A REPLY ANSWERING A DEFENCE OF the Sermon, preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of  and Welles, by George Downame, Doctor of Divinitye.  
In defence of an Answer to the foresaid Sermon Imprinted anno 1609.  1. Thes. 5. 21. 
Try all things, and keep that which is good  Prov. 12. 15. 
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that heareth counsel, is wise.  
Imprinted Anno 1613.   

To the Christian Reader.  
IT was well said of 
† Lib. de ira. Vtrique parti acti●nes dares, dares tempus, non semel audires: magis enim veritas elucet, quò saepius ad manum venit.  Seneca, that in matters of controversy, each party should have time to try his action, & be heard more than once; & the reason thereof aswell given by him: because the oftener the truth cometh to hand, (to be scanned) the more the light thereof appeareth. Seeing therefore, it hath pleased the (Chr. Rea.) with some patience to hear M. D. in defence of his sermon, against the answer to it; I hope thou wilt vouchsafe the Refut: the reading of this reply, for the justifying of it. When I first read that pretended defeni● of his, & saw the strange & palpable vanity thereof, and how it was but like an overblown bladder, that would burst of itself, and vent the wind thereof without any pricking; I thought it needles, to entreat on our part any further audience; but afterwards hearing the common fame was, that it was so learnedly and absolutely done, that it gave all men satisfaction (refractories only excepted) and that no man would ever be able, to make any sound reply to it: I thought it good to take a second view thereof, and when (as before) I found little or nothing therein, but calumniations, sarcasms, or bitter scoffs, slanders, untruths, contradictions to himself, the question continually begged; yea both assertions and questions (first propounded in his sermon) changed; and his proofs large for what was never doubted of, and few or none for the main point in question, either from his text, or other scriptures, or any ancient and sound writers: and yet all outfaced with strange professions, protestations, brags & boasts of victory: I conceived with myself, that common bruit must needs arise from such (as failing in that rule of Seneca) had read little thereof, and taking less pains in examining and comparing it, either with his sermon & itself; or the Refuters answer; and therefore deemed it necessary to call the reader back, to a better consideration of the business, out of persuasion, that upon a new survey thereof, his second thoughts (which ought to be more wise) would give a righter sentence, concerning both the D. weak and insufficient dealing therein; (to ●ay no worse of it) and his own rash and unadvised verdict (if I may so call it) of the cause in trial. Now, to give the reader some inkling, aswell, concerning the proceeding of the one in his defence; as of the other in this reply, be he advertised, and let the marginal notes, direct him.  
First concerning his bitte● scoffs & railings, that he shall th● especially meet with them, when being at a nonplus, he lets the point in question alone; so that we may truly suppose of him, (as 
* Hieron: ad Helvid: A● bitror te veritate superatum, ad maledicta converti. ●Ad vers. Ruff: apol. 3. quid refert, si causa cadis & criminesup●res?  one did of another) that overcome of the truth, ●e fell to evil speaking: but the advised reader, will wisely consider and ●ay with the same● father, it nothing booteth a man, if he let his cause fall to the ground, though he overcome in such dealing. Haddit M. D. met with an answerer of his own humour; he mought have been sure, (as one 
'' Sallust: Si quam voluptatem ma●●dicendo cenisti, eam ma●e a●diendo amittas.  said to Tully) to have lost the pleasure he took in speaking evil, by hearing evil again: but his hap is better, he that now hath him in hand, hath not so learned Christ, as to recompense evil for evil, and so to plunge himself into the same condemnation, (as one 
† Amb. lib. de offic. 1. c. 5. Si referas contume liam, dicitur, ambo conviciati sunt, uterque condemnatur, nemo absolvitur.  saith) with his adversary; knowing that no man (wise at least;) will so much as assay to 
‡ oude is kako, kakon, ●ata●  heal one evil with another, and deeming it 
* kakos a●ouein kreisson he leg●i● kakos  much better to hear evil then to speak evil. And therefore as one 
† Quam me pudet ne quitiae tuae, cujus teipsum n●n pudet. saith Tully to Anthony. Phil. 2.  ashamed of that, whereat perhaps, the D. blushed not; raking them under the ashes rather than abroad, he overpasseth than save that now & then he remembreth him of his dealing, and willeth him to take home, what he unjustly cast abro●d.  
Secondly concerning his untruths and slanders, (if I may speak in the words of another man 
† Aug. epis. 164. miron si habe● in corpore sanguinem, qui ad haec verba non erubescit. ) I mervayle that having any blood in his body he blushed not at them; and the rather do I merveyll; because they are not only simple slanders and untruths; but (to make the reader believe the contrary) coloured over by him with other slanders and untruths: and those so gross, that a man may feel them with his 
'' Hieron: ad ●u●t. Vel manibus palpari possunt, et caecus sit oportet, qui se mentiri non cernat.  fingers, and cannot but be blinded (on that side) that ●eeth them not. The Refuter (I doubt not) 
'† Amb. li. 1. cap 1. 15 Bene ●bi conscius, non debet falsis moveri; ne● aestimare plus ponderis esse in alieno conviti●, quam in suo testimonio.  privy to his own innocency, will not be moved with those falsehoods; but esteem the testimony of his own conscience more worth than so; having learned, that the 
* A●g. ad ●etil l. 3. ●. 8. Nec mal●● conscientiam sanat praeconium laudan●is, nec bonam vulnerat, conviciantis opprobrium.  reproach of the slanderer can no more wound the good conscience, than the praise of the flatterer can heal the evil; and that false calumniations shall no more fasten upon the innocent, then blows upon the absent; as one wittily insinuated, speaking of one that railed on him: 
'* Me paronta kai tupteto me.  let him beat me being absent: yea I persuade myself that he findeth 
' Cyprian de bapt. nequaquam sub hoc onere 〈◊〉 tudinem, sed quietem invenimus.  rest rather than weariness under the burden of them; and with holy job 
'' Cap. 31. 36.  hath taken them: upon his shoulder and bound them as a crown unto him; knowing that the D. 
',' Aug. co●t. Pe●●l. lib. 3. c. 7. volens detrahit fa●ae ●eae. nolens addit mercedi.  detracting so willingly from his fame, hath added against his will to his reward. There was no need therefore in regard of himself to free him from the D. slanders, the testimony 
† Aug. ad frat. in Ere●● 〈◊〉 ●●. wehee quidem sufficit conscientia mea, vobis aut necessaria est ●ama mea.  of his own conscience being enough to him, but for so much as his good name is necessary for others; his slanders are not therefore alwaise passed by; but sometimes met with and proved so to be, and that not the Refuter but the D. is the slanderer yea such an one, as to colour one hath not blushed to make two. Wherefore it shall be good for him to follow the counsel of an ancient 
* ●asil, ad ●unom: he apaleipson sou ta remata he me arnou ten asebeian.  father, in his next writing vz▪ to blot out his slanders, or to confess his iniquity.  
Thirdly as touching his shift & windings in and out, let it be observed, how in his defence, he turneth his whole sermon upside down, not only wandering from the question, but changing and subverting the state thereof; yea changing his assertions and points of his sermon, making them neither eadem, nor eodem numero. The which (not to mention how he altereth, clippeth, & perverteth, his Refut: both words and purpose) what are they, but 
' Misera kres●●geta seu tergiversantis effugia.  miserable starting holes, & scape-doores for him to ●lie out at, that turneth his back upon the cause, and dareth not stand to it? To conceal (saith 
'† Aug. quaest. vet. test. 14. Qui verba supprimit quaestionis, au● imperitus est, aut tergiversatu●, qui calumniae magis studeat, quam doctrinae  one) or suppress the words of the question, argueth either want of skill, (which must not be imputed to the D. for we know what he professeth of his own skill in judging of an argument) or a wrangling spirit more studious to cavil, then desirous to teach or learn.  
Fourthly, however the state of the question standeth, as he hath laid it down in his sermon or defence, look we to his proofs, and it will appear, that as in his sermon he scarcely assayed to prove the same, by any word of his text: so with so little success hath he travailed in his defence to draw it, or any other scriptures to the justifying thereof; that I dare boldly say, he hath no one place of scripture, under the shadow whereof, he can find any shelter, to shroud his episcopal function, as a divine ordinance. Now who knoweth not that in all questions of this nature, no other testimony or argument, can strike the stroke to persuade the conscience, but the authentical records of the Holy Ghost; or some inevitable consequence grounded upon them. For as one well saith: 
'' Chris●st. in Psal. 95. ad finem. Si quid dicatur absque scriptura, and itorum cogitatio claudicat: nunc ann●ens nu●● haesitans, et interdum sermonem ut frivolun aversans, interdum ut probabilem recipiens: verum vbi●● divin● scriptura vocis prodijt testimonium: et loquentis sermonem, & audientis animam. confirmat.  If any thing be spoken without scripture the mind of the hearers halteth, now stooping to it, now sticking at it, sometimes turning from it as frivolous, sometimes turning to it, as probable: but when the testimony of the speaker cometh from divine scripture; it confirmeth both the speech of the speaker, and mind of the hearer.  
The which had the D. regarded so carefully as he ought, much labour might have been spared, both to himself, his Refuter, and Reader; for as all that he hath alleged from the scriptures (both in his sermon and defence) being drawn together, would scarcely amount to so many lines as he hath filled leaves: so would it have been of more force (than all his councils and fathers) to enforce the conscience, had it made but half so much for his advantage as he supposeth. For who is not of their mind who thought 
† Panormit: in cap sig. extrv. de elect. Gers. part. 1. de ex● doctr.  it meet, that one poor layman (rightly) alleging a text of the old or new testament, aught to be preferred before the general counsels. The which, because the D. hath not done, he hath done nothing to the purpose; for however he and his Bps. be (as one 
'', Bishop Barlow. se● in Act. 29. 28.  of them saith) no Arcadians, to fetch their pedigree from beyond the moon: yet before the D. can prove their calling to be a divine ordinance, he must fetch it from the divine scriptures, far beyond his counsels and Fathers alleged.  
Fiftly I grant indeed, he allegeth scriptures aswell as other testimonies; but they are such as prove what was never doubted of, or such as prove those points that directly conclude not his assertions, but referred by him to questions besides the question, or else (to let pass how he taketh one part of the question to prove another) such as are mere begging of the question, twice 20. times at the least. Wherefore though he had again and again 
* Etiam●● millies repeteret, nihil quam Sisiphi saxum volveret, nec hilum pro●i●eret.  a 1000 times after the same manner gone over them, what hath he else done but turned the stone of Sisyphus, and left it where he found it, wth out profit to his cause, or hurt to his adversary.  
Sixtly, which is yet more, the reader may see how foul he falleth (and often) upon his own anchors; for he is almost as full of contradictions to himself, as of beggings of the question; so that the saying of the Orator 
† Phil. 2. T●m eras excors, ut tota in ora tione tecum ipse pugnares, ut non solum non cohae●entia inter se diceres; sed maximè disiuncta et contraria, ut non tanta mecum, quanta tibi tecum esset contentio.  against Anthony, as fitly agreeth to him, as if it had been first spoken to him; he being indeed throughout his whole discourse at such odds with himself that he hath not only uttered things not hanging together; but so different and contrary, that he is at greater variance with himself, than with his adversary. The which what can it else argue, but that as he is a man 
* epilanthan●menos heactou.  forgetful of himself, and not likely to be agreed with, that disagreeth so much with himself; so he is not a little pushed in in the cause; but unabble to maintain it. Now that we may know what to stand to, be he entreated, against his next writing, to settle himself upon one and the same ground. If we may judge of that which is to come, by that which is past, it is likely he will strain the best of his wits for some distinctions, to reconcile those differences, & cure those botches; but let him deal more sincerely, then formerly he hath done, lest his Cataplasms prove such sophisms (too many whereof the reader may meet with in his defence) as will make the soar worse rather than better; and him to lose more peace at home, then gain victory abroad.  
Seventhly, all his former proceed notwithstanding, it is a wonder to see, with what strange boldness & boasts of victory, he marcheth on from the beginning to the end? Verily such, as if all his proofs, were such 
'' anantirretas, demonstrationes omni exceptione majores.  evident demonstrations, as are above all exception, admitting no contradiction, such Achillean arguments and forcible 
† ischuroi logois, meden diakrinomen●●.  reasons, as are not to be resisted or doubted of; and as he hath great store of them even (huper ek perissou) more than enough; so (if we may believe him) there is no one of them, which is not of the nature of the Pope's sentence (penitus definitiva) absolutely definitive, not liable to exception or appeal. Wherefore he is ready 
† Tous anti ●gontas elegchein.  sharply to censure all gainsayers, how learned, judicious, & orthodoxal divines soever) and to charge them that do (heterodidaskalein) teach otherwise, with misinterpreting both of scriptures and fathers, yea & with other crimes, little better than blasphemy. Wherein, though it were no great presumption for him to take liberty so, to abuse his refuter considering the base conceit, he hath of him; yet seeing he hath acknowledged others, whom he hath shut up under the same sentences, to be both learned and orthodoxal divines, and are such indeed, as both he and all men ought to reverence; he ought certainly to have dealt 
* Cum bonis bene aagier oportet, ●Tully. Phil. 3. cur eos quos omnes venerari debemus, solus oppugnas?  better with them, the heathen obeing judge.  
But let not the Doctor think, so to carry the matter away: I hope the wise and judicious reader studious of the truth, willbe able to discern 
'' Aug. ad Petil l. 2. c. 10. non solum inani sonitu, sed in capite vestro cr●puerint.  that his blown sentences with so many vain ●racks, are broken upon his own head; and that this lofty lifting up of his head (in a cause that liveth so much upon begging and by shifts), is both unworthy a man of his note, and such as will 
† Evagrius. deinon est● mega p●ronein, mikr● pratto●t●.  never bring grace to him. It would in all likelihood, have argued him to be fuller of good proof; if he had in more humility hung down his head like an ●are of good corn, then to stand so bolt upright as he doth.  
Eightly, concerning the course taken in this reply; be the Reader advertised. 1. that therein nothing is dealt with, but the Doctor's text, and other places of scripture produced, excepting such writers as are alleged for interpretation of them, and the clearing of the Refuter from the slanders laid upon him for misalleadging them. And the reason is, both because the scriptures only can (and are alone sufficient) to decide the main controversy concerning the right of the episcopal function; and also for that the Doctor rejecteth all new writers as parties and incompetent, for the same cause for which, the refuter might aswell reject the old, were they (as they are not) such Bishops and of his side, as he pretendeth. 2. The D. is not followed step by step in his own order throughout his whole book, but that which lieth straggling here & there, is drawn together into one tract, aswell concerning his text, as the rest of the scriptures alleged by him 3. neither are the 5. points of his sermon handled in the same order; for, the first of them concerning the Eldership, is put off to the last place, it being proved to perteyn nothing to the main question. 4. The whole is divided into three parts; in the first whereof are 3. books, the first concerning the Refuters preface, the 2. concerning the fitness of the Doctor's choice of his text, the division & analysis thereof, together with the state of the question, etc. the 3. concerning the true and genuine sense of his text, and whatsoever he speaketh of it. In the 2. part, first, all other scriptures alleged by him for proof of the question are dealt with; and then the Refuter is cleared of falsifying and misapplying many testimonies of human writers, wherewith the Doctor often chargeth him; by occasion whereof it is made manifest, that many of the D. Fathers were neither such Bishops, nor yet of the D. opinion concerning the point in question, as he affirmeth. In the third part is handled that first point of his, concerning the Eldership.  
Lastly, to end with a suit or two, 1. Let me entreat M. D, that ne pulchrum sibi ducat esse Davum in hac fabula, imò unguem in ulcere ecclesiae; the which if I may not obtain, but upon his third thoughts he remain the man that he professeth to be in his second, and that I have to do with the 
* Tully. Phil. 2. Non est mihi cum eo hoste certamen, cum quo aliqua pacis condicio esse possit.  Orator's adversary, one that will receive no condition of peace, but upon yielding him the cause against truth; I desire him, that, leaving all by-matters and amending such faults as he is justly taxed with, in this reply, he would follow the truth in love, without gall, and bitterness, as he tendereth peace at home, and desireth to bring this controversy to an happy and speedy issue. 2. As for the reader, I pra●e him, that looking rather into the matter, then inquiring after the author, he would not (like the scholars of Pythagoras) build aforehand, on the opinion of the teacher (whether the D. or Refuter) but 
† Amb. de fide. lib. 1. c. 7. Imperiti legunt totum ut intelligant.  read all, seriously study, ponder and examine all, that both parties have said in the whole carriage of this business: & then judge as God shall give understanding; remembering what folly and shame it is for any (as Solomon saith 
‡ Prov. ●8, 13. ) to answer (or give sentence of) ● matter, before he hear it; wherein I persuade myself too many have much failed, aswell in praejudging the author of the answer, as the matter or cause in question   

THE FIRST PART THE FIRST BOOK concerning the Refut. Preface.  

Chap. 1. Wherein the reason moving the Refuter to answer the D. sermon is made good, and the Ref: freed from divers untruths 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, saith Solomon 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 fear of God, and spare not. And first as the Refuters eye was upon the scope of the Doctor's sermon; so is the D. eye upon the scope of the Ref. preface; the former I suppose looking right forwards, the later quite awry. For what can an eye not evilly affected, see in that preface, that should charge the Refuter in the scope thereof, like an Orator in his poem to draw and withdraw his reader (as he saith from the D. to the Ref.) if he would be led by shows? when, without any oratorical shows 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 Lion's head, into the head of a Lion, and the tail of a Lion. But if it were not all a prologue, yet to divide an entire speech, into a prologue & an epilogue, without any protasis or epitasis coming between, is as if one should divide a man's body into head and feet. As for his nice division and subdivision following, I mind not to trouble the reader with them.  
3. Where the refuter professeth, that he deemed the D. sermon as needful to be answered as any book written of that subject: The D. first premiseth a scoff, which I here pass by; & then by way of analysing, maketh his refuter to tell his reader, how there wee two motives that moved him to undertake it: Strong opinion, and unquiet 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 etc. which as the D. telleth us, though the refuter confirmeth with diverse reasons, yet they are such, as he that shall compare them, either with the truth or his opinion, or one of them with another, he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachin●, every one fight with another; he shall see, that is to say, if he hath the D. spectacles on. But first, his logic faileth him; for a man that looketh with his right eye, may easily discern, that the ref: brought but one only 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) do but prove the consequent of that reason. 2. as for the Matachine fight, I persuade myself, it will (upon due examination of particulars) prove only but some spectrum, arising out of that strong imagination, which many times maketh any thing seem to be, what the fantastic desireth it should be. The Refuwordes, in which the Doctor seethe 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 only lawful and good, but to be holden jure divino; not as an human ordinance, their ancient and wont tenure, but by divine right, as the very immediate ordinance of Christ: he deemed it as needful to be answered as any book of that subject etc. For that (notwithstanding the D. commendation of it) it is evident, the doctrine thereof is utterly false, very huriful and obnoxious, and therefore necessary to be confuted. Would not any man think him driven to go near the wind, that raiseth up such tragedies, and logical clatterings upon these words? or cannot he, trow we, see far into a millstone, that can see a matachine fight in them? Well, let us see how the D. proveth it.  
¶ The Refuters first reason (saith he) is because he saw 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 etc. The first reason? Nay it is the only reason why he deemed the book so needful to be answered; & what saith the D. to it? In which (saith he) there were diverse untruths. But whosoever with an indifferent ear shall entertain the answer following: may (I doubt not) easily discern, that this saying of the D. is an ●njust slander, & that he himself hath delivered divers untruths 
The D. first ●andereth his Ref: & then delivereth diverse untruths to colour it.  to colour it. Let the reader now hear what the one and the other hath to say, and give upright sentence.  
First, saith he, with what eye did he see that directly proclaimed in the sermon, which directly and expresslly I did disclaim pag. 92. where I prosissed, that although I held the calling of the Bishops etc. to be an apostolicat and so a divine ordinance: yet that I do not maintain it to be divine jur●●, as intehding thereby, 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 deal plainly and answer to the point directly. Is it an untruth in the ref: to say, that his sermon tendeth directly to prove that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden jure divino, by divine right, and not as an human ordinance? 
by God● law.  Why then doth he not directly contradict this assertion, and say, that his sermon tendeth ro prove, that their calling is to be holden, jure humano, by human 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 profess, what it is? hath he preached a whole sermon in defence of their honourable function, & published four books in defence of his sermon, and yet dareth not directly proclaim quo jure they hold their superiority? But let us touch a little some points of his sermon, and of his defence thereof. Was not the callings of these 7. angels of which the text speaketh, of divine right? and doth he not affirm (pag 2) and profess plainly to prove, that the reverend 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 stars of the Church, of divine right? and doth he not (pag. 3. & 93) affirm our Diocesan Bishops to be such? their calling therefore, (that honourable function of theirs) must either be of divine right, or the Churches of God themselves are not of divine right.  
3. Doth he not in diverse places of his senrmon call it an apostolical ordinance & affirm it, to be from heaven, from God, alleging diverse scriptures for the proof thereof?  
4. Yea, is not the doctrine which he raiseth from his text, (& in the explication and application whereof, his whole sermon is spent) set down by himself (pag 94) in these very words, sc. that the episcopal function, is of apostolical & divine institution? 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 show, that they hold their pre-eminence iure, by good and lawful right; can he mean any other then divine right?  
5. And doth he not aim at the same right, when he saith, it is the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles (lib. 3. pag. 24, 35. 44. 48, 59) and that many of his allegations do justify the superiority of Bishops not only de facto, but also de jure, and give testimony to their right? especially when he saith (pag 26.) that his allegation of those fathers which adjudged Aerius an heretic, doth therefore prove the superiority of Bishop's de jure, because there is no heresy, which is not repugnant to God's word.  
6. Neither 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.) unless the right and title they have unto it, be divine and from God, who sanctifieth whatsoever is holy.  
7. Lastly, seeing he denieth (in his second page of his answer to the preface) their ancient tenure to be jure humano, and for proof thereof affirmeth that their function was in the ptimitive CHURCH acknowledged to be an ordinance Apostolical: if there be any strength in his reasoning, it will follow that he esteemeth their tenure to be jure divino; seeing he maintaineth their function to be a divine ordinance. For if an ordinance Apostolical, will conclude their tenure to be jure apostolico and not jure humano only; then a divine ordinance will prove their tenure to be jure divino, and not Apostolico only. Wherefore as it is an evident truth in the Refut. to say, that the D. sermon tendeth directly to prove that the calling of our Bishops is to be holden, jure divino, by divine right, and not as an human ordinance: so it is a malicious slander in the D. to tax him for an 
The D. slander.  untruth in so affirming. But let us look on, and see with what untruths he covereth this slander. First he faith he did directly and expressly disclaim it pag. 92 of his sermon. The which if true; will he thence infer that his Ref, assertion is an untruth? nay rather, let him confess, that he hath contradicted himself, and in one page of his sermon expressly disclaimed, what he directly proclaimed, & laboured to prove in the principal 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 disclaimeth the point in question? for doth he not plenis buccis (as if he were sounding of a trumpet) proclaim it? Let us view his words and refer them to his purpose, vidz. to show what was jeroms meaning when he saith, that Bishops are greater than Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church, then by the truth of divine disposition. If, saith he, jerom meant that Bishops were not set over Presbyters by Apostolical ordinance, he should be contrary to all antiquity and to himself. But if his meaning shallbe that their superiority, (though it be an Apostolical tradition, yet) is not direrectly of divine institution; there is small difference betwixt these two; because what was ordained of the Apostles, proceeded from God, what they did in the execution of their Apostolical function, they did by direction of the holy Ghost. But yet for more evidence he saith, he will directly and breiffly prove, that the episcopal function is of divine institution, or that Bishops were ordained of God. And as he saith so, so he assayeth to do so, from the instances of Timothy and Archippus, especially from his text, from whence he saith, it may evidently be proved. 1. for that they are called angels, which not only showeth their excellency, but also proveth that they were authorized & sent of God. 2. for that they are commended under the name of stars, to signify both their pre-eminence of dignity in this life, that they are the crown of the Church. Revel. 12. 1. and their prerogative of glory, which they shall have in the world to come, Dan. 12. 3. 3ly. for that they be the 7. stars 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 Apostolical and divine institution. If these be his words; how doth he directly & expressly disclaim, 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 evident an untruth? Yet he blusheth not to maintain it by another 
The D. 2. untruth to colour his slander; which 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 (saith he) pag. 92. that although I hold the calling of Bishops in respect of their first institution, to be an apostolical, & so a divive ordinance: yet that I do not maintain it to be divini juris, as intending thereby, that it is generally perpetually & immutably necessary. From hence, if he will conclude, that therefore he did directly and expressly disclaim, (in the same page) what his Refut: saith 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 human ordinance; shall he not show himself a weak disputer, and not well advised what he speaketh? For which of the D. friends, that advisedly compareth the parts of his reasoning together seethe not, that a man in his right wits, will never take the professing of the former, to be a direct and express disclaiming of the later? yea, he that is not over partial may see, (by that which is already showed) that the same pen which now professeth, that he doth not maintain the episcopal function to be divini juris, as intending thereby a perpetual & immutable necessity thereof; doth notwithstanding underhand (& by necessary consequence) proclaim that it is to be holden jure divino, by divine right, and not as an human ordinance. I add for the present, that this will 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 affirm it to be divini juris: as meaning thereby that it is a divine & not an human ordinance. But there is less truth than he presumeth, in that branch of his profession, which saith, that he did profess pag 92, that he doth not maintain the calling of Bishops to be divini juris, as intending thereby that it is generally & immutably necessary. For he hath no one word in all that page that can clear 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 perpetuity, difference is made by some, betwixt those things that be divini, and those which be apostolici juris, the former in their understanding, being generally perpetually and immutably necessary, the later not so. But doth he make himself one of those some that make that difference, and is of that understanding? 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 saith, there is small difference as he understandeth divine institution; because what the Apostles did in the execution of their apostolical function, they did it by the direction of the holy Ghost; so that they might truly say of their ordinances, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us Act. 15. 28. etc. For though the D. should (now upon his later thoughts) put a difference between an ordinance divine or apostolical, & jus divinum or apostolicum; yet the direction of the Ho. Ghost, which accompanied the Apostles in the execution, will as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum, as it will, every ordinace apostolical, to be a divine ordinance. Wherefore it will be an harder matter than the D. supposeth, to work his marginal note so to accord with thetext of his book, that he may deduce from thence such a conclusion as here he tendereth, when he saith, that he professeth pag 92 not to 〈◊〉 the calling of Bishops to be divini juris, as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof. Wherefore not being able to justify his profession by any words of his own, he is glad 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 acknowledgement in his refuter? he saith in deed, that the D. maketh the calling of Bishops no further of divine institution, than as being ordained of the Apostles it proceeded from God, without implying thereby any necessary perpetuity thereof. In which words, if the Refuter doth acknowledge that ●he D. doth not maintain the calling of Bishops to be divini juris, as intending thereby the necssity and perpetuity aforesaid; doubtless the same eye, which discerneth this acknowledgement, doth also no less clearly perceive, that the Doctor maintaineth their calling to be divini juris so far (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 episcopal function to be divini juris, as intending thereby that the first iustitution thereof proceeded from God, and not from men's divise, as other human ordinances. And therefore once again, 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 human ordinance.  
2. Moreover, since the Dr. is driven for his own 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 under this his Ref: acknowledgement; with what conscience can he requite his kindness 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 episcopal function it divini juris or to be holden jure divin●, as being generally necessary and perpetually imposed on all Churches, so as none other for me of government may l●●y case be admitted. For albeit he sometimes putteth the D. in mind of such speeches in his sermon, as do urge the perpetuity or necessity of the episcopal 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 disclaimeth. It is enough to salve the Ref: assertion from an untruth, and to return back the untruth into the Ds. bosom, if it appear (as it doth sufficiently) that the D. holdeth it any way to be divini juris, and not an human ordinance only.  
4. But if the D. meaning (in his profession before set down) be to show, that he holdeth the episcopal function to be an apostolical and so a divine ordinance, because the Apostles who ordained it, were therein directed by the holy Ghost, and yet denieth 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 answer. And if he do (in his judgement) allow of that distinction, which he saith (in his margin) some do put between jus apostolicum and divinum, he bewrayeth therein no small weakness of judgement. Moreover it is an error in divinity, either to think that every ordinance which is juris divini, is so generally and perpetually necessary, that no true Church can be without it: or to deny such an ordinance to be juris divini, as is of so general and perpetual an use, as he esteemeth and affirmeth the episcopal function to be in diverse pages of his sermon. pag. 32. 35. 72. 74. 75. & 79. (put together by the Ref. pag. 158. of his answer,) where he teacheth clean contrary to his profession here. But for the better clearing of the state of the question, and showing the vanity and unsoundness 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 untruth, 
Sect. 3. pag 3 of the Ref. & pag 2. of the D.  which the D. here chargeth upon him.  
The second untruth put upon the Ref. by the D. he layeth down thus; 2. where I spoke (saith he) of the substance of their calling, with 〈◊〉 eye did he see me defend their exercise of it? as if he would make the reader believe, I went about to justify all the exercise of their function, which in all, even the best governments whatsoever, is subject to personal abuses. With 
The 2. untruth which the D. chargeth on his Ref: is the D. 2. slander.  what eye? I answer, even with the same, wherewith he seethe, that either their calling is not the same which they exercise; or else the D. defendeth the one aswell as the other. The Ref. meaning is to show, 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 virtue of their calling: as for particular and personal abuses in the execution of a calling, as they cannot in proper speech, 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 known, that the D. having undertaken to justify the calling of our Bishops, doth therein justify the exercis● thereof; for the question is not of an imaginary fantastical substance of I know not what calling in abstracto; but of such a calling as all our Bishops do or may exercise, by means of their office, according to the laws and canons of our Church. This therefore is far from an untruth, unless this be true, that the D. in his sermon maintaineth another manner of calling in our Bishops, than what they exercise; when all the question is about that which they exercise, and either the Bishop's calling is the same which they exercise, or else they exercise not their calling.  
As truly is that third untruth cast upon the refuter by the D. in 
The D 3. slander.  his next words, where he saith. 3. neither is it true that the ancient tenure of Bishops is only iure humano. Whereto it may be replied, that neither is it true that the Refuter saith in general, that the ancient tenure of Bishops was only iure humano: but that this was the ancient & wanted tenure of our L: Bishops. What tenure other Bishops either in the darkness of popery, 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 again in the next clause of his sentence: so however the Protestant Lord Bishops are but as of yesterday in comparison: yet is it plain, (as appeareth by the Bishop's book fol. 48, 49) that 〈◊〉 of late they have been content to hold their callings jure humano, and that now upon the sudden they have changed and turned from their old and ancient tenure. As for the D. reason to prove the refuters speech to be an untruth, because ancienter, than 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 question: so who knoweth not that it is altogether false, that it was so held then without all contradiction? These 3. untruths therefore which the D. hath found in the Ref. reason, are nothing but mists cast before his reader's eyes, the dispelling whereof maketh me to remember what jerom once said to Licinius of them who while they endeavour alienos errores emendare, oftendunt suos: which with a little change I may English thus; while the D. went about to correct his Ref. for untruths, he hath manifested his integrity, and discovered his own corruption.   

Chap. 2. Concerning the Matachine, charged upon 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 itself: and so setteth down his reason why he deemed the sermon needful to be answered, to wit, that howsoever the D. affirmeth the doctrine of his sermon to be true, profitable and necessary; yet it is evident that it is utterly false, hurtful and abnoxious, necessary to be confuted, at no hand to be believed; & then telleth us, that in these words of the Refuter there are 3. reasons propounded that come to be examined. I looked when I read to have had a Matachine fight showed 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 itself. How the first fighteth with the truth, we have already seen, & 
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 logic, he could never have made 3. reasons of those words cited by him; such boys play ill beseemeth so reverend a man. But he telleth us, they come now to be examined, and for the reader's sake, let us examine them according to his own division. The first he maketh to be this. It is evident that the doctrine in the sermon is utterly false: therefore most needful to be confuted: what answer maketh he to it? and how doth he prove it to fight against the Refuters opinion and with itself? 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; neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed, but that which is not evident. This reason therefore 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 answer is this? did the Refuter say, that it is evidently false to all men? some colour than had the D. for this answer. If not but that it is common to many to be so blinded with partiality and prejudice, that they see not that to be false, which is evidently false; and not strange to others shamelessly to bend their wits to maintain manifest and gross untruths, against as clear a light as the Sun casteth at noon days: must they not therefore be refuted, because they are manifest? Is the D. ignorant that the godly & learned Fathers of old confuted divers vanities, some of which were so evidently false, that they could say, recitasse est refutasse? Yea so grossly false and in the face untrue; that the refuter of them, saith They will fall of themselves etc. Was it not a doctrine utterly and evidently false, that Christ was not God? needed it not therefore to be confuted? the Father's verily were but vain men then. What? shall I need say any more to this? did the D. himself never deem it needful to confute a point, which in his judgement and the judgement of all (if we may believe him) that are not partial, is utterly false? doth he not affirm so of the presbyterian discipline (as he calleth it) calling it a fancy, a novelty that bewrayeth the falsity, a mere human invention, a new device etc. And doth he not (all this notwithstanding) bestow first a long sermon, and then a large defence, for confutation of what is said for it? me thinks therefore the D. is quite of the hooks in his thus reasoning. Things manifestly true or false are so judged in deed without disputation or discourse; but it is by them, sure, to whom they appear so, not to others; to others they are so judged by disputation and discourse. It is true also, that neither 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 falsehood is evident, it must be confuted.  
Thus we see how stoutly this reason fighteth with the Ref. opinion; the D. should now show us how it fighteth with itself; 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 pass 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 abnoxious, therefore necessary to be confuted. How this reason fighteth either with the truth, or with the Ref: opinion, or with itself, or with the other reasons, he showeth us not; but in stead thereof scofteth at the word obnoxious as if it would bear 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 etc. Whereas 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 slip, but making him pay the utmost farthing. If his adversary should use him after that manner, full oft perhaps might he be twitched up for halting: But let 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) do sound, that it is a doctrine hurtful and worthy of blame, and therefore to be confuted: what saith he to the reason? he only denieth it to be hurtful; and why? For I not only said, saith he, but proved also both in the preface & conclusion of the sermon, that it was both profitable and necessary. Which, what is it burr a silly begging even of the main question? I call it filly, seeing 
The D. beggeth the main question.  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 replied 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 proofs, both in preface and conclusion and wheresoever else, as he hath (at least deemed himself to have) done, yet is the matter under trial still. What then hath the Doct. here done, but as if a man making claim of some parcel of land, and bringing forth to that end, certain deeds to prove his title; whereunto when his adversary shall plead forgery or insufficiency, he should think it sufficient for rejoinder to say, he hath not only said his title is good, but proved it by the deeds aforesaid. How the Refuter hath disproved the D. proofs, whether sufficiently or otherwise mattreth not in this point; sure it is the matter remaineth still questionable; yea had he not at least made some show 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, saith he, It is necessary indeed to be confuted, as if he had said, 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 main conclusion and nothing else, as he that joineth vit and honesty together 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 let the judicious, judge of his dealing herein, and honour him for it as he seethe cause; to me it seemeth an hungry cause, that is glad to feed upon any thing. Thus much for the Matachine fight charged upon the refuters reasons, how truly; I leave to the reader's sentence.  
The Doctor goeth on and telleth us how his refuter proveth the first of the three former reasons by diverse arguments. The first 
Sect. 2. Refut. p. 3. Def. p. 3.  whereof is as he saith, this; The doctrine of his sermon is utterly false, because it is repugnant to the truth, the word of truth, the scripture of truth. now, what saith he to it? 1. he calleth them all ridiculous amplifications 2. he saith his Ref. had rather take it for granted, then be put to prove is to be repugnant to the word; and 3. that he for his part shall make it clear in this defence, that there is not a syllable in the scriptuere to prove the pretended discipline, and that the episcopal 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 only, and mind one thing, the second being an exposition of the first, the third, of the second, the one adding not an exegesis only, but an emphasis also to the other. But say they are more than needed; is it not much more than needeth to call them ridiculous? Wisdom, I perceive, must die 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 agreeable to the word of God, and no doubt but might do it with more peace of conscience, then to many amplifications therein contained; & yet no ridiculous thing in God's service is agreeable to God's word. To the second; may I ask the Doctor what need the refuter had to prove that in his preface, which the whole refutation tendeth to prove; and whither it was not enough for him in it to admonish thereof? And me thinks he answereth it in the third part by his own practice, when he saith, he shall make all clear in his book etc. the which how well he hath performed, will appear in the examination of the particulars, in the mean time, it seemeth his sermon made not all clear.  
So much for the first argument. A second the Doctor frameth of the Ref: words thus. The doctrine is utterly false; because it is contrary to the judgement & practice of the primitive Churches, next after Christ and his Apostles. To let pass the wrong he offereth herein to his Refut. 
The D. again wrogeth his Ref. in making more arg. of his Ref. words than he meant.  in making it by itself an argument contrary to his meaning, let us hear his answer to it: I cannot tell (saith he) whether to wonder at more, the blindness or the impudency of the man. And why so? because (saith he) I have made it manifest, that the government of the Church by Bishops hath the full consent of antiquity, and not one testimony of the ancient writers, for their judgement, or one example of the primitive Churches, for their practice to be alleged to the contrary. etc. I am sorry 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. blindness and impudency? seeing, if he made it clear in his sermon, is he not blind, in not seeing that he hath made this his own defence needless? is it not his own 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 contradicteth his speech.  travel in maintaining that sermon, and the strange fits he falleth into, in his defence thereof do show, that in his sermon he made not the matter so clear as he talketh of. Where then? in his defence? so it seemeth, he meaneth. And be it so, yet was it not so before (no not in his own eyes) for then this defence, by his own reason had been needless. What reason then, hath he, to argue his refuter either of wonderful blindness, for not seeing that which was not then to be seen: or of impudency, for affirming the contrary, which if he hath not clearly proved, is yet in question. May we not rather wonder, and wonder in deed, at the Doct. that counteth it woderful ignorace or impudency for any to deny or disprove whatsoever he saith, & seemeth to himself, manifestly to prove; though in saying as he saith here, he doth but crave the question? And yet out of the same passion, he proceedeth & asketh his ref. 
The D. again beggeth the question, forgetteth himself and the part in question.  how he durst mention the judgement and practice of the primitive Church for the trial of the truth in question, seeing there is not one testimony nor example in all antiquity for the pretended discipline &c: and offereth, that if his Ref. shall bring any one pregnant testimony or example, he will yield in the whole cause. Not to tell him again, that he is still in begging the question: I pray him to tell his Ref. what should fear him from mentioning that, which he undertook to justify and prove? and whereto his large defence serveth, if his Ref. hath not at least in show proved as much as he mentioneth; 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 else but know, that divers 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 yield in the whole cause, if but any one pregnant testimony or example be produced: by pregnant he meaneth certainly, such as are subject to no wresting, or cavillation; but pregnant in his own judgement, not in the judgement of all, or the most sound & orthodoxal divines in the world; otherwise testimonies pregnant enough have been 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: saith that his doctrine is contrary 
Sect. 3. pag. 4. of the ref. & 4 of the Doct.  to the judgement of all the reformed churches, since the re-establishment of the gospel by the worthies in these latter times: the D. chargeth with an untruth, saying. It is not a strange thing, that a man professing sincerity should so overreach, seeing a far greater part of the reformed Churches, is governed by Bishops and Superintendents, then by the Presbyterian discipline, as I have showed in the later end of this book. How the Doct. hath proved his assertion here, shallbe seen when we come to that later end of his book: but if he there proveth it no better, than he here proveth his Refut. to have overreached, I will turn the Doctors own words (one or two exchanged) upon him, & say. Is it not a strange thing that a man of the Doctor's 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 because a far greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents, etc. The which for the time present, let us suppose to be true: though by reformed Churches the Ref: meaning as he elsewhere showeth, sound reform Churches, it is not true. But grant it, yet that which the D. saith is false: viz. that 
The D. untruly char refuter to overreach, & is himself too ready to overreach.  therefore his refuter overreacheth here. For may not reform Churches be governed by Bishops or Supreintendents, and yet the same Churches deny, that the calling of our L. Bishops is jure divino? which is, (at least as the Ref. understandeth it) the main doctrine of the sermon; and that whereto all other particulars do 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 do hold or exercise their functions, jure divino, & not positivo; let him charge his Refut. with overreaching. In the mean time he showeth himself too ready to overreach; for if he look over his Bishops and Superintendents mentioned in the later end of his book, he may see (if he shut not his eyes) that they held not their bishoprics or Supreintendencie, by the D. newfound claim and tenure; to whom (at this time only) I will add one or two more not mentioned by him. jodocus Naum upon Rom. 12. distributeth the Church-officers ordained by GOD into Prophets and Deacons, the Prophets into Pastors & Teachers, the Deacons into treasurers for the poor, and those which are Presbyters or Elders, viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline. Nicholaus Laurentius a late superintendant 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, either Bishop or Pastor; but in the power of the Pastors, & that company which Paul calleth the Presbytery (p. 62.) That excommunication, is either of the whole Church (meaning the people) or of certain grave men, which are in stead of the whole Church; so that the Pastor do publicly in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence (p. 64). That where there is no such Senate or Presbytery (except the Magistrate shall otherwise decree and provide) the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish: and the superintendant, and two of the Pastors in that Province, wherein he dwelleth, and bring the matter before them all &c. (ibid.). Many more might be brought for this purpose, (if it were fitting for this place) but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion, and to show the Doct. weakness in so overreaching, as to charge that unjustly upon his refuter, which he himself is justly guilty of.   

Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of four other notorious untruths, 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, four notorious untruths concerning our own land, because he said his doctrine was against, 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs, 2. contrary to the profissed judgement of all our worthy writers, 3. contrariant to the laws 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 uttered 4. notorious untruths; 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 whom were worthy Martyrs) who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Pope's authority out of England, acknowledge with subscription, that the disparity of Ministers, and Lordly primacy of Bishops was but a politic 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 proof he referreth us to three books, the book of Martyrs, the book called the Bishop's book, and the book called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum. Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious untruth; The witnesses saith he, which the Ref. queteth, were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops, allowing the episcopal function both in judgement and practice; it is almost incredible that any testimonies, can from them be sound alleged against the same. Incredible in deed, if they had been cast into the mould, in which our now Bishops have been form: otherwise it is credible enough that they may, (as I still affirm that they do) testify something against such a calling of Bishops as the D. maintaineth, and yet hold the function & practise thereof lawful. Was it never heard of, that some of our later Bishops (that worthy jewel and others) allowed the episcopal function both in judgement and practice, & yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino? which is the point in question, though the D. here would not see it. And why may not they allow of the Lordly primacy of Bishop's jure bumano, & disclaim it jure divino, aswell as allow them to exercise civil authority, and yet disclaim it as being lawful iure divino? as may appear 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 wondereth greatly at his large conscience in this behalf, who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authors, alleging as their testimonies his own conceits, which he brought not from their writings, but to them. A heavy charge, if true; but here it the comfort, that upon due examination, it will be found to prove otherwise. It is no new thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies, should be the readiest (as the D. here is) to lay the charge on others. Let us now try out the whole in the particulars. First concerning the testimony taken from the book of Martyrs, and the Bishop's book, or book entitled, 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 confess (saith 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 confesseth, they say enough to show (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 Priests and Preachers; but promiscuously of all Bishop's Priests Priests and Preachers, as appeareth by divers passages of that part of the book there set down; to wit, 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 special power under Christ, to preach the word, administer the Sacraments, ioose and bind by excommunication, and order & consecrate others in the same room and office whereto they be called, that their power was limited, and office ordained of God Ephes. 4, committed and given by Christ & his Apostles to certain persons only, viz. Priests and Bishops. That albeit the holy-fathers' of the Church succeeding, did institute inferior orders and degrees etc. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mention made, of any degrees or distinction in orders; but only of Deacons or Ministers. That the power and authority belonging to Priests and Bishops is of 2. parts, potestas ordinis, and potestas jurisdictionis, to the first whereof always good consent hath been, about the second, some disagreement, and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people, that the jurisdiction committed to Priests and Bishops by authority of God's law consisteth in three special 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 ordain rules and canons for order and quietness, for diversities of degrees among Ministers etc. 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. Again we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people committed to their spiritual charge, that whereas certain men do imagine and affirm that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome, power and authority over all Bishops and Priests in Christ's Church etc. that it is utterly false and untrue. Again, it is out of all doubt, that there is no mention made, neither in the scripture, nor in the writings 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 pre-eminence of power, order, or jurisdiction; between the Apostles themselves, or between the Bishops themselves, but they were equal in power, order, authority and jurisdiction: And that there is now & since the time of the Apostles, any such diversity or difference among the Bishops; it was divised among the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church, for the conservation of good order, and unity of the Catholic church, and that either by the consent and authority, or else 〈◊〉 lest by the permissi●● & sufferance of the Princes and civil powers for the time ruling. For the said 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 among Bishops and spiritual governors 
This it seemed the D. marked not.  of the Church & so ordained some to be patriarchs, some to be Primates, some to be metropolitans, some to be Archbishops, some Bishops. And to them limited not only several Dioceses or Provinces, where they should exercise their power, and not exceed the same: but also certain bounds and limits of their jurisdiction and power. In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles, it was lawful for all Bishop's certain of them assembling together, to constitute and consecrate other Bishops, the said Fathers restrained the said power, & reserved the same in such wise, that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitan, or Archbishop, no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province: & likewise in other cases, their powers were also restrained, for such causes as were then thought unto them conventent. Which differences, the said 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 mentioned in any canonical writings of the Apostles, or testified by any ecclesiastical writer within the days of the Apostles; but to the intent that thereby contention, variance, schisms & divisions should be avoided, and the Church preserved in good order and concord. Lo here their words: now observe we among other things. 1. that they join together Bishops and 
1. That they make Priests or Bishops all one.  Priests not only in the duty of instructing, but also in the power of the keys, & of bearing the spiritual charge of the people committed to them. 2. And in setting down that headship of the Pope which they disclaim, they join the Priests with the Bps. of Christ's Church; & affirm his power of claim & authority from Christ over both, to be alike false and untrue. 3. they say, that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops & spiritual governors 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 ordained by them, they reckon Bishops aswell as Archbishops etc. so they ascribe unto the devise of the Fathers, the limitation of several Dioceses aswell as of Provinces; yea the limitation of the power of Bishops aswell as of Archbishops, which cannot be thought they would ever have done, if they had held them 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 new etc. wherefore if the D. had well perused their words, & with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading; he mought have found, that whatsoever they speak of the equality or superiority of Bps. among 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 apostolic Bishops or spiritual governors, priests or preachers, which had the spiritual charge of any people committed to them by the Apostles. Which appeareth yet more clearly, as by that other book called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarun, compiled by them, (wherein it shall appear anon) they make the Bishops in question to be of no other institution, than the rest of that rank of Archbishops, Archdeacon's, Deans etc. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall & Stokesley (two others of them, and therefore fittest to interpret their own meaning) writ in their letters to Cardinal Poole. S. jerom, say they, aswell in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, as in his Epistle to Euagrius, showeth that those primacyes long after Christ's ascension were made by the device of men; where as before by the common agreement & consent of the Clergy, every of the Churches were governed; yea the patriarchal Churches. The words of S. jerom are these, sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine, quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate, Praesbyteris esse majores. And in the margin, this note is set. Difference betwixt Bishops & Priests how it came in. What can be more plain than this, to show that those Bishops did acknowledge (as the ref: saith) the disparity of Ministers & the primacy of Bishops, aswell as of Archbishops etc. was but a politic divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ jesus. This shall suffice for that testimony: before we come to the next, it shall not be amiss to speak a word or two concerning the D. confession, touching the parity of Bishops among themselves; but yet restraining it to the power of order, for fear of offending, & cutting off his Archbishop's head. But so it falleth out, that when men are afraid to what is truth, for offending one side, they often speak to the offence of the other, & that so far, as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papal authority, whiles he denieth, what they affirm, viz. that Bishop's jure divino are equal among themselves in respect of power and jurisdiction aswell as order. But though he deal honestly, that himself (and not the Bishops of King Henry's days) restraineth the equality of Bishops among themselves to the power of order; yet he casteth a great blemish & disgrace upon those our forefathers; in signifying that the ancient 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 contradicting either himself or the 
The D. contradicteth himself or the truth.  truth: himself, if he mean that the equality of Bishops among themselves, is as large as that equality which was among the Apostles, for them he erreth in restraining the equality of Bishops, unto power of order only: the truth, if he mean that the Apostles had no other equality among themselves than he giveth to Bishops; for they were equal also in authority and jurisdiction, aswell as in power of order; as is rightly acknowledged by our Bishops in their books, and by the ancienter Bishops in their writings. Neither is it true (as the Doct. would insinuate) tha● Bishops only are the Apostles successors. 
The D. untruly insinuateth. that Bishops only are the Apostles successors.  For to speak properly, they have no successors; and in a general 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 said that Christ gave none of his Apostles, nor any of their successors, any such authority as the Pope claimeth over Princes, or in civil matters, do make application thereof aswell to Priests 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 infer; because the Apostles were equal among themselves, that therefore they were not superior to the 72 disciples; or because Bishops are equal among themselves, therefore they are not superior to other Ministers. Whereunto, I could say it is true; if it were apparent, first, that Bishops & other Ministers do differ by any special difference, as the 72. disciples did from the Apostles: but no such thing appeareth, either in the scriptures, or in the Bishop's book from whence the Doct. reasoneth: but rather, as hath been showed by the refuter, (and is before maintained) the clean contrary. Secondly, that the Apostles had any superiority over these disciples, the which the Doctor will not so easily prove as take for granted; seeing 1. Christ living, the Apostles had no authority over any, 2. their Apostolical authority was not as then (when the 72. were sent forth) committed unto them. and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministry of the 72. was to be continued in the Church after Christ; but only to remain for that present journey and afterwards to be disposed of as Christ pleased. Thirdly it is also true, that as the equality of the Apostles among themselves, and the supposed superiority they had over the 72, took not away their subjection and inferiority to Christ: so neither doth the equality 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 alleged the testimony.  testimony conclude, 1. that the refuter hath rightly alleged it; and 2. that the D. hath wronged not only his refuter: but us & them, in labouring (and that with slander,) to wrest their testimony out of our hands.  
The next testimony is taken from the book 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 book deemed, that as the episcopal function is not jure divino: so the government of the Church by the Minister and certain Seniors or Elders in every parish, was the ancient discipline; & so consequently his doctrine in his sermon contrary to their judgement. In answer whereunto, 1. he chargeth his Refuter to play the part of an egregious falsifyer, and 
The D. columniateth.  the allegation to be forged; but by that time the matter be examined, I persuade myself the reader will think it meet, the Doctor take home those speeches to himself as his own proper; the rather, seeing the Ref: setteth not down the words of the book; but only his own collection out of them. 2. he fathereth that upon him; which he neither said nor meant. With what eye, trow we, looked he upon the Refuters words, that he would make his reader believe, that the Refuter affirmeth (as he afterwards intimateth) that the 
The Doct. slandereth.  compilers of the book, meant to bring in lay-Elders, or to establish the pretended parish discipline, or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church? Let us now debate the matter (as it deserveth) at large. And first, (it being remembered, that the book 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 ecclesiastical power of jurisdiction is in the Bishop's hands only, 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, either for direction or correction, that belongeth wholly to the Bishop, he is to reform abus●, exercise Church Censures against offenders: It is not in the power of any Pastor of a particular congregation, with any assistants of lay-Elders, or other associates to execute any censure etc., whereof we may 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 book alleged; the Doct. is now to make good his charge if he can: he saith he will do it by transcribing the 10. & 11. chap. cited, the bare recital whereof, being (as he saith) a sufficient consutation of his forged allegations. The words transcribed by him are. Evening prayers being ended, (in city parish Churches) whereunto after the sermon there shallbe a concourse of all in their own churches, the principal Minister whom they call parochum, the Parson or Past●r, and the Deacon if they be present etc. and Seniors, are to consult with the people how the money provided for godly uses may be best bestowed; & to the same time let the discipline be reserved. For they who have committed any public wickedness to the common offence of the Church are to be called to the knowledge of their sin, & publicly 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 counsel how others whose ma●ners are said to be nought, and whose life is found out to be wicked, first may be talked withal in brotherly charity, according to Christ's precept in the Gospel, by sober and honest men, by whose admonitions if they shall reform themselves, thanks is duly to be given to God; but if they shall go on in their wickedness, they are to receive such sharp punishment, as we see in the Gospel provided against their contumacy.  
In the 11. Chap. they set down (in case that they judge any for contumacy worthy to be excommunicated) 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 shall cons●●t, and put to his authority, the sentence is to be denounced before the whole congregation, that therein so much as may be, we may bring in the ancient discipline. Here are their words; now what saith M. D. to prove, that (these words notwithstanding) the refuter is an egregious falsifyer? and that the reader may be these words thus transcribed, discern 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 ancient discipline, yet they meant nothing l●sse, then to bring in lay-elders, or to establish 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 remain true still. What they meant and acknowledge, we shall see by and by; when we have seen the D. proofs that they meant not so. He telleth us, he will out of the book itself make it manifest; and I will tell him he will not; but I will the contrary rather. To make his word good, (if he could) he saith. The whole government and discipline of our Church, by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, Rural Deans, etc. is established in that book: and to make good mine, I say, it mattereth not, they had no commission from the K. to remove it, and bring in that ancient discipline, which (by their words they acknowledge) was not then in use, but divers from that established; their commission stretched no further than to examine the laws & reform abuses, letting the offices to remain still; yea and therein to proceed no further, then would stand with those offices & the laws of the land. Will the D. say that they in all the book have any one word to show that they held that government and discipline of our Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, rural Deans etc. to be jure divino? Nay as diverse of them in their submission to King H. the 8. profess the contrary; so throughout this book they have no one word tending to prove the Bishop's authority over other Ministers to be any more jure divino, than Archbishops, Archdeacon's, Rural Deans, &c: but as they are birds of a feather, so they stand and fall together by one and the same ecclesiastical law, or human ordinance.  
But let us hear what the Doctor can make the book speak concerning the Bishop's authority, he sendeth us to the 12. chap. where he saith it is decreed, that the Bishop is at f●● seasons to give holy orders, etc. to remove unfit men etc. to correct by ecclesiastical censures, vices & corrupt manners; to prescribe orders for amendment of life; to excommunicate those which wilfully & obstinately refist, to receive into grace those that be penitent etc. and finally to take care of all things, which ex Dei prescripto by the ordinance of God belong to them, and which our ecclesiastical laws have committed to their knowledge and judgements. Very well; and what doth the D. infer of all this? just nothing: I will help him by and by. But first, who seethe not that those fathers understood two parts of that episcopal function, one divine, the care of those things, which are prescribed them by God, and common to all Bishops or Ministers of the word; one principal member whereof, to wit, the diligent and sincere preaching of the word, they mention as the first duty in the first words of that Chapter, which the D. left ou●, perhaps because diverse of our Bishops have left it of, as no part or the least part of their duty; the other human, viz, the exercise of that ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which was committed to them by the K. in his ecclesiastical laws. Now 2. to help the D. a little, he should have inferred upon the words set down 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 do, he should have brought forth some other chapter to show it: else certainly he can say nothing to the purpose. And that it may appear he cannot do it; I will now make it manifest out of the book, that they were of a contrary judgement, and laboured so far as their commission would suffer them, to bring in that ancient discipline before spoken of, concerning the ruling and guiding of the particular flocks by the Minister and Seniors of the same; and so far brought it in, by the order prescribed in that book, that it cutteth the windpipe of the D. sermon concerning his sole ruling Bishops so in sunder, as it will never breathe from their decrees; nor ever have affinity with the ancient discipline they speak of. We have already seen (concerning discipline and excommunication) what they decree, cap. 10. 11; that being remembered, add we to it, that in the 6. cap. de excommunicate: thus they further order. 1. that if possibly it may be (it being a thing 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 hands. And therefore 3, that neither Archbishop, Bishop, or any ecclesiastical judge, sholl so much as decree excommunication without the consent of one justice 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 presence, the whole matter & business shallbe heard, debated, pondered, & decreed.  
In like sort, for the receiving again of the excommunicate person into the Church, upon his repentance, in the 14. chap: they likewise order: 1. that it shall not be by any judge, before his repentance be approved and certificate thereof made to the Bishop, by the Minister and Syndicks, or some of the chief of the parish. 2. when the Bishops or ecclesiastical 
Syndics.  judge, shall give licence and authority, for the receiving of him into the congregation by the Pastor, be shall 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 bewailing his sin before them, & craving ●●●don both of God and them, together with the●● favour for his reciving in. The which when the party hath done, the Minister 4 lie. shall ask the congregation whether they will forgive him his fault, and commend his cause by prayer unto God that he would show mercy to him, and confirm that in heaven which they do on earth. And the people answering thereto, we will, he shall again ask them, whither they will receive him into their company and count him as a brother, whereunto when they have answered, we will; then shall the Minister absolve him, and receive him into the Church, saying after this manner. I do here before this Church, the guiding whereof, is committed unto me, absolve thee from the punishment of thine offences, and from the bonds of excommunication, by the authority of God, the power of jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, with the consent of the members of this Church present, and also of the ordinary; (Ordinario suffragante) And I do restore thee again to thy former place and full right in the Church. Behold here the order prescribed by them for administration of this part of discipline; and therein observe that the Bishop or ecclesiastical judge had but a voice in it, he was neither the doer nor the sole-doer; but the Minister and the Seniors or chief men of the Parish, and the congregation had their voices also; and that as they could not do it with out the Bishop; so neither the Bishop without them. And thus far they sought to bring in the ancient discipline; and do show their judgement to be directly against his doctrine for the Bishop's sole government, as appeareth also by the former testimony cited out of the Bishop's book. Consider we now what the D. saith to the Seniors they speak of; he telleth us, that it is apparent, that by Seniors they 〈◊〉 not ecclesiastical officers, because where they reckon up all ecclesiastical officers from the Clerks to the Church wardens, Deacons, Ministers etc. they do not once mention Seniors or their office. And thereupon concludeth that by them they understand, some of the principal householders, in some places called vestry-men, in some Masters of the parish; in some ancients of the parish. Which is nothing to the purpose, seeing the ref: never said, that by the Seniors, with whom they require the Minister to consult, they mean any of the ecclesiastical officers then established, whereof only they make mention in the Chapters noted in the Doctor's margin: yet when in the places alleged by the Refuter, they (all those officers notwithstanding) prescribe the Ministers to take to them Seniors, and without their counsel to do nothing in the the Church business, & 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 publicly in the congregation: that therein so much as may be, they might bring in the ancient discipline: will not any man that hath wit and honesty conclude, that they acknowledged that of old time there were Seniors (let the D. call them what he will, they call them Seniors) who were joined with the Pastors of particular congregations in Church government; and that they (so far as their commission and the laws then established would permit them) out of the love they bore to that discipline sought to bring it in. The D. therefore wanteth wit or honesty in so charging his refut: the former we know 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 book was alleged, as if the Refuter against conscience had alleged it. But I will join with him in that request, praying the reader in Gods fear so to do; as also how well 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 proceed to the rest of those notorious untruths as he calleth them.   

