A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 1 · Chapter 2

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 1 · Chapter 2

p. 28CHAP. II. Diuiding the Sermon, and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface.

HAuing thus quarrelled with the Author, the matter and subiect of he Sermon, he setteth vponupon the (a)(a)The diuisiō of the Sermon, vvith the summe of the Preface thereof.Sermon it selfe. Which in the abortiue booke, was dismembred into sixe parts, and yet one maine part left out. In this after-birth, into 3; viz, the Preface, the body of the Sermon, and the conclusion. The Preface, he saith, is concerning the text, and the fiue points I vndertake to handle; and that againe he mangleth into 4. sections.

But if my aduersaries were as good in diuiding, as they are in making diuision; or so skilfull in analysing logically, as they are captious in comptrolling that which hath bene logically composed; they would, either hauehave followed the ordinarie diuision of orations,Arist. Rhet. 3.1…. saying, that the Sermon consisted of 4 parts, which are, 1. foreign, the proaeme, (to pag. 2. lin. 3.) 2. foreign, the proposition or foreign wherein the points to be handled are first diduced out of the text, to pag. 6. l. 16.) and secondly enumerated and distinctly marshalled (pag. 6 & 7.) 3. foreign the confirmation prouing and defending those fiue points, (from pag. 8. to 94.) 4. foreign the conclusion containing the application, (pag. 94. to the end:) Or, if this diuision had not liked them, they might out of the transition pag. 94. hauehave obserued a distribution of my Sermon into 2. parts; viz. the explication, continuing to that place, and the application from thence to the end.

The explication containeth 2. assertions: the first, that the pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Churches (here meant by the Angels,) were Diocesan Bishops, & such (for the substance of their calling) as ours be. The second, that the function of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good. Of these two assertions, the former, is an explication of the text; the latter, a doctrine collected out of the text so explained. These assertions are, for the handling of the text, first propounded to be discussed, in that which he calleth the Preface, and afterwards proued, in that which he calleth the body of my booke. The former, as I said, may be called foreign or foreign, the proposition; the latter, foreign the confirmation. Now for the tryall of the first, viz. wheth…er by the Angels of the Churches we are to vnderstand Diocesan BB. or not, these two points are propounded to be examined; first, what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Bishops, whether parishes onelyonly, (as our new disciplinarians say,) or dioceses, as we and the elder disciplinarians hold: and consequently, whether themselues were parishionall, or diocesan BB. 2. what manner of preheminence they had in their Churches, in respect whereof they be called the Angels of the Churches, whether onelyonly a prioritie in order aboue other Ministers, and that but for a short time and by course; or a superioritie in degree, and maioritie of rule for terme of life. And this is the summe of that which he calleth the Preface. Now I come to his sections, and his quarrells against the same.

Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 1. Our Lord and Sauiuor Christ, hauing appeared to S. Iohn, in a glorious forme, &c. to heauen at the mids of pag. 3.

In these words two questions (which be determined in the 2. assertions,Sect. 2. Concern… the 2. … prop… ded: and who are meant by …gels. euen now mentioned) are propounded. The former, what manner of persons are meant by the Angels of the Churches. And why this question was to be discussed, I alleadged, as he saith, 2. reasons. The first, because when the holy Ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels, this interpretation it selfe is allegoricall, and therefore needeth some exposition.

The second reason is propounded foreign preuenting a secret obiection against the former reason, which p. 30might be this: though the interpretation be allegoricall, yet the exposition of the allegorie is agreed vponupon, to wit, that by the Angels are meant the Bishops of those Churches, and therefore further explication needeth not: to this I answere in a discretiue sentence, granting the antecedent, but denying the consequence, that, although it be agreed vponupon, that the Angels are the Bishops of the Churches; yet, in these times it is become a great controuersie, and needfull to bee decided, what manner of Bishops they were, which in former ages was not wont to be called into question.

A… pag. 3.Against the former reason, the resuter first obiecteth 2. things: the one, that it maketh against my selfe; the other, that it is: … and … he telleth me how I might hauehave bestowed … maketh against me, he proueth thus … faith he is allegoricall, th…refore it was … &c. Whereunto I hauehave answered, that the meaning of the allegory is on both sides agreed vponupon, and that our aduersaries themselues confesse, that the Angels were the Bishops of the Churches: and therefore, by their owne confession, the text was as fitly chosen, as if it had beene said, the 7. starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches. Yea but, saith he, though it be granted that the Angels be the Bishops, yet not such Bishops as you speake of. Then the vnfitnes of the text (be like) is not because it is allegoricall, but because in his conceit it is impertinent. Which his conceit proueth the exposition of this text to be needfull, as I shewed in the second reason.

Yea, but hereby, saith hee, the first reason appeareth to be superfluous. It followeth not. Of the same thing there are many times giuen two expositions, a shorter called foreign a larger called foreign of both there was need in this place. The necessitie of the former ariseth from the allegory, which I breefly expound according to the receiued interpretation, viz. that the Angels signifie the Bishops of the Churches. The necessitie of the latter, ariseth from the controuersie,Sect. 3. which some hauehave raised in these times, &c.

After hee hath shewed that my first reason might well p. 31hauehave beene spared, he telleth me, that IWhether the Angels vvere 7 might hauehave spent my paines better in opening a doubt, which either I did not, or would not see.And what is that I pray you? For it is great pittie, I had not your helpe. If I would needs hauehave these Angels to be Diocesan Bishops, I should hauehave giuen some reason, why the number of thē is not limited, as well as of the Churches, to seuen & no more. And from hence reasoneth thus.

If the holy Ghost by Angels had meant Diocesan Bishops (whereof there is but one in a Church) then would heehaue limited them, as well as the Churches, to the number of seuen:

But he hath not limited them to seuen:

Therefore by Angels he meaneth not Diocesan BB.

The assumption he proueth, because if the holy Ghost had intended to signifie no more but 7. Angels, he would hauehave said, the 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches. And hauing so doughtily proued that the number of the Angels is not limited, from thence (as if he had made all Cocke-sure) he inferreth 2. things: 1. that the holy Ghost, in not limiting the number, would hauehave vsus to vnderstand, there were more Angels or Bishops then 7. in these Churches: 2. that where eueryevery Epistle is directed to the Angell of each Church as to one, we are not literally to vnderstād one, but by a synecdoche more then one. Which light as he calleth it, standing at the entry dore, if I had had his eyes to hauehave discerned, I should no doubt hauehave seene an high point in a lowe house.

