto the presby­ters; but though wee haue wayted all this while, for the demonstra­tion of this point frō the Apostles writings: yet we heare no newes of any argument, that clearely deduceth this conclusion from any word or phrase, which Paul useth in his epistles; onely he sayth, he hath sufficiently proved this point before, lib. 3. Wherefore that the rea­der [Page 102] may see how worthily he disputeth there in defense of his Dio­cesan Lords; I will pray leave to lay downe in open viewe, what he here referreth us unto.

In his third book cap. 3. sect. 1. he giveth a threefold superio­rity Section 6. unto Bishops over other Ministers (viz. singularitie of prehemi­nence during life, power of ordination and power of jurisdiction) all which he groundeth upon Tit. 1. 5. And because his Refuter had denied Titus to be a Bishop; he referreth his Reader there, for the proofe thereof to that which was to followe, lib. 4. cap. 4. which we haue now to examine. In the meane time he desireth him to take it for granted. In like manner towards the end of that book (cap. 5. sect. 18.) he argueth that Bishops had corrective power o­ver the presbyters because Timothy and Titus had such power o­ver the presbyters of Ephesus and Creete, as he proveth (if we may beleeve him) by most evident testimonyes out of Pauls epistles Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 1. 3. & 4. 19-22. And unto his Refuters answere (viz. that Tim. and Titus were not Bishops and that he should ne­ver prove they were), he returneth this reply. I desire the Reader to suspend his iudgement, till he come to the proofes on both sides, & if he shall not find my proffes (saith he) for their being Bishops better then his to the contrary, let him beleeve me in nothing. Lo [...] here his wordes, and how confidently he relieth aforehand upon his proofes, which he meant to produce, for this assertion, that Timothy and Titus were Bi­shops. Notwithstanding when he cōmeth to make this apparant, & that by the scriptures (yea by S. Pauls epistles written unto them) the maine issue of his whole reasoning, cōmeth at last to this effect.

Episcopall authoritie consisteth chiefly, in the power of ordina­tion and jurisdiction.

But the authoritie which Timothy and Titus had in the Chur­ches of Ephesus and Creet principally consisted in the power of or­dination and jurisdiction.

Ergo, their authoritie was episcopall; And consequently they were Bishops.

Here now if the proposition be doubted of or denied, wee are sent back to this former disputation; where he begged that this cō ­clusion might be taken for granted. Is there any likelihood (think you) that we shall ever find a good end put to this controversy, whē Sect. 7. ad sect. 5. & 6. p. 80. 81. we must dance the round after the Doctors pipe, in this fashion?

But leaving the Doctor to the readers sentence therein, let us [Page 103] proceed to that example or supposall before mencioned; the rather for that he most proudly insulteth over his Refuter as if he were a Brownist or Anabaptist or had broached sundry schismaticall no­velties; as I am not ashamed once againe to lay downe his wordes to the readers viewe; so I doubt not but to cleare him from those [...]oul imputations. Suppose (saith he) a Democracy where the common wealth is governed by the people, it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes, for the choosing, admitting, ordering and consuring of officers; and directing them how to behave themselves in their offices. What if this go­vernment fall into the handes of the nobilitie, which continue the same lawes still in the same cases? What if some one mightier then the rest, at the last make himselfe sole-governour, still observing those fundamentall lawes, which were at the first established is it to be sayd that those lawes were the very pat­ternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall and Monarchicall government, whereby the first maker of those lawes would inform, in the one the nobilitie; in the other the Monarchie; and in them all other, how to exercise that function? The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction, was first in the severall Churches or congregatiōs, which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church-busines, in processe of time it came to be re­streyned to the Clergie onely, the Bishop and his presbyterie of Ministers one­ly; at last as things growe wor [...] and worse, the Bishop like a Monarch g [...]t the reignes into his owne hands. Now though the lawes of ordi [...]a [...]im and iu­risdiction, remeine the same, and the practise also in some sort: yet are they not patternes and precedents, eyther of the second or third kinde of government; neyther were they given to instruct, the Bishop alone, or the Bishop and his Clergie togither. These are the Refuters words; now the Doct. having first solaced himselfe in an idle repetition of the particulars, (inter­laced with scornfull gibes) to shewe the unlearneder sorte the trim Idea (as he pleaseth to speake) of that discipline, which the Refuter and his fellow challengers have forged; he cōmeth at his leasure very gravely to refute his supposed novelties, one after an other in this order.

First, it is here presupposed (saith he) that every Church indued with power of ecclesi [...]sticall government, was a parish &c. which dotage I have before refuted. Shall I say, that we have before proved his assertion (that the first Churches were properly dioceses) to be a meere do­tage? I will rather say, he might well have spared the menciō of this controversy; seing the Refuter doth not once mencion the word parish or parishonall. The second supposed novelty he maketh this [Page 104] that the foruse of Church government at first, was democraticall, or popular; the chief authority being in the people which by the Presbyterie did ordeine and censure all Church-officers. His Refuters wordes are these. The admi­nistration of Church-matters, was first in the severall Churches or congregati­ons, which by their Presbyters had the managing of all Church-busynes. And againe, the right was in the Church, and the execution in the Presbytery. But doth the Doctor speak as he thinketh when he calleth this schis­maticall novelty; and for this esteemeth his Refuter a Brownist or Ana­baptist? Knoweth he whome he woundeth in thus censuring him & his opinion? hath he never observed in his reading the Centuries. (cent. 2. Col. 134.) this saying. Si quis probatos authores huius s [...]uli perspiciat, videbit formāg [...]bernationis propemodū democratias similem fu­isse. Singulae enim ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem, verbum dei pure de­cendi, sacramenta administrandi, absolvendiet excommunicandi, haereticos & scelerátos, ministros eligendi, ordinandi, & justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi &c. The same wordes are recorded also in Catalogo. test. verit. lib. 2. Col. 108. but more directly to purpose speaketh D. Whitgist in his defense pag. 180. In the Apostles times the state of the Church was popular, And pag. 182; I therefore call it popular (saith he) because the Church it self, that is, the whole multitude had interest almost in everything. Shall he be now with the Doctor a Brownist, or Ana­baptist for so saying? And why shall not Thomas Bell (a professed enemie to all Brownists, and wholly devoted to the Prelates service) be taxed of schismaticall novelty, for teaching as he doth, that excō ­munication precisely and cheefly perteyneth to the Church, and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof, to some speciall persons fit for that purpose, and chosen for that ende? this he saith, and this he proveth by Christes wordes Math. 18. 17. 18. dic ecclesiae, tell the Church &c. that is to say (in his vnderstanding) vnto the whole congregation. (see his regiment of the Church cap. 12. sect. 4.) If his credit be little worth which the Doctor; yet me thinks, he should be ashamed to justify the Rhemists and Bellarmin against Doctor Fulk and Doct. Willet, who affirme that the right and power of the keies and so of excommunication, belongeth vnto the Church; and the Pastors & prelates exercise it, as in the name of Christ, so in the name of the whole Church. see Doctor Fulk, answ. to the Rhem: on 1. Cor. 5. sect;. and D. Willet Synops. cont. 5. quest. 4. part. 2.

But Mr. Beza (if you will beleeve the Doct.) making menciō of one Morellius, who pleaded in like manner for the popular go­vernment, [Page 105] giveth him this stile. Democraticus quidem fanaticus. De Minist. gradibus cap. 23. pag. 155. But Mr Bezaes wordes in that place doe shewe, that he giveth that stile to Morellius, for no other cause then this, that he presumed by word and writing to repre­hend that order, which for election of Church-officers is religious­ly and prudently observed in the citie of Geneva. Which is such as well accordeth with the Refuters doctrine; for it alloweth the Church to be electionum sacrarum conscia et approbatrix to take notice and give approbation; howsoever a prerogative is given to the Pa­stors & Magistrates, to goe before the people in the choise. 2. Not­withstanding the Doctor asketh if it be not a phrensy to urge the peo­ples supremacie in Church government? and whether there be any shewe in scripture, or in reason that the sheep should rule their shepheard, or the flock their Pastor? Say as much should be graunted as his questions im­ply; must he not first prove that his Refuter giveth supremacie of rule unto the sheep or people over their Pastor before he can con­clude him to be ledde, by a fanaticall spirit against scripture & rea­son? But is there not want of judgement rather in the Doctor, that imagineth the Pastor to be ruled, by the sheep or people; when the Church, (which is the whole body) hath the managing of all Church-affaires, by her Presbyters, which are the principall mem­bers? Doth not Cyprian that holy Martyr, say (lib. 1. epist. 4.) plebs ipsa maximè habet potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indig­nos recusandi, quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere? And how oft doth Austin say, that Peter signified the Church, and bare the person of the Church; when Christ sayd unto him, Tibi dabo claves &c. Mat. 16. (August. tract. 50. & 124. in Iohan. Item in Psal. 108, & de agonia Christi cap. 30.) And Gerson Trilog. 8. quest. Claves (in­quit) datae sunt ecclesiae, ut in actu primo; & Petro, ut in actu se­cundo. On which words the Bishop of Chichester in his answer to Tortus, pag. 65. giveth this note; Cum vnum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes, qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio, omnes enim idem senti­unt. But to passe by many others, the wordes of Ferus (in Act. 11) are worthy of the Doctors observation. Peter the Apostle, & chief of the Apostles is constreyned to give an account to the Church; neyther doth he disdeyne it because he knew himselfe to be, not a Lord but a Minister of the Church. The Church is the spouse of Christ, and Lady of the house; Peter a servant and Minister. Wher­fore, the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers; [Page 106] but also reject and depose them; if they be not fit. And in giving this preheminence to the Church above Peter, doth he speak a­gainst the scripture or against reason? Doth not S. Paul acknow­ledge the same, touching himselfe and his fellow Apostles? 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancie (if not frenzie) to urge as the Doctor doth, lib. 3. passim) the superio­ritie of one Bishop in an whole Diocese or Province, above all the Presbyters and people thereof? Notwithstanding as the Refu­ter doth no where say, so neither can it be gathered frō his words, that the form of Church-governmēt was at the first, or now ought to be wholly democraticall or popular; the Doctor is not ignorāt (as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. & 3.) that his Ref: pleadeth for the Aristocra­ticall forme of government, as that which in his opiniō ought to be established in the severall Churches. Neyther doth he therein crosse himselfe, or any of his fellowes that favour the parish disci­pline, for they all (as I am perswaded) doe hold the ecclesiasticall government to be a mixt forme compounded of all three states, as many worthy divines doe confidently mainteyne. P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. see his Com. plac. clas. 4. sect. 9. Baros. de polit. civ. & ecclesiastica lib. 2. pag. 42. 43. D. Whitak. de Roman. pontif. pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ, who is the head, not one­ly of the whole Church in generall, but also of every particular vi­sible Church (Ephes. 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27) the Church may be truely reputed a Kingdome or Monarchy: so it hath some resem­blance unto a Monarchy, in regard of that preheminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers. But because no one Pastor or Bishop, hath power to governe, or determine causes ec­clesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure, but ex consilio compres­byterorum, by the Counsell of his fellow-Elders: the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy. And in as­much as the peoples consent is not to be neglected, in causes of greatest moment, it agreeth in part with a Democracie: notwithstā ­ding a meere Democracie, wherein all matters are handled of all (ae­quato jure) by an equall right, we doe no lesse detest, then that u­surped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates, which other reformed Chur­ches have abolished.

Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry sommer in a dripping Section 8. yeare, when he supposeth in his third fancie, that we hold the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. & Titus, [Page 107] to have bin provided for such a popular state, wherein the people doe rule their leaders. They were provided for a mixt state, where­in many presbyters vnder the guidance of one Pastor or president, doe administer & execute all matters, with the peoples consent & approbation. And in the affirmation as we have the assent of the most and the best divines of later times (Calvin on Titus. 1. 5. Be­za on Tim. Cap. 5. 19. 22. and Tit. 3. 10. and sundry others) so we have the Apostles owne warrāt in the close of his epistles, with these words, grace be with you, or with you all. 2. Tim. 22. Tit. 3. 15. for by this it appeareth, that what was written specially by name to Timothy and Titus, was intended to be of cōmon use, not onely for other Ministers; but also in some sort to all the Saints, that then conversed in those places. Moreover since the Apostle char­geth Titus to observe in the ordination of Elders that order which he had before enjoyned him (Tit. 1. 5.) whence can we better derive that order, then from his owne practise, and his fellow-A­postles who used aswell in ordination, as in other Church-affaires, both the advice and help of other Ministers; and the approbation of the people; as appeareth by these scriptures. Acts. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 2. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 6. 22. 23. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. & 2. Cor. 2. 10. The Doctor therefore is misledd by his owne con­ceit, when he imagineth that the Apostles wordes unto Timothy and Titus, (Lay not handes rashly &c. And doe thou avoid an Haeretick) did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their handes, that neyther people nor presbyters, had or might have a­ny stroak at all in those matters. As for his gibing objection. Be­like the whole Island of Creete was a parish too; it deserveth no other an­swer then this; when he justifyeth his collection, from any words in his refuters answer; I will acknowledge him for an honest man: mean while let the reader take notice of this, that the Doctor (in a fewe leaves after pag. 88) noteth this speach of his refuter, that Creet had many Churches; which argueth necessarily; that the whole Iland could not be one onely parish.

The last fancy falsly fained by the Doctor is this, that the popular Sect. 9. state of the severall Churches, did first degenerate into an Aristocracie, and after into a Monarchie; he should haue sayd, that the well tempered Democracie, did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracie, & after into an absolute Monarchy. But he endeavoreth to shewe that the severall Churches were at the first governed Monarchically, to wit, [Page 158] by the Apostles, or Apostolicall men severally. For Apostles he nameth Iames that ruled perpetually; and Peter and Paul &c. for a time. And of Apostolicall men that were perpetuall governors he hath good store, as Mark, Timothy, Titus, Evodius, Simō the sonne of Cleophas &c. But where are his proofes that all these or any of them, governed Monarchically; and by their sole authority. Concerning Iames it is already shewed, that his government was farre short of that sole authoritie, which our Bishops carry at this day, in the managing of Church-causes. And by that which hath bene now sayd concerning Timothy & Titus, the same may be af­firmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus & Creet. But he asketh whether Paul did not cōmitt the ordination of Mi­nisters unto Titus, without mentioning eyther of Presbyterie or people? And we may ask him, what mention he findeth there, of prayers, or hands-imposition, which ought to concurre with or­dination? if he can include them (as being vnderstood) in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5; wee have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters, and the peoples approbation in the words fol­lowing, hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee: Quis enim cre­dat Paulum &c. who may beleeve Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in vse? Muscul. loc. cō. de elect. Minist. Againe, he asketh or rather argueth in this man­ner. Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government dire­cted onely to Titus for Creete, and to Timothy for Ephesus? and doth not this evidently shewe, that (howsoever they might use eyther the presence or consent of the people, or the counsell & advise of the presbyters in causes of grea­test moment, as Princes also doe in cōmon-wealths, yet) the sway of ecclesia­sticall government was in them? If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason, thē the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth; Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular termes vnto Peter onely both his whol speach concerning the keies of his king­dome, and the power thereof; Math. 16. and that precept of feed­ing his sheep and lambes, and of confirming his brethren. Ioh. 21. 15. 17. Luk. 22. 32. Wherefore however Peter might use the help The Doct. reasoneth well for Rome. and assistance of his fellow-Apostles in all those workes; and the presence or consent of the people, in the administratiō of the keies; yet the cheef power and sway of all was in him alone. Good newes for Rome, if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument; but the truth is, such singular speaches directed to one onely, doe not [Page 109] argue in that one any such preheminent power, as the Romanists and Prelatists doe from thence gather. So that since the Doct. can not prove that Timothy and Titus, had any such singular and sole power in Church-government, as the Doctor judgeth to be due unto Bishops; it is plaine that he buildeth upon a vayne and false presupposall, when he saith, it is presupposed in the epistles to Ti­mothy and Titus, that they had episcopall authoritie; and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops, in the exercise of their function.

But for the proofe of this, he hath another argument in store, thus framed,

Those things which were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone, Sect. 10. ad sect. 7. pag 83. as extraordinary persons, but them and their successors to the worlds end; were written to informe diocesan Bishops.

But those epistles were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons; but them and their successors to the worlds end.

Therefore they were written to informe diocesan Bishops.