Chap. 4. Wherein the Refuter is discharged of the other notorious untruths, charged upon him by the Doctor.  
The second notorious untruth laid to the Refuters charge by 
Sect. 1. ref: pag. 4. D. p. 7.  the Doctor, is because he said, that his dactrine is contrary to the profifsed profissed judgement of our worthy writers (whitaker's, Fulk &c.) who in their answers to the Papists (who plead for their hierarchy with the same reasons, that the D. doth for his) do determine that the government our Bishop's exercise ever other Ministers, is jure humano, by the positive law of man only; the which (if the D. say true) is false, and so the papists left unanswered. free hence ariseth this second notorious untruth; but how doth M. D. make it appear so? 1. Can he deny, the doctrine in his sermon to be clean contrary to their judgement that hold the government our Bishop's exercise over other Ministers to be given them jure humano, by the positive law of man only? No he dareth not contradict his Refuter in this point. What then? 2. Doth he deny that the Papists do plead for their hierarchy with the same reasons, that he doth for ours? no, he only indeavoureth to persuade, that his arguments are good, though theirs be nought. 3. But do not our worthy writers (those the refuter named with others) in their answers to the Papists that allege the same reasons, determine (as the refuter saith, that the government which our Bishop's exercise over other Ministers, is jure humano, not by divine right but) by the positive law of man only? This is so evident a truth, that the D. neither doth nor can refel it. Where then is that notorious untruth, wherewith he chargeth his Refuter by reason of those words? is not he rather a notorious slanderer in delivering 
The D. is the slanderer.  such an accusation as he cannot justify? judge Christian reader when thou hast heard his answer. First, saith he, the popish opinion is far different from that, which I hold; for they hold the order and superiority of Bishops to be jure divino, implying thereby a perpetual necessity thereof; in so much that where Bishops are not to ordain, they think there can be no Ministers nor Priests, & consequently no Church: I hold otherwise as the Ref: himself acknowknowledgeth, p. 90 in fine. If therefore the Papists do bring the like arguments to prove their opinion which is so unlike to mine; nothing hindereth but my arguments may be good, though theirs be nought. For those arguments which demonstratively prove the episcopal function to be of Apostolical institution, do not straitewayes prove it to be divini juris. Wherefore my opinion being so far different from the popish conceit; who seethe 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 enjoined jure divino, as being perpetually necessary; yet what man of sound learning doth or dare deny that the first Bishops were ordained by the Apostles? Thus we see how the D. hath led us along. But notwithstanding the confidence of his speech, observe we the extreme poverty of his cause; is he not near driven, (think ye) when to prove his great difference between his opinion and the Papists, he is fain to fly to the refuters acknowledgement of it in that 90. page, where with the same breath, he challengeth him to be contrary to himself, seeming at least to unsay that in one place, which he had said in another? Doth he not remember that he hath often charged his refuter to affirm throughout his answer that he holdeth the episcopal function to be iure divino, and to imply a perpetual necessity thereof? how then doth the refuters' acknowledgement prove that the popish opinion is far different from his? Doth it not rather prove that in this very point wherein he layeth the main difference, he he is fully knit unto them? although forgetting himself (as many Papists also do in their discourses) he contradicteth at one time, what he maintaineth at an other. But to let the world see, how he jumpeth with the Papists in this matter, I will relate his opinion; (not in his ref: words, but in his own). The function & authority (saith he, serm. p. 79) which Tim. and T it. had at Ephesus and in Crete (consisting specially in the power of ordination & jurisdiction) was not to end with their people, but to be continued in their successors, as being ordinary & perpetually necessary, not only for the well-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 governors. Lo here his own words: now who seethe not that they closely imply, that which he saith, the Papists do more impudently 
The D. closely implieth, what the Papists impudently affirm.  affirm? viz, that where Bishops are not to ordain, there can be no Ministers or Priests, and consequently no Church. Yet there is a friend of the Do. who pleading the same cause blusheth not (among other propositions, delivered to disgrace the Presbyterian discipline, and the maintainers thereof) to affirm in plain terms that, all Ministers created and made by the new Presbytery, are mere laye-people, and cannot lawfully, either preach God's 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 jeroms words (often objected by the Papists against the Protestants) ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem; where there it no Priest or Minister there can be no Church. But to return to the D. seeing all the reason he here bringeth to maintain 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 follow that this second untruth how notorious soever, here charged upon his refuter, must be discharged upon himself. For it is a truth (so 
The 2. untruth 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, neither divini nor apostolici juris, neither as the Papists, nor as the D. holdeth them, if he did (as he saith) so far differ from them. And put case, the difference betwixt the Papists and him were such as he saith; yet what is that to the point in question? (I mean to prove the refuters assertion to be a notorious untruth?) nothing at all. The D. in deed his opinion being so different (as he faith) from the popish conceit, asketh who it is that seethe 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? May not the D, (yea doth he not) agree with the Papists in affirming the episcopal function to be divini juris; thereby intending that it is a divine and not an human 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 whom the Refuter speaketh, (yea can the Doctor show that they do 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 only as have such a calling as the papists maintain to be jure humano, by the positive law of man only? do they not generally conclude and determine the matter, of all Bishops whatsoever, that are superior to other Ministers? or can they hold (which the Ref. saith they do, and the D. doth not deny) that the government our Bishop's exercise over other Ministers is jure humano only, and yet hold it an apostolical ordinance also? or can they hold, that so far forth as there is a perpetual necessity thereof, it is only jure humano: and that so far forth as it is not perpetual, but so as the Church may be a church without it; it is an apostolical and a divine ordinance? Or do our writers therefore determine against the papists, that the government aforesaid is only jure humano, because they defend it to be perpetually necessary? Or do they determine only against those reasons of the papists by which they prove this government to be perpetually necessary? Will the D. affirm this? Is not the contrary to all this most evident to them that read their writings? Do they not plainly and directly without any relation to this or that conceit, conclude against all those reasons which papists bring, that the government of Bishops over other Ministers, is not an ordinance divine or apostolical, but human only, directly contrary to the D. conclusion, let his reasons be what they be may? And it were worth the knowing what reasons those are that demonstratively prove (as he saith) the episcopal function to be of apostolical institution, & yet prove it not to be divini juris, and of perpetual necessity: as also what worthy writers of our side against the papists there are, that maintaining the episcopal function to be of apostolical institution, do yet deny it to be divini juris and perpetually necessary? not that great Bell of whom we heard even now, I am sure of. For as for the D. silly distinction between apostolical instuution & divine right, whereby he putteth this difference betwixt his opinion & the papists, as he telleth not from whence it cometh; so I see not whither it goeth; except to give Romish licence to alter and change divine ordinances, at human pleasures. But hereof more hereafter in a sitter place, here enough is said for the Ref. defence against the D. second slander; wherein he hath bewrayed want both of judgement and honesty: the one in devysing such silly shifts, and thinking 
The D. bewrayeth want of judgement & honesty.  to escape from the whole host of our worthy writers by putting on so poor a vizard, or piece of a garment that would scarce cover any part of him: the other in labouring against the truth and his own conscience, to persuade that none of our worthy Champions against the papists are in their judgement opposite to him in this question. And this his fault is the greater, because he layeth down their judgement imperfectly; and closely stealeth all reputation 
The D. wrongeth all our best divines  of sound learning, both from them, and all other that accord in judgement with them. The former appeareth in that he restraineth their denial of the episcopal function to be divini juris, unto his own sense, as if thereby they meant nothing else; then that their function is not perpetually necessary; whereas it is plain, they make it an human and not a divine ordinance. The later discovereth itself, in that he asketh what man of sound learning; doth or can deny, but that the first Bishops were ordained by the Apostles? For he cannot be ignorant, that (as our immediate forefathers before spoken of, so also) the greatest number of orthodoxal divines at this day do flatly deny, that the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers was ordained by the Apostles.  
The second notorious untruth being removed, we are now to 
Sect. 2. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 8. 9  meet with the third, which the D. casteth upon his Ref. because he said that his doctrine was contrariant to the laws of our Land, which make it one part of the King's jurisdiction, to grant to our Bishops that ecclesiastical power, they now exercise over us, and to take it from them as his pleasure: the which his highness taketh to himself, 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 words in deed, and he showeth from whence he collected them, to wit, from Sir Edw. Cook, De jure regis ecclesiastico: & the King's Majesties own speech, in his Preface before his premonition. But how proveth the D. that the Refuter hath in these words uttered a notorious untruth? for that is the charge; if many words will prove it, he hath proved it in deed, for he hath spent a page and half about it, wherein is as much profoundness, as truth; let us give him the hearing at large. Before he cometh to the testimonies 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 spiritual respecting the soul, as to bind and lose the souls of men: or corporal respecting the outward man, as to bind and lose the bodies; the former of which is derived to them from the Apostles; the later committed to them by the King; to whose crown all commanding and compulsive power is annexed. It is well he granteth the civil power of Bishops to be jure humano, his Majesty is much beholden to him. But will he ever be able to prove (trow we) that the spiritual power of opening & shutting, binding and losing, which he saith was derived to the Bishops from the Apostles, is by divine ordinance proper to them, and not common to all Ministers of the gospel with them, but that they by the word of God are excluded from it? this he meaneth in and by those words, or 
The Doct. beggeth the question.  else he speaketh idly; & in so meaning, who seethe not that he beggeth the main question, and laboureth for that, which by all the sweat of his brows, he will never compass?  
Touching the exercise of their power, (to let pass his terms of babituall or potential right as fit to choke 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 directing them by his laws, they may not actually exercise their power, but according to his l●●es ecclesiastical; seemeth to me somewhat harsh. 1. that God should give to Archbishops, Bishops etc. such a peerless power, so 
The Doct. speaketh harshly & with contradiction to himself.  absolute and large over millions of souls, (as he speaketh) without certain rules and directions for the exercising and managing thereof; but hath left it as a dead trunk or body, to depend upon the ecclesiastical laws of Christian Princes, which as a soul, must give life and breath and motion thereunto. Verily that power is not a peerless, but a powerless power in deed. 2. That that power which hath rule and direction enough from God for the exercise of it, where no Christian aiding and directing Princes, are, should become powerless and lifeless, 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 may actually exercise their power, supposed to be derived to them from the Apostles, contrary to the ecclesiastical laws, in case they be not such as do assist and direct them. But pass we on, all this wind shaketh no corn, nor maketh aught to prove the untruth in question: leave we therefore his distinctions, & come we to his answer to the ref: first proof of his assertion. He affirmeth that the authority, which the reverend judge 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 King's commissioners ecclesiastical; then which, 
The D. speaketh untruly or deceitfully.  what can be more untruly or deceitfully spoken? Will he say that that reverend judge speaketh of the authority of the high Commission only? knoweth he not that that whole book 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 & from the Kings of England? Doth he not (pa. 13.) affirm (from the Statute of the Parliament held at Carliel 25. Edw. 1.) that the holy Church of England was founded in the stare of Prelacy 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 Ordinary, and grant him episcopal jurisdiction? & (fol. 9: edit. 1606) that (in 1. Hen. 4.) the Archbishops & Bishops of this Realm are called the K. spiritual Judges? And to conclude, doth he not afterwards conclude that though the proceed and progress of the ecclesiastical Courts run in the Bishop's name; yet both their courts & laws whereby they proceed, are the Kings? Verily, if by our laws, their function and jurisdiction were holden to be of divine ordinance, he neither could nor would have said so. But hear we the Doctor speak again, he telleth us, that the authority which the Bishop's exercise in the high Commission, is not exercised by them as they are Bishops; but as they are high commissioners, and his reason for it, is, for that others that are no Bishops have the same. Wherein he dealeth as decitfully 
The. D. dealeth deceitfully.  as before. For 1. he will not (I suppose) avouch that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the Bishops there exercise of suspending excommunicating depriving, etc. is exercised as Commissioners and not as Bishops and Archbishops? or that others their Assistants in that Commission, that are neither Archbishops, Bishops, nor Ministers of the word, can without them exercise those Censures? In deed, in that the high Commissioners convent men from all parts & out of all Dioceses in the Land, and proceed against them by imprisonments impositions of fines etc. it is done by power of the high commission: but for all ecclesiastical Censures, what do they, which every Archbishop within his Province, and Bishop within his Diocese may not do, (yea sometimes and too often doth not) without that Commission? Thus we see how he hath infringed the Refuters first proof, taken from Sir Edw. Cooks testimony or report. The refuter might have sent him for further proof of that point to that Book called an Assertion for Church polocie; wherein are proofs plentiful and pregnant, whereof the D. in likelihood cannot be ignorant. And I might here commend unto him other testimonies also; but I hast on to other more needful matters.  
Let us therefore hear him what he can say to his refuters second proof, to wit, the K. Majesty's judgement, whose words are before set down. 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 far off from changing the K. words, that he did not so much as once offer to set them down, but only showeth what he conceiveth to be the K. judgement, by his words in the place in question; the Doctor therefore here falleth up to the ears into the pit 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 King's words, which himself layeth down with the next breath saying. The King in deed doth say, tha● it is granted to every Christian King Prince and common wealth to prescribe to their subjects, that outward form of ecclesiastical regiment, which may seem best to agree with the form of their civil government; so as they swerve not at all from the grounds of faith and true religion. Let the reader judge whether the Refuter did not rightly collect, what he collected from the King's words yea or no? and I wish him also to observe how the Doct. slippeth from these words of the King, without so much as an offer to show 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 upon 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 speak one word to it, he appealeth to the King's words elsewhere, set down (Premonition p. 44) from whence (if we will believe him) he will make it appear, that the K. differeth not in judgement from the doctrine of his sermon. The King's words are these, That Bishops ought to be in the Church, I ever maintained as an apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God &c: If the D. would by these the King's words have proved the point in question; he should have showed that the function of the Bishops of the Church of England now exercised by them, is (for the substance of it) maintained by these words of the King, to be an Apostolic institution and so the ordinance of God: the which if he could have done, he mought have made a contradiction between the King's preface & his Premonition; but never a whit 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 institution then the King in these words speaketh of; as the Doct. (it seemeth) saw well enough, when he forbore to set down his Majesties very next words, where he showeth in what respect he ever held that episcopal function (which he speaketh of) to be an Apostolic institution: to wit, that he ever maintained the state of Bishops, and the eccelesiastical hierarchy, for order sake. Again, that he alloweth of Bishops and Church hierarchy, and reverenceth the institution of ranks and degrees among Bishops, Patriarches, (which he knoweth were in the time of the primitive Church) for order sake. Again, that if it were now a question as once it was, which of the Patriarches should have the first place, he could with all his hare yield 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 again affirmeth, that the allowance he giveth to the hierarchy of the church is for distinction of orders, for so he understandeth it etc. What shall we say to the Doctor? did he not read these speeches of the King? or did he skip them, because they spell not well for his purpose? It appeareth plainly by them, that the other his Majesty's words cited by the Doctor, are without colour drawn by him, to justify that jurisdiction of Bishops, for which he pleadeth. Who seethe not that these his highness words do evidently show, that he giveth no other jurisdiction to Bishops over Presbyters (by apostolical institution) then unto Archbishops over Bishops, and to patriarchs over Archbishops? And the same is not any sole power of rule, but, for order sake, such a principality 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 discern, that it cannot be the King's meaning to give unto Peter such jurisdiction over the Apostles, as our Bishops have over Presbyters: nor yet to clip the wings of his own supremacy, which he must needs do, if that superiority of order which he giveth to Patriaches above Archbishops, shall draw 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 untruth, falsely fathered on him by the Doct. The rest of his speeches may well be passed over as impertinent; for however he saith, he herein cometh to the point: yet as he therein toucheth not the point in question; so he discovereth his own unsaying what he said before in his sermon, touching the perpetuity of the episcopal function. 
The D. unsaieth in his Def. what he said in his sermon.  And were it fit to follow him in his wandering from the point in hand, it were no hard matter to show that himself and others of his side have their hands chief in the trespass, which he closely chargeth his Refut: and the men of his side with. For none in the Land have set their tongues & pens so earnestly to abridge Kings and Princes of that liberty his Majesty speaketh of; then the favourers of the episcopal government now in question. To let pass Archbishop Whitgifte (in his Defence against T. C. page 171. and 181. and wishing the Reader only to compare it with T. C. second Reply part 1. page 227. and 614.) with divers more: 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 writ. Bishops (saith he, p. 34.) ought to be Lords, and ecclesiastical persons ought to use civil authority, quoniam ab initio fuit sic. from Adam to Moses, it was so; from Moses to Christ and the Apostles it was so; with them it was so: & from them hath so continued until this time, excepting only the times of persecution, etc. (which he thus salveth a little after where he saith,) Our question is not what was then of fact; but what ought to have been of right. But as for this Doctor, it may be the Doctor will say little more, then that he mought have been wiser. What defence, trow we, will he make for that his reverend father, that gave him so good satisfaction concerning the episcopal function, who discovereth his judgement by the title of his book The perpetual government of Christ's Church? And if we advisedly weigh what he affirmeth in the treatise itself (page 3. lin. 9. 12 and compare together, p. 106. lin. 32. etc. page 2, & 3. lin. 12. with page 245. lin. 4. & 9 & 247. lin. 32-35.) we may easily discern, that he placeth a main necessity in the retaining of the episcopal function. Yea and so doth the D. also, (as his words already set down do show). Neither can he with all his shifting, avoid the force of the objection, which from those words his Refuter enforceth, as shallbe showed more at large in a place more fit for the purpose. For the present, I only wish the reader to observe, that how ever he seemeth to assent unto the King's speech, which his refuter mentioneth & himself setteth down; yet (for fear of offending his good Lords the Bishops and Archbishops.) he dareth not openly profess the outward form of ecclesiastical regiment to be left to the liberty of Princes and Common wealths as the King affirmeth. viz. that they may prescribe to their subjects, what seemeth unto them fittest to to agree with the civil government. And yet in a matter of far less moment (to wit, the maintenance of our Clergy by tithes and other temporalities) he feareth not to tax the King, and the Laws of our land (underhand and by consequence) of sacrilege in alienating & detaining from the Clergy, the tithes or any thing else once dedicated to holy uses. See his sermon of the dignity and duty of the Ministers, page 82. But whither am I run in this digression?  
I come now to the fourth notorious untruth, 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 days, 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 knights service. For proof of some part whereof he referreth the reader in his margin, to Bishop jewels defence of the Apology, and Archbishop Whitgift against Mr Cartw. See we now how the D. proveth a notorious untruth in them. First 
The D. to colour his 4. slander, addeth to the Refu●: words, besides his meaning.  he addeth these words of his own to them. Therefore utterly false, & and so maketh an Enthimeme of them: as if the Ref: should hold all for true, that the Church of Engl: holdeth concerning the government of the Church, and the contrary thereunto, for false. Whereas the Refuter neither 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 speech 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 meaning? Wherefore to let pass the work he hath upon that his Enthimeme made to himself; in his next page, beginning at his Lastly: I will 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 us, he giveth no credit to it though Bishop jewel and Archbishop Whit. be cited at random. But will his not giving credit to it prove it to be a notorious untruth? I trow not, by that time we have heard them speak. Are they cited at random? their books are named, and diverse of their testimonies not unknown to the D, if he had but read his ref: answer pag. 34. & 124. let us hear them speak again. And first of Archb. Whitg. concerning the Elders in question, I know (saith he, answ: to the admon: p. 161, 162.) that in the primitive Ch:, they had in every Church certain Seniors to whom the government of the congregation was committed, but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time, as himself testifieth writing upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doctor, that the Archbishop (in his defence of that his answer page 161.) upon his second thoughts, three times confesseth as much, & almost in the same words? I confess, saith he, that there was Seniors, and I alleged Ambrose partly for that purpose, and partly to show that both their names and offices were extinguished before his time. And knoweth not the Doctor also, that he spendeth two pages at the least (656. 658) to show the inconveniences that would (as he conceiveth) follow upon the retaining of that government under Christian Princes, especially in the Church of England? Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church, doth he not (in his answer to the Admonition, page 162) affirm that the diversity of time and state of the Church, requireth diversity of government in the same? that it cannot be governed in time of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution? etc. Doth he not in his defence (page 658. & 660.) spend a whole Chapter, tending (as the title showeth) to prove that there is no one certain kind of government in the Church, which must of necessity be perpetually observed? After which discourse knitteth he not up the matter with these 3. knots? 1. that it is well known how the manner and form of government used in the Apostles times, and expressed in the scriptures, neither is now, nor can, nor aught to be observed, either touching the persons or the functions? 2. that it is plain, that any one certain form 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 etc. 3. that we must admit another form now of governing the Church, than was in the Apostles times, or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate, from all authority in ecclesiastical matters.  
Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authority, doth he not acknowledge (page 680.) all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise (be it civil or ecclesiastical) to be then executed in the Queen's majesties name, and right, and to come from her as supreme Governor? And speaking (page 747) of the College of Presbyters, which jerom calleth Senatum ecclesiae, & together with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies, saith he not, that that kind 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, he knoweth all this to be true, Thus much briefly for the testimony and judgement of that Archbishop, the which how far it differeth from the Doctor's sermon, whatsoever he saith now (by exchange) in his defence, and whether it casteth not the government by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times, let the reader (comparatis comparandis) judge.  
Come we now to Bishop jewels judgement, (set down at large in his defence of the Apology, out of which the Doctor saith, that Confession of the English Church was collected) whose testimony I might well commend (in regard the book out of which it is taken, is commanded to be in all our Churches) but that the Doctor will again as before cry a mountain bank: but I will barely lay it down and let it commend itself. First, concerning the power of the keys, he hath (in his apolog. chap. 7. divis. 5.) these words.  one manner of word is given to all, and one only ke●e belongeth to all, we say (speaking in the name of the Church of England) there is but one only power of all Ministers, as concerning openninge and shutting. And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Priest (or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth) he saith (part 2. page 140.) that as a judge together with the Elders of the congregation, he hath authority both to condemn and to absolve. And (page 152.) that in the primitive Church, either the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation, had authority herein, and that the direction and judgement rested evermore in the Priest. And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use, yet he showing out of Beatus Rhenanus how they were used in old time, saith: That the excommunicated person, when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Priests as unto the mouths of the Church, and opened to them the whole burden of his heart, by whom he was brought into the congregation, to make open confession and satisfaction, which done duly and humbly, he was restored again openly into the Church, by laying on of the hands of the priests and Elders.  
Again, concerning the authority of Bishops over other Ministers (cap. 3. divis 5. page 109.) he maintaineth the testimony, which in his Apology he had alleged out of jerom ad Evagriu, making all Bishops to be of like pre-eminence and priesthood, against the cavils of Harding, as the refuter will (I doubt not) against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith. What S. jerom meant hereby, Erasmus a man of great learning and judgement expoundeth th●●. jerom seemeth to match all Bishops together, as if they were all equally the Apostles successors. And he thmketh not any Bishop to be less than other, for that he is poorer; or greater than other, for that he is richer. For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium (a poor town) equal with the Bishop of Rome. And further he thinketh, that a Bishop is no better than any Priest, save that he hath authority to order Ministers. Again (pag. 111.) that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops, they had it by agreement and custom: but neither by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul, nor by any right of God's word. And to show that it was not his judgement alone, he produceth jerom and Austin. jerom upon Titus. 1. saying: Let Bishops understand, that they are above the Priests, rather of custom then of any truth or right of Christ's institution. And that they ought to rule the Church altogether. And that a Priest and a Bishop are all one etc. Austin (epist. 19) saying, The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest, not by the authority of the scriptures (saith Bishop jewel in a perenthesis but) after the names of honour, which by the custom of the Church have now obtained. Again (chap. 9 divis. 1. pag. 198.) What meant Mr. Harding (saith he) here to come in with the difference betwixt Priests and Bishops? thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by tradition? or, is it so horrible an heresy as he maketh it, to say, that by the scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one? or knoweth he, how far and unto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretic? verily Chrisostom saith. 
* in 1. Tim. Hom. 11. ad Evagrium. quaest. vet. et novi. testan. q. 101 de dignitat. sacerdotali.  Between a Bishop and a priest in a manner there is no difference. S. jerom saith somewhat in rougher sort. I here say, there is one become so peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops; whereas the Apostles plainly teacheth us, that Priests and Bishops be all one. St. Austin saith, what is a Bishop but the first Priest, that is to say, the highest Priest? So saith Saint Ambrose, there is but one consecration of Priest and Bishop, for both of them are Priests; but the Bishop is the first. All these and other mo● holy Fathers together with Saint Paul the Apostle, for thus saying by Mr. hardings advise, musts be holden for Haeretikes. And in his reply to him (article 4. page 309.) having showed what primacy or headship jerom 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 speak and deal for the rest as chief and head of all his brethren) he addeth these words: which order also, was afterwards universally taken throughout the world, that in every congregation of Priests, one should have a special pre-eminence above others, and be called (Episcopus) Bishop. This was thought a good politic way, to avoid conteution in the Church. By all which it appeareth that this worthy JEWEL was persuaded. 1. That the pre-eminence of Bishops above other Ministers, was first brought in by human policy, and not by any divine ordinance in the holy scriptures. 2. that the pre-eminence of Bishops in the first original and establishment thereof, was only a pre-eminence, such as Peter had above the rest of his fellow Apostles, which was at the most of order only, and not of any superior commanding power & jurisdiction. And 3. that in the primitive Ch:, other Elders besides Ministers of the word, had an hand in the government 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; now let the reader judge whether he hath uttered a notorious untruth, in saying the Doctor's sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops, or rather whether the Doctor hath not maliciously 
The D. slandereth maliciously.  slandered him in so charging him. I say malicious, and if his conscience be spurred the question, from the abundance whereof his pen wrote, it will subscribe to it. For knew he not all this to be true in the Bishop's books quoted by the Refuter in his Margin? Yea are not diverse parts of these testimonies expressed in the Refuters answer, page 34. and 124? Did he not read them there? And hath he not slipped them over with such a slubber, that (if he be not far spent) he cannot lay them and his answer to them together, without the blushredd-colour. Well, but the Doctor is none of them that will be mad without reason; he therefore giveth us a reason why he doth not credit his Refuter. For saith 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 well advised as he mought be, when he appealeth to the confession of our Church, collected out of the Apology thereof written (as himself saith) by Bishop jewel from the Apology itself, and Authors own exposition and defence of it. Is it likely (think ye) that other men should understand him, better than himself doth, either in the Apology or defence of it? especially being authorized to write it by our Church; and it allowed yea commanded to be in all our Churches? But let us examine his allegations apart. The first is the book of Articles, and what doth that? The 36. article thereof approveth (saith he) the book of consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons. And what then? that book (saith he) in the Preface thereof saith, that from the Apostles times there have been those orders of Ministers Bishop's Priests and Deacons in Christ's 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 book, and the preface of that book saith, that those three orders have been in the Church from the Apostles times etc. Therefore the book of articles (and consequently the doctrine of the church of England) approveth the function of Bishops and their superiority above Priests to be of divine ordinance. As if 1. what soever is said in the preface before the book (which in all likelihood was done by one or two only, and not by so general a consent as the book itself) must needs be allowed for the currant doctrine of the Church of England in that age, because the 36. article (in our book of articles) doth for some purpose approve the book of consecrating Bishops etc. as containing 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 showed (out of Chamier de pontiff. Oecum:) in his answer page 87. in the like phrase of jerom to Evagrius, saying, that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas etc. one of the Presbyters were chosen from amongst the rest & set over the rest etc. 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 own head, and clean 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 politic devise of man, and not the ordinance of God. Let us go forwards with the Doct: he addeth, that the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by God's 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 concealeth part of the words. For the book requireth the Bishop to correct and punish etc. according to such authority, as he hath by God's word and the ordinance of this realm: which later clause (of the laws of this realm) they would never have added, had they thought that the power which our Bishop's exercise is wholly by God's word. But 2. though those words detracted by the Doctor had not been added by them; if he thinketh it will prove that the function now exercised by Bishops is warranted to them by God's word; he forgetteth his own distinction between potest as & modus potestatis, together with the difference which he putteth between function and authority lib. 4. pag. 100, 102. & 147. Neither 3. is that authority which the book requireth Bishops to exercise, such a sole power of correction, as the Doctor giveth unto them; for the same book requireth also of every Minister (aswell as of the Bishop) at his ordination, that he preach the word, and administer the sacraments & 
The D. own testimony against him.  discipline; so giving every Minister a stroke in the outward policy & government of the Church, (aswell as the Bishop) which the Doct. taketh quite from him. But to conclude this point, the book of articles, doth in deed, show the judgement of our Church in some matters of policy and church government devised by men, aswell as in more weighty points of faith set down in God's word. Wherefore the doctrine of our Church concerning the later, is not to be sought for, in the book of consecration, or the 36. article that establisheth it, (much less in the preface of that book) but rather in those articles which concern 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 book and the preface thereof not warrantable by the word; did therefore approve of it, no further, than 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 book, there is no word of Archbishops, Archdeacon's, Deans, rural Deans with the rest of that row; 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 alleged by the Refut: and acknowledged by himself to be orthodoxal divines, is not so well seen in his allegation here, as he would seem to be; surely he mought very well conceive, that we might take exception not only to his book of ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons; but to the article that establisheth it, both being made by the Bishops themselves, judges in their own cause, and seeking their own pre-eminence; especially when they were both so far excepted against, by that whole assembly of Parliament, as not to bind any by subscription to approve them, so much as consonant to the word.  
Thus much concerning the book of articles and the D. dealing with us therein. Come we now to the Confession of the English 
Sect. ●●  church, collected as the D saith out of the Apology: The words as he layeth them down are these. We believe that there be diverse degrees of Ministers in the Church, whereof some be Deacons, some Priests, some Bishops etc. But he should have read out to the end of the sentence, and not break off with an etc. (so keeping many of his readers from the sight of them) if he durst, for overthrowing his own cause. For the very next words insinuate that these divers degrees 
If the D. had read his own testimony to the end, it would have been against him  are of order, not of power and jurisdiction, whiles they make the office of those diverse degrees to be one and the same saying, to whom is committed 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 authority to Bishops, then to other Ministers, that are called Priests. Doth not the 7. article of that confession profess, that Christ hath given to his Ministers (one aswell as another) power, to bind, to lose, to open, to shut? Doth it not make the authority of binding and losing to be in tha● censure of excommunication, and absolving from it, aswell as in preaching mercy or judgement? Doth it not make the word of God the key, whereby the Ministers must open or shut the kingdom of he●ve●? And doth it not affirm, that the disciples of Christ (aswell as the Apostles) received the authority of opening and shutting by it? And that the Priest is a judge in this case, though he hath no manner of right to challenge an authority or power? that is, (as the observation upon it understandeth it) civil, or to make laws to men's consciences? To be short, doth it not affirm, that seeing one manner of word is given to all, and one only key belongeth to all, that therefore there is but one only power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting? If I bely not the Confession, but that these be the very words thereof, let him that readeth consider, whether the Confession produced by the Doctor as an Advocate in his behalf, to prove the Refuters fourth untruth, hath not as a judge given sentence against his own Client. Worthily therefore hath he here cited this confession, and of no less worth is his own observation upon it. It is to be noted (saith he) that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith, which is not con●●yned in God's word, or grounded thereon. And I will note it with him, and do tell him that he noteth well for us and against 
The Doct. note is for us and against himself.  himself; For if the government of the Church by such Bishops as he speaketh of, be a matter of faith, why putteth he a difference between matters of discipline and the articles of faith; and referreth the question of the function and superiority of Bishops to the former, lib. 3. page 38? and how is their government mutable and not perpetually necessary as in his defence he often affirmeth? In deed he once said that the episcopal function and authority which Timothy and Titus had (the same with ours) as being assigned to certain 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 ordinary and perpetually necessary, not only for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches. This was the Doctor's 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 pass, 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 faith, which is not contained in God's word, or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors.  
2. It is to be noted, that our CHURCH acknowledgeth that though there be d●vers degrees of Ministers, as Bishops, Priests & Deacous in the Church; yet that one only manner of word is given to all, and one only key belongeth to all, and that there is but one only power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting. This assumption is the Confession; now from hence I may be bold to make one note more with this conclusion.  
3. Therefore it is to be noted, that whereas our Church's practice is otherwise in the government that our Bishops now exercise, it is net a matter of f●ith contained in God's word or grounded there●n; but only of poli●i● and human tradition; for the power of the keys and discipline of the Church, is one only, and given to all Ministers aswell as to Bishops by the word of God. And consequently the doctrine of the Doctor's sermon is contrary to the doctrine of 
The D. hath slandered his Refut. his own testimonies produced for advocates being judges.  the Church of England; and consequently that the Doctor hath here slandered his refuter: his own testimonies produced for Advocates being Judges.  
But we have not yet done, the D. (as a man that will have somewhat to say if the worst come to the worst) asketh, that if the Bishops being now better informed concerning their functions, had now reform their judgements according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity: whether it would follow that their later thoughts, which are commonly the wiser, were false and worthy to be confuted? I answer, that it may be asked, whether he was more foolish or presumptuous in making that question? For who is so foolish as to affirm, that any man's later thoughts are false and worthy to be confuted, because they are reform 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 hierarchy; then the Bishops their predecessors have been in the days that are past, that these later are wiser than the former and have reform their judgements 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 contained in God's word or grounded thereon? I will not here question the probabilities, whether the thoughts of the now and late Bishops or their predecessors be the wiser; this (without comparison) I dare say, that those Bishops that made not this title of superiority & authority over their brethren and fellow Ministers, were men both godly and learned, zealous lovers of sincerity, & wrote as against the common adversary, so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed, and against ignorant Ministers, nonresidents, pluralitans, & many things of like sort, now not only tolerated, but defended also; let the Doctor advance the Prelates of these days above them, if he will, I will make no comparison. Thus much shall suffice, to acquit the refuter of the false and slanderous im●utations of such notorious untruths, as the Doctor hath laid upon him in his answer 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 now to handle the D. answer 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 whereunto I will be more brief, touching but here and there upon a word or two most material, the most part of the Doctor's speech being in deed nothing but sarcastical and by-speaches. The Refuter thought his sermon the more needful to be confuted, because though it was utterly fails, yet he had carried the matter so handsomely, smoothly, and confidently, that it carried appearance of truth; and therefore discerned, that much hurt was like to come to the Church of God by it. Hereunto (to let pass the D devised division of the words) he answereth by charging his refuter again to cross & contradict himself saying, that however his refut: had said in the former reason, that it is evidently false & so not dangerous; yet now he saith, the doctrine is so by me handsomely and likely handled, that it is so far from being evidently false, that every word hath an appearance & promise of truth. But the fight is here betwixt the Doctor and his own shadow, not between the Refuter and his speeches. 
Not the Refuter but the D. fighteth against himself.  Things 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 falsehood of them. Things evidently false to one, may have an appearance and promise of truth to another. The Apostle (2. Cor. 11, 3. &c.) feared least the Corinth●● were beguiled (as Eve was) by Satan, through the false APOSTLES that transformed themselves into an ANGEL of light, and told their tale so handsomely, smoothly and confidently, that it had an appearance and promise of truth to the Corinth's (why else was he afraid they would be beguiled by them) though they scarce uttered one word of truth, themselves being the Ministers of Satan, and their doctrine utterly false even the do●●●ine of Devils. And if the D. here reasoneth well, who seethe not, that he confuteth that reverend Bishop jewel. whom his Ref. as he saith in that speech imitateth? Hardings' doctrine was utterly and evidently false surely, and yet dangerous too, or Bishop jewel said not well; and yet he carried himself so smoothly, likely, and confidently, that to many it had show and appearance of truth, why else doth that reverend Bishop, bestow so much labour in confuting it? I could again say as much concerning the Ref. answer & the D. defence, but we must pass on. The Doctor thinketh that he told his tale so smoothly in his sermon, that he had almost persuaded his refuter to be of his mind: we cannot let him to think so, nor he me to think, that that imagination of his heart (among others) was vain. It may be he is now feeding himself upon this fancy, that as his sermon had almost persuaded him; so this his defence hath altogether persuaded him to be of his mind: but I suppose the refut: or his friend will tell him, that he ha●h an ill stomach that feedeth fat with such wind. As for the rest of his speeches, to the end of that section, let the reader judge of them as they deserve.  
The Refut: proveth the hurtfulness of the Doct. sermon. 1. from 
Sect. 2.  the advantaging of the Papists, and 2. from the scandalising of others thereby. Touching the first: The Papists (saith he) would be much advantaged thereby, seeing that Antichristian doctrine (even after the renewing & reviving of their ceremonies amongst us) is so freely preached & published, tending to uphold their hierarchy aswell as ours, the Doctor's reasons being in deed the very same with theirs. The Doctor answereth with many vile and opprobrious speeches: and 1. telleth us, that the advantage which ariseth to the Papists both by his doctrine preached and the ceremoniees maintained still amongst us, may through God's 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 departed further from them, than they have departed from the primitive Church; but are content to observe the ancient government, & lawful ceremonies used in the primitive Church, they may be induced to join 
The D. abuseth the name of God.  with us etc. Then which what can be said more against reason & their own profession; to the abusing of the name of God and his blessing? Knoweth he not that to this day, they have been encouraged in their madness by our coming so near them, and departing no further from them? Do they not both say, and write, that our book of liturgy is an Apish imitation of their mass-book? that our religion cannot stand without their ceremonies? that the contention that is amongst us for them, and eating their broth, putteth them in good hope of our eating their rostemeat? Do not the Rhemists in their annotation upon joh. 21. 17. affirm, that the Protestants otherwise denying the pre-eminence of Peter; yet to uphold their Archbishops, do avouch it against the Puritans? Yea even of late take they not occasion to fill their books with our canons and constititutions, arguments and resolutions? to let pass others, what will the Doct. say to that worthy Proctor of theirs, jacobus Gretzerus, hath he not (panegyr. missae, cap. 11. 12. & demonst. dogm. cap. 7) alleged against the reformed Churches) our service book for their popish holy days, D. Tooker and our late book of Canons both for the sign of the Cross; for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament; for the whole hierarchy from the Archbishop downwards, and for diverse other their superstitions? Hath not Cornelius Scultingius in his hierarchica Anacrisis, alleged 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 Bishop's 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 know more than this, of the advantage they take by such sermons, as that the Doctor printed. What likelihood is there then of winning the Pipists by coming nearer them? no no experience hath taught us, that this policy in seeking to win the adversaries by dallying and playing with them, and coming so near them, hath bred more papists in England in few years, than were wont to be bred in many; in so much as, we have cause to fear, that under colour of licking he Papists whole by this means, the wound is become so great, that all the balm in Gilead will s●atce salve it, the case is so desperate.  

Sect. 3.  But 2. what shall we say to those opprobrious speeches which the D. casteth forth against all that mislike the ceremonies and episcopal government, in saying, they are new fangled and so far carried with hatred to their persons (papists he meaneth) as to departed further from them, than they have departed from the primitive Church? And what to his unjust 
The Doct. calumniateth both his Ref: & & the reformed Churches.  censure of his Refut. and of all that accord in judgement with him, when (because he called his doctrine Antichristian) he faith, it is merely spoken out of faction, after the usual fashion of our opposites? His tongue is his own, and he thinketh that none of his Lords will control him: wherefore he spareth not to stuff a great part of his great volume, with such unsavoury reproaches. Perhaps he meant to justify (at least it well appeareth he hath levied) his ref. in charging him, to have given the papists much advantage: for is it not a great advantage unto them, when they may (if they list) assume the Doctor's testimony, 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 humour, and of mere hatred to their persons) from that ancient government, and those lawful 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 than a dishclout: yet considering he had so many Pompey's to deal 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 than by the refuter) to count all new fanglisme and faction.  
But 3. his friends will say he had good cause to be offended with 
Sect. 4.  him, that charged his doctrine to be Antichristian: for who can with patience bear so heavy an imputation? But the Doctor must bear it, and it will stick close to his ribs, till he can remove the reason that enforceth it upon him. To wit, 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 crieth out, God forbidden; which brought to my mind the saying of Hazael, 2. Reg. 8. 13. who, when Elisha told him of the evil he should do, protesting against it with indignation, said, what? is thy servant a dog, that I should do this great thing? and yet for all that he did it. And I have heard some in my time cry, fie on the Devil, when they have done him great service. Let us therefore see whether the D. prayer and doings agree. In the popish clergy (saith he) above Bishops and Archbishops, the Pope and his consistory of Cardinals are set as governors of the universal Church; in in whom the popish ●yerarchy, so far forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth. And again, Their government is justly called Antichristian, who are his assistants in this universal government. The Doctor's drift is (as it seemeth) to free himself from defending the popish hierarchy, because he maintaineth not, either that headship and government of the universal Church, which maketh the Pope to be properly Antichrist; or that subordination and assistance unto him in his headship, which maketh the Romish Hierarchy to be properly Antichristian. A poor shift 
The Doct. hath a poor shift and a silly defence.  and a silly defence. Can the Doctor be so simple as to imagine that his refuter had any meaning to charge him or his doctrine with upholding the popish Hierarchy in any of those main differences, which here or afterwards, he mentioneth, to distinguish them from our Clergy? Or could he persuade himself that none of his 
The D. disputeth, a dicto secundum quid, ad simplicitor.  Opposites would discern the weakness of his defence, when he disputeth, a dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter, in this manner?  
My doctrine tendeth not to uphold the popish hierarchy, quatenus it is properly Antichristian. Therefore it tendeth not to give them any supportance at all. The Refuters meaning is plain, that the tenor of the Doctors disputing for our prelacy, tendeth by consequence to uphold those functions and degrees in the popish Hyerarchy, which other reformed Churches have rejected as unlawful, at least unecessarie and superfluous. Which is a truth so apparent, that the Doctor doth in part closely acknowledge it, though with 
The Doct. closely acknowledgeth what he fairly, but falsely excuseth.  a fair (but false) pretence, he seeketh to excuse it, when he saith, we are content to observe the ancient government of the primitive Church, though retained by them: for what is that government wherein we agree with them? Is it not the government by ARCH BISHOPS, LORD BISHOPS, ARCH DEACONS, CHANCELLORS, COMMISSARIES, etc. assisted with Proctors and Apparators? Wherefore since the functions of the popish hierarchy serving for CHVRCH-government, are none other than such as we retain in our Churches (the Pope and his Cardinals excepted) the D. cannot disclaim the defence, of the rest of their hierarchy, unless he will leave our own 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 do (and may with as good colour of truth, allege the same reasons for the Pope's primacy, over Archbishops, that the D. urgeth for the superiorty of Bishops or Archbishops) it is no wrong at all to affirm, that the D. sermon tendeth to uphold the popish hierarchy, aswell as ours, even from the Pope to the Apparitor. But let us go on and trace the Doctor in the steps of his answer. 1. Who can excuse him in this, that professing (as he now doth) the Pope to be properly Antichrist, in regard of that universal government which he assumeth; he should notwithstanding rear up a pillar (in his defence following) to uphold what he would seem 
The Doct. upholdeth what he seemeth to pull down.  to pull down. For to justify the government of Metropolitans (who were at the first as he saith, lib. 2. p. 114, autochephalois, 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 governors of the several Dioceses, should meet for the common good, and that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishops within their Dioceses might be remedied. By consequent, therefore it was necessary (especially before there were Christian Magistrates) that one in every Province, should be held as chief or primate, who should assemble the Synods, moderate them being assembled, see the decrees executed, & have a general superintendency over the whole province. By the like conseq: (it is well known that) the Pope's proctor's do plead for his universal primacy; and the D. doth very frankly offer them the antecedent. lib. 3. p. 4. The whole Church (saith he) is governed by the mutual consociation of their governors for the common good, and the concurrence of them to an Ecumenical Synod: For the whole Church being but one body, there ought to be a Christian consociation of the governors thereof, for the common good of the whole body. If there ought to be such a consociation of all Bishops and governors of the whole Church; then there is no less conveniency, or rather necessity of this consociation of the whole, then there is of the former in one Province. Wherefore the Doctor cannot forbid any friend of the papacy (in an imitation of his former argument) to infer this conclusion. By consequent, therefore, it is necessary (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 Roman Empire) that among the ecclesiastical governors of the whole Church, one should be held as chief to assemble and moderate general counsels, to see the decrees executed, and so to have a general superintendency over the whole Church. Thus in travailing 
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 do. 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 consociation among the Bishops of the whole Church, cannot infer a necessity of one Pope, or chief B●shop; because Christ our King & Monarch for the government of the whole Church, hath no Vicar general, but the holy Ghost, who appointeth governors under him, to govern the several parts in some respect Monarchically; and the whole (by concurrence in one Ecumenical Synod) aristocratically; then for the like reason (to wit, because Christ our King hath no Vicar provincial, but the holy Ghost, who appointeth governors under him in every Church throughout the Province) the necessity of a consociation of all the Churches in one Province, and of provincial Synods for the common good of those Churches, cannot conclude a necessity of one Metropolitan primate to assemble & moderate those Synods, and to have a general superintendency over the whole province. Wherefore it is evident that by the Doct. reasoning, the Pope's Universal headship, & the Archbishop's provincial primacy, do stand or fall together.  
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, aswell as of the whole? 1. Cor. 12, 27. 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ephes. 2. 22. cum 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 laid to 
Sect. 5. add D. pag. 13.  clear himself from patronizing the popish prelacy. He affirmeth (as we heard before) that their government is justly termed Antichristian, who are assistants to the Pope in his universal government. Lo here the proposition, I will make so hold, as to add an assumption. But Archbishops, L. Bishops, Archdeacon's, chancellors &c. in their several functions are assistants to the Pope in his universal government. Whence any man may make the conclusion. Therefore the government of Archbishops L. bishop's Archdeacon's Chancellors yet in their several functions, is justly termed Antichristian. The D. foreseeing (as it seemeth) that such a conclusion as this might be inferred from his own words; to prevent any further inconvenience (if his Refuter or any other should from thence collect, that he maintaineth the popish or antichristian prelacy as well as our own, in as much as the government and function of our Prelates, is in substance and essential works 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 dependence on him, as members of that body, whereof they acknowledge him to be the head. Where the reader must again be advertised, that the D. wandereth from the question at 
The Docwandreth from the question at his pleasure.  his pleasure: for the point now controverted between him and his Ref. is not what transgression doth make the romish Bishops and Archbishops antichristian properly or improperly? but whether their callings and functions (which other reformed Churches have refused as better beseeming the degenerate Synagogues of Antichrist, than the orthodoxal Churches of Christ) be not justified by the Drs. discourse, aswell as the offices and functions of our own Prelates? The negative in this question he should have strongly fortified; but he rather justifieth his Ref. assertion, in proffering them a full discharge from all stain of Antichristianity, if they will renounce their subordination to the Pope, and acknowledgement of him for their head. But, seeing he professeth (lib. 3. pag. 154.) never to give over the maintenance of his cause; at his better leisure I will expect from him a direct answer to this reply; I have already proved from his own assertion, that their government is justly termed Antichristian: But their jurisdiction extended over the Churches of an whole Diocese or Province, is a principal and essential part of their government: why then should not their jurisdiction so largely extended, be justly termed Antichristian? Again, wherein soever they give best and greatest assistance unto the Pope in his universal government; therein they are rightly reputed antichristian: this I trust the D. will acknowledge without any further proof, neither will he (I hope) put us to the pains 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 unto the Pope in his universal government; wherefore I will once rest persuaded, 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 upon the best defence he hath to wipe away all note of Antichristianity from our own Bishops.  
Having restrained (as before we heard) that Antichristianity 
Section. 6.  which cleaveth to Romish Prelacy, unto their subordination to the Pope etc. he addeth this consequence. Therefore they are no more Antichristian, than their parish-Preists, and aswell might the Refut. call the Pastors of Parishes amongst us Antichristian, because the Popish Parish Priests are Antichristian, as our Bishop's Antichristian, because the Popish Bishops 
The Doct. trifleth in fight with his own shadow.  are such. When will the D. cease to play the trifler in fight against his own shadow? Where doth the Refut. say, 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 answer once termed our Bishop's Antichristian? Yet if he had said, 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 trow) then to be so far misledd by the Doctor, as to say, that our parish pastors, and their parish priests are alike antichristian. For their priesthood (in regard of the very essence and form of their office) is a sacrificing priesthood as the Doct. acknowledgeth, and the proctor's of popery do more clearly teach: Rhen. annot. in Acts 14. 23. Bellarm. lib. de sac. ord. 9 But the office of our parish pastors (though corruptly termed Priests) hath nothing to do with sacrificing, and therefore it is not the same office, but of a divers form, ordained (as the Doctor rightly affirmeth) to preach the word and to administer the sacraments. Now there is no such essential difference in the very function itself, which our Bishops and the popish do hold and execute. Wherefore though it be an absolute inconsequence, to infer that our parish pastors are Antichristian, because the popish parish priests 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; unless it can be clearly showed, that the functions do differ essentially one from another.  
2. And if his meaning be thus to plead in behalf 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, etc. I have already showed the error of this argument, in proving that their very jurisdiction & government is Antichristian. Only here again let the reader remember, how the D. justifieth his Ref: in that speech, which he indevoureth to wipe away, viz. that he upholdeth the Popish Hierarchy aswell as our own.  
3. In that which followeth, he assayeth to show, 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 show, were ordained by the Apostles, and set over Dioceses; but the parishes were first distinguished in the Western Churches, and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them, by the ancient Bishops of Rome, whose example other Churches did imitate, as diverse author's report. Is not the Doctor strangely bewitched with the love of his reverend Fathers and their functions, that (to 
The D. to free the episcopal function from being reputed Antichristian exposeth his own calling to that disgrace.  set them free from all fear of being any longer reputed Antichristian or of the Pope's institution) he will expose his own calling and function to the same disgrace? But if that be true, which divers author's report (as Platina in vita eucharist: & Polidor Virgil: de invent rer: lib. 4. cap. 9 and others) that evaristus did only divide titles in the City of Rome unto Presbyters; and that Dyonisius gave them Churches or Churchyards, and distributed abroad aswell Dioceses to Bishops, as Parishes to Presbyters: upon this ground we may safely affirm, that the function of Diocesan Bps. is truly ascribed to the institution of that monkish Pope Dionysius, 266 years after Christ, or thereabouts. For however Bishops were ordained of the Apostles, and set over particular Churches, (as parish Ministers are at this day) yet there could be no Diocesan Bishops till D●oceses were distributed, and parishes multiplied in each Diocese. Wherefore it is neither error nor blasphemy to affirm, 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 century of years after Christ.  
If the Doct. shall contradict this position it will easily be made good from the grounds of his own manner of disputing. For in 
The Ref: justified, by the D. own grounds.  affirming (pag. 12. of his preface) that the function and discipline of our Bishops, though truly Catholic and Apostolical, is of his opposites termed Antichristian; he offereth us this disjunction. The functions and government of Diocesan Bishops and Provincial Arch Bishops are either truly Catholic and Apostolical, or else rightly termed antichristian. He cannot weaken this disiunctive proposition, unless he will overthrow his own reasoning, lib. 1. pag. 60. & 61. and confess himself to be as ignorant in logic, as he would make his refuter to be. If therefore it may appear, that the functions and government of Diocesan Bishops, and Provincial Archbishops are not truly Catholic and apostical, it will then inevitably follow, that their functions & government are justly termed Antichrstian But the function and government of Diocesan Bishops, being first instituted by the Pope Dynosius, cannot be truly Catholic or Apostolical: much less can the function and government of Provincial Archbishops, be truly catholic or apostolical, 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 Provincial Primates; because they followed upon the combination of Dioceses & subordination of diverse Churches together with their Bishops, in the same province, unto the metropolitan 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 Diocesan & provincial Bishops to be Antichristian. 4. Especially seeing he hath not at all touched the main grounds which prevail 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 little and little made way for the man of sin to climb up to the top of his greatness, & to seat himself in that chair of Luciferian pride, wherein he sitteth at this day, as shallbe seen in the answ: to his lib. 4. cap. 5. sect. 10. 2. And as he still leaneth on their shoulders, so his kingdom cannot stand without them (for they are his assistants, & without them they can have no priests, & so no Church as the D. acknowledgeth pa: 7. & 12. of of his preface) whereas on the contrary, the true Churches of Christ may (as the Doct. also holdeth as he said before, page 2. and 7. of his preface) very well want them, as they did in the purest times (viz the first 200 years, as shall appear in answer to his lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 4. and 5.) and do in some places at this day flourish in more peace and sincerity (witness the broils of the Church after the first 200. years, and the peace of the reformed Churches at this day) than those Churches which formerly did and now do embrace them. 3. But specially this is to be noted that sole ruling Bishops (such as are ours, diocesan and provincial Lords) (for which see the state of the question lib. 2. chap. 3. & 4.) could never gain any general applause or place in the Church till antichrist (having first gotten possession of his usurped universal headshipp, to proportionate their estate in some degree like to his own) did procure, for some of them, principalities, and for all of them, Baronnies, and allowed every one of them to domineire, as petty monarchs in the exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction, as shallbe proved in the proper place hereafter.  
To go on therefore unto that which remaineth. The D. thinketh 
Sect. 7. D. pag. 13. 14.  it strange, that the doctrine of his sermon concerning Bishops alone, should uphold the Popish Hierarchy from the highest to the lowest aswell as our own, and calleth it, a shameless untruth; because the Papists reckon. 5. orders under Deacons. But we, with the primitive Church, reckon but. 3. only. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. But entreating him 
The Doctmust take his shameless untruth to himself.  to take the shameless untruth to himself, as his own proper in this point aswell as in the rest; I wish him wit, that it is not strange to them, who see and know, that many arguments now urged in our Church for the popish ceremonies retained by us, (as cross etc.,) do by a like consequence plead for oil, salt etc. which we have abolished. And therefore we have more cause to think 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 Assumption, may serve as fitly to justify, those inferior degrees which are under the Deacons in the Romish Synagogues. And yet it is more strange, that he should challenge conformity with the primitive Church, in reckoning 3. degrees of Ministers and neither more nor less; seeing the same authors that he allegeth for that purpose (serm: pag. 29. etc.) do reckon other degrees which we have refused, and the Papists retain though in a more corrupt course, as all other Church functions are; and some more ancient do reckon two only, as his refuter in answer thereunto showed.  
Lastly, it is more than a wonder in the Decked. eyes, that the very same reasons which are brought to justify the Apostolical government 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 worth, it may well be more than a wonder to his readers; if the example of the ancient & 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. notwithstanding if the Doctor had advisedly considered, that the question is of functions only, and not of accidental 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 Roman Church concerning the superiority of Bishops over praesbyters, out of which the Ref. would build a total consent and conformity to their Antichristian government; may it not be wondered at? 1. That he can find, but one agreement between the Protestant and the Popish government. Are there not the same degrees, Primates, Archbishops, Suffragans, Archdeacon's, Deans etc. Are there not the same seats of dignity? The same authority and government? The same laws and proceedings? The same inferior Officers? The same rites and ceremonies? The same change of names? The same civil jurisdiction and titles? The same pomp and glory 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 upholding of the popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparator; he chargeth him to build a total consent and conformity; as if it may not tend to the upholding of the Hierarchy, though with some differences?   