But were not I pray you the Angels or BB. to whom S. Iohn writeth, iust seuen? helpe me, I beseech you, to remoue this veile, which hideth the light, you speake of from me.

The starres which Christ h…ld in his hand were iust seuen, or limitted to the number of 7. Apoc. 1.16, 20. & 2.1.

The Angels of the 7. Churches were the starres which Christ held in his hand. Apoc. 1.20.

Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were iust 7. or limited to the number of 7,

Againe, of 7. monades or vnities, such as be 7. singular persons; the number is iust 7.

The Angells were 7. Monades or Vnities, as beeing 7. singular persons; therfore of the Angells the number is iust 7.

That the Angels were 7. singular persons, it appeareth by the inscriptions of the 7. Epistles written vntounto them, viz: foreign to the Angell of the Church at Ephesus: to the Angell of the Church at Smyrna, &c: where, whosoeuer is able to count 20. may easily finde iust 7. I will recite them, and let the refuter keepe the tale. The Angell of the Church at Ephesus; 1. the Angell of the Church of Smyr…a; 2: the Angell of the Church at Pergamus; 3: the Angell of the Church at Thyatira; 4. the Angell of the Church at Sardes; 5: the Angell of the Church at Phyladelphia; 6. the Angell of the church of Laodicea; 7: seuen Angels, neither more nor lesse.

Moreouer, to whom the 7. Epistles were written, they were iust 7: for they were written singulae singulis; the first to the first, the second to the second, &c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches, the 7. Epistles were written: Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches, were iust 7. The same is testified by Arethas, vntounto these 7. Churches, blessed Iohn (saith hee) reckneth, In Apoc. 1.11.Rev 1:11foreign: ouerse…ing or superintendent Angels, iust of the same number: and by Ambrose, wee must vnderstand the 7. Angels, to bee the gouernours of the 7. Churches;Ambros. in Apoc. 1.Rev 1 and afterwards he calleth them the 7. rulers of the 7. Churc…s.

Yea, but the holy Ghost if hee had limited their number to 7. would hauehave said that the 7. Starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches.

Whereto I answere, that he hath more plainely limited the number, then if hee had said so. For if hee had said, they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, such a captious Sophister as my aduersarie, would hauehave expounded septem, 7. by septeni, seuen a peece, and so hauehave multiplied them by 7. as if there had bene according to the number of the supposed Deacons at Ierusalem, 7. in eueryevery Church. But when hee saith, the 7. starres are the Angels of the 7. Churches: he plainly signifieth, that there were iust so many of them, as of the Churches: that is to say seuen.

Seeing therfore the number of the Angels is limited to seuen, it is not materiall what the refuter inferreth from the not limitation of them.

And whereas he saith, that by the Angel in each inscription we are to vnderstand more then one: I would know of him, first, what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall sense? And where the holy Ghost speaketh but as of one, how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more then one? Secōdly, whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one? Thirdly, whether himselfe did not teach, pag. 2. that the Angels signifie such BB. or Ministers, as were Pastors onelyonly of particular cōgregations: 4. whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations, seeing in Ephesus as him self saith, pag: 3. there were more angels. For one that had his facultie in syllogizing, might appose him with these Syllogismes.

1. The Pastor or Bishop of a particular congregation is but one, and hee, as the new discipline teacheth, the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in eueryevery Church.

Each Angell of the Churches, saith the refuter, did signifie a Pastor or Bishop of a particular congregation: Therefore each Angel did signifie but one.

2. Where were many Angels, were many Pastors of particular congregations, and where were many Pastors of particular congregations, there were more particular congregations then one.

But at Ephesus, saith my aduersary, were many Angels, and so many Pastors.

Therefore at Ephesus, there were more particular congregations then one.

Which two conclusions, are directly contradictory to his other assertions, both here, & else where in his booke.

Sect. 4. Hauing thus manifestly proued,BB. foreign called the … gels of the… Churches. that the Angels of the seuen Churches were iust seuen; and consequently, that there was one, and but one, in eueryevery Church, whom the holy Ghost calleth the Angel of that Church: it wil be easie, both to free my Text from the cauil, which more then once my aduersary obiecteth against it; as also, out of the text, to p. 34cleare the maine controuersie, which is in hand. For, whereas he obiecteth that all Ministers are Angels, Pag. 2. & 4 and 6. as I my selfe teach in the Sermon of the dutie and dignitie of Ministers: And therefore, that nothing can bee gathered from this Text, which is not common to all Ministers: for that the Angels are Bishops (saith hee) who denyeth? but withall, who knoweth not that so are all Ministers? I answere, that all Minsters, who hauehave charge of soules, are in a generall sense called Angels, Pastors, Bishops, because they are messengers sent from God, to feede & to ouersee his flocke. But yet, where there are many ministers, who are in general called Angels, Pastors, Bishops; if there bee one, and but one, who foreign, is called the Angell, the Pastor, the Bishop of that Church, he is plainely noted to hauehave a singular preheminence aboue the rest. Wherof see more in my answere to pag: 6.Infr. S. 12. And this is so plaine a case, that euen Beza himselfe (though a chiefe patron of the pretended discipline, and one that sheweth himselfe as loath as may be,in Apoc: 2. that the Episcopall degree should be hence proued; confesseth, that by the Angell of the Church at Ephesus (& so of the rest) we are to vnderstād, foreign, him that was the Prelate, or President of the Presbyterie; for so els-where he confesseth, that Iustin Martyre calleth him,In Philip: 1. whom others call the Bishop, And although he would hauehave vsus thinke, that this office of Presidentship was not perpetuall, but for a short time, and that by course: yet he would hauehave vsus also note out of 1. Tim: 5.19. where Timothy is willed,Notandum in hoc loco Timotheum in Ephesino Presbyterio, tum fuisse foreign i. Antistitem, vt vocat Iustinus. Bez: in Tim. 5:19. not to receiue an accusation against a Presbyter, but vnderunder 2. or 3. witnesses; that Timothie was at that time the foreign, as Iustine calleth him, that is Antistes, the Prelate or President in the Presbitery at Ephesus. Now it is absurd to imagine, that Timothy was sent thither, to be President among them as his course only or turne shuld come, as though the other Presbyters there were equall to him.