Vnto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinctiō thus; that it is true if vnderstood of successors in authority or power of performing the same works, but false, if meant of succession in the same office. The Doct. therefore first indeavoureth to prove what his Refuter denyeth and yet in the winding up of all, would per­swade his reader, that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption. But he is to be advertized, that vnlesse he make good what his Refuter denyeth, he cannot conclude what he vndertaketh. For whether we look to his former assertion, which he saith is here againe proved, himselfe doth thus explaine it. (sect. 3. in the beginning) that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus, S. Paul intended to informe them as Diocesan Bishops, and in them all o­ther Diocesans: or whether wee look to the nearest scoape of his wordes in his sermon (pag. 74.) it is evident, he there intendeth, to prove that which he supposed would be answered to his former objection (viz. that the things spoken to Timothy and Titus, were spoken to them as extraordinarie persons, whose authority (he should have sayd office) should die with them) which cannot be re­moved vnlesse he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinarie function; wherein their successors should en­joy the same authoritie to the worlds end. Neyther is this to deny his conclusion, as he falsely affirmeth; but to contradict his assū ­ption [Page 110] in that sense, which is necessarie to make it good; because otherwise he argueth not ad idem. Let us therefore see how well his proofes are fitted to the assumption. I prove it, saith he, first by testimonie both of Paul and of Ambrose; and after by reason. And first by S. Pauls testimonie, that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the cōman­dements and directions which he gave him, should be kept inviolable, vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus. 1. Tim. 6. 14. Ergo, they were to be per­formed by such as should have the like authority (and the same office) to the end. The consequence of this Enthymeme dependeth upon this proposition. That the commaundements and directions given in charge unto Timothy, could not be kept inviolable unto the end, without a succession of such as should have not only the like autho­ritie, but also the same office untill the end of the world. The which is [...]latly denyed, and cannot be fortifyed by that which fol­loweth (scz: that those commandements could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end) se­ing the mēbers of his disiunction are insufficient, when he taketh it for graunted, that those cōmaundements must be performed eyther in Ti­mothees own person, or in such as succeeded him in the same function: for the Doctor cannot be ignorant, that the cōmandement which Christ gave to his Apostles (Math. 28. 19, 20.) for preaching and bapti­zing, was to be kept inviolable unto the cōming of Christ: ney­ther could it be peformed by the Apostles alway in their own per­sons, or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolike function. It is performed (as all the world knoweth) by successors in a diffe­rent functiō, which haue authoritie to doe the same works; though neither in the same office, nor yet with that ample cōmission for the extent of their jurisdiction. In like manner the Refuter saith, that the cōmaundements given to Timothy and Titus for ordinati­on and jurisdiction, were continued in the Church by presbyters, which succeeded them (though in a differing office) according to that ordinary course, which God had appointed for his Church.

Thus much for S. Paul, whom the Doctor now leaveth and cra­veth help of Mr. Calvin, T. C. and others to conclude his purpose: Sect. 11. ad sect. 7. pag 83. 84. scz. that the commandements given to Timothy, were to be per­formed by such as succeeded him in the same office. Mr Calvin, saith he, vnderstandeth in the name of the cōmandement, those things where­of he had hitherto discoursed concerning the office of Timothy. And doe not we also understand the things or works given in charge, under the [Page 111] name of the commandement? Neyther deny we that those things belonged to the office or ministery of Timothy. Yet we refuse that succession in the same ministeriall function, which the Doct. would wring (if he could tell how) out of Pauls charge to performe the things so cōmanded untill Christs second cōming. 2. True it is, that T. C. and others finding among other precepts in Pauls epi­stles to Timothy this, that the governing Elders are to be honoured as well as the Teachers, doe from thence conclude the continuance of both functions; and why should they not, since the continuance of Bishops and Deacons is of all interpreters rightly gathered frō the rules that are layd down concerning their functions. 1. Tim. 3. the former being no less ordinary, and perpetually necessary, then the later. Yet the continuance of Timothy his office cannot be con­cluded vpon the same ground, till it may appeare that his function was also perpetuall and not extraordinary. 3. As for the testi­mony of Ambrose, it nothing helpeth the Doctor, except it be to shewe, how grosly he plaieth the Sophister in thus arguing. S. Paul in his words. 1. Tim. 6. 14. hath regard unto Timothees successors, that they after his example might continue the wel ordering of the Church. So saith S. Ambrose. Ergo, in his understanding (saith the Doct.) he meant such as succeeded Timothy in the same office. As though the Fathers did confound the offices of Apostles & E­vangelists with those Pastors & Bishops, which succeeded them in the rule and government of the Churches, because they say the la­ter were successors to the former.

4. His reason followeth now to be examined. Whatsoever autho­rity is perpetually necessary; and such as without which, the Church neyther can be governed, nor yet continued: the same is not peculier to extraordinary persons, or to die with them: but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in their successors. But the authority committed to Timothy and Titus, was perpetually necessary and such as without which, the Church neyther can be governed; (as without jurisdiction), nor continued (as without ordination.) Therefore the authority committed to them, was not peculiar to them as extra­ordinary persons, but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those that succeeded them. Wherevnto I answer as before; if he speak of suc­cessiō at large in authority onely; he wandreth from the question: If of succession in the same office; I disclaime the later braunch of the proposition; for all men knowe by the perpetuity of Pastorall authority, by which the word and sacraments are still continued [Page 112] in the Church (whereas the dispensation of these holy things was first committed by Christ to the Apostles Math. 28. 19. 20.) that the perpetuall necessity of an authority to performe this or that ministeriall work, doth not necessarily require any to succeed in the same function that first enjoyed that authority. And this is so evident a truth, that rather then the Doctor will contradict it, he will become non-suite in this point; and perswade his Reader, if he can, that succession in authority onely (which was never denyed) is sufficient for his purpose, the contrary whereof is before suffici­ently made manifest.

To follow him therfore in the defence of his propositiō he saith, Sect. 12. ad sect. 8. pag 85. it is grounded on this hypothesis; that diocesan Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus; and therefore reasoneth thus,

If the successors of Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops; then those things which were written to informe their successors; were written to informe diocesan Bishops.

But the successors of Timothy & Titus, were diocesan Bishops.

Therefore those things that were written to informe their successors, were written to informe diocesan Bishops.

Here the Doctor is againe to be advertised, that the true hypo­thesis of the former proposition is this; that diocesan Bishops not onely de facto were; but also de jure ought to have been successors vnto Timothy & Titus, in the exercise of their authority; & there­fore the consequence of the later proposition, which mencioneth their succession de facto onely, is too weake; for vnless it were cer­teine that S. Paul intended that diocesan Bishops should succeede them; his writing of purpose to direct their successors; cannot argue that he meant by them to informe diocesan Bishops. It had bin fit therefore, the Doctor had shewed from some wordes of the A­postle in these epistles, or from some other Scriptures, that the A­postle aymed at the successiō of such Bishops; but this was too hard a task for him; and therefore he perswadeth his reader, that their succession de jure cannot be denied, if their succession de facto be proved. Which he indeavoreth by two arguments.

First by this disiunction. Either diocesan Bishops were their successors, or the presbyteries, or the whole congregation. But neyther the presbyteries, nor the whole congregation Ergo diocesan Bishops.

As for the last member of this disiunction, it is absurdly added by the Doctor, howsoever he would seem to haue done it to please [Page 113] his Ref: for although he say that the right was in the church; yet he giveth the execution to the presbytery of each congregatiō: neyther yet is he so to be vnderstood, as if he denied a preheminence for or­der sake, vnto some one to be the mouth of the rest, in executing that which was by the whole presbytery decreed. Which prehemi­nence as it did by right belonge to Timothy & Titus in regarde of their Evangelisticall function during their stay in those places; so it was devolved after their departure to him that was primus presby­ter, or proestoos president of the presbyters; that is to say, in each congregation, to the Pastor; and in a Synode or assembly of the Pa­stors and presbyters of many Churches to that one which with the consent, & choyse of his brethren moderated the action. If there­fore he speak of successors vnto Timothy & Titus, in that speciall presidencie, which they held at Ephesus and in Creete; his disiun­ction is to be disclaimed as insufficient; because it wanteth the mē ­tion of such a president as we give to each presbyterie and Synode. His second argument, followeth in this forme;

Those who succeeded Timothy and Titus in the government of the Chur­ches of Ephesus and Creet, were their successors: But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothy & Titus in the government of those Churches. Therefore they (viz. Diocesan Bishops) were their successors.

Well may you see, the Doct. would faine be thought to be rich, The Doct. is poore & proveth idem pe [...] idem. when in deed he is poore. For is this argument any better then a beggerly proving of the point denyed by the self same? is it not all one to succeed them in the government of those Churches; and to be their successors in the like authoritie? Perhaps he meaneth now to conclude (though before he sayd it was needlesse) that Diocesā Bishops were their successors in office: if so, then hath he somewhat more to doe then he expecteth, he must prove his propositiō which he beggeth. Meane while (till his meaning herein be knowne) I flatly deny his assumption, and am ready once againe to listen to his proofes of this proposition, that diocesan Bishops succeeded Timo­thy and Titus in the like power of government over the Churches of Ephesus & Creete.

First, touching Timothies successors in Ephesus, whereas he al­leadgeth, Sect. 13. ad pag. 86. & 87. that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, Apoc. 2. 1. was one of Timothies next successours, he was answered, that he doth but tediously begge the question in assuming that the same Angell was a Diocesan Bishop; and now overpassing this point, (as The D. beggeth. [Page 114] if he sawe it not) he appealeth to his Refuters conscience, whether that Angel was not the Bishop or governour of the Church of Ephesus, and succeeded Timothy in the government &c. Wherein if he should gratifye him, with the graunt of as much as he desireth, scz. that the Angel was one singular person & a Bishop, yea and a successour unto Ti­mothy and one of those 27 Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councell of Calcedon; yet (the Doctor isnever the neer) it will not follow that he was a diocesan Bishop; for that other braunch of the Refuters answer unto Leontius testimony standeth yet unremoved, viz. that howsoever the later of these 27 Bishops might be Diocesās; yet the for­mer were not. The Doctor sayth, It is certayne that both the later and the former were not onely Diocesan, but also Metropolitan Bishops; but I an­swer, he is much deceived, if he think we will take his bare affirma­tion; It is certeine, for a sufficient confirmation of the matter in que­stion. And if Timothies īmediate successours were (for certeinty) Metropolitan Bishops, why is the Doctor so fearfull, as he seemeth to be (lib. 2. pag. 114. & lib. 4. pag. 131.) to ascribe their originall also to the Apostles institution? And why doth he by consequence contradict it, in saying, It is evident and cannot be denyed, but that there were diocesan Bishops, such as ours, before there were any Metropolitans? lib. 3. pag. 20. & lib. 4. pag. 7. for me thinks he should blush to af­firme, that Timothy and Titus were bare Diocesans, if their īme­diate successors were Metropolitans.

As touching Creet, and succession to Titus in the government thereof, the Doctor confesseth, that he hath not any where read of his next successor. The first that he findeth to haue that ample go­vernment, was Philip mencioned by Dionysius of Corinth, apud Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 21. & 23. Yet betweene him and Titus, there is an apparant difference; for Philip had the speciall charge of the Church of Gortyna; whereas Titus was equally trusted by the Apo­stle, with the oversight of all the Churches in the whole Iland. He addeth, though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Provincial Bi­shops, were the successors of Timothy and Titus, yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of government, Ephesus and Creet vari­ed not. After having sayd, that Mark at Alexandria, Evodius at Antioche, & Linus at Rome had the same authoritie that Timothy and Titus had, he argueth demonstratively in this manner;

It may not be doubted but that each of these had Bishops (he should have sayd, Diocesan Bishops) to their successors in the Apostles times. There­fore [Page 115] the Refuter should not make it so strange, that Diocesan Bishops were suc­cessors of Timothy and Titus.

Whereto I answer. It seemeth then the Refuter is not to be bla­med for esteeming the later a strange point, if the former may be doubted, and why should he not make a doubt of it, seing the D. hath no better testimony, or reason to confirme it, then his owne naked affirmation, It cannot be denyed. Thus we have seene the Do. best defence: for that episcopall function, which he giveth to Ti­mothy & Titus, his next labour is to remove the objections made against his assertion.

Chap. 9. Concerning the first obiection against the Bishopricks of Ti­mothy and Titus handled by the Doctor, lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 9. and 10. pag. 89-92.

THe first objection he layeth downe in these wordes. That Ti­mothy Sect. 1. ad sect. 9. p. [...]9 and Titus may seeme not to have bin appointed Bishops of Ephesus and Creet, because they did not continue there, but were removed to other pla­ces. Wherein, although the Doctor hath omitted the maine point, that should give strength to the consequence (viz. that they conti­nued there by the band of their office, as being affixed to the per­petuall charge of those Churches:) yet as if the Refuter had made choise of his owne wordes, & contrived it for his best advantage; he telleth the reader, it is an objection of his owne framing. But it is usuall with him, when he would seem to remove our objections, to fit them to his owne strength, that his answer may seeme to car­ry the victory with it. Otherwise since himselfe assenteth (pag. 94) to this difference, between the function of Evangelists and Bishops, that the former were not tied to any one place, as the later are; he might (and in upright dealing onght) to haue framed to himselfe at the first this objection. viz. that Timothy and Titus were not ti­ed or bound to attend during life, on the charge of those Chur­ches in Ephesus & Creet; and therefore they were not by Paul or­deyned Bishops of those Churches. But then his distinction of per­petuall and ordinarie residence, would not have reached to impugne, eyther the antecedent or the consequence of the argument. For the consequence implyeth this proposition, that, all whom the Apo­stles ordeyned Bishops of particular Churches, were affixed or bound to the per­petuall charge of those Churches; This if the Doctor deny, it may easily [Page 116] be proved by the lawe of God and man, and by the testimony of the best writers in all ages; but I will spare this labour, seing the D himselfe cannot impugne it (as I suppose) without contradiction to himselfe. For how can Bishops enjoy by the prerogative of their function, [...] singularity of preheminence during life; if their assign­ment to the charge of the Church which they holde, bindeth thē not to attend on the feeding and oversight thereof, as long as they live? I graunt that Bishops may upon speciall and extraordinarie occasion, not onely traveile to other places; but also be removed unto other Churches: but in their absence they remaine bound to the charge of the Church first cōmitted to them; till by a lawfull calling they be removed, to the setled oversight of an other church. Wherefore an ordinary residence in Ephesus and Creet, is not suffi­cient to prove that they were Bishops of those Churches; unlesse it may also appeare that they were bound to the perpetuall charge thereof; and that the same band recalled them back, when those extraordinarie matters were dispatched, which called them away for a time. But this is more then he can prove, eyther by testimo­ny of scripture, or any other evidence. If he will conclude such a band of continuance from the Apostles wordes: 1. Tim. 1. 3. and Tit. 1. 5. he must argue thus;

Paul requested Timothy prosmenein, to continue still in Ephesus; and appointed Titus epidiorthosei ta leiponta, to continue to redresse what was Sect. 2. wanting in Creete. Ergo they were bound to make their ordinary residence there (as having the proper charge of those churches) during life.

If there be any strength in this consequence, then there must be a truth in this proposition, that men are bound to make their ordinarie residence, during life in those places, where they are eyther requested prosmeinai, or left epidiorthosai &c. But the Doctor is not able (with all his skill) to prove a continuance (or ordinarie resiance) during life, much lesse any band or tie unto such conti­nuance; in the wordes of the Apostle before mencioned. For it appeareth that a farre shorter continuance (and that without any band of office or calling therevnto) is noted by the word prosme­nein, Mat. 15. 32. Mark. 8. 2. and Act. 18. 18. And Grammarians doe teach that the word hath sometimes the significatiō of expecto, to tarry or wayte for an others cōming; which construction, as it doth well accord with the Apostles words. 1. Tim. 4. 13. (till I come give attendance to exhortation &c.) so it was of ancient times re­ceived, [Page 117] as appeareth by the reading which Augustin (lib. 2. cont. Parmen.) followed, Rogavi te ut sustineres me; I requested thee to tarry for me at Ephesus. And certeynly these words Till I come, compared with the former, I requested thee to abide or stay for me at Ephesus, doe argue very strōgly that Paul had no purpose to bind him unto per­petuall residence there as a Bishop on his perpetuall charge. Si Ti­motheus erat episcopus Ephesinus, fuit ne rogandus ut in sua pa­raecia maneret &c. Let Mr Doctor read Sadeel to Turrians so­phismes. loc. 12. sect. 8.