Chap. 6. Concerning the hurt like to come by the D. sermon, to the scandalising of Protestants. 
Sect. 1. re●. pag. 6. 7 8, def: of the D. pag. 14. 15. 16.   
The Refuter showing how many were like to be scandalised by the Doctor's sermon, viz. some being to far in love with their own ease, were likely to embrace it without examination, others whose hearts were upright before God would be made doubtful, disquieted etc. The D. answereth for the most part by calumniation and sarcasm, from which I briefly pass, wishing the reader, 1. to consider whither many have not been 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 very many (if not all the rabble of) Romish ceremonies: so upon the reading of such sound doctrine as the D. here layeth down (against all sound writers) for the justifying as from the words of God all degrees of Ministry in the Church, the Popes and Cardinals only excepted and foreprized. I will not answer his sarcasm, with Bishop jewels speech against harding and the like popish proctor's, The peace which they would have, is only the rest of idle bellies: But I wish the D. to know, that we hate division and schism, and are the sons of peace, desiring peace with all men, as much as is possible, & will stand with holiness. And I say to him and the rest of his fellows (as the Apostle did of his Accusers) you are not able to prove those things, which for profit, advantage, or preferment, or of anger, and in heat of contention (which worketh not the righteousness of God,) you speak and write and suggest 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 will remember, that aliud est madedicere, aliud accusare etc. and that the D. hath used many calumnniations more fit to be spit 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 nought, else, but to publish and disperse a malicious diffamatory libel, and so, after the manner of other malefactors, 
The Doct. calumniareth.  to hide his head. I must touch upon it alittle, and wish it be considered, whether he showeth not himself as full of spleen and spite as he is empty of good reason. First he therefore calleth it a libel because the Author put not his name to it. Wherein as he jumpeth with the Papists; so he is answered already in the answers to them. I pass over bristol challenge mentioned by Doctor Reynoldes in his preface to the University of Oxford upon his Theses of the Holy scriptures, and Church, where Bristol required the Author to put his name to it etc. Bellarmine excepting and objecting certain treatises and resolutions of john Gerson translated, for that the translator put not to his name, saith against him, that the saying of Christ is verified, john, 3. qui male agit, odit lucem, and crieth, that he was ashamed to make his name known, as the Doctor doth against his Refuter, charging him as a malefactor to hide his head. But Pryar Paulus in his Apology, shall serve the Doctors turn aswell as Beauties, who answereth (page 3.) I see no reason (saith he) why of necessity he was to put to his name, unless it be taken from a rule that every translator is to do the like: we rather blame them that think to win themselves credit, by making preface or Table, etc. Divers works extant of the Greek Fathers translated into Latin, carry not the names of the translator etc. Christ approved not the advice of his kinsfolks, transi hince et vade in ludaeam: but answered as in many cases his servants may answer (and the Refuter at this time) Tempus meum etc. my time is not yet. Surely (saith he, page, 4.) the glorious lustre of the author's 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 council of the Areopagites. harding also calleth the Apology which Bishop jewel wrote (amongst other reproachful terms,) a famous libel and a slanderous writ, because it was printed without privilege, and no man's name set to it, etc. To whom Bishop jewel giveth an answer. (Defenc. part 1. cap. 4. divis. 2:) that will sit as close to the Doctor's back, as the coat that is made for it. Must it need follow saith he) that all books not subscribed with the author's names are libels? To begin with the scriptures (saith he,) who wrote the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Denteronomy, joshua, judges, Kings, Chronicles, job, etc. What name hath the Epistle to the Hebrews puit to it, etc. And so reckoning up divers other parts of the scriptures, with the Apostles Creed and other writings of men that subscribed not their names to them, asketh him whether he would make his brethren believe, that all these be but libels, slanderous writs etc. and so concludeth that it is neither necessary nor commonly not to do it etc. as the reader may see at large.  
Secondly, whereas the Doct. calleth the Refuters answer a ma●●ious defamatory libel. I appeal to the reader to determine. 1. whether it be not a malicious slander of him so to call it, and what honesty there is in him, seeing (as I suppose) there can no one sentence be produced thereout, deserving that censure, much less the whole book? 2. Whether (in what measure soever the refuter be guilty of that crime) the Doct. hath any reason to argue him of it, it being apparent to any that will compare the refut: answer, with the Doctor's defence, that he may ten times, yea ten times ten times say, Tirpe est Doctori etc. with that of jerom (regula Monach) per dit authoritatem docendi cujus sermo opere destruitur. But thirdly, when he chargeth his Refuter after the manner of other malefactors therefore 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 dogs) that hunt dry foot thirsting after blood. I wish him well, & would 
The Doct. thirsteth for blood.  have him know, that, let the terms be equal & as they ought to be, his refuter will show his head when and where he will. But the Doctor is wise (though he here danceth in a net) 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 sweet place for disputation. In the mean time, if he be a malefactor, let the 
The Doct. calumnia●eth.  D. bear witness of the evil; but let him not bear false witness 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 wilful falsifycations, depravations, forged calumniations, sophistical shifis & evasions to elude the light of truth, convicting his conscience: and whereas his ref: simply & ex animo confesseth his weakness & wants in the answer, he chargeth him to speak it by an Irony, so reproaching all that is said of what kind soever.  
He disdaineth, that his refuter should say, there is not a syllable of any 
Sect. 2. Ref. p. 8. 9 & D. p. 16. 17.  sound proof in his sermon, & prayeth God to give him grace to repent, of his blasphemy against the truth he delivered. I embrace his charity, but see not the refuters blasphemy. However the note of blasphemy against the truth, maketh a loud cry, in the ear of the simple; yet doth it never the more prove the doctrine of his sermon to be true. 
The Doct. slandereth his Refut. with blasphemy, proveth it not.  I affirm with the Ref: still; that the foundation whereon he built his sermon will not bear it, the building is ruinous: and weakly underpropped in telling us, he taketh God to witness that the proofs alleged in his sermon, are such as satisfy his own conscience, and that he trusteth he may without any great boasting assume as good skill to himself, to judge of an argument as his Refuter &c. I fear me, it will appear, by that time all be laid together, that he hath often fallen fowl upon his anchors, and that neither his conscience nor his skill however assumed, are fit judges in this case; my sight hath failed me, and I am much mistaken if I have not seen some men of as much note for conscience, and skill, as the Doctor here assumeth to himself, who yet have foiled both, when they have once undertaken a bad cause. But to proceed, it is worth the noting, that he calleth all to consider of the blasphemy, saying. And what was it that he hath thus censured? A sermon uttered in the presence of God, in the room of Christ, before a most honourable Auditory, by a Minister of the Gospel; shall I say as sound and faithful as himself? no I disdain the comparison, (for by his fruits in his book, he hath to my seeming, bewrayed an unsound judgement, an evil conscience, and an unsanctified heart) I trust I may say, by a Minister of the Gospel, as sound and orthodoxal as his betters, as conscionable in all his sermons and writings, and as careful to deliver nothing but the truth of God. Me thinks, he should rather have trembled to think of confuting a sermon of such an one etc. then have dared thus to confute it. Is this the reverend estimation that you would work in the people's minds of the word preached & c? What shall I say to this DOCTOR? Oh quam elatus? profectò satis pro imperiolo suo. What would he have said, and how would he have disdained, and disdained again, if he had been 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 few sermons preached at Paul's Cross as famous a place as Lambithe, by men, that take themselves to be as good divines as he, that yet have (in the D. conscience) delivered unsound points of doctrine? will he maintain the consequence of his proposition, that we should rather tréble to think of the confuting of them; then once to dare to censure them? I appeal to his conscience, whether Bishop Bilsons' sermon concerning Christ's sufferings and descension 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 disdain the comparison too. But to speak ad idem, let the D. suppose, that if a discipliarian (as the D. calleth them) if any may be found comparable to him, with great plenty of Arguments and Testimonies truly and faithfully alleged, did deliver, that there is no such pre-eminence, and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers, and the D. should have excepted against it, and refuting it have given the same censure on it, that the Ref. hath done on his sermon; and he replied as the D. here doth. And what hath he thus censured? A sermon uttered in the presence of God, in the room of Christ, before a most honourable Auditory etc. would the D. have deemed this speech reasonable? Knoweth he not, that it is possible enough for as faithful Ministers and as sound and orthodoxal divines as himself ever was or is like to be; notwithstanding their soundness in other points of divinity, to preach and print (as well as Mr. D.) that which hath (if we may believe 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 orthodoxal in all substantial points of religion by his own confession? Have they not both preached and printed the clean contrary doctrine to his sermon concerning the government of the Church? How often doth he in his sermon centure their sermons & writings, and all that is said by them, to be but pretty and witty proofs, mere colours, no sound arguments etc. the discipline to be pretended, their own devises: yea, and upon his second thoughts in his defence, doth he not charge a fresh, all that is said by them or any other, to be false, counterfeit, novelous? and affirmeth he not, that if their can but one proof be brought for it, he will yield etc. Mought not a man now turn the D. speech upon him, and say, what is that which by his sermon he hath so censured? even sermons and writings uttered in the presence of God etc. me thinks 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 Gospel; shall I say as sound and faithful as himself? If I were as disdeynfull as he, I mought disdain the comparison: I trust I may say as sound and orthodoxal as his betters: for his own commendation of them elsewhere proveth it. Is this the reverend estimation he would work in the people's minds of the word preached by th●●, and of their worthy labours spread 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 said I, the men of his side? nay he careth not to control some of them also. B●shop Hooper a faithful Minister sound and orthodoxal, preached to as honourable an Auditory, as that at Lambeth, even to and before King Edward the sixth, against the Surplice, and kneeling to receive the communion etc. and yet the Doctor censureth him for it in his preface, as deeply as the Refuter doth the Doctor's sermon.  
¶ But pass we (over his slanderous speeches in the 
Sect. 3. Ref pag. 8. ad D. pag. 18.  next words) to page ●8. where he affirmeth, That the new divines cited by the refuter are incompetent witnesses in a question of story concerning things done or not done 1400. or 1500. years before their time, themselves also for the most part being parties in the cause. Wherein how near he draweth to that Pythagorical autos epha, who with one dash of his pen, crosseth out so many worthies, upon pretence that they are parties, and but men of yesterday, and therefore must not be heard speak, but himself only, let the reader judge. But how ever he showeth himself to be one of them, whom jerom writeth of, qui tantam sibi sumit authoritatem, ut sive dextra doceat sive sinistra, discipulos noluit ratione discutere, sed se precessorem sequi: yet we must follow the same man's counsel in Ephes. lib. 3. cap. 5. to read and meditate, ut probati Trapezitae 
The D. mistaketh the matter, and without reason maketh the new divines incompetent witnesses.  sciamus, quis nummus probus, quis adulterinus. For even here, where the Doctor maketh the new divines cited by the Refuters incompetent witnesses for matter of fact, he much mistaketh the matter, seeing the whole dispute is de jure and not de facto; for who ever denied the superiority 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 testimony to matters of fact done or not done, 3. 4. 500 years 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 steps and stairs, the man of sin, that Antichrist of Rome, ascended to the top of his Luciferiam pride, as having I say better done these things, than those he allegeth.  
2. Where he maketh them incompetent, for that for the most part, 
The D. by his own reason maketh all his witnesses incompetent.  they are (as he saith) parties to the cause, let 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 Doctor's witnesses for his superiority of Bishops over Ministers, are for the most part parties in the cause (being Bishops for the most part as himself witnesseth): Therefore they are incompetent etc. Let the Doct. affirm the proposition against the new divines; I will make good the assumption against the old, by his own pen. Let therefore the conclusion be, if he will: That we will hear neither speak, but the word of God only; ●b● discutiamus causam nostram. But yet his rejecting of the new writers after this sort, as incompetent 
The Doct. underhand taxeth all our new divines for misinterpreting the script. & Fathers.  witnesses and his reasons for it, may not be passed from, with silence. For 1. whereas the questions are to be decided by the scriptures, (which, I hope, he will not refuse as judges, concerning the substance of discipline to be observed and continued in the Church till Christ's coming,) and those new writers mentioned by the Refuter (called sound & orthodoxal by himself) have alleged and interpreted the scriptures against the doctrine of the Doctor's sermon: what doth he in rejecting them as parties, but censure them to have alleged interpreted, and applied the scriptures corruptly, (even to maintain a faction) and not dealt therein sincerely as in the sight of God? Yea whereas diverse of them also have cited Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose Augustin, jerom and other Fathers, and so expounded them, as the men of our side do, as divers of the learned Papists have ingenniously acknowledged: what doth the D. by this censure but charge them 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 spiteful & calumnious Papists have said more to the disgrace of those sound and orthodoxal Divines? Was the D. well advised think ye, to present so pleasant a spectacle to the como adversary, whose delight is to see mire and dirt cast upon our worthy writers, to the disgrace of them, and in them of the common faith? And seeing 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 told us, they are,) no marvel though he dealeth as he doth with his refuter, yea what other can we look for at his hands, (who carrieth (even of the/ best) so base and vile estimation) though he maketh as if he were loath to do it, pag. 20?  
Touching the Refuters directions (as the D. is pleased to term 
Sect. 4. Refut: pag. 9 10. D. pag. 18. 19  them) to the reader; I pass by the first of them, only wishing it to be observed how captious he is, 1. in assuming that of Pythagoras to himself, which the Refuter spoke no more to him, then to his self, while he giveth it as a reason, why he wisheth the reader to believe no further than evidence truly produced leadeth him. 2. in excepting against the testimonies of jerom and Tertullian as unfittly cited, by the refuter: because they dissuade from giving credit to fame and uncertain rumours: as if they did not fit those persons (of whom we have too many) that are transported with the name & fame of the Doctor, to believe all he saith, without any examination of his proofs. In the next place, where the refuter wisheth the reader to think with himself, that if he find no sufficiency in the Doctor's reasons to enforce the acknowledgement of his doctrine for true; that then it is not elsewhere to be had: because he being known to be a scholar, and professing to have read the chief 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 us. M. Doctor answereth, it is an unreasonable motion; and the reasons thereof contradict, both what he said even now, and are contradicted by what he affirmeth afterwards. And to prove that the motion is unreasonable, he affirmeth it to be unreasonable, the weight of the whole cause, should lie upon one short sermon uttered by so mean a man as himself. The which, (to use his own words) is an unreasonable reason, and such as contradicteth what he said even now, and is contradicted by that which he affirmeth afterwards. Even now he said that the proofs which he used in his sermon were such as satisfied his own conscience, and that without boasting he mought assume to himself 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 proof in it, he saith, he is a Minister of the Gospel, What? as sound and faithful as the refuter? no, he disdaineth the comparison: but as sound and orthodoxal as his betters, and as conscionable in all his sermons and writings, and as careful to deliver nothing but the truth of God. And that his refuter cannot deny him to be a faithful Minister and orthodoxal Divine. Again, that he is persuaded in his conscience, the Refuter hath not convinced him of any one untruth throughout the whole body of his sermon. All this he boasted, even now, of himself, & somewhat else a little before; & yet now with the turning of the page he is become (if he mean as he saith) a mean man, & so mean as it is an unreasoable motion to desire any to think, that if there be no sufficiency in his reasons; it is not elsewhere to be had: either he 
Either the D. speaketh by an irony and not sincerely, or else he contradicteth himself.  speaketh by an irony and not sincerely; or else his former speeches contradict this later. And how it is contradicted by that he speaketh afterwards, appeareth throughout his whole book, wherein every where he advanceth himself above measure: yea in this very section, he standeth upon the credit of his evidence with a witness, 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 episcopal 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 orthodoxal divines in the world, that are by all sound learned, counted the lights of the world. Thus can he play fast and lose, up and down, debase and advance himself, as may make for advantage; before he was aloft as we have heard, learned and skilful to judge of an argument, etc. a faithful Minister, an orthodoxal divine etc. now he is a mean man, & so mean a man, as if he had not a fellow on his side to match him. By & by he is up on high again, & disdaining comparison with his Refuter, advanceth himself above all that have writ for the discipline, Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc. Yea pawneth his credit concerning all that ever he wrote of what subject soever, upon his truth and sufficiency in this one point. But let us now see the double contradiction in the refuters reasons, as the Doctor calleth them; but it but one reason as the refuter hath laid it down, & the reader will not be so simple, as to make the first clause or member of a sentence, (as the Doctor here divideth it) a reason: that because the Doctor is a Scholar, therefore he hath in his sermon said as much, as can be 
The D. dismembreth the Ref. words and reasoneth ex male divisis.  said of that argument. He mought well enough, for all that, have said nothing to it: but the Doctor is very ready to divide, where his refuter conjoineth, it seemeth to allude to his own words page 146. His refuters' reason was too strong for him to deal with, whiles the Medius terminus, consisting of two branches, was bound together, and therefore he dissolveth it, taking each branch by itself, endeavouring like a gross headed Sophister, to persuade the reader, that because he can bow each twig severally, therefore he can break the whole bundle or faggott. But what the Doctor here weakeneth (or rather scoffeth at) by dissolving, I will strengthen by uniting, thus.  
He who is known to be a Scholar, of good skill to judge of an argument, a sound and orthodoxal divine, and professeth to have read the chief treatis●s written on both sides in this controversy, and to have set down in a sermon, uttered in the presence of God, & in the room of Christ, those arguments which for the fullness and plentifulness of their proof satisfied his own conscience. Of him, it is likely we may receive the very pith and substance of all, that all of them can say, either for themselves, or against us.  
But the Doctor is known to be such a scholar, and to have done all this. For he professeth as much of himself, 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 us. For we cannot imagine, that such a scholar, so skilful to judge of an argument, such a divine so orthodoxal, and so faithful a Minister, as he professeth himself to be (& we will not dispute the contrary with him, we envy it not) having read the chief treatises as saith, would receive satisfaction and be persuaded by the weakest reasons; or make any other choice but of the chief, the first borne & strength of all the arguments he read, to utter in the presence of God, & in the room 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, glean out the pith and substance of what he had read, and could be said therein, but that for want of skill or will to make the best of that he had read for his own advantage and his cause, left out the best proofs and made choice of the worst? But what saith he against this? or how maketh he his Refuters contradictions to appear? To let his scoff alone, when he telleth us he hath been a scholar ever since he was five years old; 1. He would know how it can be, that he should have the pith and substance of all that can be said in that controversy, seeing his refuter chargeth him to speak without proof? The answer thereunto is easy. For put case, those chief treatises which he read, and from whence he received satisfaction, be without sound proof (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 us, that it is not possible that all which he and all the rest can say, can be comprised in so short a sermon. And I believe it; For by this his defence it appeareth that he himself can say a great deal more, then can be comprised 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 bold, to affirm, there are a century of untruths, sarcasms, slanders and many things of like sort. But all this while, how proveth he that double contradiction he spoke of? Nay where doth the Ref. say (as the D. insinuateth) that all that he and the men of his side can say, is comprised in his sermon? That which the Ref. saith, is possible enough, to wit, 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 comprised in as short a sermon as his, which filleth up an 100 pages; and was not only preached, before that most honourable auditory as he faith; but also upon second thoughts and mature deliberation enlarged, and published to the world. Thus we see how well he hath proved both the unreasonableness of the Ref. motion; and the contradictions charged upon the reason thereof. As for his good admonitions in his epilogue and elsewhere, (how ever delivered by him not without mixture of gall & wormwood) we have so learned to make use and profit of the words of our enemies, as we willingly embrace them.  
¶ Thus much in reply to that which the Doctor hath answered 
Sect. 5. D. page 20. 21. 2●.  concerning the Refuters' preface: he should now have defended his own preface against the answer to it, but that he utterly refuseth; because, 1. it is a mere libel consisting of notorious cavillations, malicious calumniations, and personal 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 itself being grown to so great a volume; he should greatly wrong both himself and his reader in answering it. 4. his refuter being in the dark, and he in the light, it is a very unequal combat etc. And therefore in stead of answering, he falleth to advisinge, as we shall see when I have given answer to these several points. Let the reader, concerning the first, judge, whether the D●s. own words may not be banded back again, and charged more justly upon his preface, than upon the answer to it? But albeit both that his preface and this whole defence are in the highest degree guilty of those 3. notorious evils charged upon the Refu. answer: yet I will spare him therein, and only demand whether it standeth with any equity, for him at his pleasure to smite as with his tongue, yea utter in print, words more sharp than sword; and not forus, once to oppose a shield of just defence to bear of his blows; for him, as Tully 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 desired, slain Q. Scevola, accused him in judgement, quod non totum telum corpore recepisset, that he had not suffered, the whole weapon wherewith he was smitten to enter his body. To the second, I answer, that the reason were good, if what he saith were true, but the reader comparing them together, will find no one material thing either fully or once in part answered in the defence of his sermon, how ever here and there he shall meet, with revylinge and reproachful speeches cast upon the Ref. for it.  
As for the third, I will not deny but his defence is grown to a great volume in deed, and so great, that he should not only have wronged himself and his reader by making it greater as he saith; but that he hath wronged them both and his Ref: too, in making it so great as it is; considering it is grown to that greatness, as by many notorious untruths, so also by those three imputations falsely charged upon his Ref: And I wish he had regarded more seriously what he had committed to the Press for the judgement of the present age and all posterity; and that he had not so much yielded to his inordinate affection and corruption, as to make his volume swell with such bitter speeches, so full of choler, & unpleasant flowers of his rhetoric, not respecting what became him, that commendeth mildness 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 pleasant spectacle (he speaketh of) to the common adversary. If in any sort, bitterness hath been used in our defence by any, who have been strangely dealt with, through which perhaps some have uttered some distempered speech; the D I doubt not, hath paid them all home their own again with large interest, and measure even full & running over, as one that counted it (whatsoever he professeth to the contrary) a disparagement to be overcome in such a contention.  
Lastly touching the fourth, where he casteth them into the dark that do not put their names to their writings etc. What argueth that speech of his, (besides the wrong offered to the penmen of the scriptures, and other good men many mo●; (as is before said) but extreme dealing of the Bishops, towards us, why else should we not dare to be seen in a cause, so clearly 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 as much in the light as the Doctor, and as well known to be the Refuter as the D. is to be the defender. Let his Lordbishops lay by their imprisonment, and other extreme dealings, and cease to be judges in their own cause, and that without bail or mainprize or benefit of appeal enforcing us to endure their sentences; and the D. shall soon see his adversary in the face. Till then, the reader will both judge his request unreasonable; seeing manifest experience witnesseth that the mildest men for books written without bitterness, have drunk deep of the Bishop's cup, mixed with the spice of their imprisonments, degradations and such like; and also deem him a man of no great valour, for counting that combat unequal, when he figheth with an Adversary, that is not shut up in prison, and hath not his weapons blunted or rather taken from him by that means. Thus much briefly to his reasons pretended for not replying to the Refuters answer, I say pretended, being persuaded, the reason that moved him indeed not to make reply, was for that his conscience convinced him of many foul offences therein, had not grace freely to acknowledge them. But to draw to an end, his conclusion is. That in stead of answering tha● which is past, he will advise for the time to come, that they who willbe esteemed men of sincerity, when they publish any books, (especially such as they dare not set their names unto) would have special care not to disgrace any man's person, lest they make themselves guilty of that most b●se and odious crime of libeling etc. Lest they subject themselves to the fearful Curse of God etc. The which as I gladly embrace, so I wish himself had followed 
The D. in the end of his sentence, forgetteth what he add viseth in the beginning.  his own counsel, (especially in this his conclusion, in the end whereof he forgetteth, what he adviseth in the beginning) so mought he have been esteemed a man of some sincerity and been freed both from that evil of sin he cast upon his Refuter, and the evil of punishment he hath cast him under: under both which by his own sentence, he hath thrown himself; all men seeing, who by all means he hath sought not more the overthrow of his adversaries cause, than disgrace of his person; and therein waded so deeply, as he hath left neither body nor soul, neither learning nor honesty untouched; 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 answers are but too mild for him.    

THE FIRST PART. THE SECOND BOOK  

Chap. 1. Of the Refuters preamble and the Doctor's exceptions to it, especially concerning the choice of his text, handled by the D. lib. 1. cap. 1.  
THe Refuter of the D. sermon, having thoroughly 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 & plain dealing, at his first entrance upon the answer, to inform his reader, what he conceived of it; both concerning the work itself, and the author of it. Of the work he saith (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 showed himself poor and little worth. For where he made a glorious show, 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 own to build 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 charity and modesty; charging his Refuter with this resolution, that before he would encounter the sermon itself, he thought good to spend some of his spleen, upon the author of the sermon, the matter, and the text; so making himself privy to an other man's thoughts. But how cometh he to that intelligence? Forsooth, because he beholdeth in him, a proud in sulting over the Author, a scornful gibing at the matter, & a captious carping at the choice of the text. For towards the author (whose credit must needs be very dear to the Doctor) he behaveth himself like another insulting Goliath, 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 etc. page 25. And touching the matter, because the Refuter said it was borrowed out of D. Bilsons' book of perpetual government etc. he taketh it for a gibe or scoff, and rejecteth it, as a base calumniation, framed according to his own practice, and as an objection of a childish, yet odious wrangler, and a slanderous libeler and such like. Behold here some of the fairest flowers of the Ds. defence, concerning the Author and matter of his sermon; unless the reader will give the preferment to these high praises, set by himself as a garland upon his own head, viz. that he cometh to the combat in simple manner, like David with 5. smooth stones (for so he calleth the 5. points of his sermon, now reduced by himself to 4.) taken out of the fountain of God's word etc. that the most of his allegations are of his own reading, that he is not conscious to himself, either in that sermon, or any other writing, to have taken any one line from any, without citing the Author; And that in 9 or. 10. days space, (to provide for his sermon) he hath so fortified the cause of the Bishops, that the greatest worthies of the adversaries part, assaylinge is with all their force, have not been able in twice so many months, to make the least breach therein etc. But, I doubt not but, he that readeth, will consider otherwise of the matter; and that as there is no reason, he should carry away those lofty praises given to himself, and bitter reproaches cast upon 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 scornful gibing and proud insulting etc. He hath already in the first 2. leaves of his defence, so far outrun his refuter, in his whole answer, that it is in vain for him, (if he were a man of that strain) once to move one foot forwards, for victory in that kind of bookemaking. Notwithstanding it were both easy (and in some respects profitable) to clear the Refuters credit, from the injurious calumniations, thrown on him by the D. and justly to return his venomous darts into his own boasome. But I purpose not to follow his vein in prosecuting, so eagerly any personal quarrels, which bringeth little advantage to the cause; or comfort any way. And if the D. had been as loath as he pretendeth (in his answer to the preface pag. 20.) to trouble; yea (to use his own words) to wrong both himself and his reader, with personal discourses, which breed endless & fruitless contentions; or had been as willing to embrace, as he was ready to give his advice (pag. 21.) (in the publishing of any book) not to sack the disgrace of any man's person etc. yea if he had well considered, that he here (pag. 25) maketh it the part of an odious wrangler, to sack his adversaries disgrace by that which doth no whit advantage his cause; doubtless he would never have spent so many words, (and that in the forefront of his treatise) in answering what was objected concerning the Author and matter of the sermon. He would rather (as fit was) have laboured more than he doth, in justifing the choice of his text (the last of the three objected against him) as that which is material and of great consequence; the standing or falling of the the whole building, depending upon the strength (be it more or less) which it receiveth from the foundation laid to uphold it. But however he hath slightly passed it over (that it may appear how unjustly he hath censured his Refuter therein) he shallbe 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. himself) he affirmeth, 
Section 2.  that the Refuter gave him greater praise then either he desired or deserved, etc. and yet he scoffeth at it in his answer to his preface page 19 Again, he would prove his Refuter to be a worthless and a witless fellow, because he passed by the learned treatises of the worthies of their side, and made choice to contend with him, in the vanquishing of whom, there can come neither credit to himself 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 we have reason to believe) laid down 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. Credit enough therefore willbe gained to the Refuter and his cause, with disadvantage to the adverse part; in case the D. (being the man that he maketh himself to be, prefat. pag. 16. 17.) who had read what all could say, and had the best helps of all that had written before him, of that argument, and was wise enough to make the best of that he read, for his advantage; shall yet in this question show himself (as his Refuter saith) but poor in deed. And where to prove himself to be neither weak nor worthless, he affirmeth that in his sermon provided in 9 or 10. days at the most, he hath so fortified his cause, that the greatest worthies of opposites, assailing it with their forces, have not been able in twice so many months to make the least breach therein: I wish it may be considered whether it be not a boast of much riches, or no? 2. If we may believe reports, the greater part of that sermon, was preached before at a visitation, or assembly of Ministers with great applause. But 3. it mattereth not whether it were provided in that time or no; seeing he was above 9 or 10 days after the preaching of it, in reveiwing and enlarging of it (for enlarged it was as he saith preface 4.) for the press, as the time of the coming of it forth, showeth: 4. He speaketh without book and more than is true, both in saying that the greatest worthies assailed it with all their force, and that the answerer was in answering it twice so many months as he was in providing it. Well may he know his own time and helpers; but the Refuter knoweth that the best able or greatest worthies, were so far from assailing 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 months about it. Doth the Doctor with reason imagine or look, that they who have neither books, nor liberty for study, nor press, nor purse for either, at command, (as himself hath,) can make so quick dispatch as he? Let him procure indifferency herein; & then blame us for want of expedition. And with as little reason argueth he, when he telleth us, that the greatest worthies assailing it with all their forces, have not been able to make any breach therein, in twice so many months as he was days in providing his sermon; as if because they have not done it in that time, they therefore were not able to do it. Well may he argue them of sloth and negligence, but not of unsufficiency & unableness.  
Concerning the matter; whether the Refuter (finding little in the D. sermon which is not in the Bishop's book, (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 party) to judge. 2. The often references made thereunto, were not so much (as the D. saith) to show that what he delivered was taken thence: as to let the reader see, that both are answered in one, however he saith the Bishop's proofs are such, as never were nor never willbe answered. 3. To make good his charge of falsehood & slanderous libeling, upon the Ref:, for saying his sermon was borrowed of the Bishop: he professeth he is not conscious to himself of taking any one line from any, without citing the author etc. And yet confesseth a little before, that divers of his allegations, were not of his own first reading, but examined at the fountain, being as it were, sent thither for them, by them whom he read: the which as the Refuter denied not; so the contrary to which, he affirmed not, neither had reason, seeing it was fit in deed, he should examine them by the first Authors (where ever he met with them at the second hand) whether they were true or no. Lastly as for his praise set upon the oldness of the stuff, because that which is the oldest is the truest: it is but an idle begging of that question, which will not be granted him; it being 
The Doct. beggeth the question.  out of question, that it was (as the refuter saith) built out of the Bishop's old stuff: not of the oldest stuff, or of his stuff, which is the Ancient of days. And therefore as Solomon (Prov. 16. 31.) saith of old age, so say I of it: It is then honourable and worthy of commendation, when it is found in the way of righteousness, without which figure, it is but as a cipher, whose value in divinity, is nothing worth.  
But, to let all pass, come we now to the 3. point, and examine 
Sect. 4. add Sect. 3. Def. lib. 1. Cap. 1. pa. 27.  we, whether the Refuter deserveth to be censured, as a man that spent his spleen upon the text, captiously carping at the choice of it, yea or no? The Refuters words, whereon the Doctor taketh occasion so to censure him, are (not as the Doctor layeth them down, (out of an abortive book as he calleth it) thereby showing how greedy he himself is of carping: but as the Refuter himself in his answer, pag. 2. line 5. 6. hath them, namely) these. The text being allegorical, (as himself confesseth) dig he deep and do what he can, he shall hardly find fast ground, whereon to lay his foundation. Can any man that judgeth his text unfit for his purpose, deliver his opinion in milder terms? Is there any one word, that savoureth of captious carping? Yet if there were, is it all one to to carp at the choice of the text, and to spend of his spene upon the text itself? But, not to stay upon this any longer, the Doctor telleth us, that though the quarrel pleased the refuter so well, that he repeateth it again, page 3. yet without cause; for that, seeing the exposition of the allegory is not doubtful, but confessed on both sides, that as by 7. stars are meant the 7. angels; so by the angels, the Bps. of the Churches: who seethe not, that this assertion, the calling of the Bishops is lawful and good, is built on the foundation of the Apostle john, as it were upon a rock? But 1. let him certify us, 1. touching the exposition of the allegory in his text, and that if it be nothing doubtful, but confessed (or agreed on) on both sides, why he doth, in the 2. pag. of his sermon, prepose this, as a doubtful point needful to be examined. viz. who and what manner of persons are meant by the angels of the Churches? 
The D. cōt●adicteth himself.  2. Wherefore he tendered this for his first reason of examining the doubt; because (to use his own words, def. pag. 29.) when the Holy-ghost expoundeth the stars by Angels, this interpretation itself's allegorical, and therefore needeth some exposition? And. 3. Wherefore, in the very next words of his defence, he mentioneth. 3. different opinions, touching the persons or functions meant by the Angels. viz. whether all Ministers in general, the Presidents of the presbyteries, or diocesan Bishops?  
2. Moreover, can he without blushing say, that it is confessed on 
The Doct. speaketh untruly.  both sides, that by the 7. stars are meant the 7. Angels? Was it not fl●ttly denied? (Not without reason or show of reason at least) doth not he himself afterwards (cap. 2. section 3.) spend pains 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 lawful and good; his refuter hath good cause, even still to affirm, that this text neither was nor is, any firm ground for him, on which to set up such a mansion for his Diocesans as he assayed. Who therefore seethe not, that it is, (not the refuter with the text, but) the Doctor that quarreleth with the Refuter in this point without a cause? Especially seeing when he cometh to that 3. page, where he saith the quarrel is repeated, he doth wittingly both conce●● under an 〈◊〉, and overpass without any answer, that which is 〈◊〉 ●a●mom●nt to justify his Refuter in this point. For the Doct. 〈◊〉 knowledge a truth to lie in one of these assertions of of the Refuter, to wit, that either there is some other portion of scripture, wh●●n, that which he pretendeth to be here laid down under 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 choice he can; and which of them soever he choose; the same shall make ●ood the refuters quarrel (as the Doctor calleth it) I mean the consequence of his reasoning in that place. For 1. if he shall affirm that there i● some other text, that plainly unfoldeth the points here said down under the va●●e of an allegory; then in reason should his censure be approved which saith, it had been fit both in divinity and good discretion, for him to have chosen, some other more clear portion of scripture, than this which is allegorical. 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 follow, that the Refuters sentence was right when he said, this text cannot be deemed a fit judge to decide so great a controversy.  
But it was one of his points of wisdom, to pass by this dilemma, 
Sect. 5. add cap. 2. pa. 30. defen.  or two forked argument; he thought, it enough to repeat (in that 30. page,) his former answer, that the meaning of the allegory is on all sides agreed on; and to add, this silly inference, that since we do confess the Angels to be the Bishops of the Churches, therefore by our confession the text was as fitly chosen, as if it had been said, the 7. Stars are the Bishops of the 7. Churches. See, see, how feign he would (if he could) 
The D. beggeth of us, what he dareth not give himself.  wring from us an acknowledgement of that which himself, well advised (I suppose) dareth not affirm namely, that an allegorical text is as fitly chosen, to prove any conclusion, as another which unfoldeth the same more plainly. But it shall not be amiss, to let him see the strength of his consequence by another of like force.  
Our adversaries (the D. I mean, & the men of his side) do affirm and teach that the Angels were diocesan Bishops superior in degree to other Ministers; and that the 7. Churches which they governed were properly, Dioceses. Therefore in their opinion, the text was as fitly chosen, as if it had been said, the 7. Stars 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 reply, which he ascribeth to his Refuter (viz. that though it be granted, that the Angels are Bishops, yet not such Bishops as 
The D. untruly fathereth on the Refut: what he said not.  the D. speaketh of) if it had been as truly his, as it is untruly fathered on him; yet he giveth him no cause, to answer as he doth. viz. then the unfittnes of the text (belike) is not because it is allegorical, but because in his conceit, it is impertinent. He should rather have inferred thus, Then I see the text is unfit in a double respect: in part, because it is allegorical; and chiefly because, (though the meaning of the allegory be thus far 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 little hope, that he will of his own accord, confess so much; this, belike, shall be answered with another, inferred upon a more sure ground. It is certain the consent of Interpreters (being so far divided (as he acknowledgeth, pag. 7. touching the nature of the function of these Angels) can give his text no fitness to conclude his purpose. Belike therefore the fitness that the Doctor imagineth to be in it, is because in his own conceit it is pertinent, induced thereunto perhaps by the judgement of some few 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 laid in the balance against the judgement of all those Protestant writers, which vary from him in the explication of his text.  
3. Lastly, where 1. he would set 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 general, the other, of the Precedents of the Presbyteries only. And 2. that against them both, he proveth by the text itself, and by other divine evidence; that the calling of diocesan Bishops, is in this text commended unto us, under this title of the Angels of the Churches: we are to know, that for the former, they agree well enough; for however some understand it of the Precedents; yet they mean 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.  Precedents. As for the latter, I marvel he durst so boldly avouch it of both; seeing it is true in neither; as I doubt not but the reader will confess with me. Thus much in defence of the refuters first reason for mistiking the Doctor's choice of his text. viz. because it is allegorical.  
It remaineth that I remember the reader of an other reason, urged 
Sect. 6. add page 27. Def: in fine  by the Refuter (answ. pag. 2.) against the Doctor's choice of his text to justify our Bishop's 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 needful for the backing of the interpretation of his text, to have produced some: so questionless M. Doctor had both wit & will enough to have done so; if they had been to be found. Wherefore I again conclude, the text chosen by him was and is unfit for his purpose. In deed he giveth us a direct answer hereunto in that last sentence of page 27. where he saith, Though some object that by the angels are meant either all Ministers in general, or the Precedents of the Presbyters; yet he proveth both by the text itself and other evidence, that the calling of Diocesan Bishops, is in the text commended under the title, of the angels of the Churches. But hath he done the deed, indeed? Is this his answer as true, as it is direct? Then is it to purpose in deed, and this quarrel will soon 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 we find them? Are they here laid down to his reader's view, that they may see and judge of them? Or doth he point out any one page, chapter or book, where, elsewhere any piece of proof is to be found? No verily, this is all he saith, but of this more in my answer to the 3. page: where (besides that which is already examined, concerning the unfitness of his text) some pains ●s taken to prove that in each church one only was entitled the Angel thereof, and that he had a pre-eminence above the rest, which may l● granted, and yet his Diocesan Bishopric denied: But to prove that which he saith, he proveth; there is not as yet found any one line, either 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 do prove it. In his third, (which is to come) perhaps he will attempt it; but till we see it effected; the Refuters judgement must stand sound, that the Doct. unfitly chose this text, which maketh nothing for his purpose.   