Moreouer, we are able to shewe by the testimonie of the most ancient Authors in the Church, who were these singular persons, whome the holie Ghost doth call the Angell of the Church at Ephesus, and likewise at Smyrna. For as before this time, Timothy had bene the Angell, or foreign, as Beza, p. 35confesseth, so at this time, Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus, as Ignatius testifieth, & Polycarpus the Byshop of Smyrna: If therefore Onesimus was but one man, and likewise Polycarpus: then wee may be bold to conclude, that the Angell of the Church of Ephesus, was but one singular person, and likewise the Angell of Smyrna; and so of the rest. So much of the first reason.Sect: …

The second indeed (saith hee) necessarily occasioneth vsus to enquire what manner of BB. these Angels were, Ad Pag. What … of Bishop Angels …because, as I said, some of our times hauehave made a question of that, which in former ages was not wont to be called into controuersie; so saith hee, because B. Bilson and B. Barlow hauehave fancied to themselues another sort of Bishops, then either the scriptures of the new Testament do mention, or any sound Diuines doe teach thereout.

This then is the controuersie which remaineth to be decided, whether sort of BB. such, as those learned Fathers, and my selfe, do defend, or such as my aduersary and his adherents do stand for, is that kinde of Bishop, which hath bene but of late deuised, and neuer till of late obtruded on the Church. And on which side the iudicious Reader shall see better euidence, & more pregnāt proofes, I adiure him, in the name of God without partialitie, to assent thereto.

The second question is, concerning the qualitie of the function,The 2. quest concerning the qualitie their functio… which is determined in the second Assertion, viz: that the calling of B.B. (who are here meant by the starres and Angels) is lawfull and good. And this is a doctrine so necessarily arising out of the Text, that if it be proued that Bishops are here meant by starres and Angels (which was the thing I vndertook before to proue, & now doubt not by Gods help to make euident) it cannot be denied but that their calling is both aproued as good, and commended as excellent. Neither would the refuter hauehave wrangled with this passage, hauing nothing to say, but that which with an idle Coccysme he oft repeateth, and in this place is altogether impertinent, that Diocesan BB. are not here meant: were it not that he was resolued before hand to cauill with whatsoeuer hee should find in my booke. Especially if you consider, that elsewhere hee would make me beleeue the proofe of this doctrine to p. 36be superfluous, the former point being once proued.

Sect: 6.Serm. Sect. 2. Pag. 3. For the deciding of the former question, two things are in the wordes offered to our consideration. For whereas they are said to be the Angels of the Churches, we are first to consider what maner of Churches they were, whereof they were the Angels; and secondly, what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches, in regard wherof they are called the Angels of the Churches.

As touching the first: wee are to trie, whether these Churches whereof they were Angels or BB. were Parishes or Dioceses, and consequently, whether they were Parishionall or Diocesan BB. &c: to pag. 5. own case.

That these 2. things are offered to our consideration (saith the refuter) wee denie not: but if he had walked with a right foote in the path hee entred into,For the deciding of the former question, 2 things are to be knowne, by explication wherof the Text is explaned. hee should by his Text hauehave taught vsus the meaning of these 2. points, and not quite contrarie, as hee goes about, by these two points to teach vsus the meaning of his Text.

To whom I will not giuegive that answere which Festus did to Paul, that too much learning hath made him madde: for hee seemeth not to be greatly sicke of that disease: but I may truely say that too much anger and wrath (which is furor breuis) which he vnmeasurably sheweth in this Section, hath made him so to forget himselfe, that hee wrangleth without witte and against sense. Vnlesse any man that is in his wittes will say, that it is not lawfull for a Preacher to explane his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand? was it not to indeuour the explication of my Text, and to shew what manner of BB: are here meant by the Angels of the Churches? for the explicatiō wherof, what could more fitly be propounded, then the consideration of these 2. things? viz: what manner of Churches they were, whereof they were the Angels or BB: and what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches, in regard wherof they are termed the Angels of the Churches; that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulnes of their calling, and from it inferre the vse.

Indeed if I had bene now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text, or vrging the vse therevpon inferred, there had bene reason I should prooue them, as afterwards I doe, by the Text already explicated. But when I am about to explicate the Text, & propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text, who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text, and the Text that which is explicated? And if the Text be that which is explicated, who could bee so senselesse, as either to require that the points should be explaned by the Text, or to finde fault, that by the handling of them the Text is explaned.

But now hee is pleased of his grace to consider them. Sect. 1. Whe… the Chu… were Di…ses, or P… shes, and BB. Dio… or Parish… nall; and this was p…pounded▪ discussed.And wheras I yeeld as a reason of my propounding the former point to bee discussed, diuers new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline, whereof I spake but too mildely, as you may see: hee chargeth mee with bitter inueighing, scornefull, vpbraiding, ouerflowing of the gall, with spitting out vnsauoury reproaches, making a calumnious out-crie in the ende of the Section: and much adoe he had, not to apply to mee that saying of Salomon, (with whome it better fitteth, let the Reader iudge) Proud, haughtie, and scornefull is his name that worketh in his arrogancie wrath, Ad Pag. Pro. 21.…Prov 21and in the ende out of the super-aboundance of his charitie, hee is afraide for mee, that I care not to loose much of my peace within: that all I here speake is Night worke, proceeding from great p. 38distemper of the braine, &c.

Was my aduersaries backe or conscience rather galled, was hee guiltie to himselfe, of being one of the coyners of those newe opinions, that hee thus flingeth and kicketh, when they are so gentlie touched? Who, knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions, for the tryall whereof, the vnchristian and vnmodest offer of disputation was made, which are there magnified, as beeing such chiefe points in controuersie betweene vsus and the Papists, that if in them the BB. (ioyning as they pretend, with the Papists) hauehave the truth; then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome, by our separating therefrom, and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schismaticall: that if the Priests and Iesuites can satisfie them in these points, they would bee reconciled to the Church of Rome:

Who, I say, knowing this, could with more mildnesse hauehave spoken of such Schismaticall nouelties? For where hee saith, that almost all of them hauehave bene alwayes generallie maintained and practised, by all soundly reformed Churches, hee seemeth, either not to care what hee speaketh, or by soundly reformed Churches, to meane none but Brownists, or such like. Betweene whom and these vnchristian and immodest challengers, there went as wee say but a paire of sheeres; These, remaining after a sort in the peece; the other, beeing by open Schisme cut off: Which againe they hauehave manifested in their late petition to the Kings Maiestie:Anno. 1609. This being the summe of their suite, that they may be tollerated Schismatickes.

But to let passe their new-coyned positions, (excepting those that concerne this cause,) with the Libellers bitter wranglings, and vaine ianglings, There are two things in answere to this Section, which I may not let passe: the one, is his defence of the challengers; the other, a great aduantage taken against a word, which as hee saith, I dropt by the way.