And as for the word epidiorthoos [...], Tit. 1. 5. it is nothing else with Sca­pula (in his Lexicō) then insuper emendo velcorrigo, to ad an amēdemēt fault, or correct somewhat alreadie done or spoken, for as there is prodiorthoosis, a [...]ore amendement of an evill, by preventing it, be­fore it breake out; so is there also epidiorthoosis, an after amende­ment of a fault already cōmitted. (see Aretius in Tit. 1. 5.) Where­fore a continuance in redressing is not necessarily implyed in the Greek word, as the Doctor may further see (for his learning) not onely by the reading, which his Mr (the Bishop of Winchester) em­braceth (perpet. gover. pag. 47. & 299.) but also by that transla­tion, which the two last Church-bibles doe reteine. I left thee in in Creta, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting (or lefte vndone.) True it is, that some wryters of good note, (to expresse the force of the preposition epi) doe preferre this or the like read­ing: I l [...]ft thee in Creta (ut pergas corrigere) that thou shouldest goe for­ward (or continue) to redresse &c. thereby to signify that Titus suc­ceded Paul, as one put in trust to continue the work begun, and to finish that which was left unperfect. But even they which doe urge this signification of the word, doe notwithstanding acknow­ledge, the time of his continuance in Creta, to be very short; (see Calvin, Piscator, Beza and others in Titus 1. 5. Wherefore the Doctors collection (which from the Apostles words inferreth that Titus was not lefte there for a brunt (to set things in order) & so to come away, but to continue redressing what should be amisse, and still to keep that Church in reparation) is a false glosse. Which as it hath no warrant from the word epidiorthoosai; so it crosseth the true meaning of those words, ta leiponta, things remayning, for they shew that he was left there for the rectifying of those things, which by the Apostles departure thence, remayned out of order: and not for the repairing of such future defects, as the Doctor conceiveth [Page 118] might arise, by reason of the death of Bishops and Presbyters, and many personall corruptions in doctrine, discipline and manners, whereunto the Church was subject; for that the Apostle aymed at any such defects, and their redressing, it is more then he will be a­ble to prove in hast.

But though he cannot make good his owne collection from the Sect. 3. ad sect. 10. p. [...]2. Apostles words: 1. Tim. 1. 3. & Tit. 1. 5; yet he can easily throw downe his Refuters inferences, which conclude that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops; because Titus was sent for out of Candy to Rome, and from thence dispatched into Dalmatia; And Timothy was not at Ephesus, when the second epistle was written to him; & he staied for some good time, with Paul at Rome. These (saith the Doctor) are goodly inferences, to oppose to the evidence gathered out of the epistles. But in vaine braggeth he of his evidence gathered out of the epistles, since it is made manifest, that the epistles have nothing to further his purpose. And he wrongeth both Refuter and Reader; in concealing the maine strength of those Inferences, which he men­cioneth; for from those testimonies of Timothy and Titus their re­moving to diverse places after their stay in Ephesus and Creta; he first collecteth, That the Apostles tooke the same course of implying Ti­mothy and Titus in their Evangelisticall function which he had before usually done; and thereupon asketh, who may be so bolde or vnreasonable, as to imagine that Paulhad made the one Bishop of Ephesus; & the other Arch Bishop of Creet. The Doct. therefore might have seene (if he would) that his Refuter argueth to this purpose.

They whom the Apostles implyed in their Evangelisticall function, after their stay at Ephesus & in Creta like as he had usually done before: they (I say) were not made Bishops by him, the one of Ephesus, the other of Creet:

But Timothy and Titus were so imployed after they had been lefte in E­phesus and in Creet. Therefore they were not made Bishops by the Apostle of Ephesus & Creet.

The proposition; he deemed so plaine, that he thought none would be so bold or vnreasonable as to deny it: for could not the Apostle foresee, what use he was like to have further of them? or could he not find others, which were at liberty, whom he might send hither & thither &c. The assūptiō he proved by their removes before mencioned. To all which the Doctor maketh no other an­swer then a denyall of the conclusion, in saying, It is intolerable bold­nes and arrogancie not to acknowledge that Paul had made them Bishops. [Page 119] Onely he contradicteth him for saying, that Timothy was not at E­phesus when the second epistle was written to him: which though it may be mainteyned upō better probability then the Doct. hath to im­pugne it, yet) I willingly overpasse, seing for our purpose it is suffi­cient; that other places of scripture sufficiently witnesse, his atten­dance on Paul, after he was left at Ephesus. For as he sent for him to come to Rome (2. Tim. 4. 9. 21.) so he was there with him at the writing of his epistles to the Philippians & Colossians and to Philemon as their inscriptions (vers. 1. of each epistle) doe shew▪ And from thence he was sent to the Philippians in Macedonia, as may well be conjectured by Pauls own words, Phil. 2. 19. 23. And to the Hebrewes he saith, (Cap. 13. 23.) know that our brother Timothy is delivered: with whom (if he come shortly) I wil see you: which argueth that he had been a prisoner; & being elswhere imployed was by the Apostle expected, that he might againe use him for a companion in his traveiles. It is apparant therefore, that (as the Refuter saith) the Apostle still imployed him in his Evan­gelisticall function. And so he did Titus also seing he was called to meete him at Nicopolis. (Tit. 3. 12.) and afterwards being at Rome, was sent from thence to Dalmatia. 2. Tim. 4. 10. which ar­gueth plainely (as is before observed) that they were not by Paul ordeyned Bishops.

As for that discourse which the Doctor runneth into (serm: pag. Sect. 4. ad p. 99 76. and. 77.) concerning the time when Timothy was left at E­phesus: it was overpassed by the Refuter as an idle digression from the present controversy, of his being affixed to the perpetuall charge of the Church of Ephesus. But since he urgeth it a fresh, and saith, that their opinion which think that Timothy was required to staye at Ephesus but for a short time, when Paul went into Macedonia Acts 20. is contrary to S. Pauls former testimony, 1. Tim. 1. 3., I will examine the strength of his ob­jection, which runneth thus; In both those voyages of Paul into Macedonia mencioned Acts 20. 1. 3. Timothy accompanied him. Therefore the time of his staye at Ephesus after Paules going thither recorded 1. Tim. 1. 3. can­not accord with any of those voiages, Act. 20. The Antecedent he la­boureth to prove (in his sermon) as followeth. Not the first which followed the tumult appeased vers. 1. because īmediately before the historie of the tumult; it is sayd that he had sent Timothy into Macedonia, and him­selfe followed (cap: 19. 22. & 20. 1.) not the second, which was from Grae­cia, resolved vpon to avoyd the ambushment of the Iewes, ver. 2. & 3. be­cause [Page 120] it is expresly sayd, that Timothy accompanied him; & from Philippi, went before him to Troas & to Assos, frō whence he accompanied him to M [...] ­letum verse 4. 5. to 15. For answere to the first, I grant that Timothy was sent into Macedonia before the tumult was begun at Ephe­sus, but that the tumult followed ymediately upon his sending thi­ther, it is the Doctors vaine imagination, refelled rather then con­firmed by S. Lukes storie. For he reporteth (cap. 19. 22.) that after the sending of Timothy & Erastus into Macedonia, Paul (epesche chronon) stayed for a time in Asia. The like phrase in other places importeth some good space of staye: as 1. Cor. 16. 7. Act. 15. 33. & 18. 23. (see Aretius in Actes 15. 33. & Calvin on 1. Cor. 16. 7.) yea the wordes themselves epesche chronon, eis ten asian, subsistit ad tem­pus in Asiam, scz. profecturus. (ad verbum (ut habet Piscator) inhibuit, scz. susceptam prof [...]ctionem mencioned vers. 21.) (these very wordes I say) doe shew that he deferred his owne foreintended journey into Ma­cedonia, for a time of purpose to spēd some time in Asia, in visiting & strengthning the Churches. And the Apostles own words (1. Cor. 16. 5. 7. 8. 9.) doe plainly import, that he resolved to returne vnto Ephesus, there to set forwardes the Lordes work; because he sawe both an effectuall doore opened vnto him, to doe much good; and a strong opposition of many adversaries, likely to doe hurt, if he should have departed out of those quarters what hindreth then, but that Timothy might dispatch his journey and returne thither again in this time of the Apostles stay at Ephesus and in Asia; which came betwene his sending them, and that Tumult; that is recorded afterwards? Wherfore, if this cannot be with better reason impug­ned then yet I see; it will follow inevitablie, that Timothy his a­boade at Ephesus was very short; seing it is certeine he was with Paul in Grecia. Acts. 20. 2. 3. 4. when he resolved to returne frō thence through Macedonia.

Now to answer the second, that which he supposeth moste cer­teine is altogither vntrue, viz. that Timothy (with the reste that are named Acts. 20. 4.) accompanied S. Paul into Macedonia, till he came to Philippi, and there parted from him, to goe before vn­to Troas; The words of the Evangelist, are that Timothy & others accompanied him (achrites asias) vnto Asia; that is, til he came to the Coasts of Asia; and that there they (parting from him) went before and tarried for him and Luke, (with others that continued with him) at Troas. Whereby it appeareth that they all took ship­ping [Page 121] in Graecia, (the better to avoid the ambushmēts of the Iewes) and so passing by the coasts of Asia (as they must to goe into the coasts of Macedonia) there landed Timothy & the rest, who were to meet with Paul and his company at Troas, after he had dispat­ched his affaires in Macedonia. Wherefore the Doctors misconcei­ving the tenour of S. Lukes storie, is a greater errour then their o­pinion, that referre the time, both of Timothies stay at Ephesus (in­joyned him 1. Tim. 1. 3.) to Pauls second voiage towards Mace­donia recorded Act. 20. 3. And of S. Pauls writing his first epistle to Timothy; vnto his being in Macedonia there mencioned vers. 6. For what hindreth but that Timothy parting frō Paul in the coasts of Asia neer to Ephesus might then be requested to stay at Ephesus; and be saluted also with letters from Philippi, or some other citie in Macedonia? Surely if the Doctor had not been strangely misledd by his owne conceit, he would never have deemed this a strange conceit in Mr Beza.

So then, it being apparant that the Doctor hath nothing of a­ny moment to object against Timothies stay at Ephesus, in one of Sect. 5. those voyages, which Paul made into Macedonia; is it not much more safe to ascribe it to one of these; then to dreame (as the D. doth) of a new voiage thither after his deliverance from his bonds at Rome? Specially, seing he hath no warrant, neyther from Gods word, nor from any sound historiographer, to mainteyn his strange conceit; but onely a false supposall, that it cannot fittly be ascri­bed to any of his journeys mencioned in the Actes. For how can he prove that which he so confidently avoucheth, touchiug Pauls deliverance from his bands at Rome, and renewing of his former traveiles for 9. yeres after? And when this is proved, how will he demonstrate, eyther from Pauls epistles, or any other monumēts of antiquitie (from whence himselfe saith (serm. p. 78) the Actes of those 9. yeares must be gathered) that Paul made a newe voy­age into Macedonia, and in that traveile passing by Ephesus, lefte Timothy there? And if he could prove this; is he not singular in his conceit, that this was the time of placing Timothy in his Bi­shoprick? For did not Paul himfelse tell the Elders of Ephesus (whē he parted from them at Miletum. (Act. 20. 25.) that he knew that they all among whō he had gone preaching the kingdom of God; should see his face no more? And hath the Doctor forgotten that himselfe teacheth us (serm. pag. 70. & 88.) and pag. 63. of this [Page 122] defense) that the Apostles did substitute Bishops in their roomes, when they were to discontinue, from the Churches, which they had planted; and that for the avoiding of factions in their absence? No reason therefore he should thinke that Paul would neglect to give them a Bishop; at or before so solemne a departing from thē; specially seing (as he knewe he should see their face no more, so) he foresawe that after his departing, there should greivous wolves en­ter in, and perverse Teachers spring up from amongst themselves. Act. 20. 29. 30. To conclude therefore this question, thus I argue;

If Timothy had any ordination at all to the Bishopprick of Ephesus, the same must be at one of those journeys, which he tooke into Macedonia, Actes 20. 1. 3.

But he had no ordination to his Bishopprick at any of those journeys.

Therefore he had none at all.

The consequence of the proposition is apparant by thinges last touched, viz. that at Pauls last parting from those coastes, he knew he should see them no more, and that no monumentes of Antiquity doe ascribe this worke to any latter voiage. And in the first, whereof mencion is made Actes 16. 10. 12; Timothy was his companion, as appeareth vers. 1. 3. &c. neyther was the Church at Ephesus then planted, much less fit to receive and mainteine a Bishop, as may be gathered from Actes 18. 19. 25. 26. & 19. 1. 7. &c. As for the assumption, though the Doctor acknowledgeth the truth of it; yet we relie not on his conceites, but on farre surer groundes. For it is also shewed, that he was not affixed, to the permanent charge of that Church; neyther did he long stay there; but followed the A­postles call, aswell after as before. To all which I adde this one reason, more peculiarly fitting the time, mencioned in the assum­ption.

If Timothy had not as yet received the episcopall charge of the Ephesian Church, when Paul took his leave of their Elders. Act. 20. 25. 28. then was he not ordeyned in any of his iourneyes into Macedonia, mencioned Act. 20. 1. 2. 3.

But the antecedent is true. Ergo, also the consequent.

The assumption, or Antecedent, I prove as followeth; At what time the Church of Ephesus enjoyed many Bishops, to whome the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did apperteine in cōmon, by speciall charge given them by St. Paul; and that without any intimation of any superi­our [Page 123] set over them, to whose direction they should yeeld obedience: at that time, Timothy had not yet received such an episcopall charge as giveth him a singularitie of preheminence above all other ministers in that Church.

But at the time of Pauls taking his leave of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. the Church of Ephesus had many Bishops, to whom the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did apperteine in comon &c.

Therefore at that time Timothy had not received such an episcopall charge &c.

The assumption is manifest by the wordes of the Apostle Actes 20. 28. and the proposition is moste apparant by the manifest op­position, betwixt the singular regiment of one Bishop, and the joint charge of many. Moreover, it is justifyed by the Doctors secret allowance, (serm. pag. 18. & 69.) and very plainly by him, that gave the Doctor best satisfaction in this whole controversy, perpet. govern. pag. 223. There was, saith he, a time when the Church was governed by the cōmon-advice of the Presbyters, as Ierom af­firmeth. In this time spake Paul to the Presbyters at Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. Neyther let the Doctor think here to stopp our mouthes, with the shifting answer which he elsewhere useth, viz, that these Presbyters governed onely in private, & as under the Apostle; who kept in his own hands the episcopall authoritie; for this is to cō ­tradict the Apostle himselfe, who plainely resigneth to them the whole charge of that Church, as knowing that he should see them no more. vers. 28. 32. with 25. 26. It is a cleare truth therefore, that Timothy not having then any sole preheminence in the go­vernment of that Church, was not their Bishop; and consequent­ly, he was not at all ordeyned their Bishop, as is before shewed.

His allegations follow, from diverse authors, which report of Sect. 6. ad sect. 10. p. 91. Timothy and Titus that they lived and died, the one at Ephesus, the other in Creet. His Refuter told him, that he might credit the report of his authors, & yet deny them to be diocesan Bishops; and good reason he had so to tell him; because an episcopall functi­on cannot be concluded from their living & dying in that place. He now telleth us that it sufficeth his purpose, to wit, to prove that they held their ordinary residence there, which the objection de­nieth; therefore againe I tell him, that vnlesse he will fit the obje­ction to his owne strength; and so contend with his owne shadow, he must prove more then an ordinary residence; even a band of cō ­tinuance there, as their proper charge. For till this be effected, [Page 124] his proofes are to as little purpose as those that many papists al­leadge for Peters Bishoprick at Rome; because towards his later time, he there lived for his ordinarie residence, and at length there died. I adde this, to provoke the Doctor to a better examination of his owne witnesses; that they doe not prove such an ordinarie residence, as he would justify by them. For some of them, are worthy of no great credit, as Vincentius, Antonius, and Nicepho­rus, authors, on whom the leaden Leagend is grounded. And Do­rotheus one of the most ancient that he alledgeth is much abused. For he reporteth thus of Timothy in Synopsi; Evangelium Iesu Chri­sti Ephesi exorsus Illyricum us (que), et in vniversa Hellade praedicavit, ubi & mortuus et honorifice s [...]pultus est. That beginning at Ephesus he preach­ed the gospell of Iesus Christ, to Illyricum and through all Greece, where he did and was honourably buryed; doth not this directly contradict that, which the Doctor alleadgeth him for; and plaine­ly argue that he was an Evangelist as we affirm? Come we now to the second objection.