Chap: 2. Concerning the division and frame of the Doctor's sermon, and other material points contained in the defence of his preface, or first part of his sermon, unto page 54.  
The D. being set 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, than he had any colour for) so far 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 enlarging it into 4; or abridging it into two. To bring his whole 
The D. forgetteth in one place, what he doth 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 poem and a proposition; but he forgetteth (as it seemeth) that himself 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 us 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 showeth himself not very well advised; for his transition hath these words, The same doctrine, which by way of explication of my text, I have proved; I do now by w●y of application commend unto you. Now who is so blind that seethe 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 inconstant in the division of his sermon  sighted as the Doctor, to discern the two former to be included under one word explication? And who so skilful in logical analysing and dividing, as he who now reduceth unto explication the 3. first sides of his quadrangled I mean, his proem, proposition, and confirmation of his 5. points, proposed to be proved; and again, 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 forbid him to cut his own coat, into as many, or as few pieces, as he will; nor to al●e, the frame of his own building, into what forms, and as oft● he listeth: yet if he shall remain still angry, with them that observe it, and shall still revile them that like not his inconstancy; I know 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, etc.) with double dealing, sophistical shifting, disordering ●e frame of his sermon, cutting shorter, and stretching longer the parts thereof, and that by a forced analysis, against the light of his own conscience; though I have not so learned Christ, as to require him, with the like terms of reproach, (albeit he justly deserveth it) yet must he be contented to hear the truth declared, and his own shifting too and fro in changing his assertions at his pleasure, more plainly discovered.  
Of those two assertions, which his explication (as he saith) 
Sect. 2.  containeth, the first he layeth down in these words, That the Pastors or governors 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 words, that the function of Diocesan Bishops is lawful & good: And he affirmeth, that these assertions, are for the handling of the text first propounded to be discussed. But if the Doctor had perused the 2. page of his sermon, (for it seemeth he cast not his eye upon it, when he wrote his defence) he should have seen that these are not the same assertions, but changelings (whosoever rocked the cradle) 
The Doct. changeth his assertions.  put in their stead. For there having the words of his text before his eyes, The 7. stars are the Angels of the 7. Churches, & considering to what end he had choose his text, (viz. to justify the honourable function of our English Prelates); he undertaketh 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 show, that the office and function of Bishops, here meant by angels, is in this text both approved as lawful, and commended 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 tell him, that in each proposition both terms (I mean the subiectum and the predicatum) have received such a change, that the two former, cannot be truly said to be the same with the two later. For in that first, (which he saith is an explication of the text) let him shame the Devil and speak the truth, and tell us, what moved him to add, the word primitive to the subject, and the word Diocesan to the Predicate of that assertion? Shall I help to inform the reader, till his own answer may be heard? He was resolved (the event declareth it) to make the best defence 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 turn, then are now the leaves of his sermon) as by the authority of fathers & counsels, whereof he had greater store, and such as (in his own apprehension) made a fairer show for his purpose. Hence is it, that in the winding up of all that he had spoken for the proof of his first assertion, (to make the conclusion more suitable to the premises) he brought his whole discourse to this issue, (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. john's time, were such Bps. (yet that was the point, he promised to prove) but the angels or Bishops of the primitive church, were such. Understanding by the primitive Church, the ages succeeding, for 300 years after the Apostles days, (as appeareth by 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 vein, 
The D. digresseth from his text: doth not rightly explicate it  he persisteth throughout his defence, giving us for the true and natural explication of his text, the same general assertion: whereof see lib. 1. pag. 54. lib. 2. pag. 41. & lib. 3. pag. 22. Only in these places (like as before) he addeth the word Diocesan in the predicate, or later term of the sentence, to conform this first assertion, with the second of the last edition, (viz. the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawful and good) that he might with the better colour commend the later unto us, as the Doctrine which floweth from the former. For which cause also, he seemeth here to limit his first assertion, within the compass of his text, unto those Pastors or Bishops, which are here meant by angels: he seemeth (I say) here to do 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 enclosing those words, here meant by angels, within a parenthesis, he seemeth withal to intimate to his reader, that those words may well be spared; & the sentence nevertheless 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.) unto one common conclusion. Thus he windeth out and in at his 
The Doct. windeth in and out, at pleasure.  pleasure, and under terms 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 & sophistical shifting in himself, as much as he seemeth to loathe it in his Refuter; who gave him far less cause, what say I? yea, to speak truth, no cause at all, so to accuse him of any such offence? Let the reader judge.  
But let us go on, and compare together the 2. assertion (to use his own phrase) of the new edition, with the 2. point proposed, 
Sect. 3.  serm. pag. 2. In the one he roaveth at random, 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 lawful & good: In the other, retaining a special 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 itself, approved as lawful and commended as excellent. Howsoever the Doctor be strongly persuaded, that the Angels, of whom his text speaketh, were Diocesan Bishops, for the substance of their calling, like to ours; yet is he not surely, so far bereft of his senses, but he can discern a difference, not only between those ancient Bishops, in particular, and those to whom he resembleth them; or Diocesan Bishops in general: but also between the lawfulness 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 lawful and good, because they were Pastors of those 7. several Churches; and yet holdeth the calling, of all such Diocesan Bps. as ours are, to be unlawful: so be he here remembered, that we find his own ●llogi●mes (lib. 1. p. 58. & lib. 4. 3) to put this difference between 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 conclude the lawfulness of the calling of Diocesan Bishops. Moreover, there is so much differece, between the lawfulness of the calling of Diocesan Bishops, considered at large; & the approbation of their function, in this or that particular text of scripture; that the Doctor himself may (and doth) embrace 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, either of ordination, or of external jurisdiction, contrary to the judgement of Bishop Barloe, who i● his sermon thereon (at Hampton Court) pag. 3. affirmeth, that the Apostle in those words, speeketh fully for the prelacy, 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 maintain the Refuters objections; yet surceasing to contend further therein, I will overpass his 2. section, pag. 29, & 30; it having nothing material 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 pre-eminence, because we shall have fit places for them hereafter, lib. 3. cap. 3. I will therefore here pass by them, and so come to his 5. section.  
In his 5. section, two things may be commended to the reader's 
Sect. 4. add sect. 5. Def. p. 35.  observation. First, the Refut: saying (pag. 4.) that it was in deed needful to inquire what manner of Bishops those Angels were; because Bishop, Bilson, and Bishop Barloe, had fancied to themselves another sort of Bishops then either the Holy Ghost hath mentioned in the new Testament; or any sound divine offered to teach thereout. The Doct. from thence inferreth, that the controversy which remaineth to be decided is this, viz. whether sort of Bishops, such as those learned and himself defendeth; or such as his adversary, and his adherents stand for; is that kind of Bishop, which hath been of late devised. Where it is easy to be seen, how cunningly he changeth 
The D. changeth the question.  the question; he should have said, The controversy to be decided is this, whether the Holy Ghost doth understand by the Angels of the Churches, Rev. 1. 20. such Bishops, as our English prelates are; or rather such as his Refuter, and his adherents stand for? But wittily, and not unwittingly doth he shun this controversy; for, it seemeth, he knoweth that to be true which his Refuter added, to wit, that if the use of the word Bishop, manifestly warranted unto us by God in his word, and the joint interpretation of all protestant divines, would have contented him & others of his side, we neither had need, nor occasion of this examination. Wherefore though he offereth 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 pre-eminence they had in those Churches: yet he closely slideth 
The D. closely slideth from debating points propounded and then braggeth etc.  from the debating of them, and propoundeth his 5. points before noted, (divers from these) to be handled in their stead. So that his first assertion, which he promised plainly to prove, hath none other direct proof, than the bare propounding of those two questions, which he offereth 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 partiality, to see on which side is better evidence and more pregnant proofs, and to assent thereunto.  
Secondly, where the Doct. undertaking to prove out of his text, that the office and function of his Diocesan Bishops is lawful and good; & the Refuter told him, it was soon said, but not so soon done, there being nothing in his text to prove it; because, to be lights, stars, angels, (which was all the D. had said, or could show out of the words) is not proper to his Diocesans, but common to all true Pastors of particular congregations, as himself had taught in his sermon of the dignity and duty of the Ministers. pag. 20, 61. The D. replieth 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 cavil, with whatsoever he should find in his book. etc. Whereunto I will say nothing, but this, that concerning the temper of the Doctor, and truth of his speech, I will not, the D. is a party, he must not, let the reader indifferent therefore, judge.  
The sight of the Doctor's former proceed, moved the Refuter 
Sect. 5. add sect. 6. p. 36. 37.  (pag. 4.) to tell him, that if he had walked with a right foot in the path he was entered into; be should by his text, have taught us the meaning of these two points; & not (choir contrary as he geeth about) by these two points, t● teach us the meaning of his text. But the D. enraged a● these words of truth and soberness, as Festus was at the words of Paul; was ready to take up his answer, (much learning hath made thee mad) 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 forget himself, that he wrangleth without wit, and against sense. But I wish the reader consider, whether the Doctor doth not overrashly judge him sick of his own disease? For what can he say either to excuse himself, or justly to blame his Refuter? For soothe, that no man that is in his wits, will say, it is not lawful for a preacher to explain his text. True, but if the Refuter never said it, and if the Doct. cannot extract any such thing from his words; may not the reader worthily censure him, for a malicious slanderer? 2. He asketh, what 
The doct. slandereth.  it was which, in this section he had in hand; was it not, saith he, to endeavour the explanation of his text? And to show what manner of Bishops, are here meant by the angels of the Churches? And I answer 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. seethe not or would not see what he had in hand.  his former assertion. 3. He asketh again, what could be more fitly propounded for the explication of his text, than the consideration of those two things before mentioned? And a little after, who seethe not, (saith he) that the handling of these points, is the very explication of the text? I grant, that these two points were fitly proposed, to clear his first assertion, wherein he reposeth the explication of his text; & if he had handled them, so as he ought (by giving direct answers to his questions, and adjoining the confirmation of each point, by some clear evidence from the text itself, & the circumstances thereof, or some other scripture (where the like words or phrases are used): such a handling in deed of these points, had been a good proof of his assertion, & consequently a sufficient explication of his text. But since he hath not once endeavoured thus to handle his two points; (which himself acknowledgeth, aught to have been discussed for the clearing of the text) what should hinder the Refuter or his Reader still to affirm, that his text (in regard of these two doubts) standeth still unexplained, and his first assertion left unproved? 4. To conclude, the D. thus reasoneth, If the text be that which is to be explicated, who could be so senseless, as either 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 answer first, to the last accusation. If the fault which 
The Doct. slaundreth.  the Refuter findeth, be not such as the Doctor mentioneth, but rather the contrary; viz. that he goeth about to teach us the meaning of his text, without any due handling of those points, by the bare commending of them to our consideration: then, whether the Doctor be not again worthy to be censured, either for a blind and inconsiderate, or for an uncharitable and malicious slanderour, let the christian reader judge. As touching the other, who 
The D. seemeth senseless or forgettfull.  would have thought him to have been so senseless, or at least forgettfull, as he seemeth to be, either, in judging that his Refuter meant to limit him in his explication, unto the words of the text, to explain it by itself, without any other help; the contrary whereof is plain to be seen (in his answer, pag. 3. & 4.) or in deeming it absurd and impossible, for a text of scripture to be explained by itself; seeing he himself explaineth and proveth by the very words of his text, (serm. pag. 2. & 3.) his second assertion, concerning the quality of their function. But the cause is reasonable, why the D. doth the one, and leaveth the other undone. For his 2. assertion, viz. that the function of the Bishops, meant by angels in his text, is of God approved as lawful, doth clearly in all men's understanding arise from the very name of stars and angels: but it is not so easy, (nay it is impossible) to draw out of those words, or any other circumstances of the text, such a pre-eminence 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 Doctor's wisdom (if it were worthy of that name) not to deliver us any one proof (syllogistically concluded) throughout his large defence: but to stop his reader's mouth every where with such words as these, the text is rightly expounded of Diocesan Bishops, And, I doubt not by God's help to make it evident; that such Bishops are here meant by stars 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. add sect. 7. & 8. Def: pag. 37. 39.  gall and bitterness, vented in personal calumniations both false & slanderous, I hold them unworthy any reply. It is sufficient, both for the Authors, 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 full of calumniations.  of slanders not meet to be named, cannot make the guilt of them; for why should they care to answer him in this case, wherein he speaketh, he neither careth nor knoweth what? And touching that loud-crying slander, which he reneweth, 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 pass by all he hath said to weaken their defence: and seeing he doth with great scorn, refuse aforehand to admit of the answer, saying, it is no matter what they hold, unless they were more learned and i●dicious; he deserveth no other rejoinder but this, it is no matter what he speaketh, unless he had some better ground than he hath, to make good his accusation. But in so heinous 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 only parish; did 
The D. added to his opposites reason a malicious speech; & now setteth a false gloss upon it.  falsely and maliciously add, that in these men's conceits, it must needs be the Kings own case. In deed, if any of them had at any time professed, or given the least suspicion of this conceit, that the King is not a member of any one particular congregation, (such as we define a parish to be) there had been reason for his inference: But the D. knoweth that they all hold the King and his household to be an entire Church, or distinct congregation by itself. Wherefore if malice and self-love, had not too much prevailed with him; he would (upon his second thought) have revoked his slanderous inference, and not have set a false gloss upon it, to make it seem the more probable; for thus he reasoneth.  
The King having a more general reference to all the Churches within his dominions (as being the governor of them all in great Brittany and Ireland) is further from being a member of one only parish, than any Bishop in this kingdom.  
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 deny the King to be a member of the true Church.  
Whereunto I answer. 1. If he had any intent (by this argument) to justify his former slander; in stead of these words in his conclusion; they may aswell deny the King etc. he should have said, in their conceit they do and must deny etc. which he cannot with any colour conclude, unless he will add to his Antecedent the like words, (in their conceit and opinion) and say, that in their 
The D proveth one slander by another, or reasoneth absurdly.  judgement and conceit the King is further from being a member of one only parish, then of any Bishop in the kingdom. But this were to prove one slander by another; for they whom he slandereth do acknowledge, that notwithstanding his general reference to all the Churches in great Brittany and Ireland, whereof he is supreme governor by his Kingly office, yet in as much as he submitteth himself and his family, to the public ministery 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 certain parish, that is to say, (of one particular congregation of Christians, assembled together in one place, for the solemn and public service of God. 2. If the Doctor be of a contrary opinion, than he reasoneth absurdly from his own false imagination, (that the King is further than any Bishop from being a member of one only parish) to conclude that they which deny the Bishop to be a member of a true Church, may aswell (or rather must needs) be so conceited of the K. With much more probability we may return this conclusion into 
The D. concludeth against himself, and bringeth his slander upon his own head.  his own bosom, that seeing he is persuaded, the K. cannot be a member of any one parish, because he is the governor, of all the Churches within his dominions; he must for the same cause deny him to be a member of any one Diocesan or provincial, (I may add Nationall) Church within his dominions. And hence it will follow that in his conceit, the King is not a member of any one certain visible Church: for by one visible Church, the D. meaneth, the christian people of one diocese or province, or at the most of one nation. For the christian people lyving under divers laws (as the people of England and Scotland do) are divers nations, and so divers visible Churches, if we may believe his own words lib. 3. p. 51. 52. Wherefore the unpartial reader, may easily see, that this odious crime, (of denying the King to be a member of a true visible Church) falsely and spitefully ascribed to them, against whom he dealeth; doth truly and justly light upon himself. As for the question which he moveth, whither they hold the King and his household to be a true Church? That so he may be thought to be a member of a true Church? though the Q. be needless, and sufficiently answered already, yet know he again and again, that they hold the King and his family to be a true visible Church, not only a member of a true Church; and the King in regard of his regal office, a most noble member excelling all other, though the Doct. seemeth to be otherwise persuaded, not only of the King as is before showed, 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) family by themselves? I will answer when I find him better disposed to receive it, than he was, when to the end of his question, he added, It is no matter what they hold, unless they were more learned and judicious. In the mean time, let him bethink himself what to answer to these questions. 1. Whether every Bishop, or any one of them, doth alike subject himself as the King doth to the pastoral authority of any one or more, that do ordinarily distribute the word and sacraments to his whole family? 2. Wither any Bishop residing, with his family in another diocese (as the Arch Bishops alwaise do, and some others for the most part do) 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 pastoral oversight thereof, whether we may not affirm their families to be so many Precedents of parishes governed by a parish pres bytery?  
In 3. sections following, the Doctor bestirreth himself to recover 
Sect. 7. add sect. 9 Def. pag. 40.  his credit with his Diocesan Bishops, who by a reason grounded on his own words were proved (by the Refuter, page 6.) to be absolute Popelings. The reason was laid down to him in this form.  
They who have not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes ecclesiastical, are absolute Popelings. All Diocesan Bishops have not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes ecclesiastical. Therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings. The Doct. scorning that this should be called his reason, saith, That there is nothing in it his, but the proposition, which also is stretched, beyond not only his meaning, but his words. His words are these (serm. pag. 4.) lest they might seem to set up an absolute popeling in every parish, who should have not only supreme but also sole authority in causes ecclesiastical, they adjoin unto him, (that is, to their Pastor) a consistory 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 only supreme, but also sole authority in causes ecclesiastical, do seem to set up an absolute popeling. And why not (or better) that proposition, which his Refuter urgeth? In deed if he had said, They seem to set up an absolute popelinge, in giving to their parish Bishop, not only supreme, but also sole authority &c: his proposition had more naturally flowed from his words, than now it doth: but since he saith an absolute popeling, which should have both supreme & sole authority etc. he very clearly describeth in these last words, (of having such an authority as he speaketh of) what he meant by an absolute popeling, namely such a Pastor or Bishop, as hath not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes ecclesiastical. Wherefore he may aswell deny it to be daylight at high-noon, as deny that the Refuter rightly drew his proposition from his words 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 enforced for the proof 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 authority in causes ecclesiastical?  
3. Yea doth he not elsewhere in his sermon (pag. 17. & 51.) with out any seeming, affirm in plain terms, that the parish Bishop, or Pastor of every parish, must rule as a Pope unless he be assisted with a presbytery, or subjected to the diocesan Bishop's authority? Yea that it is to set up a Pope in every parish, if the Pastors do rule alone, neither subject to the Bishop, nor restrained by Assistants? In like manner, in this defence (lib. 1. cap. 8. pa. 194.) saith he not, that their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme ecclesiastical officers, would be (he saith not might seem to be, but would be) absolute popelings, if presbyteries were not adjoined unto them, because they shall have not only supreme, but also sole authority? It is therefore a mere cavil joined with an evident untruth; 
The D. joineth a cavil and an untruth together.  to say as the D. doth, that the proposition set down by the Refuter; is not his, but stretched beyond not only his meaning but also his words.  
4. But it was the D. cunning to take advantage of the word seeming (here used, but elsewhere omitted,) so to persuade, if he could, that his Resuter had no colour from his words, to coclude, that he did set up (but only that he did seem to set up) absolute poplinges, for which cause also, in meeting with the places, where the Refuter reneweth this objection (which yet is no oftener then his own words gave occasion, by his renewing 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 words answering to his own terms) 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 answer to the assumptio be not the better, the shame will light upon his own pate.  
To come therefore to the assumption. First, let it be remembered 
Sect. 8.  that the Refuter propounded it (not as his own assertion, which he meant to prove by the constitution of our Churches, or the practice of our Bishops, but) as a point which the D. undertaketh to prove in his sermon. 2. He is likewise to be so understood as oft 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 effect. That all diocesan Bishops have (or aught to have in the D. opinion) not only supreme but also s●le-authority in matters ecclesiastical within their diocese. Or thus, The D. giveth and alloweth to diocesan Bishops, such supreme and sole authority etc. Wherefore to make way for the proof of this Assumption, the Refuter first laid down the state of the question, into which the Doctor is now entered, (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, adjoining the Elders to the Pastors, and making them both subuct to the congregation (so far off are they from giving sole and supreme authority to the Pastors alone etc.) Mr Doct. taketh all from them all, and putteth the re●●● into the bands of his Diocesans alone, etc. From which words to conclude the former assumption, and (in the contriving of the argument) to keep, as near as may be, to the tenor of the syllogism, 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 several Pastors with their Elders and parishes; he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop, supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiastical.  
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 authority in causes ecclesiastical   I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth down (sect. 11. pag. 43.) and adjoin such an assumption as best fitteth with it. And I nothing doubt, but the Refuter will easily be discharged from all the untruths, the Doctor chargeth upon him, and it be made to appear that the Doct. himself is the man that climbeth that ladder of untruths, to put his 
The D. not the Ref. climbeth the ladder of untruths.  Bishops out of that seat of papacy, wherein (by his own rules) they were quietly seated. And first, I will confirm the parts of this argument; & then blow away the smoke of those untruths which rose from out of the Doctor as sparks fly upward. The proposition I thus prove, 

Whosoever giveth unto 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 parish, he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiastical.  
But that power of government which the D. taketh, from the several 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 Parish. Therefore whosoever giveth unto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese, that power of government, which the D. taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes; he giveth unto the diocesan Bishop: alone for his diocese, both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiastical.    
Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is clear enough of itself, and the assumption is drawn from the D. words both in his sermon and this defence of it, when he saith, again and again, that the authority which he denieth unto parishes, with their Pastors and Elders, (in this controversy) is an immediate and independent or supreme authority sufficient for ecclesiastical government. And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority (viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiastical) if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoined to him. Wherefore, if it can be proved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical government, which he denieth unto Pastors with their parishes and Elders; it will inevitably follow, that he alloweth unto every diocesan Bishop, supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiastical. To proceed therefore to the proof of this point (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 parish, or by Bishops set over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese) whosoever impugneth the former and maintaineth the later, he giveth unto every Bishop in his diocese, that power of government which he den●eth to the several 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 government which he denied unto the several pastors with their Elders and parishes.    
Here the Assumption is in itself evident, if the question debated, be such as is before noted; which none of his friends need to doubt of, since the D. himself excepteth not against it, but entreateth 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 set down, in respect of the parts of the disfunction. Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyllogisme standeth firm. For in this question (to use his own words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61.) he must confess, (unless he will confess himself to be ignorant in logic) that this disjunction is implied. The Churches of Christ are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parish, or by one Bishop, set over an whole diocese. And this disjunction, as it is ex hypothesi necessary, it being agreed upon on both sides, that either the one or the other form of government is to be embraced, and that one and but one of these assertions is true or false; so it doth necessarily import, both that they which affirm the former, do give unto every parish Church and her presbytery (for the government of itself) the same power, which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops: And that they which plead for the government of Bishops, do allow unto every Bishop in his diocese, the same power and authority, which they deny to the several parishes and their presbyteries. For as it were a foolish question, if both parts of the disjunction were true; so it were no less foolish, if both parts were untrue or false; as it must be, if that power of government, be not lawful for the one, which is denied unto the other.  
Now (to come to the untruths which the D. chargeth upon his 
Sect. 9 add 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 parish. 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone. To prove the first an untruth, he first granteth one part 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 chief authority, as if we held it, and so maketh us beholding to him, for leaving that out, which we never put in; for where did he ever read that we give them the chief authority in government?) in them he acknowledgeth some authority, in choosing or consinting to the choice of some Church officers. And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes, he leaveth them that Pastoral power, which ever was granted to them, since the first distinguishing of Parishes, to wit, their power of order as they are all Ministers, and a power of spiritual or inward jurisdiction, to rule their flock after a private manner, and as it were in the Court of conscience. The Elders indeed, have little cause to thank 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 said to choose, but that was too much, and therefore recalling it he saith to consent to the choice of some Church officers; but they must stand to his courtesy, hereafter to understand at his pleasure, who are those some Church-officers, to whose choice they have authority to consent; and who are those other some, to whose choice, they have no authority so much as to as●ent: whether by the former, he mean their Pastors, and perhaps the Churchwardens and Parish clerks; and by the later, the Bishops, Deans, Prebends, Archdeacon's &c. yea or no.  
In like manner he alloweth, to the Pastors of parishes, a pastoral power, both of order and jurisdiction; but their Pastoral authority, is not in foro externo, but in fore cons●ientiae, and whatsoever it be, it is delegated and committed to them by the Bishops, (serm. pag. 45.) to whom the care of the whole Church belongeth so that the authority is not theirs, they are but as servants to the Bps, & so rule under them, as they are rued by them, as at large he assayeth to prove, serm. p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea & in this defence, p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastoral power only, which ever was granted unto them, since the first distinguishing of parishes, and allotting of several Presbyters to them, as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolical; but rather of human & papal 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 untruth 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, etc. Must not that all which is said to be taken away, be limited 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 Pastor's 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 showed. 
The Doct. shifteth the sense.  Neither can the Doctor without shame, deny it; seeing that external power of government which standeth chiefly in ordaining, censuring and absolving etc. is the thing controverted in the question before expressed, which the Doctor holdeth to be the Diocesan Bishops right, and unlawfully given to the parishbishop & his Elders. Wherefore the first untruth falleth back upon the Doctors own head, when he falsely saith, that his Refuter affirmeth of him, that he taketh all manner of authority from the Pastor's Elders & people. And so also doth that second untruth, inasmuch as himself well understandeth, and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters' 
The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. untruths, but they both fall back upon his own head.  meaning (in the proposition set down page 41.) to be of giving to the Bishop, that power, which is taken from the several Pastors etc. 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 ecclesiastical government joined with him, some under him, as Deans, Archdeacon's &c. some above him, as Archbishops, and provincial Synods etc. It shallbe 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 laws and constitutions) but the ●●re, what form of Church-government ought to be, or at least, lawfully 
The D. shifteth the question.  may be, as being of divine or Apostolical institution? Or if d● facto, yet it is for the time past, for the first 200. years after Christ, as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugn (serm. pag. 4.) do declare. Wherefore, if the Doctor will discharge himself from giving all the power of government in question, to one Bishop alone in his Diocese (and so be guiltless of the untruth, he chargeth on the Refuter) he must both affirm and prove, that the Archdeacon's and Deans (rural and cathedral) together with the Chauncelors and officials, which now rule under the Bishop, and the Archbishop with his courts, which are above him; be of divine institution, or at least were in use, 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, either of any assistants to restrain his Diocesan Bishop, or any superior court to rule over him) did therefore truly 
Sect. 10. add Section 11. page. 43. Two other untruths charged on the Ref. by the D. return back into his own bosom.  affirm, that the Doctor put the reins of the government controverted, into the hands of his Diocesan alone.  
As for those two untruths, which he sought and professeth to find in the proposition, they do (even as the former two) return home into his own bosom. 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 authority in causes ecclesiastical, and such as willbe both supreme and sole in the Pastor (yea more than Popelike) if they had not a consistory of elders joined to him; it is no untruth to affirm (but an untruth to deny) that he giveth both sole and supreme authority 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 authority, both in the Archbishop: and his courts; and in the provincial Synods, etc. it is apparent, that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders; yet it would not follow, that he giveth the whole authority ecclesiastical, to the Diocesan alone; it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected, & is before answered; and here altogether impertinent; because to w●●ken the refuters proposition, he must show that he giveth not supreme and sole authority to the Bishop in his Diocese; although he give to him alone, all the power that he taketh from the several Pastors, with their Elders and parishes.  
But whereas he falleth back to the assumption again, & addeth touching his refuters' speech in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical to the Diocesan Bishops, that it is the supreme and loudest lie, and maketh the Assumption of his cheef●syllogisme evidently false; it is a supreme and loud lie in the Doctor, (if 
The D. maketh a loud lie.  I may return him his own words) 1. to reckon this for one untruth implied in the proposition, when himself acknowledgeth it to be the assumption of his chief syllogism. 2. to deny it; for what could be spoken with a supremer & louder cry, by him, then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical, and that not in this defence only, but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon, where he offereth to prove it by diverse testimonies. To what end else citeth he (pag. 30.) Ignatius ad Smyrn. and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens. showing 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 less a superior? Yea what else meaneth his conclusion, pag. 52. where he saith, thus you have heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church, were for the substance of their calling such as ours are, having a peerless power both of ordination and jurisdiction? If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop, let the reader (especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next chapter) judge. As yet therefore neither the lowest nor the loudest lies, which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter do belong to him; they must go home and rest with their own Father, for aught is yet done.  
As for all that which followeth (pag. 44. & 45.) either to 
Sect. 11. add pag. 44. & 45. & sect. 12. 46. 47. Def.  free himself from giving popelike authority 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 evil will, (which never said well) to the other; but it can neither clear him, nor condemn them, in his conscience, who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides. For neither is the Doctor's cause relieved, by that subjection which he affirmeth (and the Refuter acknowledgeth) of our Diocesan Bishops, to their Archbishops &c: Neither is their cause made the worse by the height or impudency of that ecclesiastical authority, which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish. For the question is not (as the Doctor shifteth 
The Doct. shifteth the question  it). Whether by our Church constitutions, Dioccsan Bishops do lie subject to any higher authority, or whether men may appeal from them, etc. but) whether the Doctor doth not endeavour in his sermon, to convey unto every Bishop in his Diocese, as his right by divine institution, an authority and power of government, in causes ecclesiastical no less sole and supreme, than the power which every Pastor should have in his parish (by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them) if he had no consistory of Elders to assist and restrain him? And touching the parishbishop, the question is this; whether he should be (or at least seem to be) an absolute Popeling, (as having sole and supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical) if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoined unto him? If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slandering, and syllogistically conclude either from his own 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. In the mean time, seeing he hath not as yet affirmed, (much less proved) that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolical institution, subject to the jurisdiction either of the Archbishop, or of the provincial synod; it may suffice to close up the former questio with his own words (p. 43.) What hath he gained by all his own triumphing outcries, but the manifestation of his own manifest untruths? And for the later question, since it is evident, (by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy) that they do subject their Pastor, aswell as the meanest of the people, together with the whole congregatio, to the kings authority, & to all his Majesty's civil officers & ecclesiastical laws: and seeing also it appeareth, not only by the same Tract, art. 26. but also by those 16. positions: & by the Refuters words (whereof he took notice pag. 38. & 41.) that they subject their Pastor, and every of their ecclesiastical officers, to the body of the congregation and their censure, if there be just cause: he doth wittingly add unto his former untruths, these 2. false and shameless positions. viz. That their Pastor is a petty Pope 
The D. addeth to his former untruths, 2. false and shameless positions.  in regard of that supremacy, which they ascribe unto him: and that, were it not that he had a consistory of Elders joined to him, as the Pope hath of Cardinals, he would be more than a Pope. True it is, they say, that the Pastor of a particular congregation, is the highest ordinary ecclesiastical officer, in every true constituted visible Church of Christ: But they speak only of such Churches and Church-officers, as were specially instituted in the new-Testament. And if the D. judgement be demanded, which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church, let him think with himself whether he must not be enforced to affirm as much of his diocesan Bishop, or at least of his Archbishop? For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles, and endowed with power of ecclesiastical government, were dioceses properly (as he confidently saith) and if he dare not resolutely affirm and for a certain truth (as he dareth not but thinketh only 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 ordinary officer ecclesiastical, in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet? Wherefore since it is apparent by the tenor of his sermon (specially by pag. 44. 45. & 90.); that he giveth to the Bishop a peerless power of rule, aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese; that may be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop, (which he falsely saith of the parish Bishop) that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacy, which he ascribeth unto him. If he had rather bestow this honour, upon his Metropolitan Bishop; because (to prove that no Church in the world is more agreeable, to the form and government of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches, than this of England) he saith (in that 114. pag. lib. 2.) that at the first Metropolitans were, autokephalois, heads by themselves of their provinces, and not subordinate to any other superior Bishops; as it must needs be granted him, that the title doth beseem him much better, because the supremacy of his jurisdiction is far larger: so it 
The D. falleth into another un truth.  in denying any of our Bishops, to be the supreme ecclesiastical officer in his Church. To say as he doth (pag. 45.) that our Bishops are guidded by laws, 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 far greater, he being subject not only to the King, his ecclesiastical laws, 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 Pastors 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 ecclesiastical, and therefore for m●king of laws ecclesiastical etc. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority, of a synod to impose laws on him, no more do they) I yet see not, with what windelace he can draw 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 Apostolical institution, as immediate independent and sufficient for itself; as that which they give to every parish? Else why doth he, for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set down this assertion, namely, that the visible churches (such as he speaketh of) endowed with power of ecclesiastical government, were Dioceses properly, and not parishes? The comparison therefore standeth much better between the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop, in this manner. As Papists say, their Pope hath an independent, and immediate authority, from Christ, over all the Pastors and people within his charge, (which is the Catholic Church or universal society of Christians throughout the world) & a power sufficient, for the ecclesiastical 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 ecclesiastical government of all Churches within his jurisdiction: see pag. 14. of his answer to the preface, & serm. pag. 52. As for Synods, if they be lawfully called, well ordered, and their constitutions, by royal authority ratified; the Doctor can give neither more honour, nor obedience to them, than they do; (as their protestation showeth. Art. 8, 12. 13. 14.) If they want regal authority to assemble or to ratify them; they think, that by divine or apostolical 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 papal privilege; how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop, from being like herein to the Pope, when he had neither Archbishop, not provincial Synod, to impose any laws on him? Or the Archbishop and primate of all England, who at this day, acknowledgeth no superiority of any synod to impose laws upon him? Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defence of those later disciplinarians, from whom (although in some things I confess I descent) yet I cannot consent 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 provincial Bishop; the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other, under a just and due title thereunto. And since it is, and shallbe proved, that he giveth both 
The D. getteth nothing by striving, & let him take home his plain lie.  sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches; he must (will he nill he) take home to himself, that same plainelye, which he giveth his Refuter (in the next section. pag. 47.) because he saith, that his words do there imply (and afterwards plainly affirm) a sovereignty and supremacy in Bishops over other Ministers; for in the Refuters understanding, sovereignty, is nothing but sole and supreme authority. What more there is, the Refuter is content to say, (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 untruth, which M. Doctor is pleased to call an error, where he saith, they were called angels in respect of their general calling of the Ministry; it shall rest sub judice, undecided for a while, till a fit occasion calleth for the examination of it.  
In the 5. next sections (viz. 13-17.) there are many words 
Sect. 12. add sect. 13. 14. 15. 16. Def. from page 47. to 52. D.  spent to little purpose, the Doctor's chief drift is to clear himself of some untruths, which the Refuter chargeth upon him in his affirmation, that the wise and learned disciplinarians do grant, 1. that the Bishops which in his text are called Angels, were Bishops of whole cities and the countries adjoining, that is to say, Dioceses. 2. That the Presbyters which were no Ministers were lay and annual. 3. That these angels were nothing else but Precedents of the Presbyteries. 4. That their presidentship, was only for a week or a month, and that by course, as being common to them in their turns. 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 showeth 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 under them, such as were called Chorepiscopi, countrey-Bishops (he might have added Lectores, Acoluthes &c.) & that they had also above them metropolitans, as we may see in the places whereunto he sendeth us. Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. section 2. and 4. Beza de Minist grad: cap. 24. pag. 167. etc.  
But how doth this prove (that which he was to prove), that the 
The D. freeth not himself fro the untruths charged upon him.  Bishops which in his text are called angels, were Bishops of Dioceses, or set over whole cities and the countries adjoining? Doth it not prove as strongly, that these angels had both country-Bishops, & divers other inferior degrees of clergymen under them; and Metropolitans above them? Which if the Doct. should affirm, his best friends 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 grossly, to make them the authors of those untruths, which himself broached, and will not recall. His hope was (it seemeth) to blind his reader's eyes, by a crafty changing of the question (as almost every where he doth) and concealing that which serveth to convince him, both of maintaining an untruth, and abusing their testimonies to maintain it. For it is manifest, that they both do speak neither of these Angels, nor of the Apostles times; but of that form of government, which by human ordinance took place after their days; wherein the ordinances of Christ and his Apostles, which should have been kept inviolable (according to 1. Tim. 6. 14.) began to be violated; and so on to the time of the Papacy. Let the D. read again the title of that 4. cap. with the 1. & 2. sections thereof, together with that 24. chap. of M. Beza, pag. 165. 166. etc. and though he be a party, yet I will (at this time) make him judge, how substantially he hath proved the first point.  
Nether are the Testimonies alleged for the 2. point, so direct or 
The D. testimonies prove not the point.  fit for his purpose, as he would persuade: for where he should prove that they teach, that those ancient governing Elders which (they hold) were par●s of the presbytery, in the Apostolic Churches, are lay and annual; he showeth out of Beza, (in his former book pag. 60. cap. 11.) that at Geneva, there are yearly, either new chosen, or the old confirmed. And out of Calvin. (Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 8.) and Beza again (cap. 11. pa. 64. and de presb. and excom. pag. 105.) that they are or must be chosen out of the laity. The reasons why they are there annual, do clearly show (Beza dicto libro. pag. 68) that it is a matter of conveniency, in regard of persons, place, time, and sundry other circumstances (so esteemed) and not a thing necessary. And though they account them not of the Ministry, because they are not chosen and ordained to the Ministry of the word and sacraments; yet is their office merely ecclesiastical not civil, because of the choice and ordination by the public prayers of the Church. And therefore if the word laity or laie-people, be opposed to such as are persons ecclesiastical; they cannot properly be said to remain lay, during their office. Neither doth Calvin any where say, that being chosen out of the lai●y, they still remain lay. Nay his very phrase, chosen from among the laity, showeth, that after the choice during the time of their office they are not of the laity. But the D. saith, that being chosen they do not become to be of the Clergy, therefore Mr Calvin must needs mean, they still continue to be of the laity. But when by the Clergy, Mr Calvin meaneth (as he saith, usitato nomine, all such as exercised any public Ministry in the Church; (all being so called from the Doctor to the doorkeeper) what can he else mean, but that they (by that election being called to bear public office of government with the pastors) became thereby to be of the clergy, that is (as the general definition of the word clergy showeth) ecclesiastical persons. In deed, he calleth them ●ie, because they be not of the Clergy in the stricter sense, (viz Ministers of the 
Sacra functio jurisdictionis.  word and sacraments) but yet he calleth their function, an ecclesiastical order and sacred function.  
As idly and evilly alleged is Mr Bezaes' testimoney, for as little 
Bezaes' testimony is both idly and evilly alleged by the D.  doth it speak to the purpose; he may do● well to look upon his book again, & see whether it be Beza that calleth them annual 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 believe, because, where they are said in that title to be such as are ad docendum in●pti, Beza disclaimeth 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 little better than calumniate in so terming them. And that however new may be chosen at the years end, yet that tem●re nec ipsi s●se deponunt, nec deponuntur; yea rather summo studio retinentur qui fidem svam, 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 divers causes (set down by him) not for that either they did not, or by the nature of their office might not, continue longer. And the Doctor might aswell say, that these two worthies do● make the office of the Pastor (which is perpetual) amnual: for the case may so fall out, that it may & doth last but a year with some, such is their demeanour therein. And to conclude, the very laws of Geneva, which contain the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying, (pag. 9) That in the end of the year the Elders shallbe 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, shallbe judge. However it be, it resteth still an untruth upon the Doctors own 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 annual or lay-Presbyters.  
as much may be said concerning the third point, viz. that they 
The Doct. standeth out in an untruth.  make those angels nothing else but Precedents of the Presbyteries, than which the Doctor saith, nothing is more plain; & I say, nothing is less plain or true, then that it is plain they say so. For 1. neither Calvin, nor Beza, nor T. C. nor the Author of the ecclesiastical 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 speak, neither 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 clear he maketh them such (Proesto●es) precedents of the assemblies, to moderate the meetings 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 equal in authority after the end of that assembly, over which they were for order sake chosen & set: yea he directly disclaimeth, both in that Annotation, and in his answer to Saravia, those precedents or Bishops, which were nothing else but presidents of such Assemblies having no particular Churches, upon which they did reside, and over which they watched not, together with the rest of the Ministers, of equal authority with them.  
2. It is also evident by the writings both of Calvin and Beza (for as for the other noted in his Margin, I know not to what end he should send the reader to them, unless for his discredit in quoting them idly) 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 only they speak) which moderated the assemblies of the rest of the Pastors and presbyters in any Town or City, were themselves by their office, Pastors (et suae pareciae preerant) and governed their own parish, yea they laboured no less (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 lift; and to colour the falsehood (which he could 
The D. to colour his untruth fosteth in a sentence which yet doth him no good.  not but see,) of that his assertion; he now, in this defence, fosteth in these words in respect of their superiority, and telleth us, that they make the Angels of the Churches (in respect of their superiority) only precedents 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, only precedents of the presbyters; Ergo, they make those Angels nothing else but presidents or moderaters of the assemblies. As if a man mought (by rules of logic) conclude Mr. Downam to be nothing else but a Doctor in divinity, because by degrees in schools he is a D. in divinity, though he be also Pastor of great Which is his best style, if he were so well advised, as to take his degree of honour, from the word of God etc.  
As for the fourth, since the Ref. acknowledgeth (answer pag. 7.) 
Sect. 13. add sect. 17. p. 52. 53.  that those wise and learned divines, do judge that their presidency in classical or synodal 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 precedent might not by the nature of his office, continue longer then for a we●ke or a month; 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 presidents of the presbyters were at first by course, & of short continuance; yet he affirmeth that that order was not essential or immutable, but accidental and variable, and that it was afterwards thought fit to settle it constantly upon one. But whereas the D. (lib. 2. pa. 141.) telleth us, that as there cannot be one instance given, but that alwaise the precedent of the presbytery in the primitive Church, was perpetual: so it was in Calvins' time, and Beza misliketh it not, but sometimes wisheth it were restored; what else doth he but justify his Refuter in that 
The D. justifieth his Refuter in that where in he would condemn him; & must take home his 4. untruths.  wherein he would condemn him? Wherefore let the D. be entreated to take these 4. untruths to himself again their own home; where (for aught I know) they were bred and borne, and there let them rest, till he can bring (which will be ad graecas calendas) a better discharge from their writings, to justify those particulars.  
Now touching those calumniations, of unmannerly ignorance, cunning rudeness, wrangling etc. which he objected against his Refuter, I overpass them as unworthy any answer; it was the best he could do, to outface and salve his credit; but ill will it do it, with them that are wise & judicious. But whereas he twice affirmeth (pag. 47 53.) that the Refuter craftily concealeth, or cunningly seeketh to conceal, the division which is among ourselves; it is a slander, not of ignorance, 
The D. wittingly slandereth.  but against his own knowledge; for he could not but see that he said (pag. 5. of his answer) that all men are not resolved of the truth of every of them: yet the division is not so great as he would persuade the world, neither are the points so new or so generally contradicted of those reverend and learned divines (Calvin Beza &c.) as he confidently (but falsely) avoucheth. Wherefore take he also to him these two untruths, and add he a third likewise to the former, where he saith (in his margin. pa. 47.) that the Refuter mistaketh his reason; unless, he had rather acknowledge, that his reason is impertinent and frivolous. For the question being. What manner of pre-eminence, 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 etc. that their presbyteries consisted partly of annual or lay. Elders, and that the Angels were nothing else, but precedents of those presbyteries) cannot in reason rightly be reduced to the question; unless it be understood of those Bishops and Churches which are mentioned in the text, which is to be explicated. And if he be (as it must be) so understood, he falsely chargeth his Refuter with an ignorant mistaking of his reason; and let him learn the lesson he elsewhere taught his Refuter say, ou manthano, I understand not my own reason; or else against his understanding, he did both trifle in the one, and slander in the other.   