His defence is, against that calumnious outcrie, as hee calleth it,Wh… Kin… a m… som… rish… oce… in the ende of the Section, where I brieflie note, that by what reason they denie the Bishops to bee members of the true Church, because forsooth they bee not of some certaine parish, by the same, they may as well denie the King, who hauing a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions, as being the Gouernour of them all, in Great Brittaine and Irel…nd; is further from being a member of one onelyonly parish, then anie Bishop in this Kingdome.

Hee answereth, that the challengers hold the King and his Houshold to bee an entire Church of it selfe. But tell mee, doe they hold it to bee a true Church? that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church. Or if they doe; Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his familie, to bee an entire familie by themselues? But it is no matter what they holde, vnlesse they were more learned and iudicious.

The aduantage which is taken at my words had need to bee verie great,Ad pa… Sec… Their … that by sertion… cesan … Popelin …swered. or else the refuter and his copartners doe shewe themselues to be very weake men: seeing it is fiue times repeated in print; once in their late petition, with great amplifications; once in the Abortiue booke, with this note in the margent, sic tu beas amicos? Thrice in this Booke, with great triumphes and insultations: not onelyonly in the treatise it selfe, but also eueryevery where in the margent, demanding with scorne, in this place,Pag. 1… Is this your kindnesse to your friends? in the second, sic tu beas amicos? in the third, quid facias odio, sic vbi amore noces?Pag: 4…

The Reader must needes expect some great matter,Pag: 1… Montes perbi su… Aug: … Psal. 10▪ Quid d… tanto fe… hic prom…sor hiat…. parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Horat: de art: Poet.Ps 10 seeing these hilles thus to swell, The words whereat they take aduantage were these.

Least they might seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling in euerie parish, who should hauehave not onelyonly supreame, but also sole authoritie p. 40in causes Ecclesiasticall, they adioyne to him (that is, to their Parish Bishop) a Consistorie of Lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders.

Out of which words they frame this proposition; They which hauehave not onelyonly supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings: hereto they adde an assumption of their owne, All Diocesan Bishops, hauehave not onelyonly supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall; and from thence inferre their victorious & triumphing conclusion; therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings. And this, they say, is mine owne reason, whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings.

Mine owne reason? in which there is nothing mine, but the proposition, which also is stretched beyond, not onelyonly my meaning, but euen my words? this proposition (I denie not) may bee framed out of my words: they who giuegive to a Bishop, not onelyonly supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall, doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling.

From which words, if they had bene retained, this might hauehave bene concluded, if I did giuegive to our Bishops, both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall, as I doe not, that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings. But it were well with my aduersaries, if to seeme, and to bee, were all one. And yet, I doe not so much as seeme, to anie that is wise and indifferent, to make our Bishops, as they say, absolute Popelings. The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption, which is both false and foolish, and is not mine, but theirs.

They say, it is not onelyonly impleyed and intended, but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon. But their saying is false and friuolous. How doe they prooue it? For the question beeing (saith our refuter) whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders, or by Diocesan Bishops: whereas they say, by Pastors and Elders, adioyning the Elders to the Pastors, p. 41and making them both subiect to the whole congregation, &c. M.D. taketh all from them all, and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone, so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling.

Here I intreate the Reader, to keepe in store for future vse, the state of the question, as it is here propounded by the refuter. In the meane time, let vsus after his owne manner examine his argument.

The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders (for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people)

or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders, and (shall I adde) the people too, and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone, he giueth him not onelyonly supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall, and so maketh him an absolute Popeling.

But the question being as I said, M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors, Elders and people, and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone.

Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan, not onelyonly supreme, but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall, and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling.

Sect. 10. To let you see,In their … foure vntruthes co…tained. The first … truth. how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes, to seat our Bishops in the Papacy, I will begin with his assumption, wherein are two vntruthes. First, that I take all authoritie from the Pastors, Elders, and people. The Elders, indeed, I reiect as a new deuise: in the parishioners, I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing, or consenting to the choyse, of some Church-officers; but authoritie to gouerne, much lesse to ordaine, depose, and depriue their Pastor, I know not any. They are the sheepe, which must heare their pastors voyce, and be obedient to their spirituall guides: They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught, not followed and obeyed.

p. 42As touching the pastors of parishes, I leaue to them that pastorall power, which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes, and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them, that is to say, both po…statem ordinis, the power of order▪ as they are Ministers, & potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae▪] a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction, to rule their flocke after a priuate manner, as it were in foro conscientiae, in the court of conscience, as they are pastors of that flocke.

By which power they rule and guide their flocke, not onelyonly in their publike Ministery, but also in their priuate attendance, or if yee will so call it, superintendence, as occasion shalbe offered. For as touching their publicke ministery; they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice; they preach the word, therein teaching, confuting, instructing, reprouing, correcting their hearers; they administer the sacraments, as the stewards of Gods house; by the one, admitting into Gods family, those which belong to his couenant; by the other, nourishing the houshold of Christ, in due season: and both by the word and sacraments, exercising so much of the power of the keyes,In the booke of ordination it is presupposed, that a Minister may and ought to Minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this realme hath receiued the same. Fol. 12. interrog. 2. The second vntruth. as of right belongeth to them, as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent, by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word, and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament; as also loosing the penitent belieuers, by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell, and adding thereto the sacraments as seales.

So that all power is not taken from the pastors: neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone. For in the gouernement of the Church, others are ioyned with him: some vnderunder him, some aboue him. VnderUnder him, in the mother Church or Cathedrall, the Deane and Chapter, which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe, were called Archpresbyters, and presbyteri ciuitatis: in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts, the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes, gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church. p. 43Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials, the former being adioyned to the Bishops, the latter to the Archdeacons, by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes. Aboue him, not onelyonly the Archbishop and his courts, but also the prouinciall Synodes, assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions, by which the Bishops are to rule, and to be ruled. In making whereof, though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth, yet neither all the Bishops alone, and much lesse any one Bishop, concludeth any thing, but with the consent of the Presbytery. And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added, that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes, they hauehave a voyce, either by themselues, if they be sent to the Synode, or by such as themselues shall choose.

Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes.The thi… truth. For first, it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition (for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme) that whosoeuer doth giuegive to the Bishop alone, the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes, doth straightwaies giuegive the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop.