Chapt. 10. Concerning the second obiection against the Bishopriks of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 11. and 12. pag. 93-97.

THe second objection lieth thus, Timothy and Titus were Evan­gelists; Sect. 1. ad sect. 11. pag [...]3. Ergo, they were not ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus and Creete. This consequence the Doctor denied, because their being Evange­lists did not hinder, but that when they were assigned to certeine Churches, and furnished with episcopall power, they became Bi­shops. And to remove this answere, the Refuter proveth first, that their being Evangelists did hinder their assigning to certein chur­ches without which they could not be Bishops. 2. That when they were left at Ephesus and in Creete, they received no such new au­thoritie, as he calleth episcopall, neyther needed any such furnish­ing as he supposeth. The first is proved (not by 2. reasons as the Doctor imagineth, but) by one disiunctive argument, in this mā ­ner,

What could not be done, without eyther confounding the offices, which God had distinguished, (Ephes. 4. 11.) or depriving Timothy and Titus of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower; that the Apostle Paul neyther would nor could doe.

But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops, when they were Evangelists, could not be done, without eyther confounding the offices which God hath di­stinguished, Ephes. 4. 11. or depriving them of an higher calling, to thrust them into a lower.

Ergo, the making of Timothy and Titus Bishops, when they were Evan­gelists, was a thing which the Apostle neyther could nor would doe.

The assumption is very scornfully rejected by the Doctor, be­cause in his imagination, the partes thereof are nice points, which none of the fathers did ever understand; but his triumph is vaine and vnseasonable, whiles we are in examining by the verdict of the scriptures, or by reason grounded thereon, what to determine of this controversy. Wherefore, to passe by this answerlesse answer, I will indeavour to draw the reader to the consideration of that I haue to alleadge in defense of our assumption as followeth,

To conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops & Pastors in one per­son at one time, is to confound the offices which are distinguished, Ephes. 4. 11. And to take from an Evangelist his evangelisticall function, when he is in­vested into the office of a Bishop or Pastor, assigned to the charge of one certein Church, is to deprive him of an higher, and to thrust him into a lower calling.

But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops, when they were Evangelists, could not be done without, eyther conioyning both offices in one person, or taking their first office from them, when the later is given to them.

Ergo, neyther can it be done, without eyther confounding the offices, which are distinguished Ephes. 4. 11; or depriving them of the higher function; to thrust them into a lower.

Here the proposition is impugned in both the branches therof, first therefore for the former thus I argue. It is apparant, by the ve­ry text, Ephes. 4. 11. and by other scriptures, that the severall functions of Ministery there mencioned, were by Christ distributed to severall persons, & not cōmitted two or moe of them to one man at once. Ergo, to conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops, in one person at one time, is to confound the offices, which by God are distinguished. For the manifestation of the antecedent, first let the text be weighed, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. he gave some to be Apostles; and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. He saith not, he gave some to be Pastors onely, and some to be Evangelistes and Pastors: or that some were Apostles onely; and some Apostles and Evange­lists, but (as before) he gave some to be Apostles, and some to be Evangelists &c. thereby signifying that such as had the calling of Apostles, had not also the office of Evangelists. Neyther did the [Page 126] Evangelists holde therewithall the office of Pastors. 2. This is fur­ther confirmed by the similitude which the Apostle vseth (1. Cor. 12. 14,▪ 28. of many members in one body, which haue (not all one and the same, but each of them, his severall office. The eye is not an eare; neither doth it serve the body in the office of hearing, or smelling &c. in like manner all are not Apostles, nor all Pro­phets, &c. but God hath ordeyned, some to one office, and some to another, as first Apostles, secondly Prophets, &c.

3. And of this distinction we haue examples. For touching the extraordinarie Ministers (of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists) we finde them distributed to severall persons. Luk. 16. 13. Act. 1. 26. and cap. 11. 27. 28. and 21. 8. And for ordinarie functions, there were at Ierusalem Deacons and Elders. Act. 6. 3. 6. & 11. 31. at Philippi, Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. but of two or moe of­fices combined in one person at once, there cannot be yeelded any one cleare example in holy scripture.

All that the Doct. objecteth to infringe this is of small moment; viz. that as Apostles might be Evangelists, as we see in Mathew & Sect. 2. Iohn; so Evangelists might be Bishops, as we se in Mark. (pag. 95) For the name of Evāgelist by ancient or later writers given to Mat­thew and Iohn, because they wrote those histories, which are kat hexochen, called Evangelia, Gospells; proveth not, that they had that functiō of Evangelists, which is distinguished from the Apostles, E­phes. 4. 11. The scripture is best expounded by the scripture; & therefore we must by Evangelists there, vnderstand such as have the name given them in other partes of the new testament, as Acts. 21. 8. and 2. Tim. 4. 5. And as for Mark, we know him to be an Evā ­gelist; not onely because he wrote one of the 4. Gospells; but ra­ther because he was (as Timothy) a companion and fellow helper to the Apostles: but his Bishoprick we disclaime no lesse then Ti­mothees; and for the same reason, because he was an Evangelist by his particular function: neither can the Doct. herein contradict us, without contradiction aswell to himself as to the truth. For he cō ­fesseth (as the truth in deed is) that the word Evangelist specially taken, signifieth the extraordinary fūctiō, of those in the primitive Church, which went up & down preaching the Gospell, not being affixed to any certeine place. And particularly, of Timothy & Titus he saith, they were Evangelists whiles they accompanied the Apo­stle Paul in his traveiles, & were not assigned to any certeine place. [Page 127] From hence therefore I thus frame a 2. argument; to prove, that the combyning of the functions of Evangelists and Bishops; or Pa­stors in one person at once, is a confounding of offices, which by their first institution; were distinguished;

Whatsoever offices are severed by properties of an opposite nature; they can­not at once be conjoyned in one person, without confounding the functiōs which by their first institution were distinguished.

But the function of Evangelists & Bishops are severed by properties of an opposite nature; (for the one is extraordinary, and not bound to any certeine place, the other is ordinarie & tyed to one certeine place.)

Ergo the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors, cannot be conjoy­ned at once in one person, without confounding the functiōs, which in their first institution were distinguished.

And by this it may be seene that the Doctors comparison halt­eth, when he would perswade that Timothy and Titus might be Bishops, although they were Evangelists like as the Apostles Mat­thew and Iohn, were also Evangelists; for that Evangelistship given to Matthew & Iohn by that name of Evangelists is farre differing from the Evangelisticall function of Timothy and Titus, neyther is there such an opposition betweene their Evangelist-ship, and the Apostleship; as there is betwene that Evangelistical function, which he giveth to Timothy & Titus; & their episcopall office. For Matthew and Iohn ceased not to be Apostles, when they became Evangelists: but concerning Timothy and Titus he plainely affir­meth, that they laid aside their former office when they vndertook the later. For he saith (pag. 95.) that after they were placed Bishops, they traveiled not up and downe, as in former times, but ordinarily remeyned with their flocks.

To come then to the latter braunch of the Refuters argument, Sect. 3. ad sect. 12. p. 95. (which affirmeth, that they were deprived of an higher calling, & thrust into a lower, if they ceased to be Evangelists, when they were made Bishops) the truth of it dependeth upon this assertion, that the Evangelists were in degree of ministery superior to all ordinary Pastors or Bishops, which is so generally acknowledged for a truth, that the Reader may well admire at the Doctors boldnes, that sha­meth not to set an Evangelist in equall ranck with presbyters, and so (in his apprehension) in a degree below his Bishops. For here­in he swarveth not onely from the cōmon Tenent of the best, in o­ther reformed churches, (see Calvin in Ephes. 4. 11. Beza. de [Page 128] grad: minist: pag. 133. 134.) which give to all the extraordinary functions, of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, a preheminent degree above all the ordinary offices of Pastors or Bishops; but also from such as have pleaded the same cause before him. (D. Dove, Def. of Church-government, pag. 17. lin. 18. and perpet gover. pag. 50. 51.) And therefore as the D. will have Iames to remeine an Apostle, though he were Bishop of Ierusalem: so will Bishop Bilsō have Timothy and Titus to be both Evangelists and Bishops, per­pet. gover. pag. 233. 234. But to leave the mencion of men, how­ever famous for learning and esteemed in the Church; can we have any better line, whereby to measure out the preheminence of each ministeriall function, then that priority of place & order, wherein the Apostles hath set them? Ephes. 4, 11. from hence therefore, I thus argue.

All the ordinary functions of ministery comprised vnder the name of Pastors, and Teachers; are in degree inferior to the extraordinary functions of Apostles, Prophets & Evangelists; as the order of their standing Ephes. 4. 11. sheweth. But the function of Bishops which the Doct. ascribeth to Timothy and Titus, is an ordinary function of ministery & such as himself comprizeth vnder the name of Pastors pag. 95. Ergo, it is also inferior in degree to the extraordinary functiō of Evangelists aswell as to Apostles & Prophets.

Now to reduce to this argument, the Doctors discourse (pag. 94. and 95) the summe is this. First he maketh. 4. sorts of Evan­gelists. viz, such as taught the Gospell by writing, as the 4. Evan­gelists, Math. Mark, Luke and Iohn. 2. any one that doth Evange­lize or preach the Gospell. 3. the. 72. disciples imediately called of Christ and sent by him to preach the gospel; of which number was Philip, Act. 21. 8. 4. Some others assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their traveiles, and assistants in the Mi­nistery; and of this sort were Timothy and Titus, whiles they ac­companied Paul in his traveiles and were not assigned to any cer­teyne place. Secondly to apply this distribution unto the Apostles meaning, Ephes 4. 11.; he acknowledgeth no other there com­prized under the name of Evangelists; then the 4. Evangelists, so called kat hexochen, and perhaps the 72, doubtfully he speaketh of them (pag. 95.) as being loath (it seemeth) to acknowledge, that they had any preheminence above his diocesan Bishops be­cause the Fathers say of them (as he observeth pag. 94.) that they also had but the degree of the presbyterie. And therefore I guesse, [Page 129] he will award the stroke of the former argument, by this distinctiō thus, viz. that the ordinary functions of ministery comprized vnder the name of Pastors and Teachers, are not inferior in degree to the later sort of Evangelists, which attended on the Apostles, but one­ly to the 4. Evangelists, and perhaps to the. 72. because these one­ly, and not the other, are meant by the name of Evangelists in that place.

And to joine issue with the Doctor, I affirme the contrary, viz. Section [...] that by Evangelists in Ephes. 4. 11. we are to vnderstand all those, and those onely, which in an extraordinary function (distinct from the Apostles and Prophets) traveiled too and fro, preaching the Gospell; whether they were imediately called of Christ; as Philip is supposed to be; or were assumed by the Apostles to be their com­panions and assistants, as Timothy, Titus, Mark and many others. And first to prove that which he denyeth, (viz. that the later sort of Evangelists are comprized vnder that name in Ephes. 4. 11. as­well as the former) for brevity sake in stead of larger syllogismes, I tender to him and to the judicious Reader these several arguments nakedly propounded. 1. the D. confesseth that vnder the name of Evangelists specially taken, the later sort, (in which number Timo­thy and Titus were) are no lesse comprized, then the former, be­cause this was cōmon to them all, that they went up and downe preaching the Gospell, not being affixed to any certeine place. It seemeth therefore, he was not well advised, when he admitted the one sort and denied the other, to be understood by the word, E­phes. 4. 11. unlesse he could yeeld (as he cannot) some sufficient reason for the difference he putteth betweene them. 2. Againe, he confesseth that the later sort were in an extraordinary function. Ei­ther therefore he must deny all extraordinarie functions of mini­sterie to be comprized Ephes. 4. 11. or he must referre one sort of Evangelists to an other name, as of Apostles, Prophets or Pastors &c. both which are absurd, and I doubt not but to make good the censure, if the Doctor require it. Now whereas he referreth the word Evangelists, Ephes. 4. 11. principally to those 4. that wrote the gospels; this is not easily proved, to accord with the meaning of the Apostle, seing that work of penning the Evangelicall history, maketh them not to stand in a differing function of Ministerie frō all others. For the Ministeries there mencioned are all distinct fun­ctions of preachers; And if the writing of Christs historie made a [Page 130] different function; why should not the writing of the Apostles Acts make a second, and the writing of the Evangelicall, or Canonicall epistles, a third: and the receiving and penning of the revelation a 4. And as for the. 72. or rather 70. (For Luke mencioneth 70. not 72. chosen by Christ. cap. 10. 1.) how confident soever the Doct. be in assigning to them an Evangelisticall function; yet we cannot hastilie subscribe to him therein; much lesse can wee graunt that which he affirmeth of Philip, that he layd aside the evangelisticall function, to take a temporary Deaconship Act. 6. and so returned to it againe: but these are parerga, by-controversies about which we will not contend.

Let us therefore attend to the reason urged by the D. to prove, Sect. [...]. ad pag. 95. 96. that Timothy and Titus were advanced and not debased, when they were made Bishops. For, saith he, whereas before they were but Presbyters, though called Evangelists in a large sense; they were now made the Apostles of those Churches, and by imposition of handes ordeyned Bishops. Behold here quot axiomata, totidem paradoxa, as many paradoxes as axiomes. For how will he prove, 1. that they were before but presbyters, The D. beg geth 3. times to­gether, and contradic­teth him­self in one sentence. &c. 2. called Evangelists in a larger sense; 3. now made Apostles of those Churches. 4. and by imposition of hands made Bishops? The two last are nakedly sent forth, without any one ragge to cover their shame; the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth be­fore acknowledged by himselfe pag. 94. where he comprizeth Ti­mothy and Titus, no lesse then Philip and some others, under the name of Evangelists, specially taken for the extraordinarie functiō of those that went up and downe, preaching the gospell, being not affixed to any certain place. And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertiō of a palpable falshood. For how could they be but presbyters, seing they stood in the extraordinary fun­ction of Evangelists? Forsooth he saith, th [...] what the fathers say of the 72 disciples (that they had but the degree of the Presbytery) the same may of Timothy and Titus, much more be verifyed. But doth he no [...] abuse the fathers, in making them the authors of his owne para­doxe? For, doe they match the 72 disciples, or any other Evange­lists, with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise, then they doe the Apostles, with the degree or place of Bishops? Neyther is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops, or to lift up Bishops a­bove Prophets, but to countenāce that superioritie, which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters; by a comparison of the like [Page 131] difference, which they apprehended betweene the Apostles, & the 70. disciples. Wee haue therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion. viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superiour to all ordinarie presbyters; for (besides that already ga­thered from Ephes. 4. 11.) it is apparant by that honour which the Apostle, and by that obedience, which the Churches, to which they were sent, gave unto them, whiles they were his fellow-hel­pers and companions in his traveiles. 1. Cor. 4. 17. & 16. 10. 16. 2. Cor. 1. 1. & 7. 13. 15. & 8. 23. Philip. 1. 1. and 2. 20. 22. Wherefore I conclude once againe, that to make them Pastors or Bishops; when they were Evangelists, is (not to advance them but rather) to throw them downe from a higher degree of Ministerie to a lower.

In the second place, (whereas the Doctor had sayd that Timo­thy and Titus were furnished with episcopall power, at the time of Sect. 6. [...] pag. 9 [...]. their stay in Ephesus and Creet, by S. Pauls appointment; and the Refuter denied that they received any new authoritie, which be­fore they had not &c.) the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner; If they received no new authoritie, why did Timothy re­ceive a new ordination, by imposition of handes whereof the Apostle speaketh (1. Tim. 4. 14. & 2. Tim. 1. 6.) and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop. I graunt that Paul mentioneth hands-imposi­tion on Timothy & that some of the fathers doe thereby understād his ordination to be Bishop. Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove eyther from those words, or any of the fathers writings, that the imposition of hands mencioned by Paul was a second ordina­tion to a new office, or a furnishing of him, with any new Ministe­riall authoritie which before he wanted. What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop, may be construed (as is before no­ted (cōcerning Iames) their speaches are, which say that Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem) of a new or differing imployment in the work of the Ministerie, for the temporarie charge he recei­ved, which argueth no new authoritie or office imposed on him. 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordi­nary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands? his owne pen hath given him a direct answer pag. 94. lin. 32. where he saith, that Timothy and Titus (who were of the later sort of E­vangelists, and therefore in an extraordinary function (lin. 15. of the same page) were ordeyned Ministers of the gospell by imposi­tion [Page 132] of handes; which I would fayne know how he can prove, by any testimony divine or humane; vnlesse he carry those wordes of Paul (1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6.) to his first ministeriall fun­ction.