Chap: 3. Concerning the residue of the Doctor's 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 contained in the explication, have been 
Sect. 1. add sect. 18. pag. 54.  propounded, to be discussed; and that now there is way made for the proof of either, by enumerating distinctly the several points, which he proposed to handle etc. And I wish the reader to remember 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 marshaled, pag. 6: and 7. Now can any man that heareth him thus speak, judge otherwise then that himself holdeth the points distinctly enumerated, to be the self same, and neither more nor fewer than those, which are before deduced out of the text? Yet he that well examineth the matter, shall find that neither is the number of the points the same, neither are the points (eadem numero) the same in number. We have already heard what are the two principal assertions, which he proposeth; (serm. pag. 2.) For the deciding of the former, he layeth down two questions, which are enlarged into three. viz. 1. whether the Churches whereof they were angels, were parishes or Dioceses. 2. And consequently whether those angels were parishional or Diocesan Bishops? 3. What was the pre-eminence in regard whereof they were called angels, whether only a priority in order above other Ministers, & that for a time and by course; or a superi●itie in degree, and majority of rule for term of life? In the direct answering of these three questions, together with the later assertion (which must be take as is before expressed) the sum of his preface lieth, as himself confesseth. (deafen. pag. 29.) Wherefore the points deduced out of the text, cannot exceed the number of four; so that in the Doctors enumerating of 5. conclusions to be more at large prosecuted; the number of these later exceedeth the number of the former by one, as every child knoweth that can tell his 5. fingers. And the reader may easily discern, that this One (which is now marshaled into the field, and was not before appointed to serve in the battle) is the first of the 5. which saith, there were not l●y governing Elders in the primitive Church; for this cannot carry the face of an answer to any of the three questions before mentioned. Now to compare the rest and to try whether they be one and the same. 1. His direct answer 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 showed to be an intruder) affirmeth, that in the first 200. years the visible churches endowed with power of ecclesiastical government, 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 precedents of the presbyteries, were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops.) must be referred to the Bishops, that lived in the first 200 years after Christ; whereas the answer of the second question hath peculiar reference to the Angels of the 7. churches, that they were not parishonall but diocesan Bishops. 3. In like manner, the answer to the 3. question, determineth the pre-eminence of those Bishops which are called the Angels of the Churches, to be (not a priority in order, for a time and by course, but) a superiority in degree above other Ministers, and a majority of rule during life. But the fourth point among 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 ministery, was s●t above the other presbyters not only in priority of order, but also in majority of rule for term of life. 4. And the last of the five, having an eye unto the function of Bishops described in the forenamed positions (whose Churches are Dioceses, and their Presbyteries assigned for the whole Dioceses, whose pre-eminence also is a superiority in degree, and majority of rule) promiseth to show and by evidence of truth to demonstrate, that the calling of such Bishops is of divine and apostolical institution. But the last assertion proposed (pag. 2.) promiseth this only and no more, out of the words of the text to show, that the office and function of Bishops, there meant by Angels, is in this text approved as l●wf●ll, and commended as excellent. Wherefore since there is so apparent a difference between the one and the other, me thinks the D. should sooner be drawn to confess, that the points first deduced out of the text to be handled, do differ both in number and nature from these, which are secondly enumerated; then to undertake the maintaining of the contrary; and the reducing of the first of his 5. conclusions, to one of those 3. questions, which he propounded for the trial of his first assertion.  
As for that fair flourish which he maketh, for the bringing of the first four to the proof of the first assertion; and the last of the five, to the fortifyinge of the second; how vainly he striveth therein, the very change of both the assertions before named and here continued, doth sufficiently declare: yet his defect herein, shall more fully be laid open hereafter, upon just occasion offered.  
In the mean time, I will first examine the scope of his reasoning, 
Sect. 2. add sect. 18. & 19 p. 54. 57  whether it were so far disordered by his Refuter as he would persuade 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 angry with his Refuter for reducing both the assertions, which he proposed to be distinctly handled, into one syllogism. For though he granteth that some such syllogism, as his Refuter framed, ●aie be gathered out of divers places of his sermon; yet he denieth that it answereth to his intent. The syllogism is this. 

The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawful 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 lawful and good.    
Both the premises are clearly 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 meant by Angels, is in this text approved as lawful 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 understood by the angels) were Bishops for the substance of their calling, such as the reverend fathers of our Church are. But let us hear the Doctor's censure of the refuters syllogism. Against the assumption, he excepteth nothing, wherefore I must take it for granted, that it is, as his refuter affirmeth, all one with his first assertion. In like manner, he granteth 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 lawful and good:) which he setteth also for the conclusion of both the syllogisms 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 lawful and good. Let us view his syllogism and compare it with the Refuter) and this it is. 

The calling of such as are here meant by Angels is lawful and good.  
Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by Angels.  
Therefore the calling of diocesan Bishops is lawful and good.    
What difference in the proposition, between function and calling, Bishops of the 7. Churches, and such as are here meant by Angels? What difference in the assumption, between 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 meaning of each part, though the words and phrases do a little vary) one and the same with the first of the D. own framing? Forsooth (the Doct. will tell you) because he would against sense make the Reader believe, that the proposition of his syllogism is that last assertion, which was propounded pag. 2. concerning the quality of their function. But goeth not the Doctor rather against all sense (yea against his own conscience) in labouring to make the reader believe, that the conclusion of the Refuters syllogisine, is that assertion (or doctrine as he calleth it) which pag. 2. showeth 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 show that the office and function of Bishops there meant by angels, is in the same text, approved as lawful 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 quarrel with his Refuter without cause, carrieth 
The D. con. mitteth 3. foul faults to colour a falsehood.  him at unawares into these fowl faults, not only of contradicting common sense, & his own knowledge; but also of giving the lie to the holy ghost the author of the text. And all this is done to colour that falsehood, which before he had forged, sciz. that his 2. assertion propounded (pag. 2.) was this, viz. the calling of Diccesan Bishops is lawful and good. A falsehood sufficiently before discovered, and by himself (inconsiderately no doubt, yet) plainly acknowledged, when he saith of the conclusion of the first Syllogism, (p. 58.) which is verbatim the same, that before he called his doctrine; that he did not express it, being implied in the collection of the doctrine out of his text. So this one sentence (the calling of the diocesan Bishops is lawful 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 implied only in the collection of the doctrine. How slippery is his memory, that 
The Doct. in one pag grossly contradicteth himself.  in less than one page contradicteth himself so grossly? But pardon we him this slip; for it is his common (though a false) Tenent, that the later of his two assertions (propounded pag. 2. of his sermon) 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 commend the method of his sermon. But the reader by that saying may see, how ready he is (notwithstanding his disclaiming of it with indignation, lib. 1. cap. 1.) to apprehend a slight occasion, to blaze his own commendations; and how needful it was he should discard that second assertion, which was first laid down, (serm. pag. 2.) and in stead thereof, tender us 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 lawful and commended as excellent.    
Now to make good the consequence of this collection, 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 lawful and commended as excellent. Doth not this kind of reasoning (think you) very highly commend the Doctor's method, in disposing his two assertions, to his best advantage? For however he beg the main question, in the proposition, or 
The D. beggeth the main question.  consequence of his Enthimeme for granted; 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 upside down; or given the least intimation, that he endeavoured to prove a Diocesan Bishopric to be lawful in the angels of these 7. Churches; because it is lawful in the Lord Bishops of England; there had been some cause for him (whereas now there is no colour of a cause) to complain 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 wrong done, to return him some other of his own words p. 56. nimia est miseria, doctum esse hominum nimis, behold to how great trouble, too much learning will put a man. For if his skill had not been extraordinary, (I say not in analysing his own treatise but) in changing his two first assertions, and bringing in other two in their stead, all this stir had been needless.  
But the stir (or strife) is not yet at an end, the Doctor's greatest 
Sect. 3. add sect. 19 p. 56.  quarrel against his refuter is yet behind, 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 little purpose, and that the other three do not directly prove the point in question. I will not here trouble the reader with the Doctor's terms, wherein he showeth in what rage he was hereat; let us rather examine how just or unjust this the Refuters censure is; the which that it may appear, let it be remembered 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 discern, that it is labour bestowed in vain, to spend time in the proving of that, which is clear enough of itself. 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 use, then for the proof 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 endure so mild a reproof; his patience must now be tried with a sharper. Be it therefore known to him, that he reasoneth absurdly, if he 
The D. reasoneth absurdly.  refer 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 ancient 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 between the later term or praedicatum of the antecedent, and of the consequent in this argument, I will take no exception against it; for though every apostolical or divine institution findeth not approbation in this text Apocal. 1. 20; yet the honour of such an institution cannot be denied unto any function, which in this text receiveth approbation. Wherefore, he shall with good leave (if he will) exchange the later term of his conclusion thus, Ergo the function of Bishops meant by Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is of apostolical and divine institution. But how will the D. cover the shame, of his disorderly reasoning; when in stead of justifying our Bishops, by the calling of those Angels; he doth contrariwise, infer their calling to be of divine institution, because our bishops have deryved their function, from divine or apostolical ordination? Is not this to set the Cart before the Horse, & to lay that for the foundation, which 
The D. layeth that for the groundsel, that should serve for the ridgepole.  should serve for the roof or highest part of his building? It will not serve his turn to tell us, that we mistake his. 2. Assertion; for it is already showed, that himself putteth a changeling in place thereof, when he delivereth under that name this conclusion; that calling of diocesan Bishops is lawful and good. Notwithstanding since he will needs have this, (which the falsely calleth his 2. Assertion) to be the doctrine whlch he intended to prove (not only by the explication of his text, comprised in his first assertion, but also) by that 5. point, wherein he bestowed his greatest labour: if he have sufficiently fortified the former 4. points, which serve to uphold that explication which concludeth his doctrine; what offence was it for his Refuter then, or now again for his reader, to say, that his labour in the last point was needless, and might well have been spared? May he not well think, that one argument sound concluded from the canonical text, will more prevail with the wise, than many conjectural reasons, drawn from mere human 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. contradicteth himself.  that 5. point as a distinct proof to conclude the doctrine? I speak herein nothing but the truth, and that I received from his own 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 proof of the doctrine arising out of the text, is expressly affirmed (serm. pag 93.) to be the doctrine itself, which ariseth out of the text, and by way of explication of the text, is proved. And who so well observeth, what lawfulness and goodness or excellency, he ascribeth, either 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 than such as hath institution from God, and approbation from the text itself under the names of stars & angels; wherefore if he himself had been as careful to observe the transitions, which he useth in his sermon; as he is ready without cause, to blame his refuter for not observing them; he might have discerned his doctrine handled in his sermon; to be the very last of his 5. points, and not so divers from it, as now he would persuade.  
As for the first 4. points, how pertinent or impertinent they are, shallbe best perceived if we examine, how he himself reduceth them 
Sect. 4. add pag. 57 58.  to his purpose. But let the reader be first advertised of the D. inconstancy in laying down his own project, whereat he aimed in in his sermon. For 1. when he promiseth (serm. page. 2.) in the handling of the words of his text, to prove, both what manner of persons are there meant by the Angels, & what is the quality of their function; 
The D. is very inconstant in laying down of his project.  who can with reason judge otherwise, then that these 2. assertions there set down to answer those two questions, do appertain to the explication of his text? Yet now in his defence he every where restraineth the explication of his text, unto the former assertion. 2. And having first altered the later (as he doth the former also as is before showed) he constantly commendeth it to us, as the doctrine of his sermon; whereas his own words (pag. 93. of the s●rm. itself) do deliver his doctrine in terms so far differing, that he now maketh his old doctrine an argument to confirm the new. 3. Again, though he will at no hand consent to his Refuter platform, in casting both his assertions into one syllogism, as the premises, from which the lawfulness of the function, of our English prelate's must be concluded: yet it appeareth (by his words pag. 2. & 93. compared) that at first he intended both his assertions should concur 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 himself is enforced (though he pretend the contrary) to use them both for the premises, which in his first syllogism (Defenc. pag. 58.) do conclude his new doctrine. 
The D. sermon & the defence 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 less than 20. lines distance. For when he will have those 2. distinct parts (which he saith were before propounded by him) to be drawn, 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 former assertion is the assumption of his first syllogism: so the later also should be the assumption of the second? But it is far otherwise; for the later of his two distinct parts or assertions mentioned in his defence, is the conclusion of both his syllogisms; and the assumption of his second syllogism, is the last of his 5. points, which by his first and truest reckoning, was the maine-doctrine of his sermon; and therefore aught to have been the final conclusion, unto 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 defence he will be well content to give the later of his two syllogisms a fair bill of discharge, rather than to maintain it any longer in that service, whereunto he hath now assigned it.  
As for his former syllogism, though I altogether mislike it not, if the assumption and conclusion be understood of all kind of diocesan Bishops; (for else, though it containeth the greater part of his sermon, yet doth it not so much as conclude the question, because the calling of some kind of diocesan Bishops may be lawful and good, though not the calling of such a kind as ours are whose defence the D. intendeth) and if these words lawful and good be so taken as he understandeth them (serm. pag. 2. 54. 55.) viz. for that which hath institution and approbation from God, or is in his word approved as lawful and good: yet to avoid further quarrels about words, I wish that his conclusion carry the very words of his doctrine, or such as are apparently equivalent unto them. In which respect, (if I might be so bold as to lend the D. advise in this matter) I suppose his syllogism might very well stand in this form.  
The function of Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is of apostolical, or of divine institution, or is approved in the holy Scripture as lawful and good.  
But the function of Bishops (such as ours are for the substance of their calling) is the very function of those Bishops which are meant by Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. Therefore the function of Bishops (such as ours are for the substance of their calling,) is of apostolical or divine institution: or is approved in the holy Scriptures as lawful and good.  
Of this syllogism, as the conclusion suiteth well with the last of his 5. points, which he calleth (serm. pag. 7. 55. 93.) his doctrine: so the premises do agree with those two assertions, which contain 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 meant by Angels is lawful and good.  
Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by Angels.  
Therefore the calling of diocesan Bishops is lawful and good.    
Concerning this syllogism, hear we what he saith, The proposition (says he) I took for granted, and therefore did not express it; The assumption is the same with the former assertion, and is proved by the 4. first p●i●tes. The conclusion I expressed not being implied in the collection of the doctrine out of the text. What shall I say unto him? Loath I am, and yet I must say, behold here as many untruths, as there are parts of the syllogism. 1. The proposition (which he saith he did not express) is in effect all one with the later of his 2. assertions (serm. 
The D. telleth 3. untruths in one syllogism.  pag. 2.) for there is no other difference betwixt them, than this, that here their calling is more at large affirmed to be lawful & good; whereas there, he speaketh within a narrower compass, that their function is in this text (then handled) approved as lawful 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 meant by Angels, is lawful and good. 2. As for his assumption (which he saith is the same with the first assertion) it herein differreth from it; that it setteth di cesan Bishops in stead of these words, such Bishops as ours are for the substance of their calling. 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 undertaketh to try (pag. 3.) whether those Angels were parishional or diocesan Bishops; he shall find that his first assertion, doth crave the help of his assumption, to stand in the place of one of the pillars that must support it.  
And touching his conclusion, since he told us, (even in the former page) that it is the very conclusion which he proposed to be proved, (serm. pag. 55.) why saith he now, he did not express it? And if it be the main doctrine of his sermon (as every where throughout his defence he affirmeth) why saith he it is only implied in the collection of his doctrine out of the text? But no more of these whies, let us come to the main question, (from which the reader hath been held too long) I mean the trial of the truth of the assumption, and how true it is, that it is (as he saith) proved by the 4. first points of his five.  
Well were it with the D. and the cause he pleadeth for, if he could 
Sect. 5.  as easily prove his assumption, as he can say, it is proved. But, as in truth he hath no ground from his text, chosen of purpose to raise it upon: 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 certainly seethe that it is every way as doubtful (for aught appeareth to the contrary by his text) whether the Angels therein spoken of, were diocesan Bishops; as whether the calling of diocesan Bishops be lawful and good. And it seemeth that himself discerned some defect in his proof; seeing he forbeareth to deliver it in syllogistical form of reasoning, (wherein otherwise he is not sparing) for he hath no other syllogism that bendeth this way, than such as arise from each of his 4. points 
Nether one alone nor all the D. 4. points together do directly conclude his assertion. Yea the D. referreth them to another question.  considered severally and a part; and yet not any one of them, (nor all of them, in one together) directly concludeth that assertion, which he saith is proved by them: viz. that diocesan Bishops are here meant by Angels. They all sail another way, & trade for the bringing 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 primitive 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 show us how he can directly and sound conclude the former from the later) I still must and will affirm, that the assumption of his first syllogism remaineth as yet, unproved, specially since he himself referreth his 4. points (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 meant by the Churches? But the assertion which his 4. points do conclude, is (as his own words teach in the next chapter pag. 60.) the answer of another question, to wit, whether the premitive Churches were governed by such diocesan Bishops as ours are, or by such presbyteries as we speak of? This later is a question de facto, examining what form of government was embraced 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. points were granted, yet the D. is still prooflesse etc. ● Bishop Barlow serm. at Hamp. Court, upon 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 Father's † (to whose judgement in the interpretation of a text, he oweth more reverence, than himself can challenge from his Refuter how basely soever he esteem of him) doth behold every part of the outward function of D: Bishops fully described in Act. 20. 28. as 1. The preheminent superiority above other Ministers in the word Episcopos. 2. Both their Cathedral seat or positive residency in one City, and a regency settled in their persons during life; in the word posuit. And their diocesan jurisdiction, in the words, in quo viniverso. And if the D. make any question of any one of these points, he may find the first much more sufficiently confirmed, than is his interpretation of the word Angels in his text; for besides the proofs produced (in the sermon itself) to show that the Bishops of the primitive Church were set in a pre-eminent superiority above other Ministers; he backeth his understanding of the word Episcopos with some colour of reason from other Scripture, that as there are scopountes Seers Phil. 3. 17. (which expresseth the duty 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: which last place of Peter, the D. himself understandeth of Bishops (lib. 3. pag. 43.), whereas to prove that diocesan Bishops, are meant by Angels he allegeth no show of any authority divine or human, that may persuade the name to be given unto Bishops, to express their pre-eminence above other ministers. And as for the rest of the prerogatives of Bishops, which Bishop Barlow did but point at, & not prosecute; who seethe not how easy a matter it is to justify them by a like consequence of reasoning to that which the D. useth? For if we must believe that a diocesan extent of jurisdiction & a prehminent superiority both in degree of ministry and power of ordaining etc. is implied in this title the Angels of the Churches; because the Bishops of the primitive Churches did govern whole dioceses and had therein such superiority above all other Ministers: why should not the D. also believe, that a diocesan jurisdiction and Cathedral seat, together with a positive residency in one City, and a settled regency during life, is rightly gathered from these words, in quo uni verse posuit; seeing he knoweth that the Bishops of the primitive Churches, had every of them, the like jurisdiction, seat, residenoie, and regency peculiar to their functions? Notwithstanding the D. will at no hand consent that the presbyters, (of whom Paul speaketh Acts 20. 28.) should be diocesan Bishops, such as ours are; for he taketh them for inferior Ministers, such as he will have to be called priests. Now if he reply that the Churches practise in succeeding ages, allowing unto Bishops those privileges before mentioned, helpeth nothing to prove, that those words of the text, do convey the same parts or notes of episcopal pre-eminence, unto the Presbyters or Bishops there spoken of; why may not the Refuter return him the same answer, viz. That all his proofs produced to confirm his opinion touching the diocesan jurisdiction and preheminent superiority of the Bishops, which governed the ancient Churches, do neither directly nor necessarily conclude that such diocesan Bishops, are to be understood by the Angels of the Churches Apoc. 1. 20? For is not the holy Scripture sufficient to interpret itself? Or are the rules which divines do generally embrace for the interpretation of any text, as by weighing all circumstances of the text itself; & comparing other Scriptures with it, where the like words or phrases are used; are these rules I say too weak or too short, to make good that large and powerful pre-eminence, which he assigneth to these Angels? If so; may we not justly suspect his explication to be forced and unfitting? If otherwise; why doth he not endeavour to show, that his construction of the text he handleth, is consonant to the circumstances, and to other scriptures? There be many words in the scripture, which may be drawn (as the Canon-lawe saith 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 foreign and strange sense; that so we may, as we can, confirm it, with the authority of the text; but the meaning of the truth must be received, from 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 one's mind was his author, what to allow or dissalow in every text: & so he was not for his faith subject to the scripture; but made the script: subject to himself; & that which he held, did not therefore please him, because he found it written in so high authority but therefore he thought it written, because it pleased him. But the reader (saith Hillary de Trinit: lib. 1.) is he who rather expecteth the understanding of things, from the things themselves; then from himself imposing it upon them; who taketh the exposition from thence, rather than bringeth it thither; and enforceth 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 endeavoured to justify it, from the text itself 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 showed (undeniably as he supposeth) the like Diocesan jurisdiction and superiority to have been, 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. add pag. 58. 59  only 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 general view of them together; before we come to handle them in particular, even for this purpose, to see their impertinency 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 than were not parishional but Diocesan Bishops 4. And ●f the Bishops then, were superior to other Ministers in degree etc. Then Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels.  
But all these 4. points in the Antecedent are true. Ergo the consequent is true also.  
First, I pray the Doctor to tell us, whether the first and last of these 4. points do add any force or weight at all to the consequent; for if there were in the primitive Church no Presbyters but Ministers; and the Bishops than were superior to other Ministers in degree; yet will it never a whit the more thence follow, that these angels were Diocesan Bishops; might they not be parish Bps. only, and have other Ministers or Presbyters under them, inferior in degree unto them, which might make a Presbytery in a Parish? Do they which make the Pastor a degree above the Doctor, thereby make the Pastor a Diocesan Bishop? Secondly, as for the third point is it not a consequent of the second? Doth not the D. himself confess it? (pag. 3. of his serm.) might it not therefore well have been spared? Thirdly, if the second or third of his four be granted him, doth not the grant thereof, put the fourth out of question? It appeareth therefore that the Refuter may still affirm, and 
Two of the D. 5. points are idle, and the first 4. conclude another question, & whatever they conclude, two of them at least, might be spared.  that with advantage, that the first and last of the D. five points are superfluous, and idly produced.  
But which is more, seeing (as hath been showed) all the four do conclude another question, and not that assumption of his own syllogism, which he saith is proved by them; doth he not offer his Refuter the greater wrong, 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 parts of his sermon out of the frame? For as for the reasons which he urgeth to justify his accusation, they are too light and vain to prevail with any stayed mind. 1. He asketh the Refuter how he could persuade himself, that his anal●ysis was answerable to his genesis, when he saw too parts of the 5. could not be brought to his frame, & the other three, not suitable to it. 2. he saith, that his ow●e distribution of his sermon, and the transitions which he useth do wholly disagree with his analysis 3. he addeth, that the analysis here propounded by himself, and his defence of the several parts, do manifestly prove, that neither the first was impertinent, nor the ●●st superfluous, nor the other 3. concluding besides the purpose. To begin with the last first, I say that it is already showed, how his own analysis here propounded, doth in many points disagree from the project of his sermon; in as much as, he hath changed, both the assertions, which he first set down to be proved, and the doctrine which he laboured to confirm, whence it followeth also, that his s●cond Syllogism (framed to show that his 5. point was not superfluous) is itself superfluous and idle. In like manner hath been manifested, and that from his own words, that his 4. points do 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 been spared; so that his last too which I 
The Doct. heapeth up untruth to colour his slander.  first answer, is but an heap of untruths compiled to colour his slander. And the untruth of his second, is no less evident; for as the distribution of his sermon, & the transitions used therein, do wholly dissagree, from his whole analysis here propounded; (as is before observed) so they do justify his refuter against himself, not only in the premises of his first syllogism; (which agree with his two assertions, (serm. pag 9) but also insecluding the first and the last of his 5. points, from all interest in the proving of the assumption of his first syllogism. For as the Refuter rightly observed (answer. pag. 8.) from the D. own words (serm. pag. 61.) that the proof of his first assertion, is to be searched for, not in the last of the five, but in the 4. former: so it is plain by the transitions, which he useth (serm. pag. 17. 22. 52.) that the direct proof of the like function unto our Bishops, either in those Angels or any other Angels or pastors of the primitive Churches, hangeth upon the three middle points, and not upon the first, which concerneth only the persons of whom the ancient presbyteries consisted. And though now he make a fair show, of reducing the first of his 5. points, to prove his first assertion anaskevasticos, by disproving the presbyteries which we desire; yet even this very defence he maketh for himself, clearly justifieth his Refuter that said, he could not see how it did directly prove that assertion the proof whereof he searched after. For if in his first point, concerning 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 thereof might be a proof for our Bishops: with what face, can he affirm, that this first point, is a direct proof of the assumption of his first syllogism, which saith, that diocesan Bishops were in his text meant by Angels? 3. Wherefore, for an answer to his question, (which he tendered for his first reason) it may suffice to demand the like of him, that is, how he could persuade himself, that his analysis here delivered, was answerable to the genesis or first composition of his sermon; when he saw (or at least wise mought have seen) that 4. parts of his five, do 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 own Genesis, that he is persuaded, that if his Refuter could have discerned it, he would have acknowledged every point to be v●ry pertinent and direct, & the whole so perfect, that nothing is superfluous or wanting. A strange fancy, when his own Analysis, maketh one of his four points, to be a superfluous excr●scens, and more than needs; which before seemed to be of necessary use. For, in reducing his 4. points to this 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 consequent of the second, can yield him no better argum●, than this: Those ancient Pastors or Bishops were Diocesan Bishops. Therefore, they were Diocesan Bishops. Wherefore when he hath advisedly, (upon his second thoughts) compared his own Analysis with his Genesis, I nothing doubt, but (wink he never so hard) he will 
The D. him felt makes a forced analysis against conscience.  see, though I fear, he willbe loath to confess: that it is his own self, that deserveth, much more than his Refuter to bear this imputation, of a forced analysis, devised against the light of his own 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 own words do show, that when he first set down those five points, (in the proof 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 clear his first assertion. I will prove (saith be pag. 6.) 1. Against both sorts, 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. years, the visible Churches were dioceses &c. 3. And consequently that the Angels of the Churches were not p●●ishonall, but diocesan Bishops. 4. And against the later, That the Bishops being advanced to an higher degree of ministery, were set above other presbyters, not only in priority of order, but also in majority of rule. To the same purpose, he speaketh here in his defence (pag. 54.) affirming as before, that he indeavoureth the proof ●f those points against the new and ●lder disc pl●arians. And though he pretend to draw all these particulars ●o one conclusion, which he saith, is the explication ●f his text: yet this appea e●h to be a myere 
The Doct. pretendeth without truth, and shaketh hands with his text.  pretence void of truth; seeing the explication of his text, lieth (not in this conclusion here set down, scz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops etc. but) in this assertion propounded (serm. pag. 2.) scz. that by the Angels mentioned in his text we are to understand such Bishops, for the substance of their call●ge, as our reverend Fathers are It is apparent therefore, that in the handling of these 4. points, he shaketh hands with his text, and layeth 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 schools to dispute, or rather declaim pro forma) he wholly mindeth the justifying of our hierarchy; and the confuting of their opinions, which favour the presbytery. Neither can any man otherwise judge, that observeth his words before set down, and compareth together, both his three first points with those. 3. opinions which he texeth pag. 4. and the fourth, with that which he reprehendeth pa. 6. In which respect also, it shallbe no great error to think, that his 5. point is, (in his principal intendment) rather opposed against their opinion, which hold that episcopal superiority: which he pleadeth, to be unlawful, and (as he saith pag. 5.) Antichristian; then proposed for the proof of his 2. assertion, as he now pretendeth pag. 54. & 58. Add hereunto his own words in the next chapter, (pag. 60. & 61.) where he affirmeth, the question discussed in his sermon, 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 speak of. The second, the i●●re, whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as they hold; or must be governed by Presbyteries, as we affirm. 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 grant, that every of his 5. points may be pertinent to his purpose: yet still I affirm, 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 been spared; and the other three (not to repeat again, how one of them at the least, is needless) do neither 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 proofs of his 2. assertions, proposed pag. 2: he would rather have divided that part of his preface, which himself (sect. 1. of this chapter) calleth the proposition, into these two members. 1. a proposition of certain questions to be debated for the explication of his text, (pag. 2. 3. & 5.) which he promiseth to clear, but doth not. 2. a digression 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. points which he opposeth to their opinions (pag. 6. & 7.) and pomiseth in his sermon to prove against them. This had been both true & plain dealing, but he was not willing, the world should see, that his text affoardeth him so little help as it doth, to conclude the doctrine, which he pretendeth to arise from the explication thereof. And therefore, how oft so ever his refuter calleth upon him to make good his promise, by proving, that we are by the angels in his text, to understand such Bishops for the substance of their calling, as ours are: yet by no means will he once hear 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 pass his odious terms) withdraweth him from the principal question. Wherefore to cut off all such quarrels, and to dam up some other lurking holes, whereinto he flieth, as occasion serveth; before we proceed to the examination of any of the large discourses, made by him, in defece of his 5. conclusions: It shallbe good to take a better view of the state of the question debated in his s●rmon; that the reader may thoroughly 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 chapped. sect. 1. which is altogether changed 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 speak of. The second the ●ure, whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Diocesan Bps, as we hold, or must needs be governed by their presbyteries as they affirm? The first is handled in the former part of the sermon; (to which he referreth the first 4. points) the second ●n the later, whereto the 5. or last apert yneth. Here the reader must remember (as is already observed in the former chap.) that the principal question in the entrance of his sermon, pag. 2. propounded to be discussed is wholly overpassed, the question I mean, de vero & genuino textus sensu, whether by the angels there mentioned we are to understand such Bishops for the substance of ●●eir c●lling, as ours are. And so let us see how well he hath reduced the whole controversy (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 primitive 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. either parishional, consisting of the Parishbishop, and a company of lay or only governing elders: or Presbyters in cities, consisting of the Precedent, and other Presbyters, Whereof some are Ministers, but the greater some, lay or only governing elders. The question being thus laid down, because the exposition standeth generally between 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 mind, do acknowledge that presbyteries had place and use in the government of the ancient Churches: and he would persuade his readers, that the more learned sort of disciplinarians do acknowledge the primitive Bishops to be diocesan. But if the opposition be (not simply between presbyteries and Bishops, but) only between 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 apparent, that he affirmeth, diocesan Bishops to be absolutely disclaimed of the later sort of presbyterians.  
Again, in the difference which he putteth between the elder & the younger sort of Disciplinarians; who would not conceit that the elder sort, deny unto country parishes aswell any governing Elders, as a parish Bishop; & have no entire presbyteries but in Cities only: Whereas it is well known, 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 full power of jurisdiction. Moreover, in the 2. question as he hath proposed it, who would not think, both that all which plead for presbyteries (whether several in every parish, or one in divers) do hold the government which they embrace, to be a like necessary; and that such as stand with the D. for diocesan Bishops, do with one consent, strive only for the lawfulness of their places, and not for the necessity or perpetuity of their functions? Yet he indeavoureth to persuade his reader (lib. 4. pag. 161.) that the retaining of diocesan Bishops (such as he standeth for) is no● condemned, by any moderate or judicious divine, but only by the late Presbyterians: whereas it is too evident, (for his denial to evince the contrary) that many at this day, do stand forth eagerly for the necessity & perpetuity of the episcopal function now in question. Unto these erroneous conceits, there had been no door opened, had the Doctor been pleased to have framed his questions, in such terms as most fitly answer, either to the first project of his sermon, or to the 2. assertions before delivered in his Defence. agreeable 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 raised 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 etc. & the second, 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●; neither is it hard to discern, what might move him thereunto. For in the first, his own 
The Doct. changeth his questions aswell 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 discern his discourse concerning elders to be pertinent to the matter in question. Wherefore having set down the first question in those two members 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 granted, (p. 61.) & on both sides agreed on, that the Churches were governed either by the one or the other, & so inferreth that the disproof 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 sustaining the person of the opponent, in this disputation, beginneth with the first member of the question, & undertaketh 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 showeth positively, etherwhat agreeth to the function of a diocesan Bishop; or what manner of government was anciently practised, or such like? And if he forbear to argue to this purpose, will not men of judgement be ready to think, that either he hath little to allege this way, or to so little purpose, that he distrusteth the issue of his trial?  
But if he shall fly from the first member of his question, which he made special choice of, and that with resolution to confirm it by unanswerable 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. member of his question, to confute the reasons produced by the adverse part for the Presbytery; who can excuse his inco●stancie? yea, who (that loveth him well) can judge otherwise, then that it had been much better for his credit, to have openly professed that he would first deal with the later member, and then come to the former? or rather that he would first sustain the person of a respondent, and throw the burden of proving upon his opposites, as afterwards 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,  
Either the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops, or by such Presbyteries as they stand for: But not by such Presbyteys as they stand for: Therefore by Diocesan Bishops.  
The proposition (saith he) is implied in the very question between us: And the disjunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessary. 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 when he saith, 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 Presbytery, to assist their Parishbishop, in every several congregation; as those which establish a presbytery in every City, for the government of many parishes under one precedent, having pre-eminence of order above the rest of the presbyters? For so he explaineth the later member, of his disjunctive question page 60. It is therefore clear, that his assumption here, is no otherwise the first, than 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 showeth 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 visible Churches using government were parishes; or that any parishes had their Bishop, to govern them with the assistance of his presbytery; or that the presbyters were in power of order and jurisdiction equal to their precedent, and inferior to him only in order etc. Therefore the primitive Churches were not governed by such presbyteries, as they stand for. But this were to overthrow his dichotomies before set down pag. 54. & repeated lib. 2. pa. 41. specially that first distribution of his proofs, which referreth the first point to a disproving of their presbyteries anaskevasticos, & the rest to the approving of our Bishops kataskevasticos, wherefore, I will forbear, to contend any longer against his assumption, & weigh rather what he saith in defence 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 wit, that if it were as necessary, as he supposeth; yet this kind of reasoning is on both sides esteemed no better, than 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 undertaking the proof of our Bishop's government, with the change of the assumption and conclusion on this manner?  
If the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops, than 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 together. And if the Assumption be denied, he is already provided of a disiunctive argumentation sufficient to confirm it. So that he may dance (as in deed he doth lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35.) the round 
The Doct. danceth the round.  between these two, and need not seek any new prosyllo●isme to conclude that which is to be proved. But 2. what meaneth the D. to take that for granted which his refuter flatly denieth? Doth he not plainly 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 follow, that the Bishops were Di●osan, because a Presbytery of Ministers (such as the D. himself co●fsseth 
The D. taketh for granted, that which is flatly denied.  were then in use) might be joined 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 grant 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 turn them. It is therefore plain, that the Refuter disclaimeth 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 hierarchy (some acknowledging the state of the Church in the Apostles times, for the outward form and government thereof to be popular (as Archbishop Whitgift in defence of his answer. pag. 180-182.) which the Doctor esteemeth (pag. 41.) a Brownistical and anabaptistical dotage) and 
The D. cōtrad●cteth his own doctrine.  that contradiction which is found in his own writing, since he now putteth the reins of Church-government into the hands of the Bishop; to rule as ours do, without the advice of the presbyters; wherea● he formerly acknowledged (s●rm. pag. 1●. that in the primitive Church the Bishop used the advice of certain ●ra●e Ministers, and in Church caus●s did nothing almost without them. A thing now grown altogether out of use; and in the opinion of ●ome, (whose judgement ought to sway much with the Doctor) that k●n●e of government, which the ancient Presbyteries and their Bishops exercised, is now transferred to the Magistrate, to whom it is due, a●d to such as by him are appointed: s●e D. Whitgifts' defence, 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 implied; yet it followeth not, (●ay it is an appara●t untruth to affirm) h●t the dis●unction is on both sides presupposed necessary; which the Doctor must confess unless (to use his own words) he will confess himself to be ignorant in logic: seeing his disjunction (and question) doth not sufficiently enumerate their opinions which have debated this question in general: viz. what the form of government was, which was first practised in the most ancient and Apostolic Churches. So that if I would tread in the D. steps. I might justly repay him with some such marginal notes as (pag 47. & 53.) without cause, he hath set down to disgrace his Refuter: to wit, that the D. and his Consorts at this Day, do plead against the discipline, which Archbishop Whitgift & other learned Protestants (yea the most ancient friends of the Hierarchy) acknowledged to be practised in the apostolic Churches; and that the Doctor mistaking the question, and craftily concealing the division, that is among them of his own side; is bold to affirm that to be granted, 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 wrong in so saying. In deed when the Refuter intended to show, that our diocesan Bishops may be proved absolute popelings, by the same reason that the D. urgeth to cast that name on the parish Bishops, for which, they whom the D. calleth a new sect, do (as he saith) stryve; he than affirmed that the question betwixt the Doctor and them, (not between the D. and us, for those words the D. hath evilly put in, to make his own cause good) was this, whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors, 
The Doct. changeth the Refute words.  and Elders, or by diocesan Bishops? But how doth it follow that he acknowledgeth the first of his two questions before mentioned, to be rightly and fully delivered, in respect of the parts of the disjunction? He that hath but half an eye, may see the inconsequence of his reasoning, specially seeing the question expressed by the refuter; hath more reference to the second question de iure, then to the first de facto. Moreover hath the Doctor forgotten, that at his first meeting with this question, he entertained it so well, that (pag. 41.) 
The D. contradicteth himself.  he entreated the reader to store it up for future use? Shall I therefore now infer, 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 weakness of the Doctor's disiunctive argumentation, or to prove that there is not any presupposed truth in his disiunctive proposition? I hope he will grant (for he is a Doctor, and cannot (lightly) so far forget his logic rules, but he must know) that the question, which he debateth in the first part of his sermon, must hold proportion with that assertion, which is to be concluded from the 4. first points of his five; seeing the first part of his sermon is comprehended in them. Now the assertion, which is to be proved by these 4. points, is either this which his disiunctive argument concludeth, viz. that the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops; or rather, that which before he set down (pag. 58.) for the assumption of his first syllogism, viz. that Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels.  
But which soever of these two, he chooseth, certain it is, his question 
Sect. 4.  will not yield him any such disiunctive proposition, as he now draweth from this which he tendereth. For his question must be a single one, and not compounded of two members, viz either this, whether the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or no? or rather this, whether Diocesan Bishops, be understood by the angels or no? And this last cometh somewhat near the mark, though it miss of the right tenor of words 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 little he gaineth thereby; seeing he cannot compass his desire of drawing the first point of his five, to conclude that assertion, to which he referred the first part of his sermon. Wherefore, seeing his disiunctive argumentation will not serve his turn; and he will yet once again, (for it seemeth he is unweariable) attempt the effecting of his purpose; let me advise him to peruse his own advise given to his Refuter, (lib. 2. 44.) namely, to set down his Enthymem, and to supply thereto, that proposition, which is implied in the consequence, so to make up a perfect syllogism His Enthymem is this; In the primitive Church, there were no other presbyters but Ministers: Therefore the primitive Church was governed by diocesan Bishops, such as ours are. Here now the Doctor is wise enough to perceive, that the proposition implied in the consequence of his Enthimem, (and therefore needful 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 wisdom foresaw, that if he brought this proposition into the sun, to be looked on, his Refuter (yea I may say the simplest of his readers) would easily have discerned that it needeth no less proof, than the conclusion itself, or the assumption; which he would so feign reduce to his purpose. Yea as the falseshood of it was discovered, aforehand by the Refuter and that upon good and sufficient reason, which the Doctor baulked, as he passed by: so it may evidently be convinced from his own words aswell in his sermon, (pag. 69. 70. as in this defence (lib. 4. pag. 36.) where he confesseth, that 〈◊〉 the apostles days, all the Churches, which they planted, (that at jerusalem only excepted) wanted Bishops, and yet had each of them a company of Presbyters, which as Pastors, fed them in common, and laboured the conversion of others. Only when they were to leave the Churches altogether by death or final departure into other places etc. then they ordained them Bishops, and not before; and this, saith he, is that which jerom (cap. 1. ad Tiium) affirmeth, that the Churches at the first, before Bishops were appointed over them; were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters. Wherefore the enjoying of a Presbytery consisting of Ministers only, doth not necessarily argue, that the Church, which hath such a Presbytery, is governed by a Diocesan Bishop, as the Doctor without truth or reason taketh it for granted, even at their hands, who (with good reason) flatly denied it. Wherefore I hope, he will at length, acknowledge his passage, concerning governing elders, to be altogether impertinent; for (to pay him with his own coin pag. 60.) common sense requireth, that what he seethe impertinent, he should acknowledge so to be; & charity would (though self-love would not) that if he discerned not the untruth, and inconsequence of his reasoning; he should rather have suspected his own analysis to be forced, then have blamed his Refuter, for his own want of judgement.  
Wherefore, not following him any longer in his outwandring; 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 affirm. The deceits couched in this question (as it is proposed) are in part touched before (sect. 1.) and shall more fully be deciphered hereafter: we are now to see how well it suiteth with the later part of his sermon, and the defence 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 apostolical and divine institution. In the handling whereof, there is nothing, to be found against the presbyterian government, save one only naked syllogism (serm, pag. 60.) which concludeth the government of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of lay Elders in every parish, not to be of apostolical institution; because it was no where in use, in the first 300. years after the Apostles. And now in his defence (lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35.) he giveth no other proof to justify the assumption which the Refuter denied, but this; that it is proved in the former syllogism, set to justify the government by Diocesan Bishops. For if, saith he, the government by Diocesan Bishops, was generally and perpetually received in those 300 years; it is manifest, that this government, which they speak of, was not in use. Here therefore he (like as he did before) taketh one part of 
The D. again taketh one part of the question to prove the other.  the question to prove the other. Shall I again answer him in his own words? This doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the laws of disputation, as the badness of his cause. Verily he had little reason to tell us, that he hath handled this question in the later part of his sermon, (viz. whether the Church must be governed by these Presbyteries) unless 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 trial of this issue, whether of those two governments, which he or his opposites do commend, be of apostolical and divine institution. And though he join together apostolical & divine, both in the first propounding, and also in the winding up of this point: (serm. pag. 7. & 54.) yet when he addresseth himself to the confirmation thereof (pag. 55.) he chief aimeth at this, to prove the function of Bishops to be of divine institution; and taketh apostol call institution for his Medius terminus, to conclude by consequence, that it is a divine ordinance. Wherefore it is evident, that the main argument of his whole sermon, is the proof of this assertition, that the function of Bishops, (such as ours are for the substance of the●● calling) is a divine ordinance; for this he pretendeth to draw from his text, in as much as, the name of Stars and Angels, is there given to such Bishops. And to this, he reduceth all the arguments laid down by him in the handling of his fift position, which he calleth the later part of his sermon; and from this he inferreth those three uses 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 clearing 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 calling. Secondly, in what sense, their function is to be esteemed, a divine ordinance.  
The substance of their calling 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 Provincial Bishops, being superior in degree to other Ministers, and having a singularity of prehemmence for term of life, and a peerless power both of ordination and jurisdiction. Nevertheless the reader must not imagine, that he speaketh of Provincial or Metropolitan Bishops, when he affirmeth the episcopal function to be of divine institution; ●or in his defence, 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 maintaineth to be of apostolical institution, are no other than Diocesan Bishops. As for Metropolitans, though he think (lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114.) that their superiority was intended by the Apostles, when they appointed Bishops, over mother Cities: yet (as well as he loveth them) he dareth not affirm that any were ordained 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 less beholding to the D. the● the function of Diocesan Bishops.  originally the B●shop of his peculiar Diocese; and not actually a Metropolitan, until diverse Churches in the same Province, being constituted, there was a consociation among themselves, and a subordination of them to him, as their primate. So that the function of Metropolitans or Archbishops, is less beholding to Master Doctor, than the calling of Diocesan Bishops. Of the former he speaketh doubtfully (lib. 4. cap. 5. p. 130.) Their superiority arose, as Beza supposeth, from the very light of nature, directing, 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 episcopal 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 pre-eminence, during life, and 4. a peerless power both of ordination and of jurisdiction in their places. Lo here his enumeration; and withal, how he omitteth therein, (and that of purpose as it seemeth) four other more substantial, 
The D. omitteth 4. substantial and less questionable points of the Bps. function, but ye● wisely.  and less questionable points of their function, who first had the name of Bishops appropriated to them in the ancent Churches to wit, that they were 1. Pastors of their Churches bound by their office, to dispense the word and Sacraments to their people; and therefore 2. tied to make their positive residency, 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 jurisdiction or censure of any one Bishop superior unto him. But of these points more he reafter, (lib. 3. & 4.) I now purpose not to insist on this defect, in his laying down of the substantial parts of the episcopal function; neither will I contend about the continuance of their presidency, or singular pre-eminence, whether it be essential or accidental to enjoy it constantly for term of life? nor yet magnify the D. wisdom in his cunning concealing of them, as knowing how it wipeth his Diocesans over the shins. In this rather I desire to give or receive satissaction, whether that singularity of pre-eminence and peerless power, which he ascribeth unto Bishop; be not a sole superiority, or sole power of rule, as the Refuter affirmeth? And this I the rather desire, because the Doctor is so highly offended with the word, sole, that as oft as he findeth it used by his Refuter in this question, he rewardeth him, with these or the like counterbuffs at every turn. Whence cometh this sole I pray you, that hath so oft been foisted in? I fear greatly from 
The Doct. standereth shamelessly.  an evil conscience resolved to oppugn and d face the truth (lib. 3. pag 118.) And in the next page, God amend that soul, that so often fosteth in that sole, besides my meaning and my words And again, 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 declaim.  
Why? but how should the word sole, or the name of sovereignty, or 
Sect. 7.  sole. rule ●e so odious and offensive to the Doctor's ears; when (notwithstanding all this face, the thing is so pleasing to him, that he pleadeth for it tooth and nail? To ask as he doth (lib. 3. pag. 20. & 68, & 69.) where do I say in all th● sermon, that Bishops had, or must have sole power or jurisdiction? and whether Bishops cannot be superior to Presbyters in the power of ordination or iuri●aiction, vnl●sse they have all the sole p●w●r? Thus to ask I say, helpeth little, either to fr●e him from giving way to those assertions, which he seemeth to abhor; or to make his Refuter guilty of so evil and defiled a conscience, as he accuseth him of; nay, if he discharge a good conscience, he must confess, either that his words do not faithfully express his meaning; or that he meant to give unto Bishops, that sol p●wer of rule, which his Refuter gathereth from his words. For, what difference is there, betwixt that singularity of pre-eminence (which he maketh the first branch of the Bishop's 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, appertaineth to the Bishop, which is one only? And that his singular pre-eminence is a peerless power, and eminent above all; yea such as admitteth no partner, pag. 36. & 46? And doth he not afterwards (pag. 45. 46. 47.) undertake to demonstrate, that the Bishop governeth in foro externo, not only the people; but the presbyters also of an whole diocese, as having authority to guide and direct them, as their ruler; and to censure and correct them as their judge? Doth he not, (serm. pag. 30. as is already showed, in the former chapter, sect. 10.) out of Ignatius, make 3. degrees of Ministers, Deacons, Priests and Bishops under Christ; the Deacons 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 authority 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 Priests and Levites, placing the Deacons and Presbyters, in the room of the Priests & Levites, and the Bishops in the room of Aaron the High-Preist, the very chief and Prince of all? With what face then can he deny unto the Bishop in his diocese a sole superiority, or solepower of rule? or say, that the word sole is foisted in besides his meaning? 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 pre-eminence (not of order only but) of power and rule, eminent above all, and admitting no partner, to govern in fore externo, the Presbyters aswell as the people, as their Ruler and judge, holding and managing the whole power and authority above all, all subject to him, and he subject to Christ, he giveth to every B: in his Diocese, a sole superiority or sovereignty and sole power of rule.  
But the Dostor prescribeth ●o every Bishop in his Diocese a singular pre-eminence (not of order only but) of power and rule, eminent above all etc.  
Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his Diocese, a sole superiority or sovereignty, and so power of rule.  
The assumption is gathered from his own words as is before showed. If he deny the proposition, shall he not bewray in himself that evil conscience, (which he chargeth his Refuter with) which is resolved to oppugn and deface the truth? Can he be ignorant, that a singular pre-eminence 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 judge, and he subject to to none but to Christ, is, not only 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 supreme power or superiority &c: Yet the Refuter hath rightly affirmed, and the Doctor hath with check of conscience (I fear) denied the power of rule which he ascribeth to Bishops, to be a sole power.  
And touching our own Bishops, though he be loath to acknowledge 
Sect. 8.  in plain terms, that they are sole ruling Bishops; yet he affirmeth that which will easily evince it to be a truth. For, to let pass 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 council of Carthage, the Presbyters were to impose hands with the Bishop, yet it was then (as now with us) not for necessity, but for greater solemnly etc. To let this pass I say) he confesseth (lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 192.) that the advice and assistance of presbyters, which the ancient Bishops used, grew long since out of use; because it seemed needless, both to the presbyters, desiring their ease, and to the Bishops, desiring to rule alone. And to take a way all show of difference between 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 nothing less, than when they used it not; for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and adv●se, but never to overrule the Bishop; like as the authority of a Prince, who useth the advice of his Council, is nothing the less for it; but the more advised. The truth of this later speech, is not here to be examined; nor yet how well the former doth accord with the later: there will come a fit 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 Assistance, which formerly they had of their Presbyters grew out of use; it may well be thought that ours do now rule alone, seeing they have no such assistance as they had. 2. Neither can it be otherwise if that assistance, which once they had, was not to restrain them of their wills, but only to yield them that help, that great Princes & free monarchs have of their grave Counsellors, by whom they are advised in their affairs of state. Here therefore I crave his answer to this argument;  
Whosoever in their government, & proceeding to give sentence in any cause, that is to be judged by them, have no assistance of any to restrain them, from sw●●ing the matter as pleaseth them: they have a sole power of rule, or do rule by their sole authority  
But our English Prelate's i● their Episcopal government, and in proceeding to give sentence in any cause, that is to be judged by them; have no assistance of any to restrain them f●om swaying the matter as ple●seth them. 
Let not the D. be ashamed to speak plainly, what he closely insinuat●th.   
Therefore, they have a sole power of rule, or do rule by thei● sole authority. The proposition I suppose to be so clear, that the Doct. will not deny it. The Assumption is already acknowledged for true by himself; I hope therefore in his next defence, he will embrace the conclusion, and esteem it no longer an odious and absurd asserti on. For why should he be ashamed to speak that plainly, which he doth closely insinuate? the rather for that one of his fellow Doct. (D. Dove I mean in his defence of Church-government pag. 19) coming to speak of a Diocesan D. Bishop; ruling by his sole power, saith that this is the chief matter now in question, and further (pag. 20.) that he may speak something for the justification of the Bishops ruling by their sole authority, 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 joined with him, some under him, and some above him etc. 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 himself, (Math. 28. 18.) all power is given to mean heaven and earth, and to bethink himself, what answer he would give to one that should thus argue,  
In the government of the world, there are others joined with Christ, the Father is above him, 1. Cor. 15. 27, 28. and under 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; neither is his government a Monarchy, or s●le power of rule.  
If this conclusion doth not necessarily follow upon the Antecedent; then the Doctor (if he shut not his right eye) may see the looseness of his own argument. Shall I need to ask him, whether King james doth not therefore govern the Realms as a Monarch by his sole authority, because in the government thereof, he hath many subordinate helps under him? Or whether the Duke of Saxony and such like free Princes, do not govern, by a sole power of rule, their several Provinces, because they acknowledge the Emperor their superior? Hath not every Master in the government of his how should a sole superiority, though some have, both under them a School 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, carry a far more eminent and pecrelesse superiority?  
It is apparent therefore, that the sole power of rule in our Bishops, is not impaired by any that are superior or inferior to them unless they were in the same Commission joined with them as such assistants, as (if the case require) may restrain them. Neither is their Monarchical authority abridged by the power of Synods assembled (as he saith pag. 43.) for the making of ecclesiastical constitutions; since the King's highness ceaseth not to be a Monarch, though he cannot make new laws, nor do some things, without the consent of his Nobles, & Commons, assembled in the high court of Parliament. Neither would the Doctor fear to profess that our Bishops do govern Monarchically, or by their sole authority, save that he forseeth (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 lawful Ministers, which have not such Bishops as ours are to ordain them. And surely (though he falsely charge his Refuter for disgracing his sermon with those inferences, yet) if he have none other way to avoid them, but by denying that he giveth unto Bishops, a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction; he must be content hereafter to bear this imputation, that he giveth way to those absurdities he would seem to disclaim.  
For first, touching jurisdiction, since he placeth it in that singular and peerless 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 speak (as he doth) of external & public 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, according to the quality of the offence, by reproof, putting to silence, suspension, deprivation, or excommunication; in which respect, seeing all the presbyters within the diocese are subject to the Bishop (yea even those that should assist him, aswell as others that are severed from him, and affixed to their several cures) it is apparrant, that that majority of rule, which the D. giveth him over all, cannot be less than 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 up above all others, in an whole diocese, that they are all in subjection unto him, and he hath no assistants to restrain him? Must the parish Bishop needs be a sole-governor, if he have not the assistance of a presbytery joined in commission with him? And is it plain that the judges in the King's Bench and common-pleas, who are Assistants to the L. chief justices, are joined to either of them, as to help them in giving right judgement, so to restrain them that they judge not alone, according to their own 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 unto all in his diocese, that he hath no assistance of any, to restrain or overrule him? Moreover, if Bishops only (and not presbyters) be authorized, jure apostolico, to exercise their public and external jurisdiction, in all ecclesiastical censures, over the people and clergy of their dioceses, (as the D. affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 116.) if also the power of reconciling paenitents, by imposition of hands, doth belong to Bishops only, and that by the power of their order; (pag. 105.) then surely their function is dishonoured and their authority imparred, by such as deny unto them, a sole power of jurisdiction.  
Secondly, concerning ordination, the reader is to be advertised that he saith (serm. pag. 37.) it hath been a received opinion in the Church of God, even from the Apostles times until our age, that the right of ordination of presbyters is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops, as that ordinarily and regularly, there could be no lawful ordination, but by a Bishop. And addeth (pag. 40.) that the perpetual consent of the Church of God, appropriateth the ordinary right of ordination to the Bishop alone. And (pag. 42.) that Bishops only, in the judgement of the Fathers have right of orde●ninge Ministers, regularly. And therefore, though extraordinarily and in case of necessity, he seem to allow of their Ministry, which in the want of a Bishop, are ordained by other Ministers; yet this is no other allowance, than he giveth to the baptism of women or laie-people, in the want of a Minister. For he saith in plain terms (pag. 44.) The truth is, where Ministers may be had, none but Ministers ought to baptise; and where Bishops may be had, none but Bishops ought to ordain. In which words, who seethe not, that the ref: hath sufficient ground to affirm, that the D. giveth to Bishops a sole power of ordination? If he will say (as he seemeth to persuade lib. 3. pag. 69.) that this argueth only a superiority in the power of ordaining and not a sole power; then let him also profess plainly, that Ministers have not any sole power of baptising, but only a superiority in that power, above women or other laie-people.  
But he cannot thus evade, though he would, seeing (lib. 3. pag. 105.) he expressly affimeth, that the power of imposing hands to convey grace, either to parties baptised for their confirmation; or to panitents for their reconciliation, or to parties designed to the Ministry, for their ordination, is peculiar unto Bishops, and to the power of their order, whereby they differ from Presbyters and Deacons yea, this power of ordaining is (in his conceit 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 maintain that he doth not ascribe a sole power of ordination to them; yet will it be inevitably concluded from his own words. For, whosoever have the right or power of ordination appropriated to them 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 needs have the sole power of ordination. If therefore Bishops have the power of ordination, so appropriated to them alone and to the power of their order; (as is before showed from the D. own words) it followeth of necess●●y, that they have a sole power of ordination given unto them. This is also implied in those speeches so often repeated (lib. 3. pag. 72. 86. 93. 97.) that the power of ordaining was in the Bishops, and not in the presbyters; And that Bishops had the power or right of ordaining, which presbyters had not. And of ordination and jurisdiction jointly, as he constantly maintaineth them, to be the principal and most essential parts of the episcopal authority: (lib. 3. pag. 68 & lib. 4. pag. 78.) so he flatly denied the charge of these affairs, to belong unto presbyters 
The Doct. must ●ay by his slander and grant that he giveth sole power etc. 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 common to other Christians, or other Ministers, therefore peculiar to Bishops. So that we may safely conclude, (neither can the Doct. impugn it, without apparent contradiction to himself) that our Bishops are sole-ruling. Bishops, and that the singularity of pre-eminence (or preheminent power) which he ascribeth unto Bishops, as an essential part of their function, is in deed, a sole power of rule, or monarchical superiority.   