Indeed,The four… vntruth. if we were so madde, as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall, there were something in his speech. But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onelyonly parishionall but also Diocesan, we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts, in the prouinciall synodes, especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes, whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled: it is apparent, that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders, yet it would not follow that I giuegive the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone.

But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops, that is the supreme and the loudest lye, and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false. p. 44Doe I, or any of vsus say, that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall? doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop, and prouinciall Synodes? doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop, and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates? doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops, as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise, we may in his opinion seeme to hauehave but two Churches, and those prouinciall, the one of Canterbury, and the other of Yorke? doe wee not all, with one consent, acknowledge, the Kings Maiestie to hauehave the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall? and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes, and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes; yet the ratification of them we submit to the King (according to the Practise of the (a)(a)Euseb. in vita Constant. lib. 3. saith that Constantine foreign. foreign. Concil▪ Tol…t. …. in sin…, edict. reg. de confirm. concil. Conc. Const. 5. Rogamus clemētiātisam saith the counsell to the Emperour Theodos. vt per litras … pietatis ratum esse jubeas conf…mes que concilij decre…um. Con. Chalc. …ct. 3. sacro … edicto … Marti…us the Emperour … confirmamus.ancient Churches liuing vnderunder Orthodoxall Kings) in so much that they, and all our Church-lawes, are called the Kings (b)(b)Sir Edw. Cooke do iure regis Ecclesiastico.Ecclesiasticall lawe.

Now then, if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors, nor giuegive all to the Bishops, nor ascribe vntounto them… sole, nor supreme authoritie; what hauehave the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes, but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes? Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB.

Neither did I say that they are such, but that if they did not ioyne vntounto them a consistory of Elders, they would seeme to set vp, not onelyonly a Popeling, but an absolute Popeling in eueryevery parish▪ a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vntounto him, (making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in eueryevery Church) which wee deny to our Bishops, and were it not, that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him, as the Pope hath of Cardinals, hee would bee more then a pope.

p. 45And againe, whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes, which by their superiors are imposed vponupon them; their pastors with their Elders and people hauing (as the Pope saith he hath) a supreme, immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical, and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes, they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes. For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement, is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall. If therefore each parish hath (as they say it hath) sufficient authoritie within it selfe, for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall, immediately deriued from Christ; then questionlesse they hauehave authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall.

And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vponupon him, no more doe they. They will giuegive synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best,H.I. & supplic. an 1609. and to perswade thereto, but they will not be ruled by them. As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical, how it may stand with their maine assertion, wherein they ascribe to eueryevery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ, sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall, I will not dispute.

Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5.Sect. 12. Concerning the secōd, viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches, in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches; others more wise and learned then the former, granting they were BB. of whole cities & the countries adioyning (that is to say of Dioceses) notwithstanding the sway of p. 46the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches, consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters: making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but foreign, or presidents of those Presbyteries: and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree, &c. to pag. 6. in their turnes.

The 2. what preheminence the BB. had, and why this point was propounded.Of the two points seruing to shew, by way of explication of the text, what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels, the latter I propounded in this section to be examined. A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vsus and another sort of disciplinarians, who are as I said, more wise and learned then the former, who though they grant that which the former denied, yet doe greatly differ from vsus concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches. So that in this section are 2. things, first the proposition of the second point, concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches, secondly, a reason thereof. To the proposition he answereth, that they had this name Angels, in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie, not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers, as (he saith) I imply here, and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards. In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes. Whereof the former is an errour, that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery. For though to be called Angels, generally agreeth to all Ministers: yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be foreign, called the Angell of that Church, is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling, but a peculiar stile belonging p. 47to one, who had singular preheminence aboue the rest,Conf. wit. Hart. pag… 461. Act. 20.1 Apoc. 2.1.Acts 20:1Rev 2:1 that is to say, a Bishop. So saith D. Raynolds: in the Church of Ephesus, though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it; yet among those sundry was there one chiefe, whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church, and writeth, that to him which by him the rest should know. And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop.

As touching the latter: where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops hauehave a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers, and afterwards doe affirme it plainely, that plainely is a plaine lie. Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giuegive to their Bishop, and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome. Superioritie indeed belongeth to Bishops ouer other Ministers, and so much is intended in this place.

To the reason,Sect. 13. Ad pag. 7. The refuter mistaking the reason and craftily concealing th… diuisiō whic… is among them) is bol… to charge … with foure vntruthes. if it had beene obscure, hee should hauehave answered, as Aristotle teacheth, foreign, I vnderstand not. For better were it to plead ignorance, then to wrangle with that he doth not, or will not vnderstand. For I doe plainely note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians, who are opposite vntounto vsus in this controuersie; the one, a new sect of disciplinarians lately risen amongst vsus, (who hauehave coyned the new-found parish discipline, which commeth nearer the practise of the Brownists, then of any well ordered Church) of whom I spake in the former point: the other, a sort of graue and learned diuines, such as Caluin and Beza, &c. who stand for that discipline, which is practised in Geneua, and some other reformed Churches; shewing that as they doe not consent with our newe disciplinarians in the former point, so they dissent from vsus in the latter, touching the superioritie of Bishops.

The refuter vnderstandeth all as a grant made by them, whereof some part hee acknowledgeth to be true, the rest he reiecteth as false. And though in neither he doe vnderstand what was intended, yet hee is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech, that with one breath I blowe out both truth and falshood.

Neither doubteth he, though meerely ignorant of that p. 48which he auoucheth, to charge me with foure vntruthes; denying 1. that they grant Bishops which here are called Angels, to hauehave beene set ouer Dioceses, that is to say, the whole citie and countrey adioyning.

2 That they teach the onelyonly gouerning Elders, to be lay or annuall.

3 That the Angels of the Churches were nothing else but presidents of the Presbyteries.

4 That their presidentshippe was onelyonly for a weeke or a monethmonth, and that by course as being common to them in their turnes.

For the manifestation of the truth in all these points, I shall not need to seeke further then to the writings of Caluin and Beza.That Caluin and Beza, &c. hold 1. that the Churches were Diocesan.