3. Againe, he asketh, may we think that any but the Apostles (be­ing not assigned as Bishops to severall Churches) had that authoritie where­soever they became, which Timothy had at Ephesus & Titus in Creet? And he addeth, verily Philip the Evangelist had not authoritie to impose handes for the furnishing of men with graces for the Ministerie; but the Apostles Pe­ter and Iohn were sent to Samaria for that purpose. Act. 8. 5.-17. If it be his drift thus to argue; Philip the Evangelist had no authoritie, to give graces fit for the Ministery by imposition of handes: Therefore besides the A­postles none but Bishops, had that authoritie wheresoever they came, which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Creet; I answer his reasoning is many wayes faulty. For he cannot prove, eyther that Bishops have, or that Timothy and Titus had, that authoritie by imposi­tion of hands to give such graces. Neyther is it true (which his words import) that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and Iohn (Act 8. 17.) were graces fitting the persons that received them, to the work of the Ministerie. Wherefore although it should be graunted, that the Evangelist Philip had no authoritie to give those peculiar graces; yet he might haue as great authori­ty, wheresoever he came, as Timothy and Titus had in the Church­es of Ephesus and Creet; so that his assertion implyed in his quae­stion (viz. that besides the Apostles, onely Bishops had the like au­thoritie to that which Timothy and Titus had) hath no colour of any sound reason to uphold it. Yea it is strongly confuted by 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, [Page 133] 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. [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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 also they lived & dyed? I answer, hath he not by as good proofs shewed Iames his assignement to the Church of Ierusalem and his living and dying there? If then (all this notwithstanding) it be true that Iames was not properly a Bishop, doth he not reason loosely, when from such assignement of Timothy and Titus, he concludeth them to be properly Bishops? The refuters second answere is, that it is manifest by Zuinglius his writings, he neyther thought they were, nor any other might be a diocesan Bishop. Whereto the Doctor replyeth, belike he spake otherwise then he thought, and then addeth an other testimo­ny of Zuinglius, which saith, that Timothy was a Bishop and that the of­fice of an Evangelist and of a Bishop is all one: where behold with what conscience the Doctor wresteth the words of his owne witnesse frō their meaning; for there is nothing more evident to them that per­use Zuinglius his writings then this; that with him every preacher of the gospell at this day, hath as good right to the name of an E­vangelist, and of a Bishop, as to the title of a presbyter or pastor: vocat ad se Paulus Act. 20. presbyter [...]s. i. episcopos, Evangelistas vel ec­clesiae ministros. lib. de ecclesia fol. 48. And Tom. 1. fol. 115. (in his parenesis to the cities of Helvetia) affirmeth that the Bishop spokē of 1. Tim. 3. was any Pastor or Minister of the Church. Quo in lo­co (saith he) discimus omnes ecclesiarum ministros episcopos esse, et dici, & eiusdem sententia assertorum habemus Hieromimum. and fol. 117. ha­ving cited Tit. 1. 5. 7. to the same purpose, he addeth. Evidenter demonstrat bis locus &c. this place evidently sheweth, that a Bishop is no other then a Minister of the Church, whom wee use to call pa­rochum a parish preist or Minister. But that the Reader may see, how much Zuinglius misliked the large jurisdiction & singular prehe­minence of Bishops at this day in use, and that he was too great a favourite of the parish discipline; to be wrested by the Doctor in defense of the monarchicall (or rather in his judgment Tyranicall) [Page 136] government of diocesan Bishops, I praye the reader to have pati­ence till we come to the first of the Doctors 3. arguments handled in the third part of this reply.

Chap. 11. Conteyning an answer to another of the the D. Argu­ments concerning the Bishopricks of Timothy and Titus handled sect. 13-16 from pag. 98. to 104.

FRom these two objections (in the pursute whereof, the Doctor Sect. 1. ad sect. 13. pag. 98. fedd himselfe with a vaine hope, to gaine some advantage) he now returneth to give a fresh onset on his Adversary in this man­ner;

The supposed Evangelisticall function of Timothy & Titus, was to ende with their persons, and admitted no succession: as being both extraordinary & temporary. But the function and authority which they had as be­ing assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and of Creet (consi­sting specially in the power of ordination & jurisdiction) was not to ende with their parsons, but to be continued in their successors. Therefore the function and authority which Timothy & Titus had, as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet; was not extraordinary and Evangelisticall.

This argument (layd downe, serm. pag. 79.) his Refuter tooke to be opposed against the Antecedent of that objection which af­firmeth Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists; and who would not have so judged, seing the conclusion denyeth their function & authority to be Evangelisticall. But he saith that the introduction premised before this argument (hereof we may conclude thus) sheweth that he intended not to deny or disprove that Antecedent, but to bring a new supply of argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus & Creet. Which difference I referre whol­ly to the judgment of the indifferent reader, not doubting but he will discharge the Refuter from all blame eyther of willfull, or of negligent mistaking. And whereas he flatly denieth that he doth deny they were Evangelists; that he may not hide himselfe under a cloud, I desire him plainely to answere us, whither they remayned Evangelists after that calling, which he supposeth they had to be Bishops? If yea, why doth he insinuate the contrary (pag. 95. lin. 24. &c.) when to justify this, that they were not Evangelists, but Pa­stors and Bps, he saith, that after they were placed the one in Ephesus, the other in Creet, they traveiled not vp and downe as in former tymes, when they [Page 137] accompanied the Apostles, but ordinarily remayned with their flocks. If no, why maketh he his Reader beleeve, that in the conclusion of his argumēt above mencioned, he neyther doth nor did intend to de­ny that they were Evangelists. But (as often before so here againe) we must and will follow him in his owne way, when he saith his pur­pose was from the former conclusion thus to argue;

The function and authority which Timothy and Titus exercised in E­phesus and Creet, was eyther extraordinary and Evangelisticall, as the disci­plinarians teach: or else ordinary, and episcopall as the prelatists affirme: But it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall. Therefore ordinary and e­piscopall.

Here the assumption is the conclusion of the former argument; and the proposition he taketh for granted, as if it fully delivered the points of difference, betweene us and him with his Associates in the cause he pleadeth. Wherefore we must take leave to lay downe our owne opinion more clearely, which is this in few words. First we distinguish function from authority; both which the Doct. cō ­foundeth; for though we affirme, their function there exercised to be Evangelisticall and therefore extraordinary; yet we doe not so a­vouch of their whole authority nor yet of that authority or power of ordination & jurisdiction, whereof he speaketh in the assumptiō of his former argument; as the Doct. may perceive by the Refuters words, whereof he tooke notice pag. 84. Againe, we distinguish betwixt authority (simply considered and in generall) to performe the works of preaching, and ordeyning &c. And that particular or personall authority which for the exercise of these works, was inve­sted in their persons; and gave them allowance in all places where they came to exercise the works of their calling: And therefore though we grant (as before is noted) the authority it selfe in ab­stracto & simply considered) to be ordinarily and perpetually ne­cessary: yet we affirme their personall authority to be Evangelisti­call, because all the authority they had did flow from their Evange­listicall function. For like as the Apostles preached and baptized by the authority of their Apostleship; so did Timothy & Titus both Preach and impose hands &c. by vertue of their Evangelistship. So then to make answer, first to the D. disjunctive argument, 1. as touching the function which Timothy & Titus exercised in Ephe­sus and Creet, we affirme it to be extraordinary and Evangelisticall; and therefore in that respect utterly reject his Assumption. 2. tou­ching [Page 138] their authoritie (consisting as he saith specially in ordinatiō and jurisdictiō) if he take it personally for that which was invested in them, by the ministeriall functiō which they there exercised: then I reject the assumption also in that behalfe: but if it be taken sim­ply and at large for any authoritie to exercise the like works; eyther in the same Churches or in any other; then I disclaime his propo­sition. For we are so farre frō affirming this authoritie, to be pro­per vnto Evangelists; that we hold it rather cōmō to every Pastor, in his owne congregation. Let the reader see what the Doctor ob­serveth for this purpose pag. 79. & 84. and what we have added, (cap. 8. sect. 12) touching their preheminence above other Mini­sters, and the continuance thereof, in the presidents of Synods.

Now to come to his Argument first set downe, (and to passe by that fault, of mencioning function onely in the proposition; wher­as Sect. 2. ad pag. 98. 99. authoritie is also joyned with it in the assumption and conclusi­on) the Assumption which was denyed by the Refuter, must (for the clearing of his true meaning) be divided into two mēbers, the one serving properly for the plaine & naturall assumptiō. viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete, was not to end with their persons; but to be continued in their successors: the other serving eyther for the Medius terminus of a prosyllogism to cōfirm the former; or at least for an explicatiō of his meaning therin. viz. that the functiō & authoritie which they had or exercised in those Churches, was such as assigned them to the particular care thereof, and consisted specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction: the refuter (for brevitie sake omitting, to distinguish these two differing propositions infolded in one) fit­ted his answer to the later, affirming (as the truth is) that there­in he doth but begge the question; in asmuch as he assumeth for The Doct. beggeth. truth these two points before convinced of falshood. viz. 1. that they were assigned to the perpetuall charge of those Churches. 2. And that their authoritie was such a preheminent power in ordi­nation and jurisdiction, as he ascribeth elswhere to Bishops. If pre­judice (or rather malice as it may be feared) had not blinded the Doctor, he might have aswell discerned this, as some others have done, that borrowed no light from the Refuter by any private cō ­ference with him, to finde out his true meaning, and then he might have spared that outragious calumniation He roves and raves as men use to doe, which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answer somewhat. [Page 139] But to answere his Assumption, as he hath now nakedly propoun­ded it, (viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete, was not to end with their persons, but to be cōtinued in their successors.) I answer, with the distinctiō before used, to wit that their personall authoritie, perished with their fun­ction; and therefore in that respect the assumption is false; howso­ever there remayned unto perpetuall succession an authoritie to performe the same ministeriall works, which they exercised by ver­tue of their temporary function. So that, if he will prove the assum­ption in that sense wherein it is denyed: then must he prove the perpetuitie (not onely of their authoritie in generall, and for the works sake which they performed, but also) of their particular fun­ction, and of that personall authoritie, which they there exercised; so as neyther the one nor the other did end with their persons, but was continued in their successors; the proofe therefore of his assū ­ption must thus runne,

That function and authoritie which is ordinary and perpetually necessa­ry, not onely for the welbeing, but also for the very being of the visible Church­es: was not to end with the persons of Timothy and Titus, but to be continued in their successors.

But the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus & Creet, is ordinary and perpetually necessary, not onely for the wel-being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches.

Therefore the function and authoritie which they there exercised, was not to end in their persons; but to be continued in their successors.

Here the Assumption was denied; because however the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary; yet there is no necessitie, that there should be in every Church an Evangelist (that is to say, one indowed with that peculiar function & personall authoritie which Timothy and Titus had) for the good ordering and executing of that power. The Doctor saith, he did not affirme that which is denyed, scz. that there must be an Evāgelist in every Church: neyther is he willing to see, that his assumption doth both in effect affirm as much; & plainely avouche, what he dareth not to justify, to wit, that the very function which Timothy and Titus exercised, is perpetually necessarie, not onely for the wel-being; but also for the very being of the visible Churches.

To avoid this grosse absurditie, he will needes now divide their Sect. 3. ad sect. 14. pag 100. 101. function from their authoritie; which hitherto he hath conjoyned. [Page 140] For thus he explaineth his Assumption. The function which Timo­thy and Titus exercised was ordinary; and their authoritie perpetually neces­sary &c. of which two points he saith, his Refuter graunteth the later, & doth not touch the former; as if the former branch could escape his touch, when his whole assumption is rejected as false; or there were no difference, betwixt that power of ordination and jurisdiction in generall, which the Refuter graunteth to be perpetually necessary; and that peculiar authoritie, which was invested in Timothy and Titus, by reason of their particular function, which was before de­nied to be continued in their successors. But in truth, (as he hath O sweet D now distributed and construed the parts of his assumption,) in the second he idly affirmeth, what was never denied; and so leaveth un­touched the point which he should have proved: And in the first, he offendeth more grosly, for he borroweth the conclusion of his first argument, to make good the Assumption of the same. Before he proved the function of Timothy & Titus to be ordinary & epis­copall; because it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall: And now to prove that their function was cōtinued in their successors, and therefore not extraordinarie and Evangelisticall, he telleth vs, that it is an ordinarie function and the same, which the Bishops that succeeded them, did exercise. And to make a mends for this The Doct. beggeth. impudent begging, he multiplyeth his default, by heaping up many assertions, whereof some are apparantly false, and the rest no lesse doubtfull, then the point which he indeavoreth to justify. For first, it is false which he saith of Timothy and Titus; that in them there was nothing extraordinarie, but their not limitation to any certain chur­ches; & so is that which he addeth to prove it, viz. that their calling to the Ministery was ordinary, and their gifts attayned by ordinary meanes, for himself interpreteth the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 14. (neglect not the gift that is in thee & was givē the by prophesie &c. of his cal­ling to the Ministery, not by humane suffrage; but by divine revela­tion, & by the cōmandement or oracle of the Holy Ghost (lib. 4. p. 141.) his calling therefore to the Ministery (by his own confessiō) must be extraordinarie. 2. Neyther can it be denied to be extra­ordinarie in Titus, that the Apostle cōmitted to his Church, the fi­nishing of his owne work, for the first establishing of the Churches in Creta, and furnishing them with Bishops or Elders to instruct them. For himself confesseth that the Churches which were yet in constituting, and vnfurnished with Presbyters to teach them, had [Page 141] no need of a Bishop to govern them. Lib. 4. pag. 63. 3. In like manner this large commission not confined to any one Church or Diocese, but with equall charge extended over all the Churches in the whole Iland, was more then ordinarie: seing the ordinary Bishops and Elders were restreyned, to the oversight of one onely Church or flock; as appeareth by Act. 20. 28. & 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. and the Doctor that hath sought all records he could meet with, for the next successors of Titus, can finde none, that had the like extent of jurisdiction, till the next age after the Apostles; and yet there is an apparant difference, betweene him that the Doct. men­cioneth, and Titus as is before observed cap. 8. sect. 13. next be­fore this. 4. Moreover it was extraordinarie that Timothy & Ti­tus were authorized to cōmaund and to speake with cōmanding authoritie. 1. Tim. 1. 3, & 4. 11. & 5. 7. Tit. 2. 15. for the aun­cient Bishops knewe, that this was rather Apostolike, then suting with the function of Bishops: (Ignatius in ep: ad Rom. knowing his owne measure would not commaund as an Apostle but exhort &c.) but because these men by their daily conversation with the Apostle, knew perfectly his doctrine and doings, the Pastors of the Churches to which they were sent, were to receive direction frō them, and to yeeld obedience to their instructions. 1. Cor. 4. 17. & 16, 10. 16. 2. Cor. 7 13. 2. Tim. 2. 2. & 3. 10. 5. Yea even in gifts and the way of attayning them, D. Downames Betters doe acknowledge this extraordinarie preheminence; that they were in­dowed with extrordinarie gifts, as the revealing of secrets; and discerning of spirits; and that they had their knowledge for the most part infused by revela­tion. perpet. govern. pag. 88. Bishop Barlow. serm. in Act. 20. 28 fol. 6. And since some of these extraordinarie preheminences, then shined most clearly when they were assigned, to the Churches of E­phesus and Creet, it followeth inevitably that their function was even at that time extraordinarie, and therefore not episcopall, but evangelisticall.

Now whereas he saith, that their function was the same ordinary fun­ction, which their successors, & all other Presbyters did exercise; because. 1. they were assigned to certeine Churches as the Pastors thereof. 2. ordeyned thereto by imposition of hands. 3. and by that ordination, furnished with the power of ordination and jurisdiction; what else doth he then indeavor to justify the point controverted, by others, no lesse doubtfull, if not apparantly false.