The 5. Chapter. Concerning 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 endure 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 answer to his Refuters' preface pag. 2. and in this defence, lib. 3. pag. 22. & lib. 4. pag. 138. But it is already showed in the defence of that preface, that the Doctor abuseth the refuter, & depraveth his words and meaning, in as much as he had an eye only to the first institution of the episcopal function, when he said that the Doctor's sermon tended to prove that the said function is to be holden jure divino, (by God's law) and not as an human ordinance. And since, 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 upon the consideration of these particulars.  
First therefore, because he now seemeth in this defence (lib. 3. pag. 26. & 116. & lib. 4. pag. 137. & 139.) to allow in his own judgement, that distinction betwixt those things, that are divini & those that are apostolici juris: which in his sermon pa. 92. he proposed in the name of some other divines (viz. that the former are generally 
The Doct. neither doth nor can make good his distinction.  perpetually & immutably necessary, the later not so) he might have done well, to have warranted this distinction either from the scripture or from the testimony of some orthodoxal writers. Fron the Scripture he cannot 1. because he hath already laid that ground out of Acts. 15. 28. which will refute it, as is already showed in defence of 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 apocopen. 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) between jus divinum and apostolicum standeth only in this, that the former hath the express and immediate commandment 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 unto his Church to observe. In which sense the Apostle Paul, distinguisheth his commandment from the Lords, 1. Cor. 7. 10, 12. unto the married I command (ouk ●go alla ho kurios) not I, but the Lord. etc. But to the remnant (ego lego, ouk hokurios l speak, not the Lord etc. Will the Doctor now say of the former precept, because it is jus divinum, that it is general perpetually and immutably necessary; and of the later that it is not so, as being only jus apostolicum? I hope rather, he will spare the Refuter (or his friend), the labour to prove, that the later is no less generally perpetually and immutably necessary, than 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 commentatus, Id enim se fecisse negat, infra vers. 25. & 40. Beza in 1. Cor. 7. 12. And therefore after many other precepts delivered by the Apostles, in sundry cases not before determined by any direct and express verdict of God's word, as will appear to him, that weigheth what he teacheth 1. Cor. 8. 9 13. & 10. 25. 29. & 11. 4. 14. 23. 25.) he bindeth them all up under one general charge, 1. Cor. 14. 37. If any man think himself to be a Prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I writ unto you, are tou k●riou ent●lai, the commandments of God. Dei precepta vocat, hoc est divinitus inspirata, et ob id authentica. Art: in 1. Cor. 14. 37. 3. It is well known that the doctrine of the Apostles, and their practice recorded in their writings, yield us the most direct and express warrant, which Christian people and their Teachers have (I say not for the sanctifying of the Lords day, which is our Sabbath, because some great Favourites of the Prelacy, hold it (though unjustly) to be a variable ordinance, and alterable at men's pelasure, but) for the estableshing of a settled Ministry 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 grant to be generally and perpetually necessary; Bishop Bilson not excepted. Perpet Govern: pag. 106. 107. and 208.) And it is no less evident, that there is no general necessity or perpetuity in some precepts, which Christ himself gave to his Disciples, as Mat. 10. 5. 14. and 12. 16. and 15. 20. and 19 21. & john. 13 14. 15: wherefore the perpetuity or immutability of precepts given in the scriptures, dependeth not upon the authority of the person, from whom 
D. distinction falleth to the ground  they proceed immediately; but upon the generality or perpetnity of the grounds, or causes which give strength there unto. So that the things which are Apostolici juris (and none otherwise divine ordinances then as they proceedd from 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 necessity, in any of those things, which are immediately divini juris. Wherefore as the D. acknowledgeth the things which were ordained of the Apostle, to be (for the authority of their iustitution) not only apostolical, but also divine ordinances: so he must confess that whatsoever they established, not for a short time, but for succeeding ages, the same deserveth to be esteemed, as a thing authorized diunio jure, not apostGlico only.  
And herein we have the consent of sundry Orthodoxal writers, Certs (saith D. whitaker's de Pont. Rom. pag. 107.) quod apostoli ut necessarium sanxerunt, atque introduxerunt, juris divini vim 
The D. distinction is against the judgement or his own friends aswell as others.  obtinet. And in this very question of the superioritle of Bishops above Presbyters, as it is their common Tenent, that they are equal or rather all one jure divins, (by God's law) so they hold the doctrine and practice of the Apostles to be sufficient 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: part 22. sol. 249.) yea Sadeel (pag. 117.) putteth no difference between jus div●num and an Apostolical ordinance: for upon these premises, Presbyteri certè apostolicis institutis, habent jus ordinandi; Illi vero qui ha● ae●ate ecclesiam primi reformarunt, erant presbyteri, he concludeth: 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 perpetuity between ●us apostolicum & divinum, giveth both indifferently to the episcopal function: gathering out of one word (posuit) in his text, that it was both praxis apostolic, an ordinance apostolical, and thesis pneumalike a canon or constitution of the whole Trinity, enacted for succeeding posterity. Mr. Bell, in his regiment of the Church pag. 117. saith, a thing may be called de jure divino two ways. 1. because it is of God immediately. 2. because it is of them, who are so directed by God's holy Spirit, that they cannot err. And in this sense the superiority of Bishops, over other inferior Ministers, may be called de jure divino, or an ordinance divine. Doctor Sutcliff: (de presb: cap. 15.) presseth among other arguments apostolorum usum et morem, to prove that the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers doth niti jure divino. The same may be said of sundry others which at this day, hold the function of our diocesan Bishops, to be an apostolical 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 allow that the superiority of their function is warranted to them jure divino. Neither fear they to conclude the episcopal government to be perpetual, because it is an ordinance apostolical.  
Wherefore, I would be glad to learn of the Doctor in his next defence, (seeing he was not in his sermon or the margin of it pleased 
A request to the D. to tell us where he so lately learned that distinction.  to tell us) who those Some are, which in respect of perpetuity do put such a difference (as he noteth) between the things that are Divini, and those that are apostolici juris. For as he received it not from any of the forenamed Favourites of the prelacy: so neither 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 book showeth that he holds the government of Bishops, to be the perpetual government of Christ's Church: so the body of the book itself, doth plainly demonstrate; that he concludeth the perpetuity thereof, from no other arguments, than such as the D. urgeth to prove it to be an apostolical & 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 unto the Ministers of the Gospel, jure divino, by the law of God.  
But let us come (as near as we can) to his author of this distinction: Bellarmin in deed, distinguisheth between jus divinum and Apostolicum, atfirming (lib. de clericis cap. 18.) that the marriage of priests, is prohibired, only jure apostolico, not divino. Quod enim, saith he, Apostolus praecipit, non divinum, sed apostolicum praeceptum est. But with him, jus apostolicum, is no other than jus humanum, or positivum. Ibid. & cap. seq:. Moreover, he urgeth the same distinction (as the D. acknowledgeth (lib. 3. pag. 101.) to show, what he took 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 only he is superior 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 speeches of jerom (ad Euagr: and in Tit. cap. 1. where he denieth the superiority of Bishops, to be of divine disposition; & yet affirmeth it to be an apostolical tradition. He may be understood (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 episcopal superiority, to be so far forth a divine ordinance as it proceeded from God, in as much as the Apostles were directed by the holy Ghost in ordaining it: he cannot (without apparent contradiction to himself) embrace Beauties' 
The D. contradicteth himself which way soever he turneth him.  construction of Apostolici juris, who taketh it for jus humanum or positivum. Neither can he easily wind out of the briers of an evident contradiction; when he denieth it to be divini juris, and yet granteth it to be be a divine ordinance: yea such an holy ordinance of God, as aught at this day (not only so to be acknowledged but also) to be obeyed and that of conscience: serm. pag. 94. & 98. For if this be so how should it want what perpetuity, which agreeth unto other things, that are in deed divini juris, by the law of God?  
For out of what fountain drew the D. this deep learning; which 
Sect. 3. ad pag. 2. of the D. answer to the ref: preface & add lib. 4. pag. 138. 140.  now 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 immutably and perpetually necessary, 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 ordained to their several charges? Are not these things divini juris, by the law of God, and divine (or at least) apostol 
The D. distinction erroneous.  call ordinances, generally perpetually and immutably necessary? for who can take liberty in any of these, to departed from the rule of God's word, and not be guilty of sin 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 bless break and deliver the bread, and to take bless and diliver the cup; and in the Communicants, to take and eat the one, and to take and drink the other, (are not all and every of these actions I say) generally perpetually and immutably necessary to be observed, & therefore to be esteemed to be divini juris? else have our divines little reason to hold them for essential parts of the Lords supper, and to urge for proof thereof Christ's Commandment, do this in remembrance of me: see D. Bilson ag: the Rhem Apology (part quarta pag. 675. in quarto) Bucanus Insti● loc. 48. pag. 677. 678 Notwithstanding, I hope the D. will not deny the name of a true Church, unto every assembly of Christians, which wanteth in any part the purity of the doctrine, or that sincere form of administration, which the word of God pray cribeth for his Sacraments or Church-censures? For he is not ignorant that among divine ordinances and things necessary, some (yea the greatest som●) do concern rather the well-being, than the very being of the Church; & a●e only needful or behooful for the wel-ordering of the Ch: (lib. 4. p. 103. 104) but not so generally and immutably necessary, as though no true Church could be without them. Wherefore to draw this controversly to a direct issue; though without any violoence offered unto he phrase, we might affirm every commandment of God, (whether general or special, and temporal or perpetual;) to be jus divinum; because the word jus is derived of jussum, (as is before observed) yet because the word is restrained by the * canonists, and by 
Ius divinum est quod in lege continentur, et evangelio, atque immutabile. semper permanet. lib. 1. juris canon. Tit. 2.  common use appropriated to such ordinances, as are laid down in the holy scripture for the perpetual use of the Church; I will here acknowledge a general and perpetual 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 profess an agreement with us, and say that he therefore denieth the episcopal function to be divini juris, because (though it be lawful to be retained as being ordained of God by his Apostles for the Churches, which they planted; yet) it is not by any commandment, or warrant from God's word, perpetually imposed on all Churches (for so he seemeth to affirm lib. 4. pag. 145. lin. 6. and 26: I pray leave, to demand, why (in the 2. page of his answ. to the Refuters preface) he contenteth not himself to disclaim at large that general and immutable necessity, which is ascribed to things 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 explain that necessity, which he spoke of in his sermon; to what purpose serveth it? For he found no such clause, neither in the words of the Refuters preface, which he taxeth of untruth; nor yet in pag. 90. of his answer, where he saith a true acknowledgement is to be found, 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 defence thereof) maintaineth not the epilcopal function, to be generally and perpetually necessary, and that in as ample manner, as some other ordinances are, that without all contradiction are esteemed to be divini juris. 1. He appropriateth or at least attributeth kat hexochen unto Bishops, yea even to our diocesan Bishops, aswell as unto the Bishops or Ministers of the 7. Churches in Asia, and that in respect of their function, the name of Angels sent of God, & stars held in the right hand of Christ. serm. pag. 55. & 95. Yea he saith (pag. 55.) They are as chief Stewards over God's family, and principal spiritual governors over Christ's body. And to them he restraineth (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 unto other presbyters (se●m. pag. 45.) no other pastoral authority, than what is delegated unto them, by their Bishops. Wherefore like as he reasoneth to show the lawfulness and excellency of the episcopal function (pag. 54) so may we, to prove by necessary consequence, from his own words 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 unto the Bishops, admitted in partem sollicitudinis, to seed that part of the Church, which he should commit unto them; be not only lawful but necessary also to be retained and that jure divino; then the same may be said much more, of the function of Bishops, that are (as he supposeth) the chief, and principal pastors, even by God's ordinance. But if their function be not divini juris, nor generally and perpetually necessary for all Churches; then let the Doctor also profess plainly, that he maintaineth not the office of Presbyters, or any other Ministers to be 
The Doct. saith as much for the perpetuity of Diego ocesan Bishops, as of any ministers of the word, yea & more.  divini juris, and generally or perpetually necessary, for the feeding or governing of the visible Churches of Christ. Yea let him without staggering affirm, that it is a thing indifferent (not de jure divino necessary, but) left to every Church's liberty, to accept or refuse, as they shall see expedient, those that are authorized of God, as Stars, Angels, Pastors and guides, to convey unto 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 dignity and duty of the ministers, p. 65. & 73.) is due to them by the word of God, yea jure divino: them much more is the office of Bishops, who are the chief and principal Ministers to be had in honour? Yea, doth he not from the doctrine of his sermon in question, infer these uses, & impose them on the consciences of his hearers (pag. 94, & 96) viz. 1. to acknowledge their function to be a divine ordinance; 2. to have them in honour, as spiritual 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 authority, as being the holy ordinance of God, according to the Apostles exhortation Heb. 13. 17. For, can the consideration of God's ordinance, appointing their function, & commanding honour and obedience to be given unto them, in the days of the Apostles, bind the conscience at this day, if their function were not of necessity to be continued? 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 confess, that such Leaders and Labourers in the Lords work, must first be had, before they can be honoured and obeyed; but do not these exhortations, and many other apostolic canons, which prescribe what is required, either of Ministers for the good of their flocks; or of people for encouragement 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 equal bond, bind all Churches, aswell to labour for the establishing of such Elders, Bishops and Leaders; as to see that when they are settled, they may both give all diligence to perform their duties; and receive all reverence and honour due unto them?  
And 3, how often doth he tell us in this defence, (lib. 3. pag. 24. 26. 44. 48 55. 59 63. et alibi passim) that many of his allegations do testify for the superiority of Bishops, not only de f●cto, but also the iure, as giving test money to the right, and showing what form of government ought to be, as being in the judgement of the Fathers (which he approveth) perpetual? And though he return the lie upon his Refuter: (lib. 3, pag 57) for saying that he plainly avoucheth a necessity of retaining the government of Diocesan Bishops (when he affirmeth, that as it was ordained for the preservation of the Church in unity, and for the avoiding of schism: so it is for the same cause to be rete●ned) yet he confessed (pag. 64.) that jeroms judgement, in the place alleged, was, that Bishops are necessarily to be retained for the same cause (to wit, the avoiding of schism) for which they were first instituted. And from the same words of jerom 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 plainly, and notorious falsification of jeroms meaning in carrying his words to a necessity in retaining 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 judgement with jerom, he doth too much abuse his reader, in fortifying his assertion with his testimony; unless he had given some intimation, wherein he swarveth in opinion from him.  
But 4. he discovereth his own judgement touching the necessity of diocesan and provincial Bishops, something more clearly, when he saith (lib. 3. pag. 3.) that of provincial or national Churches, the metropolitans & Bishops of dioceses a●e and aught to be the governors. For if he had intended only a lawfulness, and not a necessity of reteyninge 
The Doct. wrongfully chargeth his Refuter.  their functions, he would have said they are and may be, rather than (as he doth) they are and aught 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 general and perpetual necessity, for succeeding ages, aswell as for the Apostles times; when he saith, that upon this threefold superiority of Bishops (scz. singularity of pre-eminence, during life, power of ordination, and power of jurisdiction) there dependeth a threefold benefit, to every church; to wit, the unity, perpetuit e, and eutaxie or good order thereof. For who can deny, that those things are generally and perpetually necessary to be retained in every Church, whereon the unity, perpetuity, & eutaxie of every Church dependeth?  
If the Doctor shall think to escape by saying, that the perpetuity 
Sect. 5. add lib. 4 pag. 102, & 147.  and eutaxie of every Church dependeth in deed upon the power of ordination and jurisdiction; but not upon the investing of the power in Bishops; because his second thoughts have drawn him to distinguish, between potestas and modus potestatis (lib. 4. pag. 102. & 1 17.) we have reason to think (as shall appear anon) that he 
The Doct. straineth his wits in vain to avoid con●  dreamt not of this distinction, till he had set his wits a-work to remove the contradiction which his Refuter objected against him. Notwithstanding he cannot (with all his cunning) avoid that necessity, which floweth from the first branch of episcopal superiority. For if the unity of every Church, dependeth on the singularity of pre-eminence in one during life, and that in such sort, as afterwards he explaineth his meaning, to wit, that whereas there were many presbyters in one City; yet there neither were no● might be, in succeeding ages downward, from the Apostles times any more than one Angel in a church, or one Bishop in an whole diocese: how can it be denied, that there is a general and perpetual necessity of episcopal superiority for the preservation of the Church in unity? 2. Neither will the learning of that distinction, which he now putteth between p●t●stas & modus potestatis, free him from placing the like necessity in the function of Bishops; for the exercise of that lawful power (of ordination & jurisdiction) whereon the Church's perpetuity & eutaxie or good order dependeth. For (to let pass that which he saith serm. pag. 32.) how the superiority of Bishops not only did, but also doth consist in that two fold power, no less then in a singularity of pre-eminence during life: he avoucheth in plain terms, that the power which Timothy 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 authority, yea the function and authority, which they had (consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction) was not to die with their persons but to be continued in their successors (sermon. pag. 75. 79. Defence lib. 3. pag. 72. & lib. 4. pag. 84. 98. and 100). That the commandments and injunctions given them, to be kept inviolable until 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 & authority, were to be performed by them and their successors till the coming of Christ (lib. 4. pag. 77.) And which is yet more he addeth, that their successors were Bishops only, yea Diocesan Bishops: (serm. pag. 75. lib. 4. pag. 85.) and that, not the facto only, but also the iure. (Ibid.) And that Presbyters neither were nor could be their successors. (lib. 3. pag. 73.) and that neither are those instructions given in general to presbyters; neither doth the charge of those affairs belong unto them. (lib. 4. pag. 79.) Wherefore also he affirmeth, or rather from the premises concludeth, that the epistles written to Timothy and Titus, were the very patterns and precedents of the episcopal function, and purposely written to inform not Timothy and Titus alone, but them and their successors (viz. all Bishops) to the world's 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 perpetual directions, which are not common either to other Christians, or to other Ministers; therefore peculiar to Bishops (lib. 4. pag. 77. Thus 
It is sufficiently proved that the D. holdeth a perpetual necessity of the episcopal function.  have we seen at large the Doctor's judgement, now (to ●ay all these things together): If the power and authority and (not so only but also) the function, which Timothy and Titus had, was not to die with their persons, but to be transmitted unto, and continued in Bishops, because Bishops and not Presbyters were their successors, even de iure and not de facto only; And if for the same cause (as also because the charge of those affairs, viz. of ordination and jurisdiction belongeth not to the Presbyters, nor is common to other Christians or Ministers) the Commandments and injunctions given to Timothy and Titus, to be inviolably kept till Christ's coming were directed unto Bishops only; I would gladly hear, with what new distinction, the Doctor (who directly and expressly affirmeth the premises) can discharge himself from implying (or teaching 
The Doct. himself cutteth the throat of his own distinction, and hath not one hole to hide himin.  by necessary consequence) that the episcopal function, was appointed for the perpetual use of the Church, and is necessary to be retained in all Churches till the coming of Christ.  
His conjoining together Timothy's function and authority to be continued in their successors, cutteth the throat of his distinction, betwixt potestas & m●dus potestatis; neither can he fly to that starting hole, wherein he hideth his head (his heels at least hanging out lib. 3. pag. 57 lin. ult.) when he expoundeth his words, is to be retained, by, meet or fit, expedient, or convenient, profitable, or needful, to be retained. For he acknowledgeth the power 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 essential or immutable ordinance of God. (lib. 4. pag. 102. 147.) Neither will it relieve him to say, as he doth, pag. 146. that Paul's 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 authority. For he flatly secludeth, both the Presbyters and all other Christians or Ministers from all right and title, either to the power itself or the execution thereof (lib. 3. pag. 71. 72. & lib. 4. pag. 79.) And saith (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 episcopal authority in a preheminent degree above other Ministers.  
2. If he shall retire at last 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 lawful ordinarily as he saith 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 effectual 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 esteem to be divini juris? For the comparison which himself maketh (pag. 44.) between baptism administered by one that is no Minister; and ordination performed by Ministers that are no Bishops, doth evidently show 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 neither aught 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 party baptised into the communion of the faithful; and the party ord●yned as a lawful Minister. Now if this be a truth, say I, then there must be a truth acknowledged also, in these conclusions 
The D. again saith as much for the per petuitie of the episcopal function, as of the function of other Ministers.  that follow. viz. That according to the rules of ordinary Church-government, as the right of administering baptism, is a peculiar prerogative of the ministerial function jure divino, by the law of God; so eodem jure, even by the same law, the right of ordination is peculiar to the Bishops. And as all Churches under heaven, till the coming of Christ to judgement, are bound to strive for the establishing & retaining of that ministery, which God hath authorized to administer baptism: so are all Churches by a like band tied to contend for the episcopal function, which hath right to ordain. And consequently the calling of Bishops for ordaining is as generally, perpetually, and immutably necessary, as the office of other Ministers is, for the work of baptism. I add, that, in the D. opinion, there is as perpetual and immutable a necessity of the episcopal function for the ordering of every Church; as there is (in the opinion 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 form of Church-governement, then by Bishops, unless in case of necessity, where orthodoxal Bishops cannot be had, and that, because any government whatsoever is better than 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 kind of drink usual in such places; then wholly to neglect the Lords sacrament, or to maim it by an half administration, in one only element. (see Polani Syntag. Col. 3213.) Wherefore as their allowance of a change in the outward element of the Lords supper, being limited to such an extraordinary case, doth rather support, then contradict their assertion, that the Church hath not liberty, to refuse wine, or to prefer any other element before it:) the D. his excusing other reformed Churches for enterteyning a Presbyterial aristocracy, in stead of an episcopal Monarchy, only 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 episcopal government to be divini juris, thereby intending that all Churches are bound to prefer it aswell in their endeavours, as in their judgement, before 
Sect. 6. add serm. p. 79. & Defence. lib. 4. pag. 100 146. 148. and 167.  any other form of government whatsoever.  
But there is an higher pitch of the necessity of this function, as may appear by some words that slipped from the D. in the penning of his sermon, pag. 79. to wit, that the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had, as being assigned to certain churches, is ordinary, and perpetually necessary, not only for the well-being, 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 seeing (in his judgement), the function and authority which they had, was episcopal and diocesan, such as ours is now; therefore also in his judgement, the episcopal 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 malice, want of judgement, and with ignorant mistaking, or wilful depraving of his sayings, and that against sense (lib. 4. pag. 146. 148. & 167.) A great charge in deed; but how doth he avoid the consequence objected? for sooth, to explain his meaning, he dismembreth his own speech, & cutteth asunder the knot which with his own tongue and pen, he had knit: for whereas before he spoke jointly, (as of one thing expressed by two words) of their function and authority that it was ordinary and 
The Doct. playeth fast and lose, toeth & untieth: but every one may see the sleight, to his ●●ame.  perpetually necessary, now (to show his skill in playing fast and lose at his pleasure) he saith (pag. 100 and 147.) he meant, that their function was ordinary, and their authority was perpetually necessary.  
But as slippery as he is, his Refuter will not suffer him thus to slip his neck out of the collar; all his wit and learning can neither unloose nor cut a sunder, that chain which bindeth him to a gross absurdity. His words (serm. pag. 79) are these. The function & authority which Timothy and Titus had, as being assigned to certain Churches, viz. of Ephesus and Crete, (consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction) was not to end with their persons, but to be continued in their successors: as being ordinary and perpetually necessary; not only for the wellbeinge, but also for the very being of the visible Churches. If the Doctor had meant so to divide the later part of his speech (as he would now persuade) what meant he, not to discover his meaning plainly? It had been easy for him, to have disjoined their function from their authority, in his whole speech on this manner. q. d. But neither was the function which Tim. and Tit. had at Ephesus and in Crete, to end with their persons, as being ordinary: neither was their authority to die with them, as being perpetually necessary etc. Therefore had he so meant in deed and truth, as he now professeth, since there wanted not skill; there must needs be in him a want of will, to speak plainly unto the capacity of his reader; 
The Doct. is guilty of that imputation, which he professeth to abhor.  so that he standeth here guilty of that ●oul imputation which elsewhere he professeth to abhor (lib. 2. pag. 52.) viz. a desire and intent of dazzling the eyes of the simple, I might say, the eyes of all even the most judicious, as all may see that read with a single eye, and weigh with an upright hand what he hath written.  
But (to speak what I think) he rather belieth his own heart in 
The D. in all likelihood belieth his own heart.  saying now, that he then meant that, which he never dreamt of, till he had set his wits a work, to find out some fly evasion, to avoid (if it were possible) that perpetual necessity, which his words do equally throw upon the function of Timothy and Titus, aswell as on their authority. For 1. If he had cast but one cie upon the proposition of that brave syllogism, whereunto the former sentence is fitted as the assumption, he might have observed that the word authority is superfluous, & idly inserted in the later; seeing it is wholly omitted in the former. The proposition of his argument is this. The supposed evangelisticall function (he saith not evangelisticall function 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 suitable to this proposition, he should have said (not as he then did, and still doth, the function and authority, but) the function which they had as being assigned to certain Churches, was not to end with their persons, but to be continued in their successors. And then the words following must of necessity be carried also to their function only. q. d. their function was not to end with their persons, because it was both ordinary and perpetually necessary etc. And unless he will yield to this construction of his assumption (I mean, either to blot out the word authority, or at least to acknowledge that he usurer those two words (function and authority) as synonimas, to express one only thing, to wit, their office or function) he will be enforced 
If the D. seeketh to avoid one, he falleth into another evil.  to lie down under this foul imputation also, viz. that he doth sophisticate, and by four terms in stead of three, utterly marreth the frame of his supposed blameless syllogism.  
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 new supply of arguments (as he saith) to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops: so his main argument there set down concludeth, the very function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinary and episcopal, because it was not extraordinary and evangelical. For although (to conform his first argument to his prosyllogis●●es that follow) he coupleth function and authority together: yet the frame of his words do show, that by both terms he understandoth one thing only, to wit, their proper function or office, which was, as he confesseth, the only thing now in question. Otherwise, having said in the proposition, that their function and authority was either extraordinary and evangelisticall, or ordinary and episcopal, he would never have set down the assumption and conclusion, so as he doth. But it was not extraordinary and evangelical; therefore ordinary and episcopal. For neither grammar no● logic 
Neither grammar nor logic will endure the D. disjunction.  will permit him under this one word (it) to comprehend two things so distinct; as he now taketh function and authority to be; when he affirmeth the one, & denieth the other to be perpetually necessary.  
3. But if he will needs begin with that disjunction, with which he endeth; he shall fall into a twofold absurdity, which he cannot avoid, viz. an untoward laying down of the question, in the beginning; and a shameless begging of the question, in the end. For neither do they hold the function only of Timothy and Titus to be ordinary, or their authority only to be episcopal: neither do the Disciplinarians teach their function only to be extraordinary, and their authority only to be evangelical: but rather affirm, their function to be both extraordinary and evangelical; as in the proposition of his first syllogism he confesseth. And as for their authority understanding thereby (as the Doctor doth) nothing else but a power to ordain and to exercise a public spiritual jurisdiction: they do no where affirm it to be either extraordinary or proper to an Evangelist. Yea the Doctor acknowledgeth (pag. 84. and 100) that his Refuter granteth, that others were to succced Timothy and Titus in the authority which they had; but not in their office; and that their authority (though not their function) was perpetually necessary. Wherefore if he take not authority and function, for one and the same thing, or at least restrain authority to that peculiar power, which distinguisheth their function from all other ministerial callings; he hath apparently falsified the state of the question. And (w●● is worse) in the winding up of his 
The D. falsineth the state of the question. The Doct. bewrayeth the beggary or his cause.  dispute, bewrayeth the extreme beggary of his cause; when he proveth their function to be ordinary, because it was ordinary. For the conclusion of his first syllogism (p. 98.) affirmeth the function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinary: his medius terminus to prove it, is this. It was not extraordinary; which to confirm, he saith, that their function was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors; a●d therefore was not extraordinary. And to prove the Antecedent, he argueth thus, Their function was ordinary; and therefore was not to end with their persons. So that his whole reasoning-commeth to this issue, Their function was ordinary, and therefore it was ordinary. To amend all these defaults, since it is apparent that in his main conclusion, he affirmeth their function to be both ordinary and episcopal, as before I showed the word authority to be superfluous, so it followeth from things before delivered, that the word, ordinary, in that prosyllogisme, which he layeth down 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 perpetually necessary, not only for the well-being 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 which they had, when they were assigned to certain churches, is perpetually necessary, not only for the wellbeinge; but also for the very being of the visible Churches.  
Therefore, the function which they had, being so assigned, was not to end 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. burr the D. wrongeth himself, when to avoid one absurdity, he throweth himself into many.  him to asfirme that the episcopal power or function is perpetually necessary, not only 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 avoid the rock of this one absurdity, he throweth himself into the gulf 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 do; who being at a nonplus, would feign seem to answer somewhat.  
To conclude then this point, seeing 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 every ordinance apostolical, to be a divine ordinance: and the perpetuity of divine ordinances or precepts, dependeth not on the authority of the person, from whom they proceed immediately (whether from God, or holy men authorized from God) but upon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength thereunto: seeing the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be (not only a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution, but also) such an ordinance, as is necessary to be retained for the same cause (viz. the avoydinge of schisms) for which it was first instituted: yea such an ordinance, as on which the unity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth: seeing also he affirmeth that the perpetual directions and commandements 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 only de facto but also the jure, and that the Churches of succeeding ages, have much more need of men furnished with episcopal authority to govern them, than those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles: And seeing he doth so far grace our own Bishops, that he saith they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdiction 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, seeing he did in his serm. avouch (though now he disclaimeth it in the d●f●se thereof) the episcopal function to be perpetually necessary, even for the very being (and not for the well-ordering only) of the visible Ch; & he still maintaineth their function to be no less necessary, for the ordaining of Ministers, them the office of Ministers is, for the baptizing of other Christian disciples: (seeing I say, these things are so evident & apparent truth, that none of them can be denied) it is no less apparent that the D. stryveth in vain, to quench the light that shineth to his conscience, when he indeavoureth to persuade that he maintaineth not the episcopal function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini, or of general & perpetual use for the churches of Christ. For the reader may easily perceyve, that it were easy for us by sundry syllogisms (that would carry good consequence and clear evidence of truth with them) to confirm even from his own words, that which I now affirm to be the state of the question; but I will content myself to use one or two at this time only; and thus I reason;  
The episcopal 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 temporary 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 perpetual function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, fitted for the general use of all Churches to the words end; or at least, such an office as was ●f necessary use only for the times of persecution, and in want of a Christian M●gistra●e, as some have esteemed the governing Elders to be.  
But in the Doctor's opinion, who holdeth the episcopal function (such as ours 〈◊〉 at this ●●y) to be of divine institution; it was neither so extraordinary or temporary, a● that of the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting & establishing of the Churches; neither of necessary use only for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate, 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be.  
Therefore the episcopal function (such as ours is at this day) in the D. opinion, who holdeth it to be of divine institution; is such an ordinary & perpetual function as is the function of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word & sacraments, fi●ted for the general use of all Churches to the world's end. Or thus.  
Whatsoever function was once of divine institution, and still remeineth lawful and good; the same is either arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church & Magistrate to receive or refuse: or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary:  
But the episcopal function, in the D. opinion, was once of divine institution, and still remaineth lawful and good, and no● arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate, to receive or refuse.  
Therefore (in the Doctor's opinion) it is generally perpetually and immutably necessary.  
And consequently, the main doctrine of the Doct. sermon, which he raiseth from his text, and set down in these words. The episcopal function is of apostolical and divine institution; or thus, The function of Bps. is lawful and good, as having divine both institution & approbation, must thus be understood. q. d. the function of Bishops, such as ours are, at this day, (viz. Diocesan & sole ruling Bb.) is such an apostolical or divine ordinance, as may be called divinum jus (Gods law) as being of general and perpetual use for the Churches of Christ.  
Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. 
Sect.  not only touching the perpetuity of this office; but also touching the first original thereof; esteeming it to be of human and not of divine institution: yea, seeing we deny the function, not only of sole-ruling Bishops, but also of Diocesan & Provincial Bishops, lifted up in degree of office and ministry above other Ministers, to be of divine or Apostolical institution: I will therefore join issue with the Doctor in his own terms, and (as respondent in this question) stand to maintain the contrary assertions, scz. that the function of Bishops such as ours are, (viz. as himself explaineth his own meaning serm. pag. 52.) Diocesan and provincial Bishops, superior in degree to other Ministers, having a singularity of pre-eminence for term of life; and a p●●relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction) is neither of apostolical, 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 draw together into one continued tract, whatsoever he hath in any part of his sermon or defence thereof, that carrieth any colour of argument, to justify the doctrine, which he pretendeth, to have drawn from the true and natural explication of his text; that his Refuters censure may appear to be true, when he saith (answ. pag. 4.) that his text yieldeth nothing to prove his kind of Bishops; nor to show any such quality of their function as he imagineth. The which being done, I will in the second part, 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 been 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 truly and rightly alleged, and as competent as any he bringeth.    