Sect. 14. As touching the first, Caluin teacheth, that in the primitiue Church (when in the gouernement thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from Gods word) each citie had a colledge of Presbyters, Inst. lib. 4. c. 4.who were Pastors and Doctors; and that to eueryevery citie was assigned a certaine region, which should receiue their Presbyters (meaning the pastors of seuerall parisnes) from thence, Sect. 1. Sect. 2.and should be accoumpied as part of that Church. EueryEvery Colledge was subiect to some one Bishop. But if the countrey, which was vnderunder his Bishopricke, was larger, then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop; in certaine places throughout the countrey were appointed certaine Presbyters, who in busines of lesse importance should be in his steed. These were called Chorepiscopi, because in the prouince they represented the Bishop. Likewise (a)(a)de gradib. ministr. c. 24.Beza teacheth, that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses, was framed according to the diuision of the prouinces vnderunder the Romane Empier, into foreign, as it were precincts of gouernement, which Plinie calleth conuentus & iurisdictiones, in the chiefe cities whereof the presidents kept their courts of iudgment, of which sort Pliny (b)(b)Plin. lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30.reckneth 9. in Asia the lesse, fiue whereof are mentioned in the Apocalypse (viz. Laodicea, Sardes, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus. Neither are we, saith he, to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a councill or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together, then from the very instinct of nature, and instigation of necessitie.

p. 49Now saith hee, in the chiefe Towne of eueryevery Diocesse, the (e((e(So by A…brose his w… rant hee calleth a B…sho… vvho saith th… Timothie wa… such a one at Ephesus.first Presbiter, who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis, was called a Bishoppe, in the daily common iurisdiction, Praeerat caeteris, tum vrbanis tum alijs eius regionis, com-Presbyteris, id est, totj Diocoesi; was President ouer his fellow Presbyters, both of the Citie and Countrey, that is, the whole Diocese. And because sometimes the Countrey was of larger extent, then that all vponupon eueryevery occasion, could conueniently meete in the Citie; and forasmuch, as other small Cities and Townes did neede commune inspection or ouersight, they also had their Chorepiscopi, that is, Countrey-Bishops, or Vice-Bishops.

For the second,§ Sect. 15. that they acknowledge their onelyonly gouerning Elders to be of the Laitie it is plaine.22That the onelyonly gouerning Elders be of the Laitie, and annuall officers. For whereas Caluin diuideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks, Clerum, sc. & plebem; the Clergie and Laitie, hee plainely saith, that these Elders are chosen from among the Laitie. And forasmuch as being chosen, they doe not become to bee of the Clergie,Inst. lib: 4: c. 12. Sect. 1. li. 4. c. 3. Se. 8 hee must needes meane, that they still continue to be of the Laitie. And that hee thought they should be annuall, the order of the Church of Geneua by him set downe, doth declare.

Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together.de grad: Ministr: c. 11. In this Citie of Geneua saith hee, those gouerning Elders, (which in the title of the chapter hee called annuall) are chosen yearely, not of the baser sort of the people, but out of the very order of 25.60. and 200. men: (which be the councills of state in Geneua, 2. being chosen out of the 25.4. out of the 60. and 6. out of 200.) not without the knowledge and consent of the people: I say, eueryevery yeare newe are chosen, or the olde confirmed. So eueryevery where (saith hee) in other free Churches, according to the condition of the place, the like choice is obserued. For of the Laitie, some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearely, in the Low-Countreyes they are chosen for 2. yeares, the halfe of them being changed eueryevery yeare.

Now it may not be doubted, but that those which bee of the 25. or 60. or 200. in Geneua, being all States-men (as their gouerning-Elders bee) are Lay-men.

p. 50…Againe, great consideration must bee had (saith Beza) that Princes and Noble men, and such as hauehave authoritie and preheminence in the Church, bee chosen to be of the Seignorie.

And surely, saith he, in another place, (prouing that there ought to bee such Elders of the Laitie ioyned to the Ministers) vnlesse some chosen men out of the bodie of the whole congregation, The Presby… & …. pag: 112.doe sit in that assemblie, whereby the whole Church is gouerned, Scarcely shall the vniuersall name of that Church agree to that assemblie, wherewith notwithstanding Christ adorneth it: Namely, because they being chosen out of all the parts of the whole Church, should represent the whole Church.

His reason therefore is, that as the whole Church consisteth of the Clergie and Laytie: So that Senate, which is to represent the whole Church, must consist not onelyonly of the Clergie, but of the Laitie also.

And in another place he prooueth by a necessary disiunction (as he thinketh) that if there must bee a Presbyterie at all,De grad: Minist: cap. 11 pag: 64. § Sect. 16. a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laitie. Whence doe they thinke they are to be chosen, if not of them whom they call Lay-men? &c.

Thirdly, that they make the Angels of the Churches or ancient BB. in respect of their superioritie,33They held that the Angels were but Presidents of the Presbyteries. only Presidents of the presbyterie, &c. Nothing is more plaine.

The Presbyters (saith Caluin) in eueryevery Citie chose one out of their number, to whom specially they giuegive the title of a Bishop, least from equalitie (as is wont) dissentions should arise. But yet the Bishop was not so in honour and dignitie superiour, Inst. lib. 4. c. 4. Sect: 2. Vid T. C…li: 1.109. & 110. Eccles. disciplia. ang, pag: 181.182.that hee had dominion ouer his colleagues. But what office the Consul had in the Senate, to propound matters, to aske voyces, to goe before others in counselling, admonishing, exhorting, by his authoritie to rule the whole action, and to execute that which by common counsell hath bene decreed, that office did the B. beare, in the assemblie of the Presbyters.

Againe, eueryevery Colledge of Presbyters onelyonly for preseruation of peace and good order, were subiect to one Bishop, who did so goe before others in dignitie, that himselfe was subiect to the assemblie of the bretheren, meaning the Presbyterie.

p. 51Caluin therefore maketh the Angels or ancient Bishops, nothing else but presidents of the Presbyterie, or moderators of the Assemblie.

Beza, In Apoc. 2.1Rev 2:1as by each of these Angels he vnderstandeth foreign, the President of the Presbyterie, (as before I noted; So he will acknowledge the first Bishops,de grad: Ministr: cap. 20 114.123. to hauehave bene no other but presidents of the Ecclesiasticall Senate, Presidents ouer the assemblies of Pastors, (to wit, of diuerse Parishes, belonging to one Church) whose authoritie he will acknowledge to bee nothing else but the Dignitie of the first place in the sacred Assemblie, with the right of ruling the common action, without any dominion ouer those which sit with him. And such a presidentship hee acknowledgeth to bee a Diuine ordinance.cap: 21▪

And whereas Ierome saith, there was a time when the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters, hee would not hauehave him so vnderstood, as if they had not alwayes a president.cap: 23.139 140. And whereas D. Sarauia objecteth, that in Saint Iohns time, these 7. Churches of Asia had by Diuine ordinance 7. BB. set ouer them, whome hee calleth the Angels; Beza replieth; Wherefore vrge you this against Ierome & vsus? cap: 23.159.160.For when he saith, that the Churches at the first were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters, wee may not thinke he was so vnwise, as to dreame that none of the Presbyters was President of the assemblie.