To returne now to that assumption, which at the first affirmed joyntly, that the very function of Timothy & Titus, aswell as their authority Sect. 4. was both ordinary and perpetually necessary &c. it is most plaine, by the reason added in his sermon (pag. 79. before he bringeth in his conclusion) that he then intended (as his wordes signifyed) to jus­tify the perpetuity of their function for the wordes of his reason are these; If whiles the Apostles themselves lived, it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted, such as Timothy & Titus, furnished with episcopall power; then much more after their decease, have the Churches need of such governours. To this connexive proposition him­selfe addeth the assumption, and conclusion pag. 104. following. But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus & Creet, and all other Apostolicall Churches. Therefore the latter may not be denyed. With what face now, can the Doctor deny, that this argument ay­meth at the perpetuall necessity (for all Churches) not onely of that authority or power, which he calleth episcopall; but also of the very office or function of Bishops, such as he affirmeth Timothy & Titus to have bin? His complaint therefore is very injurious, (as we have elswhere shewed to the full) when he chargeth his Refuter with wronging him in saying, that he maketh this episcopal power perpetually necessary, for the very being of the visible Churches; & that he contradicteth himselfe in another place, when he acknow­ledgeth that where the episcopall government may not be had, an other may be admitted.

But albeit the Doctor be loth to confesse himselfe guilty; yet is it a signe of remorse that he refuseth; to mainteine that necessity of the episcopall function, which his argument at first directly con­cluded. Howbeit he proceedeth in false accusation against his Re­futer in saying, he doth but elude his reasō with a malepert speach, because he wished him, not to wave & crave, but to prove the question, for doth he not crave rather then prove, that which he assumeth for an The D. wa­veth and craveth & daunceth the round. evident truth; when he giveth us no other argument, then his owne naked affirmance (that it is evident &c.) to justify the assumption or Antecedent of his reason (viz. that it was necessary whiles the A­postles lived to substitute in the churches already planted men fur­nished with episcopall power, & therein like to Timothy & Titus? And doth he not wave to and fro, or rather goe back againe to the first point controverted in this whole Chapter; when he avouch­eth in the same Assumption; that Timothy & Titus were furnished [Page 143] with episcopall power; when the Apostle Paul substituted them in the churches of Ephesus and Creet? Wherefore, if his drift were, in this division, such as he avoucheth in the entrance thereof (viz. by a new supply of arguments to prove Timothy & Titus to have bene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet) the issue of all his reasoning is no better then a plaine dancing the round, in this fashion. Their function and authoritie was episcopall, because it was not Evan­gelisticall; for it died not with their persons; and therefore was not Evangelisticall. It died not with their persons, because it was ordi­narie and perpetually necessary &c. for if it were necessarie to have men furnished with episcopall power, whiles the Apostles lived: it was much more necessary, after their deathes. Now that it was necessarie whiles they lived, it is evident by the Apostles practise in furnishing Timothy and Titus, with episcopall power, at Ephe­sus and in Creet. Who seeth not (by all this his discourse) that we are now just where we began? All this waving therefore from one argument to another in shewe; is but to dazell the eyes of his rea­der, that he might not discerne his grosse begging. For in effect, this is all he can say, They were furnished with episcopall power: & therefore their authoritie was episcopall: or, S. Paul made them Bishops, and therefore they were Bishops of his ordeyning.

As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. & 16. (viz whether it be perpetually necessary, that the sway of the eccle­siasticall authoritie should be in one? and what forme of Church­government is to be preferred as the best? I forbeare to follow him in those digressions. His resolution to the former being negative, doth scarce accord with the conclusion of his last argument; which affirmeth that such governors, as were Timothy & Titus (in his opi­nion) furnished with episcopall power, are much more necessarie after the Apostles death, then in their life time. But his resolutiō to the later, is groūded on such a reason, as wil put life againe into the same; if there were an undoubted truth in it. For could he prove the Monarchicall government of Bps, to be of divine institutiō (as he affirmeth) it would follow, not onely that it is the best forme of Church-government; but also necessarily to be continued. And as I nothing feare to graunt him that consequence; so I knowe he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopall fun­ction. He hath sought for it, first in the Angels of the 7. chueches; then in Pauls approbation of Archippus, & Epaphroditus; he pro­ceeded [Page 144] to Iames his presidence at Ierusalem; & now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordeyning Timothy & Titus to the function of Bishops. In all which disputations of his, I have clearely shewed that the scriptures give him no colour for his asser­tion. We are therefore now ready to listen to those testimonies of antiquity; which (if we might beleeve him) with a generall cōsent beare witnes to his assertion; that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus & Ti­tus of Creet.

Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquitie alleadged by the Doctor, to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet.

FIrst he alleadgeth the subscriptions, annexed to the end of the Sect. 1. ad sect. 17. pa. 105. epistle to Titus, & of the second to Timothy; wherein the one is sayd to have bin ordeyned the first Bishop of the Church of the E­phesians; and the other, the first Bishop of the Church of the Cre­tans. Being asked by his Refuter whether he thought them to be of the Canon, or added by the Apostle; he signifieth that he is not of that opinion. Whence I inferre that their evidence can never justify his maine purpose, which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops, is of divine institution. But he saith, It is certeine they are of great antiquity, and of better credit then the Refuter; & other disciplinarians would make them. If it be certeine, their antiquity is great, & their credit very good, why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certeinty? First, for their antiquity, they deserve not that preheminence, which he giveth them, to be heard before Eusebius & the rest of the fathers, which he alleadgeth for the au­thors of the most ancient Syriac; and the old latin translations found no mencion of an episcopall ordination bestowed on Timo­thy & Titus in the greek copies which they followed. And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter imbraced, doe fully accord in the subscriptiō of all the former epistles, with those latter copies, into which that clause of that Bishoprick was foisted in. If therefore their credit have not some better support, then their antiquity, their evidence is little worth. The Doct. greatest labour in defense of their credit, is, to remove out of the way his Refuters objection, who saith, The subscription set vnder the epistle to Titus (affirming it to be written from Nicopolis) is contrary to Pauls owne words. Titus. 3. 12. be­cause [Page 145] of Paul had been at Nicopolis, when he wrote, after this charge given vnto Titus (Indeavor to come to me to Nicopolis) he would not have sayd [...]kei gar kek [...]ka &c. for there, (but rather entautha here) I have deter­mined to winter. The Doctor paveth the way to his answer with this preface: In deed saith he if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions, I would have respected their cen­sures: but the Cavillations of the disciplinarians against them are to be rejected. You may see how partiall the Doctor is, who yet would seeme to hate partiallity: and how little credit these subscriptions have with the D, who therefore hath resolved to give them what grace he can, because they are disciplinarians who have disgraced them. The Rhemists may freely controull the subscriptions of sundry other e­pistles, because they are not parties in this cause; (see their Argu­ment. on. 1. Cor. & 2. Cor. Gal. 1. and 2. Thess. and 1. Tim. for the place whence the epistles were sent) But Mr. Beza can have no indifferent hearing; his reasons are but Cavillations. But heare I pray, how the Doctor confuteth him. If you will, saith he, consider with me that Paul being, as usually he was, in peregrination, Titus could not tell where he was: Paul therefore being at Nicopolis wrote as any discreet mā would in the like case. Come to me to Nicopolis, for I meane to winter there. whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him, Titus might have sayd, where Paul? as being vncerteine where Paul was & whither him­selfe was to goe. It seemeth the Doctor eyther did not consider, or would not take notice. 1. that it was needlesse for Titus to be in­formed, where Paul was at the writing of this epistle; seing he was not to goe presently to him, but to make himselfe ready to come upon a new message, as these words declare, when I shall send Artemas to thee, or Tichicus, be diligent to come to me. 2. that Paul his being then in peregrination (as the D. conceiveth) doth very probably argue the contrarie to that which he collecteth; to wit, that as yet he was not come to Nicopolis, were he resolved to spend the winter, and to wait for Titus his cōming thither. But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the cōmon judgement of such as are discreet; I very willingly submit the triall of this difference to the discreet reader (which observeth in the writings and speaches of them that are discreet, the different use of these adverbs; hic & illic here & there) whether it stand with discretion. 1. for the K. Almner which fol­loweth the court, when he is at Greenewich, to send for one of his followers, with the like words. When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee, [Page 146] then come thou vnto me to Greenewich for there I meane to win­ter, or rather thus, for here I meane to winter: 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters, if he say, there I meane to winter, to conclude for certeinty, that his Mr. was at Greenewich, when he wrote. 3. And if he say, here I meane to winter, to send to his Mr. for new dire­ction where to find him.

As for the testimony of Athanasius, Oecumenius and others, which following the error of him that first īmagined Paul to be at Nicopolis, when he wrote to Titus, drunk it in without any further examination; it cannot overweight the force of any just probability to the contrary, for in questions of this nature (yea of greater event often times) the heedlesse receiving of that which some one or moe of the Ancients have imbraced, hath bin the cause of many errors. But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him, then the authors of the Centuries; he might well have spared the citing of them, for they leave it doubtfull whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis.

In the next place, he urgeth the generall consent of the ancient Sect. 2. ad sect. 18. pag 107. &c. Fathers as Eusebius, Dyonisius, Dorotheus, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostome and others to the number of 16. which testify that Ti­mothy and Titus were Bishops. To all which, he received a three­fold answer. Frst that the fathers in so calling them, take not the name properlie for the functiō of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop; but improperlie & in a more generall signification; like as they call some of the Apostles, Bishops, for the work and preheminence sake, wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them. This answere is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare deniall of that which they affirme: wherefore it shall suffice to urge him vnto the proofe of the point denyed (and by him wholly neglected) scz, that the Fathers did so term them properly as giving them the very functi­on of Diocesan Bishops for which he pleadeth. Secondly, he was tolde, their consent was not so generall as he would make us be­leeve; the truth of which answer is evident by this, that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence; we heare not the names of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, or any other that lived in the first 300. yeares. For that counterfeyt that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita, is demonstrated by ma­ny worthy divines, (D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis. 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis. Areopag. Perkins problem [Page 147] pag. 9. Scult. Medull: de Dyonis. script. pag. 484.) to be such a novice that he was unknowne to Eusebius and Hierom or any o­ther of the ancients, before Gregorie the great. Wherefore, it will give the Doct. little reliefe to graunt him, that in his time, it was generally received, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; especial­ly seing the Papists may also from his testimonie likewise conclude, that in his time the Monkes were of great credit in the Church, & many of their ceremonies (as annoyntings, crossings, Incense, cō ­secrations &c. were in vse; and that in his time it was generally cō ­fessed that Bishops onely were allowed, divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere. Hierarch: eccles. Cap. 4. & 5.

And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius (that he was so farre from esteeming Timothy as a Bishop, that he rather maketh him a Deacon. (epist. ad Trall.) the Doctor answereth by distin­guishing the times, that he was such an Evangelist, as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon, afterwards was ordeyned a Presbyter, & last­ly a Bishop; he explayneth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning, whose purpose is nothing else, but to shew what service Deacons doe owe to Bishops, by comparison of that service; which holy Steven did to blessed Iames, & Timotheus & Linus unto Paul &c. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the Deacō, and not vvith the Bishop (as T. C. rightly observeth) yet as he gi­veth not to Paul the function of a Bishop; so neyther unto Timo­thy the office of a Deacon. Nay rather he shadoweth out in Timo­thy the office of an Evangelist, in that he maketh him, an assistant unto Paul in his Apostleship. As for that fancie vvhich the Doct. broacheth, of Timothies serving first in the office of a Deacon, then of a Pres­byter, & lastly of a Bishop; it is not for his credit, to father it upon Ignatius or Ambrose, It is true, that Ambrose saith Timothy was ordeyned a presbyter and that he was a Bishop, because he had no other presbyters before him: yet affirmeth he withall, that there is but vna ordinatio episcopi & presbyteri, that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter, vter (que) enim Cacerdos est (Com. in 1. Tim. 3.) Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh, confu­teth that thrice ordination, vvhereof the Doctor dreameth. And if Ignatius had bene acquainted vvith Timothies ordinatiō to the Bishoprick of Ephesus; doubtlesse, in vvriting to the Ephesians, he vvould not have associated him vvith the Apostle Paul, as a joynte Teacher or Mr, by vvhom they vvere instructed in the faith. (Ʋos [Page 148] ergo t [...]les estote, a [...]alibus magistris eruditi, Paulo Christifere & Timothe [...] fidelissimo). He would rather haue distinguished their functions, like as he doth the Pastorall charge of Evodius, from the Aposto­licall function of Peter and Paul, who first planted the gospell at Antioch: as his words (alleadged by the Doctor (serm. pag. 82. ad Antioch:) shewe. In vaine therefore braggeth he of a generall consent of the auncient fathers, when, of all that lived in the first 300. yeares, there cannot any one be alleadged, that giveth to Ti­mothy and Titus, the name of a Bishop; much lesse the function of a diocesan Bishop.

Here perhaps the Doctor will againe put us in minde of Euse­bius, Sect. 3. who reporteth out of former histories, that Timothy first had the Bishoprick of the Church of Ephesus, & Titus of the Churches in Creet. And because this his report is the maine foundation, whereon all the rest are grounded, I will vouchsafe it this particu­lar answer following. It is worth the noting that what he speaketh, he delivereth, not as a certain truth groūded on the holy scriptures; but as a doubtfull report derived from other stories; from whence no sure proofe can be drawne in divinitie, as before hath bene ob­served. But (not to insist on this exception) why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument? Timothy obteyned first (episcopen) the oversight (tes paroikias) of the Church in Ephesus, like as Titus had of all the Churches in Creet. Ergo they had each of them the function of a Diocesan Bishop in those Churches. For Timothyes charge being paroikia en ephesoo the parish in Ephesus; was too narrow a compasse for a Diocese; & Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta (an Iland that had an 100. cities, and therefore called hekatompolis) had too large a jurisdiction for one province. Moreover, since there are no records of like authoritie to shew that any one Bishop in the Apostles dayes, enjoyed the like superintendencie over all the Churches of any kingdome or coun­trie; we have reason to think that Titus his cōmission was extraor­dinarie. In deed Theodoret on 1. Tim. 3. and Chrysostom. Hom. 10. on 2. Tim. doe give as large jurisdiction to Timothy as to Ti­tus, yea farre more large, esteeming him to have the charge of all in Asia, as Titus had in Creta. But Chrysostome plainely signify­eth, that this was extraordinary; for of Titus he sheweth, that how soever Paul cōmitted so great a charge to him, because he was one of his companions, a man of whose fidelitie he had good proofe, & [Page 149] in whom he put much confidence (Hom. 1. in epist. ad Tit.) yet it was never his meaning that his burthen should lye by continuall succession on the shoulders of any one man. Hom. 2. in Tit. 1. 5. Per civitates inquit: ne (que) enim voluit Insulam totam vni viro permitti, sed u­nicuique propriam curam ac solicitudinem indici &c. If then Titus his cō ­mission to Creta was but Temporarie; when Eusebius giveth to Ti­mothy at Ephesus, the self-same Overseer-ship (or Bishoprick if you will) (the self same I say, or the like, for his power and function) with that which Titus had over all the Churches in Creta. When also Chrysostome & some others doe match them in extent of ju­risdiction extraordinary, doth not the Doctor argue loosely, in drawing their testimony to justify that peculiar function of a dio­cesan Bishop, which he giveth unto Timothy and Titus? Especial­ly, seing it is evident by Eusebius his owne wordes (lib. 3. cap. 31. & 32.) that he acknowledgeth the first and neerest successors of the Apostles (among whom he reckoneth Timothy and Titus) to be for the most part Evangelists, and plainely distinguisheth them from others, which were more properly Pastors or Bishops. And we have before observed out of Dorotheus, that Timothy had no set­led continuance at Ephesus, as Bishops have on that one Church, whereto they are affixed. Ambrose also maketh S. Paul a fellow Bi­shop with Timothy; when on 1. Tim. 1. 3. he giveth this note: Ob­secrat episcopus coepiscopum suum. And Hierome (though he gave the name of a Bishop unto Titus) allotteth to him the peregrination of an Evangelist, in saying (if the Catalogue of ecclesiasticall writers in his first tome, be his) that he preached the gospell aswell in the I­lands lying round about, as in Creta it selfe; and that the Apostle did therefore call him away from Creta, quia eum haberet necessa­rium in evangelij ministerium; because he was necessarie for him for the ministery of the gospell. Hieron. in Tit. 3.