And most plainely in the next Chapter.

As touching the first Presbyter (saith hee) or Bishop of the Diocesse, cap: 24.168.what his Dignitie was, and wherein it did consist, I hauehave often shewed; that it was wholly of Order, and not of degree. EueryEvery one of his fellow-Presbyters or Pastors ruling his own Parish, and that first Presbyter or Byshop of the Diocesse, hauing a super-intendencie or in-spection ouer all his fellow-Presbyters, thus farre, as to admonish them of their dutie; as also hauing assembled his Presbyterie, either on set dayes, or extraordinarilie, to propound matters to them concerning the Diocesse, or the Censure of manners, to aske their voices, to pronounce what to the rest seemeth good. From which iudgement, it was lawfull p. 52to appeale to a Prouinciall Synode.

As touching the last point, what the learned disciplinarians hold,§ Sect. 17.4. That they held the Presidentship to hauehave bene but for a short time, and by course. may be gathered by the practise of Geneua, and other Churches, which they did reforme, as was pretended, according to the discipline of the primitiue Church; the Presidents of the presbyteries in those Churches being not perpetuall, or for terme of life, but for a short time. But omitting the rest, (a)(a)Sec T.C. lib. 1.110. Eccl. discipl: Ang. pag. 184.Beza often vrgeth this point, that the ancient BB: had this presidentship, but for a short time, and that by course. And as hee professeth the presidentship in the Presbytery of eueryevery Church, to be a diuine ordinance, & immutable; So hee acknowledgeth those BB: alone for diuine, who had this presidentship but for a short time and by course.

How be it hee confesseth, that howsoeuer, the order it selfe,De Minist: grad: cap: 23 pag: 142. ca: 141.153. (Namely, that there should bee a president in each presbyterie) is perpetuall and immutable, as beeing essentiall: Yet ordinis modum; the manner of this order: though it were a diuine ordinance, that it should bee by course and for a short time, was variable, as being but accidentall.

ca: 140.141.But his wordes which most plainely testifie that, which I deliuered, are these; In what sense it is to be taken, that Ierome saith, The Churches in the beginning, were gouerned by the common Counsell of the Presbyters. Ambrose teacheth; namely so, as there should bee one among them, not superiour in degree, but first in the dignitie of Order and Honour; to which office eueryevery one should succeede in their turnes. Now, what space of time was prescribed to this Presidentship,…ed hebdomadi…am hanc foreign, fuisse, probabile est. pag: 143. Ambrose describeth not. But it is probable, that it was a weekely course, such as that of the Aaronicall Priest-hood.

And after, speaking of that change which Ierome noteth, hee giueth this reason thereof; That the Primacie of Order, by course or turnes of mutuall succession, was by experience found not sufficient for auoyding of Schisme: the dignitie of this Primacie being communicated vntounto each of the Pastors in their turnes.

p. 53Therefore that which had bene common to all in their turnes, it was thought good to translate vntounto one; and that one chosen by the iudgement of the whole Presbitery.

Let the refuter therefore take home those foure vntruths to himselfe, which hee obiected against mee; whether out of vnmannerly ignorance, or rather cunning-rudenes. For it can hardly be thought that such bolde challengers of the BB. and so confident an vndertaker of this busines, could simply be ignorant of these things:The refu… his Cop… plead for … cipline, n… taught by … uin and o… learned Pr… tants, no…ctised by … reformed Churches. but rather cunninglie sought to conceale the diuision, which is among themselues; fearing lest their fauourites, (whereof some followe, some goe before them, out of a zeale not guided by knowledge) should take notice, that the aforesaid challengers, and this Champion stand for a Discipline, neither taught by Caluin and Beza, and such other learned men, nor yet practised by the reformed Churches: whereof I desire all men to take notice.

And verilie, for my part, I was of opinion, till I sawe H.I. booke to the King, and the vnmodest & vnchristian offer of disputation: that they who stand for the pretended reformation among vsus, had sought for no other discipline, then that which Caluin and Beza taught, and the reformed Churches, especiallie of Geneua doth, and Scotland did practise. But when I saw the nouell Assertions, wheron the new-found parish discipline is founded, vrged with such bold vehemencie, I must confesse, I was much alienated from that side. And so I hope will all moderate Christians, when they shall consider how they make no ende of broaching more and more Nouelties.

Serm. Sect. 4 pag. 6.Sect. 18. The 5. poin… propounded. Now for the clearing of this matter which we hauehave in hand: Forasmuch as both sorts obtrude Lay-Elders, to extrude Bishops; I would first proue against both, &c. to the end of pag: 7.

p. 54Hitherto the two Assertions contained in the explication hauehave beene propounded to be discussed. Now, in this Section, I made way to the proofe hereof, by enumerating distinctly the seuerall points which I purposed to handle, for the proofe of either. And first for the former, which is the explication of my Text (viz:) that the Angells or Pastors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops, and such, for the substance of their function, as ours bee.) I endeuoured to prooue it, both foreign, by disproouing the presbyterian discipline, wherein I intended a disiunctiue argumentation, that (the question beeing, whether the Churches were gouerned by presbyteries, as they say, consisting for the greater part of Lay-men, or by BB: as wee holde,) the disproofe of their presbyteries, might bee a proofe for our Bishops: and also foreign, by shewing what the authoritie of the Angels or ancient Bishops was, as well extensiuè, against our newe disciplinarians, (viz:) that the Churches whereof they were Byshops, were Dioceses, and themselues Diocesan Bishops; as intensiuè, against the Elder, and more learned disciplinarians, that BB. were superiour to other Ministers, not onelyonly in order, but in degree also. &c.

And for the proofe of the 2 Assertion, which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explaned, concerning the lawfulnesse of the Bishops calling, this is proposed to bee proued, that the fanction of Byshops, is of Apostolicall and diuine institution; and this, as in the ende of the Section is signified, was the thing chiefely intended by mee. These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies, which the greatest part doth not so well conceiue and remember, but for more easinesse, was content to make a bare enumeration of them.