The Refuters third answer therefore, (viz. that the scripture calleth Sect. 4. ad pag. 120. Timothy an Evangelist, even after he was sent to Ephesus 2. Tim. 4. 5.) is so farre from being contradicted by the fathers, that it receiveth approbation from some of those whom the Doctor would draw to his side. And whereas he addeth that if they had generally affirmed him to be a Bishop properly, it cannot be of force to teach us (contrary to the scrip­tures) to acknowledge his episcopall function, he speaketh but the truth; neyther can the Doctor for shame, directly contradict him, in so saying; yet rather then he will faile to make a shewe of impugning [Page 150] this answere, he perverteth it to an other purpose then was meant, saying, It is all one with the second objection already answered (viz that the scripture calleth Timothy an Evangelist, and therefore he was no Bishop) but the best is; if that had bene so. I hope the ob­jection is sufficiently mainteyned against the D. answer.

As for the newe writers whom he alleadgeth (pag. 110.) for a new supply to concurre with the Fathers, for the justifying of that Bishoprick, which he ascribeth to Timothy and Titus; his friendes may wonder at his impudency, that can doe this without blushing. Mr Calvin, he saith, & the authors of the Centuries doe affirm, that Timothy was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesus; he should have added, & with all proved, that by the name of a Pastor, they meane a Dio­cesan Bp, such as ours. But the cōtrary is manifest, first, by the cold allowance which the authors of the Centuries give to Timothyes Bishoprick. (Cent. 1. lib. 2. col. 614.) when they say, they can finde no certeintie, in any approved writer, quomodo aut quam­diu, after what manner and how long, Ephesianae ecclesiae Doctor & gubernator prefuerit; he was teacher and governour of the Church of Ephesus: But especially by that which Mr Calvin saith, on 2. Tim. 4. 5.) to prove that Paul there speaketh of the office of an Evange­list; 1. that there was such a speciall function mentioned Ephes. 4. 11. betweene the Apostles and Pastors, that were the second hel­pers to the Apostles. 2. that the Evangelists excelled the Pastors in degree and dignitie of office. 3. that it is most probable Timothy was one of them, and not of the Pastors, 4. that Paull in the ho­nourable mencion of that his office, respected both his incourage­ment, and the commendation of his authoritie to others. As for that presidencie which D. Fulk giveth (on Tit. 1. 5.) to Timothy and Titus, I most freely subscribe unto it; and yet reject that epis­copall superioritie, which the Doctor (taking part with the Rhe­mists in their Annotations) contendeth for in them. In like man­ner I say with Beza, that Timothy was the proestoos; but that a pre­sident of a presbytery is according to Bezaes language a Bishop, that is to say, a Diocesan Bishop, such as ours, as the Doct. would have the reader to conceive) it is so foul an untruth, that he cannot without check of conscience avouch it; seing he cannot be igno­rant that Beza every where disclaimeth, that sole and singular pre­heminence, which the Doctor with the Romanists ascribe to Timo­thy and Titus. Yea he flatly impugneth Timothies Bishoprick, and [Page 151] that in most plaine termes, in his Annot. on 1. Tim. 3. voluit eum Paulus, ferente necessitate, Ephesi subsistere, non vt illi ecclesiae, tanquam e­piscopus addictus esset; sed vt ecclesia constituta, pseudapostolis occurrere [...]; vnde etiam postea revocatus est romam, ab ipso Apostolo. ne (que) constat an Timotheus postea sit Ephesum reversus, vt qui fuerit Evangelista &c. Paul would have him (necessity requiring it) to be at Ephesus; not to be fixed as the Bishop, to that Church, but that the Church being constitute he might meet with the false Apostles; from whence also he was afterwardes called to Rome by the same Apostle: neyther is it certaine whether Timothy afterwards returned to Ephesus, as he that was an Evangelist &c. Thus having discovered the Doct. deceitfull and dishonest dealing with his owne witnesses, and his weak handling of the whole controversie; I hope I may be bolde with the Readers consent to conclude; that the Doctors assumpti­on touching Tim: and Titus (viz. that they were ordeyned to the function of diocesan Bishops by S. Paul, the one at Ephesus, the other in Creta) hath as yet received no firme support, no not from humane evidence; much lesse from the holy scriptures.

Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius, Linus, Mark, Simeon & others, whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops.

THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other an­cient Sect. 1. ad sect. 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom, the Apostles ordeyned Bishops, which if we should wholly o­verpasse in silence, we should neyther wrong him nor the cause; se­ing the records of men subject to error, (& drincking in many er­rors through oversight or want of judgment) cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand, as hath bin often observed: But because he glorieth (though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page) that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence; we will enter into a neerer search after the truth, & make no doubt, but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indiffe­rent Reader, both the falshood of some of his records, and his false or deceitful handling of the rest: And first he beginneth with Anti­oche, vvhich (as he saith serm pag. 81.) had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul, about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno. 45 and Hist. lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat. ad Antioche: I ansvver, there are many parts [Page 150] [...] [Page 151] [...] [Page 152] of S. Lukes sacred [...]ory, that vvith hold us from acknovvledging a­ny such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him: for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch; vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ; and yet there is no mencion of Evodius, much lesse of his Bishop­rick. After the death of Herod, vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius (Euseb: lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho) and. 45. of Christ (as Euseb: accounteth in Chron. an. 45.) Paul and Barna­bas returned frō Ierusalem to Antioch. Acts. 12. 23. 25; at which time, there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there; by whose imposition of hands, Paul & Barnabas were seperated to the work; wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them. Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time, would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence, when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there? And if Peter had gone af­ter his imprisonment to Antioch, there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul. Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch, they gathered the Church togither; and rehearsed all that God had done by them, & there aboade a long time with the disciples. cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there, grew that dissen­tion about circumcision, which occasioned that meeting at Ierusa­lem to end the question. Cap. 15. 1. 2. &c. where was Evodius all this while? was he a non-resident from his charge? had he bin the Bishop of Antioch; and there resident, how is it, that we heare no­thing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne, and of their relating to him, (as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ieru­salem. (Cap. 21. 18. 19.) the successe of their traveiles? why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy, eyther with or a­gainst Paul and Barnabas? & why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem? for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes, then their Bishop? for which part soever he tooke, it was necessary, for the Churches instruction, in all succeeding ages, that (as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. & 3. so) he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church. To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth; after the the Synode was ended. Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche, a [...]d letters were written (not to the Bishop, but) to the brethren [Page 153] of the Gentiles; and they were accordingly delivered to the multi­tude assembled, who rejoyced for the consolation. Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time, so did Paul & Bar­nabas till they were so styrred, that they parted companies. vers. 32. 35. 39. 40; but before Paul and Barnabas were divided, Peter cōming thither, was withstood by Paul to his face, for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles, as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius, worthy the name or place of a Bishop, indovved vvith such a singularity of povver, and honor above all o­ther Teachers, though of an higher degree then Presbyters, as lōg as they are vvithin his Diocese? If vve may beleeve the Doct, (pag. 136. lib. 3.) ought not he to have interposed his episcopall au­thority in cōmanding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles; and in appeasing those contentions, vvhich arose be­tvveene Paul and Peter, and betvveene Barnabas and Paul, vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction? Surely vvhat ever, the D. conceiveth of these matters; who can perswade themselves that S. Luke. and S. Paul would have buried in silence, the name, office, and indeavours of Evodius, if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul, to the Bishoprick of Antioch?

As for Eusebius his Cronicle, it doth too much discredit it selfe, Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case, for it saith, that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius (which was the. 39. of Christ) placed his chai [...]e at Antioch, and there sate 25. yeares; and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius, he removed to Rome, and there sat also. 25. yeares. Be­cause both these computations cannot stand togither, the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error; and reduced to. 7. yeares. but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch, and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius, can­not accord with S. Lukes storie, for his continuance in Iudea, and his imprisonment by Herod; not long before the death of Herod (see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis. 3. and D. Whit. de pont. Rom. quest. 3. pag 346. 347.) 2. that Peters re­moving from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius, con­tradicteth the D. assertion; scz. that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45; which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius, by Eusebius his owne account. Notwithstand­ing I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point, avouch­ed [Page 154] by Eusebius and Ignatius; to wit, that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius. For a parish-Bi­shoprick, that is, the function of a Bishop, set over one particular cōgregatiō is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles, but that function of a Diocesan Bishop, which the Doct. contendeth for, is denyed and worthyly; seing it is before shewed (in answ. to cap. 6. lib. 2. pag. 105. 106.) that the Church of Antioch in the Apostles times, was but one ordinary congrega­tion assembled in one place.

Thus much for Evodius; It followeth now of Liuus, concerning Sect. 3. whom, the Doctor telleth us, (serm. pag. 82.) that Peter and Paul being at Rome, and there continuing somewhat above two yeares, about the yeare of our Lord 56. ordeyned him, Bishop of Rome, who continued Bishop there [...]0. yeares before the death of Paul, & 12. yeares [...]fter; and for proofe thereof citeth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. & Euseb. lib. 3. ca. 13. & 16: In his Margin, he saith that Peter came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Ne­ro; to oppugne Symon Magus; and Paul shortly after; from whence after 2. yeares they both departed. To begin with this last, can the Doctor be ignorant, that Eusebius, and Hierom (two of his best witnesses for the antiquitie of the episcopall function) doe referre Peters oppu­gning Symon Magus at Rome, to the 2. yeare of Claudius? or can it be unknowne to him that many of our divines (of great reading and sound judgement) doe contradict both branches of his asser­tion; and shewe from the sacred scriptures, that Peter was not at Rome; neyther at the time of Pauls first cōming thither; nor yet in the time of his two yeares imprisonment there? I forbeare to lay downe the particulars which are urged to this purpose, the Doct. may peruse at his leysure, what is written by D. Reynoldes in his Conf. with Hart, the place before noted. And Doctor Whitak. de pont: Rom. pag. 353.-359. Catal. test: verit; col. 61. last edition, and confute their reasons if he can. He shall surely therein gratify the Romanists, for Bellarmin (convinced with the arguments on our side alleadged) confesseth that Peter was not then at Rome, when Paul came thither, and from thence wrote so many epistles (as those to the Colos. Ephes. Galat. Philip. and others) which make no menciō of Peter: Now if Peter were not at Rome in those two years of Pauls remayning prisoner there, how could he joine with Paul at that time in ordeyning Linus to the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome? Add herevnto those perswasions, which induce [Page 155] us to think that he had no such function at that time, with Pauls allowance. For why should he forget his paines, or deny him that honor (which he affoardeth to others, that were his felow-workmen in the Ministery of the Gospell) to make mencion of his name and labours, at least in some one of those many epistles, that he wrote from Rome in the time of his aboad there? yea, had he bin the Bi­shop of Rome, when the Apostle Paul sent so many epistles from thence to other Churches; would not he rather have made choise of him to joine hands with him, in the Inscriptions of the epistles to the Philip: and Colossiās; then of Timothy, who in the D. opin­ion; was eyther yet standing in the degree of a presbyter, or if a Bi­shop, the Bishop of Ephesus in another country? In deed his name is remembred among other that sent salutations to Timothy: (2. Tim. 4. 21.) but since it is without any note of preheminence ey­ther in office or labours; it argueth strongly that Paul was igno­rant of any such episcopall charge or superiority, as the D. alloweth him. 10. yeares before Pauls death.

As for the ancient Fathers and Historiographers, Eusebius (the Sect. 4. D. best witnes for computation of times) expresly saith. lib. 3. ca. 2.) Linus obteyned the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome after the Martyrdome of Peter and Paul; which cutteth off the first ten yeares, which the Doctor giveth him, in the government of that Church. But Damasus, whose report the D. imbraceth as if it were an oracle (serm. pag. 23.) affirmeth (in pontificali de Petro) that Linus ended his race in the Consulship of Capito & Rufus; which was more then one yeare before the death of Peter and Paul, as D. Whitakers sheweth de pont: Rom: pag. 343. Wherevnto Iunius also assenteth. (Animadvers. in Bellar. cont. 3. lib. 2. ca. 5. not 15 and 18. I forbeare to prosecute that variety of opinions in all writers old and new touching the first Bishop of Rome; and the order of their succession; some giving to Clemens the first place; some confounding Cletus, and Anacletus, & some severing them; and some conjoyning Linus and Cletus togither in the episcopall charge as doth Rufinus: prefat: recognit: Clement: But since there is such disagreement, and the same so great, that it perplexeth the learnedest favourites of the Romish succession: it may give us just cause to affirme; that their testimonie can yeeld no certaine proofe of any one (whether Linus, Clemens, or any other) that by the A­postles appointm ^t, had the singular and setled preheminence of a [Page 156] Bishop in the Church of Rome.

It followeth concerning Mark the Evangelist, whom the Doctor Sect. 5. affirmeth to be the first Bishop at Alexandria, by the appointment of Peter; and that testified, as he saith, by Nicephorus, Gregorie, Eu­sebius, Hierom and Dorotheus. In deed Nicephorus is worthy to be the foreman of the Doctors Iurie in this question, for who fitter to cast a cloak of truth upon a fable, then one known to be the author­of many fables? Of S. Mark many things are repeated in the scri­ptures, that will hardly be brought to accord, with his supposed Bishoprick at Alexandria, or with that which the Doctor affirmeth of him, to wit, that he was Peters disciple, and his perpetuall follower. For, to overpasse his first attendance on Paul and Barnabas (Act. 12 25. & 13. 4. 5. 13) and on Barnabas when he was parted from Paul (Act. 15. 37. 39.) he was with Paul at Rome, as one of his work-fellowes unto Gods kingdome: (Coloss. 4. 10. 11. Philem. vers. 24.) and departed thence to visite the Saints at Colosse, and in other Churches adjoyning (Col. 4. 10.) and he was with Timothy or neer to him, when Paul wrote his last ep: to him. (2. Tim. 4. 11.) But to overthrow his Bishoprick the very name of an Evangelist, which the Doctors best witnesses, with one consent, allow him, is sufficient; seing we have before proved, that an Evangelist could not assume the office of a Diocesan Bishop. Neyther can the Do: take that exception against Mark, which he doth against Timothy & Titus (scz. that be was but in the degree of a Presbyter; seing he gran­teth him to be one of those, that are kat hexochen called Evangelists Ephes. 4. 11. (cap. 4. sect. 12. pag. 95.) Moreover that which Eusebius and Ierom doe report of his writing his gospell at Rome, according to that which Peter had there preached, and of his ca­rying it into Egypt, and preaching it in Alexandria, (see Euseb, lib. 2. cap. 14. & 15. Hieron. catal. in Marco) this I say, is contradi­cted by Irenaeus, more ancient then both, for he (lib. 3. ca. 1.) te­stifieth; that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter & Paul. And this testimony contradicteth also an other report of his wit­nesses, Eusebius, Ierom and Dorotheus, viz. that Anianus succee­ded Mark in the government of the Church at Alexandria, in the 8. yeare of Nero, as being then and there Martyred. For the Doct. himself (serm. pag. 82.) referreth the Martyrdome of Peter & Paul to the very later end of Nero his reigne which was 4. or 5. yeares after. [Page 157] Againe, howsoever some doe give him the name of a Bishop; yet nothing is sayd by any one, that can conclude the function of a Bi­shop, Sect. 6. as being affixed to the charge of one Church. Yea rather, they all give him not onely the name, but also the right function of an Evangelist; not onely in accompanying the Apostles; but also in traveiling from place to place, to plant and establish Churches. And among the rest Nicephorus, most fully justifyeth him to be a right Evangelist. For (lib. 2. cap. 43.) he reporteth that Mark publish­ed the gospell not onely in Egypt, but also in Libia, and in all Bar­baria, also to them of Pentapolis, and Cykue, and that he there cō ­stituted Churches and gave them Bishops &c. But the Doctors o­versight is most to be admired in his bringing of Eusebius to wit­nes The D. own wit­nes is a­gainst him. his Bishoprik, at Alexandria. For the contrary appeareth by the order which he observeth, in setting downe the number and names of such as he accounteth Bishops of that Church. For in his account Anianus was the first, and Abilinus the second. lib. 2. ca. 24. & 3. 12. and Cerdo the third, which after Anianus the first Bi­shop, governed that Church. lib. 3. cap. 16. What can be more ful and plaine, to shewe that in Eusebius his judgement, Anianus (and not Mark) was the first Bishop of Alexandria? As for those words whereon the Doctor buildeth. lib. 2. cap. 24. (that Anianus first undertook the publik administration of the Church at Alexan­dria, after Marke the Apostle and Evangelist) If prejudice had not stood in his light, and others in whose stepps he treadeth: they might have seen their grosse mistaking of his meaning, who distin­guisheth him from his successors, by the name of an Apostle and Evangelist. For if Mark must needs be the first Bishop; because A­nianus first obteyned Bishoprick after him: then let Peter be ac­knowledged the first Bishop, also at Rome; because at Antioche Ignatius was the second Bishop by succession after Peter (Euseb. lib 3 ca. 30.) And at Rome, Clemens after Peter governed that church Ieron. lib. 1. cont. Iovin. Yea let not Iames any longer be recko­ned the first Bishop of Ierusalem; because he undertook the charge thereof after the Apostles, or rather īmediately after Christs passi­on. But if the Doctor can discerne as he doth (serm. pag. 82. and 83.) that Eusebius excludeth Peter & Paul from the place or fun­ction of a Bishop at Rome; when he giveth the first place to Linus after them, the second to Anacletus and so forwards; doth he not wittingly wrong his witnesses, and deceive his reader, when he ta­keth [Page 158] their word for a certeine evidence, that Mark was the first Bi­shop of Alexandria; in saying, that Anianus did first obteyne the government after Mark.

In the fourth place, Simeon the sonne of Cleophas, is by the Sect. 7. ad p. 112. 113. Doctor produced, as ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem after Iames, as Eusebius testifieth. lib. 3. cap. 10. But it is little for the credit of the episcopall function, that it is inforced to crave aide of such fabulous reportes as flying fame scattereth, and he must pardon us this fault, that we can hardly credit the tale for if the Apostles had thought it necessarie, that each Church should be governed by a diocesan Bishop, would they have suffered Ierusalem to have wanted one for 10. yeares togither after Iames his death? For Iames lived not above 30. yeares after Christs passion (as the Doctor acknowledgeth. serm. pag. 69.) but the destruction of Ie­rusalem, which happened before Simeons choyse as Eusebius saith) fell out in the 40. yeare after Christs death; Cent. lib. 2. col. 664. was there now, imediately after the cities destruction, more need of a Bishop there, then before? and was the choyse of their Bishop a matter of that moment, that all the Apostles and Disciples of Christ remayning alive, must needes meet togither to make the election? and must he needes be one of Christs kindred? yet let it be granted (since the Doctor will have it so) that Simeon was the next vnto Iames in the government of the Church of Ierusalem, as Eusebius affirmeth, and be it granted also that Iohn ordeyned Policarpe Bi­shop of Smyrna; and that he constituted Bishops in diverse other places, and that the Apostles in every place committed the Church to Bishops, and left them their successours, as Iren [...]us and others testify; how will the Doctor prove that all these were diocesan Bi­shops, induced with a singular power of ordination and jurisdiction in many Churches, or congregations, which is (as his Refuter saith) the very soul of a diocesan Bishop. The Doctor, in his wisdome pas­seth by this point, as if he had not seene it in his Refuters answer, and falsely chargeth him to take exception against the assertion of the Fathers, which affirme Bishops to be the successors of the A­postles. Whereas it is evident, that he denieth onely the Doctors inference, that from the Fathers affirmation concludeth diocesan Bishops, such as ours, to be of Apostolicall institution. This ariseth (saith he) from the mistaking of the word Bishop, which in the first tymes sig­nified no more then an ordinarie Pastor. Wherefore since the Doctor [Page 159] doth nothing else, but in an ydle florish repeat that, which he had in effect before delivered (viz. that the Apostles derived their autho­rity, aswell for government as for doctrine vnto Bishops) we should but waste wordes and time in vaine, if we should vouchsafe him any other answere, then that already given and remaineth yet vn­touched.

Chap. 14. Answering the D. 6. chapter, and sheweth that he hath not any one argument, or testimony, to prove directly, (as he pretendeth) that the episcopall function is of divine institution.

HAving answered all that the Doctor bringeth to prove by cō ­sequence the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance, be­cause Sect. 1. ad sect. 2. cap. 6. pag. 138. 140. it was of apostolicall institution; we are now to go [...] on and examine, what he can alleadge in the last place, directly to prove that it is of divine institution. But before he begin to enter into the lists, he beggeth the change of the question; propounding The D. beggeth the change of the questiō this for the conclusion, which he intendeth to prove, viz. that Bishops were ordeyned of God; which change we can be content to allowe; so that he will acknowledge his error in conceyving these latter proofes to be more direct then the former: for he fetcheth a farre more large compasse, by consequence to conclude his maine doctrine; seing there is much more difference, betwene the insti­tution of a function, and the ordination of the persons therevnto, then can be imagined betwene an Apostolicall and divine insituti­on. Wherefore, (not to spend time about wordes, but) to come directly to the pith of his reasoning, he is content his argument shall passe as his Refuter framed it, thus;

If God ordeyned Timothy Archippus, and the Angels of the 7. Churches Bishops, then were Bishops ordeyned of God.

But God ordeyned them Bishops: Ergo, Bishops were ordeyned of God.

To this argument he received this answere (which the Doctor concealeth from the reader in his defense) viz. that the assumption being vnderstood of diocesan Bishops (of which his conclusion speaketh) is vtterly false. We are therefore once againe to see how the particulars of his assumption are proved.

First touching Timothy, his argument must run in this forme,

He that was ordeyned a diocesan Bishop; by prophesy (that is by divine revelation) he was ordeyned a diocesan Bishop by God.

But Timothy was ordeyned a diocesan Bishop by prophesy. 1. Tim. 4. 14.

Ergo, Timothy was ordeyned a diocesan Bishop by God.

Here againe, (as he was tolde) the assumption faileth. Timothy was no Bishop at all properly; In deede he received his Ministery by prophesy, but it was the Ministerie of an Evangelist, not of a diocesan Bishop. In which answere the discreete reader may see, that one branch of his assumption is graunted, to wit, that Timo­thy received his Ministrie by prophesy: and the other was and is denied, scz. that his Ministery was not (as the Doctor saith) the function of a diocesan Bishop. Now what is Mr. Doctors defence? Forsooth, first he repeateth his proofes out of the fathers, which shewe that which was before graunted, viz. that by prophesy (1. Ti. 4. 14.) is meant divine revelation; or the holy Ghosts oracle: but in stead of proving the point denied (scz. that the ministery which Timothy received by prophesy, was a diocesan Bishoprick) he falsi­fieth The Doct. falsfyeth his Refut. answer in stead of proving. his refut: answer, perswading his reader that he onely denyed Tim: to be a Bp. And to cōtradict him in this, he urgeth nothing, but one sentence of Mr Calvin, who saith, that he was chosen by O­ralce into the order of Pastars, & then argueth full feebly in this fashiō. If he were a Pastor, it is not to be doubted, but he was a Bishop. For wee have before shewed, that howsoever Mr Calvin give Timothy the name of a Pastor, yet he held him to be an Evangelist, and not properly a Pastor and a Bishop, in that sense, as the words are to be taken in this quaestion.

To close vp this part, that the Doctor may see to how good pur­pose, he hath bestowed his paines in proving Timothy his ordinati­on Sect. 2. to proceed from extraordinary revelation; I will retort his owne argument, against the conclusion which he should have main­teyned, in this manner;

Whosoever receyved his Ministery originally (not firm humane election, but) by prophesy, or divine revelation: he held the fl [...]ction and degree (not of an ordinary Bishop, much less of a diocesan Bishop, but) of an extraordinary Teacher. But Timothy receyved his Ministery, originally (not from humane election, but) by prophesy or devine revelation.

Therefore, Timothy held the function & degree of an extraordinary Teacher and not of an ordinary Bishop, much l [...]ss a diocesan prelate.

The assumption is that, whereon the Doctor raiseth his owne argument. The truth of the proposition may be cleared by the view of those particulars, whose calling we find in the Scriptures, [Page 161] to be originally derived from divine assignement: as (to let pass the Prophets of the olde Testament) Iohn Baptist and Christ him­self, his 12. Apostles, and Matthias chosen into the roome of Iu­das, Paul and Barnabas added to the colledge of the Apostles, also Philip amonge the Evangelistes, and Agabus amonge the Pro­phets. For among other notes whereby we knowe, they had an extraordinary Ministerie, this is not the least, that their authority to preach the Gospell, was given them from Heaven, or from God, and not from men. Math. 21. 25. Luk. 1. 17. & 3. 2. 4. Iohn. 1. 6. Math. 10. 1.-5. & 28. 18. 19. Acts. 1. 24. 26. Gal. 1. 1. 15. and that God ratified their Ministery, either by his owne voice. Math. 17. 5. Acts. 9. 4. & 13. 2. or by miracles, Ioh. 3. 2. Acts. 2. 22. & 4. 16. 31. & 8. 5. 6. or by some other cleare evidence. Acts. 11. 19. 21. & vers. 27. 28. & 18. 24. 25. 28. sufficient to convince the consciences of all that did not wilfully shut their eyes against the light. But in such as exercised the ordinary functions of Deacons and Elders or Bishops, we finde that they had the originall of their calling from humane election Acts. 6. 3. 5, & 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. 7. and vpon true triall of their fitnes before taken. 1. Tim. 3. 2.-10. & 5. 22.) If the Doctor can yeeld us any one Instance from the Scriptures to the contrary, we will gladly give him the hearing. Meane while, it maketh much both against his assertion, that holdeth him to have the ordinary function of a diocesan Bishop: and for ours, which affirme him to be an Evangelist.

Secondly touching Archippus he alloweth the argument which Sect. 3. ad pag. 141. his Refuter framed, with this explanation, that by episcopall Mi­nistery, he vnderstandeth the function of a diocesan Bishop; wher­fore his argument, so explained rūneth thus,

He that receyved the function of a diocesan Bishop in the Lord, was order­ned a diocesan Bishop by the Lord.

Archippus received the function of a diocesan Bishop in the Lord.

Ergo, he was ordeyned a diocesan Bishop, by the Lord.

The proposition as it now standeth, is taken of the Doctor to be of so absolute a truth that no exception can be taken against it. notwithstanding, it is questionable, whether those wordes of Saint Paul, Colos. 4. 17; in the Lord, must needes be interpreted, as the Doctor conceyveth by the Lords ordinance? he should have sayd or­dination, because he thence inferreth, that the person so receyving his Ministery, is ordeyned of God therevnto. For although we can [Page 162] willingly graunt, that the Doctor hath received his Ministery in the Lord, and according to, Gods ordinance; yet, me thinks he should not easily assume to himself this honor, to hve his ordination from God. And who would not have conceived by the former argument con­cerning Timothy, that his meaning (in saying Bishops were ordey­ned of God) had bin to prove, that the persons in whome he In­stanceth, received their calling to the Ministerie, originally from Gods nomination; and so were ordeyned of God, by his speciall, and more then ordinary direction? Notwithstanding if he will needes have his conclusion thus construed, that Bishops were ordeyned of God, that is, that they received their function with divine appro­bation: we will contend no longer against the proposition of his argument: it shall suffice for the overthrowe of his conclusion, to supplant the Assumption.

And herevnto the lesse labour will serve, seing we have already shewed, that Archippus, if he were a Bishop of that Church, yet) could not be a diocesan Bishop, such as ours. For Epaphras their first Teacher, still continued one of them, and a faithfull Minister of Christ for them. Coloss. 1. 7. & 4. 12. And Archippus is sub­jected vnto the Churches admonition and censure, (in the very words wherevnto the Doctor sendeth us.) Coloss. 4. 17. which is palaion in deed, but nimis apostolicum, too apostolicall for our times, as Mus­culus upon those wordes saith.) But let us see what releef, the Doctor (foreseeing that his assumption would be denied) yeel­ded to support it. For proofe hereof, saith he, it sufficeth me, that Ar­chippus was (as Ambrose noteth in Colos. 4. 17. Bishop of Colosse, which was a citie; seeing I have manifestly proved before, that the Bishops of cities, were diocesan Bishops. And must this proofe needs suffice others, because it sufficieth him? knoweth he not, that we expect he should yeeld [...]s some cleare proofe from the holy scripture? why made he shew at the first, as though he would prove, Archippus his Bishoprick from Colos. 4. 17. and now falleth from those words of Paul, to the te­stimony of Ambrose, who lived well nigh 400. yeares after? Belike (upon his second thoughts) he discerned, that the same exhorta­tion used to Archippus, which he gave to Timothy (2. Tim. 4. 5.) doth not necessarily argue, that he had the same office? Or else he thought, he should prevaile little in so arguing, with those which hold Timothy to have bin an Evangelist, and not a Bishop. And surely, it availeth his cause as little, to send us to S. Ambrose, see­ing [Page 163] he hath not one word, that can argue a diocesan Bishoprick in Archippus, he calleth him, praepositum illorum et rectorem, qui post Epa­phram accepit regendam eorum ecclesiam. Which may argue I grant an episcopall ministery at large; but will not serve to conclude the pre­heminent superiority of a diocesan Bishop. Nay this is rather con­futed by Ambrose, who saith of Epaphras, that he was ( [...]vis illorū, et affectu vnanimitatis charissimus &c. for if he remained Civis illorum, then also their Teacher and Bishop, though absent for a time, from them) and nothing inferior to Archippus, but rather in order (at least as in affection) before him.

His assumption therefore, having no releife, neyther from the Sect. 4. Apostle Paul, nor yet from S. Ambrose; relieth wholly upon this poore argument, borrowed from some other parts of his defence.

The Bishops of cities were diocesan Bishops: Archippus was Bishop of Colosse which was a citie. Ergo, he was a dioecsan Bishop. I answer first to the propositiō, which he saith he hath before manifestly proved. Although Bishops were Diocesans, whence once the whole body of people inhabiting cities became subject to the oversight of one Bishop; yet the first Bishops of Churches planted in cities, were not diocesan Bishops; for the Churches whereof they were Bishops; be­ing but a small handful to a large heap in comparison to the whole citie; could not be properly dioceses, as we have sufficiently shewed in our answer to all his proofes produced to the contrary.

Secondly to his assumpion, I answer, that as it is a knowne vntruth to affirme the citie of Colosse, to have bin vnder the go­vernment of Archippus: so neyther is it true; that he had that sole or singular preheminence, over the Church of Colosse, which ap­perteyneth to Bishops such as the Do. contendeth for. If there­fore he will hereafter indeavor, to make good the assertion, that Archippus was a diocesan Bishop, & so ordeyned of God; he must seek out some more pregnant proofes, then his study for his sermon, & the defense thereof hath as yet affoarded him.

Lastly as touching the Angells of the 7. Churches, whereas he should conclude the same, which he had affirmed of Timothy and Archippus, viz. that they were ordeyned of God, he altereth the conclu­sion to this, that they had divine institution and approbation, for their fun­ [...]tion. The Doct. changeth to the end▪ But of this change we have spoken before. His. 3. arguments distinctly propounded in his sermon (pag. 93. & 94.) he now re­duceth to this one syllogisme;

Those who were called by the Holy Ghost Angells of the Church, (he should have sayd) of the 7. Churches) and were signified by the 7. starres that were in Christs right hand; had divine both institution & approbation. But the diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches; were called by the Holy Ghost, the Angells of the 7. Churches, and were signifyed by the [...]. starrs that were in Christs hand. Ergo they had divine both institution & approbation.

The assumption which he knew would not without good proofe be admitted; he saith, he went not about to prove now, because it was proved at large in the former part of the sermon. And since he hath added nothing else for the proofe thereof; but that which is answered to the full already, till some better evidence come in place; his conclusion must lie in the dust. And we may I hope with the Readers good allowance conclude; that he hath not any one argument, from any part of the Canonicall scripture, to shew that that the function of diocesan Bishops such as ours be; is of divine institution. There remaineth now that leaving the scriptures, we examine that first argument of his 3. touching the government of the Churches, the first. 300. yeares after Christ, handled by him. serm. pag. 56. 60. & defense lib. 4. cap. 1. where all his humane testimonies come to be handled, but because this second part is al­ready large enough, I will here break of; and referre the examina­tion thereof, togither with that first point of his five, which cōcer­neth governing Elders, to the third part.