And this is the frame, of that which hee calleth the bodie of my Sermon, the which our refuter endeuoreth heere to put out of frame: For hauing first, of the fiue points which I propound, referred the first foure to the former part of my maine distribution (as he calleth it) where I enquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were; and the last to the latter, which p. 55respecteth the qualitie of their function: in the next words, as if presently he had forgotten himselfe, after hee hath shewed his scornefull and disdainefull spirit, hee setteth vp a frame of his owne to worke vponupon. The mansion (saith hee) that hee buildeth, is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships, vnderunder the roofe whereof, their Honours may dwell safely, as in a Sanctuary, without danger of the aduersarie, and much delight. Looke we vponupon the bare frame, as it standeth, without glasing, painting, &c: it is of this forme:

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 seuen Churches.

Therefore the function of the Byshops of the Church of England is lawfull and good.

The proposition of this syllogisme is laid downe, pag: 2. and 55. where hee saith, that the office and function of Bishops, heere meant by Angels, is in this Text approoued, as lawfull and commended as excellent: That is is lawfull and good; hauing diuine, both Institution being Angels, and approbation being starres.

The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus: The Bishops of the 7. Churches, (for the substance of their calling (were such as the reuerend fathers of our Church are. The which hee saith, by the grace of God hee will plainely prooue, and that in the foure first points of the fiue, for to them he there referreth vsus for that purpose. pag. 61.

Wee are therefore in the next place to see, out of which of those foure points it is concluded, and how: Which to my vnderstanding must be out of the second, third, and 4. points, after this manner.

The function of those Bishops, whose Churches are Dioceses, and themselues Diocesan Bishops, superiour to other Ministers in degree, hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction, is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches.

p. 56The function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is the function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses, and themselues Diocesan Bishops; superiour to other Ministers in degree, hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction.

Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches.

In lieue of the proposition of this Syllogisme, wee hauehave the prosyllogisme, or proofe of it, in the 2.3. and 4. points before named, &c.

Sect. 19. The refuter by a forced Analysis, hath put the frame of the Sermon out of frame, to make himselfe worke.Beholde, to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man! Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis. If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not bene extraordinarie, all this stirre had bene needlesse. But if you marke the ende of his ouerbusying himselfe in resoluing my Sermon, and then putting the endes together to make vp his owne frame, perphaps he will not seeme so skilfull in resoluing, as wilfull in dissoluing the same. The end of his double dealing, appeareth in the sequele to hauehave bene double.

For first, whereas there are of the fiue points which I propounded, two of principall vse, seruing directly, the one to disproue their Presbyterian discipline, the other to approue the gouernement by Bishops, (both which, hee could wish that I had spared) hee would faine make his Reader belieue, that of these two,Pag. 9. the former, is impertinent; and the latter, superfluous;Pag. 107. or as else-where hee speaketh, the former bootlesse, the other needlesse. 2. When hee could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points, hee bringeth them to his frame,Pag. 53.70.84. as it were to the racke: first, finding fault, that they doe not directly prooue, that which hee would hauehave them: and then, by torture, making them to say what hee pleaseth, that he may the more easily contradict them.

To countenance these sophisticall shifts, he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge, and hauing hammered it well, hee hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogisme, with the proofs thereof. Vsing this syllogisme for the p. 57parts of my Sermō, as the tyrant vsed his bed for his ghests, cutting off those parts which seeme to reach ouer, and retching out those which seeme to come short.

But let vsus examine his Syllogisme which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon. The function of the Bishops of the seauen Churches is lawfull and good, &c. I doe not deny but that out of diuerse places of my Sermon patched together, some such Syllogisme as this may be framed. But in Analysing we must respect, not what we can deuise or collect, but what the writer did intend, and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis. It is apparant that I propounded two things to be distinctly proued, the one as the explication of the text shewing what manner of Bishops the Angels were: the other as a doctrine collected out of the text, concerning the qualitie of their function, viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good. This, which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text, pag. 2. and as a conclusion to be proued in the last part, pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposition, but the conclusion of the Syllogisme which himselfe frameth, he would against sense make the Reader belieue was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllogisme. As for the proposition which he assigneth to me, I did not expresse, but tooke it for granted in the collection of the doctrine out of the text, which may be collected after this manner: Bishops are such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches, therefore their function is lawfull and good. Of which collection if any man should make doubt, the consequence would be proued by the addition of the proposition. The calling of such, as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches, is lawfull and good, &c.

Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me, so if he had drawne the same into two distinct Syllogismes concluding the same question, and not confounded the parts of the Sermon to make the principall branches thereof to seeme heterogeneall or superfluous, he had not much missed of my proiect. The former Syllogisme as p. 58I hauehave said might be this.

The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good.

Diocesan BB. are such as are here meant by the Angels, therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good.

The proposition I tooke for granted, and therefore did not expresse it. The assumption is the same with the former assertion, and is proued by the foure first points. The conclusion I did not expresse, being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of the text.

The latter Syllogisme is this. That calling which is of appostolicall and diuine institution is lawfull and good:

The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical & diuine institution, Therefore it is lawfull and good: of this Syllogisme the assumption, is the same with the fift point here propounded.

So that of the fiue points, which I propounded, not any one is either impertinent or superfluous, the foure former seruing to proue the former assertion which is the assumption of the former Syllogisme, the fift and last being the assumption of the second Syllogisme.

As for the second Syllogisme which he assigneth to me, I vtterly disclaime it: because as no one part thereof is propounded by me, so both the premisses are false and contrarie to my meaning. For neither to the Angels of the Churches, nor to the Bishops, doe I ascribe that sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which he speaketh of, as after shall appeare.

But that his Analysis of my Sermon was meerely forced against the light of his owne conscience, appeareth, first, by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised, seeing by his Analysis, of the fiue parts the first seemeth impertinent, the last superfluous, the three in the middes not prouing that for which as he saith they are brought. For could he perswade himselfe that his Analysis or resolution was answerable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon, when he saw two parts of the fiue could not be brought to his p. 59frame, and the other three not to be sutable vntounto it? Secondly, by the distribution of my Sermon, and the transitions which I vse, wholy disagreeing from his Analysis. Thirdly, by the Analysis propounded here by my selfe, and by the defence of the seuerall parts here ensuing, wherein I shall by the helpe of God manifestly proue, that neither the first of the fiue was impertinent, nor the last superfluous, nor the other three concluding besides the purpose. But now we are to intreate of them seuerally, hauing first giuen you to vnderstand, that he diuideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into fiue parts, & eueryevery part into diuerse sections: as namely, the first, which concerneth the Eldership, into eight sections, in all which the summe of that which I maintaine is this, that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church, but Ministers.