THE FIRST PART. THE THIRD BOOK.  

Chap. 1. Containing an answer to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. book, wherein he laboureth (but in vain) to maintain the first argument in his sermon, viz. That the seven Churches of Asia (whereof his text speaketh) were Dioceses.  
We are now at the length come to see, how artificially and sound 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: Therefore the function of Bishops, such as ours are, is of divine institution. And in a plain syllogism (according to the course of his own 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 & Stars holden in Christ's right hand, doth argue his sending and approbation: but I flatly deny the Assumption, or Antecedent of his Enthimem, as having no foundation in his text, nor any one sound reason, either in his sermon, or in the defence thereof, to make it good. For though he will at no hand endure to hear, of any solo power of rule, either for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops: yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops, and that he doth underhand give such a power unto 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 do, nor as yet ever attempted to do) that the Bishops meant by Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops. But that his own conscience may be the better convinced, of the weakness of his reasoning, and of his abusing the text which he handleth, he is to be put in mind, that himself (serm. pag. 52. 53.) doth thus unfold the substantial parts of the calling of ou● Bishops, to wit, that they are Diego cesan and provincial Bishops, superior in degree to other Ministers, having a singularity of pre-eminence, for term of life, and a peerless power both of ordination and jurisdiction. For hence it followeth, that if he have not proved the Bishops meant by Angels in his text, to be 1. some of them provincial and and other some diocesan Bishops. 2. & all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers. 3. as having a singularity of pre-eminence during life, and 4. a peerless power of ordination, 5. and of jurisdiction: (if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified), than it followeth that he hath left naked, the main point which he should have confirmed; namely, that the Bishops here meant by Angels, were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are. Now it is apparent to all that peruse his sermon and the defence thereof, that he never indeavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mentioned in his text to be a provincial Bishop, or in the power of ordination to have a peerless pre-eminence above others. For though he tell us (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 metropolitans: 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 altogether. 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 unto 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 pre-eminence during life: & 4. a peerless power of jurisdiction or (as he expoundeth himself, 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 only argument that he hath either in his sermon or defence, is drawn from the form or constitution of those Churches whereof they were Angels, which he peremptorily affirmeth (but very weakly proveth) to be dioceses properly 
The Doct. only argument to prove, the Angels to be Diocesan 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 meant by Angels) were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans.  
The Antecedent is an erroneous fancy forged by the Doctor and hath neither testimony nor reason to support it, as shall appear by & by. In the mean while, be it known to him, that his c●sequence also is to be rejected as weak and unsound. And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogism, he shall soon discern it; for to make a supply of the proposition, which is presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning, he must argue thus, 

The Angels 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 parishional Bishops.   In which proposition so supplied, if there be a necessary truth, then must the Doctor confess, (though against the hair, and contrary to his former persuasion) that the Bishops of whom mention is made Acts. 20. 28. & phillip 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 attend the whole flock etc. (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 speech) is properly a Diocese and not a parish. Moreover by the like consequence, he must acknowledge, that the Prophets & Teachers mentioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. were for the extent of their authority equal with the Apostles; that is, all universal Ministers & none affixed to any particular Church or Diocese: because the Church, wherein God is said to ordain them, is the universal Church militant, as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 227. & lib 2. pag. 4. Also that Titus was properly a national Bishop, and not Diocesan or provincial, 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 own Church (whose function he will have to be of divine institution) are properly, national also, and not diocesan or provincial: because the Church of England whereof they are Bishops, is neither diocese nor province, but properly a nation or national Church. Wherefore if the Doctor doth not wilfully shut his eyes against the light; he may see, that though he could prove those. 7. Churches to be properly dioceses; yet it will not follow (as he supposeth) that the Angels of those Churches were properly diocesan Bishops. So that if he fail also of his hope to prove (or ●ather boast in vain of that proof, which he professeth (lib. 2. pa 3.) to have drawn from his text to show) that the 7. Churches of Asia were properly dioceses; then may he sit down in silence with the loss of his cause; till he hath found out a new text (in case any other can be found) to justify the function 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.  upon the text, was (in his sermon. pag. 17. & 18.) proposed to prove a more large Conclusion (viz. that in the Apostles times and in the age following, the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels, to wit, all visibles Churches endowed with power of ecclesiastical government, were Dioceses properly and not parishes:) wherefore before we try, how well he hath proved those 7. churches to be Dioceses; let us first see how absurdly he dealeth in straining his text to a larger extent, I mean to justify that general conclusion before mentioned. The words which ●ay down his argument are these, For whereas our Saviour Christ, writing to the Churches of Asia numbereth but seven, & naming the principal, and (some of them) mother-cities) of Asia, saith: The● stars 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 adjoining. From the last words of which-sentence, the refuter frameth this connexive Syllogism. 

If the Churches of Asia, to which our Saviour Christ writ●, were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but also the Countries adjoining, than 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 words of the proposition which is supplied, (viz. than they were Dioceses properly and not parishes) must not be restrained to the 7▪ Churches of Asia only; but rather understood of all the visible Churches which were in the world at that time, and in the age following: as the words of his conclusion before delivered do show.  
Notwithstanding because the refuter rejecteth the consequence of the proposition, and saith, it is nought, the Doctor finding himself unable to make it good, disgorgeth his stomach against his 
The D. unable to make good his own reason, seeketh to make his Ref. logic nought.  Refuter: and thinking to make his logic nought, asketh (pag. 43. sect. 3.) if he cannot frame a Syllogism with hope to answer it, unless the proposition have a consequence which he may deny, and (as if he were a Puny that had not learned the grounds of logic) entreateth 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 upon him Magistraliter to teach him how to know it, and willeth him to dispose his connexive proposition into an Enthymem, and giveth him to wit, that what part is wanting to make up a syllogism, the same is presupposed as the hypothesis whereon the consequence is grounded: and so goeth on along in instructing his Refuter in logical points: where I leave him. And on the Refuters behalf I answer, 1. that though he is not perhaps so great a logician as Master Doctor; yet he is not ignorant how to reduce an Enthymem into a simple Syllogism, he hath often done it before the Doctor drew him into his school, as the reader may see in his answer pag. 9 29. 70. 73. 109. 139. 145. 154. 155. & 156; and so hath proved 
The D. a false witness.  him to be a false witness, 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 syllogism, that he may have a consequence to cavil with. ●. but doth not the D. himself frame many connexive Syllogisms in this Defense? See lib. 1. pag. 67. 84. 92. 101. 134. 165. & 180. in the rest of his books 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 Syllogisms, however another might do it; yet I may here tell the D. it becometh not him to do it: Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum. But had the Doctor made none yet the use of such Syllogisms 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 firm & apt. both for confirmation of truth, & confutation of error? To pass by Polanus. Log. l. 1. p. 92; Let the D. read that worthy Sadeel (Tit. de verbo Dei scripto etc. cap. 2. and 3. Useth 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 Theological disputations, & that by the practice both of ancient writers and schoolmen? I take him to be a man not much inferior to the Doctor, in the Art of reasoning; but if he disdain the comparison, I hope the Apostle Paul was no ways inferior to him: let him see whether he confirmeth not this course. 1. Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 18. etc. Yea let the Reader remember how our blessed Saviour Christ, the Prince of Logicians often vieth them. joh. 5. 46. & 8. 39 40. 55. and 15. 19 22. 24? Let the D. therefore say what he will, it is no disgrace to the Refuter, with them that are wise and unpartial to have used them. 3. Moreover since the Doctor will needs read to his Refuter a logic lecture, to ●each him how to reduce every Enthymem into a simple syllogism, how happeneth it that he giveth him no direction, how to know unto which of the premises, every thing presupposed in the consequence, must be referred? especially when more assertions than 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 foolishness herein) know he; his Refuter whom he undertaketh to teach, hath learning enough to discern (as in many other parts of his defence, so even) in his maintaining this argument that he scarce knoweth, how to reduce some of his own Enthymems or hypothetical arguments into simple syllogisms. For if he will draw 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 only but also the countries ad●●yning. Therefore in the age following the visible Churches endowed with power of ecclesiastical government, were Dioceses properly and not parishes. Now who seethe not the consequence of this Enthymem to be nought, and that for the reasons which the Refuter yieldeth? 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, etc. 2. because it doth not appear (neither is it true) that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies etc. Of the later we shall speak anon. Let us now see how he wipeth away the former.  
The proposition (or consequence) saith he (pag. 45.) is so far 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 falsehood whereof is so apparent to his own conscience, that within a few lines after, (scz. 16. or 17.) he denieth it again, and saith it was spoken only concerning 5. of those Churches. But 2. to dispute the point in hand, what will the Doctor answer to his refuter (whom he maketh so ignorant in the grounds of logic) if he should argue with him in this manner? In every Enthymem what soever is not affirmed in the Antecedent, & yet is necessarily understood 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 down to make good the Conclusion, this assertion that all churches in the world were at that time such as those. 7. to wit, great and ample Cities is necessarily understood, 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 proposition, which comprehendeth both the Antecedent, & conclusion of the Enthymem. Till his answer be heard here unto, it shall not be amiss 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 understood 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 neither here for concluding 
A silly sh●●● & an idle quarrel of the D.  from these 7. to all others, etc. The former is a silly shift, and the later an idle quarrel. 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 Syllogism: 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 Syllogism? 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 john wrote his revelation) great and ample cities. etc. Neither 3. can he salve 
The D. can not salve his credit.  his credit, by denying that he is herein blameworthy; for 1. that he presupposeth thus much, he cannot deny, seeing in his sermon, he did affirm 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 truly affirmed of the rest. And since in the words 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 presupposal, to be a gross untruth. 4. What relief then can he gain, by appealing (as he doth) to the testimony of his Refuter to prove, that the form and constitution of all the primitive Churches is one and the same? for I yet hope that prejudice hath not so far blinded him, but he can see the falla ●y of his former reasoning (ab accident) when he presupposeth all other Churches to be great and ample cities like as he said, those 7. in 
The Doct. reason is ● fallacy of the accident.  Asia were; because the form and constitution of all Churches is one and the same? Wherefore he rageth without reason, in rejecting (pag. 47.) that reason which his Refuter yielded for the denial of his consequence, viz. that though it were granted, that those 7. were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoining, yet their might be divers other (as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16.) which were small and bounded within the walle● of some small Town. See you not, saith the D. how he seeketh about for starting holes? what if there were other small Churches? what is that to this consequence? If th●se Ch: contained each of them, not only the City but the Country adjoining, than they were not parishes properly, but Dioceses. his answer if it be well weighed, is an exception against the conclusion etc. I answer. ●. if he grant there were other small Churches, he than justifieth his Ref: censure; both in denying that to agree to all other Churches, which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities etc. 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 slandereth his refuter in charging him, to seek about for starting holes, and his answer to be an exception 
The Doct. slandereth his Refuter  against the conclusion. For his answer is a strong engine to better the consequence of his argumentation, and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himself crept into for safe harbour, 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 himself, 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 general: (of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following) so he doth expressly affirm (pag. 45. of this defence) 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) wherein 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. himself to be a froward adversary and a false witness. His falsehood appeareth in this, that as he cannot allege one word to prove 
The Doct. not the Refuter is a froward ad versary & a false witness.  his accusation; so he himself acquitteth 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 falsely presupposeth all Churches to be such, as he saith those 7. were, (to wit great and ample ●ities &c.) what is it else but frowardness in him, that will rather justify a lie, then acknowledge a truth, which he knoweth?  
But since he will now restrain his argument, to the 7. Churches, 
Sect. 5.  to conclude them Dioceses. I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem (before set down 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 adjoining. Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes; yea Dioceses such as ours are. For unless their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are, he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authority, like to our Diocesans. Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any direction for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism, I would advise him to remember▪ that the Medius terminus (which never entereth into the conclusion) must needs be here, the predicatum in the antecedent, to wit, great and ample cities etc. and to make up the proposition which is wanting, there must be joined to it, the predicatum of the consequent, to wit, Dioceses etc. because it hath no place in the antecedent. Wherefore the proposition to be supplied must be this. Great and ample cities together with their countries adjoining are Dioceses properly and not parishes; yea Dioceses like to ours. Then follow the parts 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 together with their countries adjoining. Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly etc. In the assumption of 
A double untruth in the D. assumption.  this Syllogism, or antecedent of the former Enthymem, there is a double untruth, which the Doctor in his second thoughts discerned; for himself pag. 45. restraineth the name of great and ample cities to 5. only of those 7. and that which he granteth of Ephesus (pag. 62.) must be acknowledged also, of all the rest, viz. that the whole city was not the Church, until it was wholly converted to the profession of Christianity. Wherefore to free his argument from both these untruths: 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 only the cities, but also the countries adjoining, now he saith, his meaning was, that those Churches contained in their circuit not only the Cities, but the countries adjoining. Wherefore he contriveth his argument in this form, pag. 42. & 44.  
Churches, whose circuit contained both Cities and countries adjoining were Dioceses. The circuit of the 7. Churches contained the Cities and Countries adjoining. Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses. The assumption, he hath made good (as he supposeth) with necessary proof. And the proposition, which he took for granted, will stand (as he saith pag. 43.) unmoveable, when the foundation of our discipline will be razed. But the issue will show (I doubt not) that the foundation of our discipline will abide firm, 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 meaning a little more plain, in both the premises, as himself doth explain his assumption thus, that the Circuit of every one of those Churches contained both the City, & the Country adjoining: so (to hold proportion therewith) his proposition must carry this sense, that every Church, whose circuit containeth a City, and the Country adjoining, 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 affirm, every Church containing one City and the Country adjoining, to be such a diocese, as these are, which we behold at this day in the Church of England. But admit a truth in his proposition (to let pass the Church of London, which in Q. Mary's time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoining as in the City, & yet was not a diocese but rather a parish assembly) 1. I object his own words (Cap. 2. p. 39) Viz. That as with us  and Wells, Lichfeild and Coventry, London and Colchester; so in the primitive Church more Cities than one, with the countries adjoining made but one diocese. And for instance in this case, he saith that the Bishop of Hera●lea had both it and Panion; the Bishop of B●●e had also Arcadiopolis etc. he addeth (page 40.) that the whole nation of the Scythians having many City's Towns and Castles, had all of them by ancient custom, one only 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 Countries or Shires adjoining, do not make each of them a several Diocese: the same may be said of the ancient Christians, in the cities of Heraclea, Panion, Bize, and Arcadiapolis; and in the several cities of the nations of the Scythians. Every Church therefore whose circuit containeth an whole City with the Country adjoining, is not a Diocese. And consequently he wrangleth against the truth known to his own conscience, when he asketh (pag. 47.) how is it possede that those Churches should not be Dioceses, which contain 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 appear (neither is it true) that every one of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies, all of them depending upon some one, as the chief; without power of ecclesiastical government, a part in themselves. For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided: till this appear, 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 point that he must prove, as is before showed. Notwithstanding the D. in his reply (p. 47. & 48.) insulteth over his Ref: in this manner. Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion, is not the denial of the conclusion an evidence that the answerer is confounded? & is not confusion a manifest sign, that he writeth against his conscience, resolved not to be persuaded, though his conscience be convicted? Whereunto I answer. 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the denial of the conclusion; 
Either the D. raileth & slandereth, or else contradicteth himself & his main assertion.  then in the D. opinion a Diocese, and a Church divided into divers several ordinary assemblies etc. are one and the same thing: so that none other Church, then that which is so divided, can properly or truly be called a Diocese; and consequently, when he saith (pag. 30.) that though those Churches had not been divided into several congregations, yet had they (each of them) been Dioceses; his meaning must be this. q. d. though none of those Churches had been a Diocese, yet each of them had been a Diocese. In like manner when he affirmeth (pag. 69.) that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes, his meaning must be this and no other. q. d. In the Apostles times, the Churches were no Dioceses. Which is to contradict and condemn of falsehood, the very main assertion, which in the second part of his sermon, he undertook to prove. And when he argueth there in this manner (The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into several parishes; and therefore the presbyteries in their days 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 unto Dioceses. Behold we, what the Doctor hath gained in avouching his Refuters' reason, to be nothing else but a denial of the conclusion. Are not the consequences of this assertion clear evidences that it is himself that is confounded; and that writeth against his conscience, as one resolved not to be persuaded, though his conscience be convicted?  
2. For (to return to the point in hand) as the D. knoweth well enough, that his Refuters words are bend against the consequence of his argument: for his meaning is clearly nothing else then this, q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample city etc. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses (such as ours are) because it doth not appear that every of those Churches was divided into diverse several ordinary assemblies etc. and upon the same ground; the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explained, is still to be rejected: to wit, because to make any Churches dioceses (such as ours are) it is not enough to show, that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoining; he must also demonstrate those. 3. branches, which he observeth in the Refut: words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into divers ordinary assemblies. 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Chief. 3. and that they have not any of them, the power of ecclesiastical government a part in themselves.  
But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter: 
Sect. 7.  (in these particulars) perverteth the drift of his words, as if he had intended to prove, that those 7. Churches were not dioceses, because they were not so divided etc. And therefore forgetting what part himself and his Refuter do bear in this controversy; he urgeth him (as if he were the opponent) to prove his assertions, holding i● sufficient, for him to deny them, till proof be made of them. Yet knowing, forsooth, that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them; & desiring from his soul to satisfy them in this cause as brethren, he will briefly disprove them. Who would have thought that he would have been so kind, to an adversary so froward, yea convicted and resolved (as he saith) not to be persuaded? Perhaps he taketh this pains for some others sake, of whom he hath better hope. Well, let us listen to his discourse; and (having first observed what he undertaketh to disprove) we will way 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 appear (neither is it true) that every one of those. 7. Churches, was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies. The which if he will disprove, he must make it appear to be a truth, that every of those Churches was divided into divers ordinary assemblies; now let us hear what he hath to say in this case. As touching the first (saith he) I have often wondered, what our brethren mean 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 wondering 
The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter.  till he show; both where his brethren have so argued; and why such an argument will not hold? And 2. why giveth he all his friends just cause, to wonder at his proceeding, that wandereth from his purpose; or rather justifieth his Refut: in that which he undertook to disprove? For he doth afterwards clearly acknowledge, that which now is closely implied; sc: that the ancient Churches remained for a time undivided.  
3. Moreover to answer him in his own 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 seen 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 allegeth the pattern of those Apostolic Churches at jerusalem and Antioch etc. 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 from the beginning, the circuit of the city & country adjoined; is the practice of succeeding ages (p. 49. & 55.) which after division of parishes, combined them in one body under one Bishop. As for his questions following, though I see not how they will serve his purpose; yet will I briefly touch upon them, and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answer. 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 answer; so long as the number of Christians in any City and Country adjoining, do not exceed the proportion of a popular congregation, I hold it best they continue undivided, as the first Apostolic Churches did: but when the people of any City and Country are so increased; that their number will suffice for divers several assemblies, it were absurd to bind them perpetually unto an ordinary assembling in one place. 2. Then tell me (saith he) whether we that do and of necessity must, consist of divers congregations, are to follow the example of any ancient Church, as it was before it was divided, or as it was after it was divided? I affirm, that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied, the practice of the Apostles, & the ancient Apostolic Churches, is to be imitated of us, in giving to those new erected assemblies, both the name and form or constitution of Churches, and the like power for government, which those apostolic Churches so multiplied did enjoy. If in this answer the Doctor can find that which he desireth, I shall gladly see what he will hence infer for the disproving of his Refuters assertion, in any one branch thereof. 3. He addeth, They will say perhaps, that each congregation after the division was as that one before, nothing less; let them prove that, and I will yield in the whole cause. We say it in deed, and will not shrink from affirming, that in the Apostles times, wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country, which at first made one Church, were distributed into divers, there each congregation was in form or constitution like to that one before, and if it be not so, why doth he not disprove it? Why doth he again put himself into the place of a respondent; giving his reader just occasion to think, that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this point? As for the ages following in Constantine's time or there abouts, when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoining to it, their example cannot be held so fit as the former to determine the question of divine institution; either for the constitution of Church-assemblies; or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters, wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved, if he think that his testimonies from the decrees of counsels &c. (before cited as he saith) can convince or persuade the conscience of his opposites, to hold their practise for a divine or apostolic ordinance. But to what purpose doth he trif●le time in these By-questions, which make him forget what he promised to prove, viz. that every of those 7. Churches, was divided into several ordinary assemblies? Yet in one point more, we must follow him, sc. when he indeavoreth to show, that the Apostolic Churches were Dioceses before they were divided; for this had been very direct to the main question in hand; if he had added this clause, that they were Dioceses such as ours are; but he foresaw, that this addition, would have quite marred his market; notwithstanding attendance shallbe given, to that he hath delivered in defence of the point, which he maintaineth.  
It willbe said (saith he) that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses. Whereto I answer, that the circuit 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 circuit 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 only the city but th● country thereto belonging. And if this be his meaning (as it must unless he will show himself unconstant) then behold how he is 
The D. must● gg still.  enforced, principium petere, when from hence he inferreth the conclusion which himself setteth down in the page following (50.) sc. that though the 7. Churches had not b●ne divided into several congregations; yet had they each of them been Dioceses. And because he cannot endure a connexive proposition in his Ref: I will assay, to draw his reasoning into a simple syllogism, and if he can be●ter the argument, let him take his own away. 

Every Church, whose circuit, in the intention of the Apostle, or first founder ●f it, was the same (as including not only the city, but the country thereto belonging) aswell before 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 circuit of the 7. Churches, in the intention of the Apostles, or their first founders.  
herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning, though not yet divided into many several congregations.    
Now let the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllogism, with the main argument which himself contrived (and is before set down sect. 5.) and if they can find any such material difference in the medius terminus and the premises, as may give the D. a discharge from begging the question, let them show it. Mean while I doubt not, but, every unpartial reader will perceive his poverty in this dispute, especially seeing he supporteth the Assumption of his principal argument with the same answer pag. ●4. For who, that denieth any of the Apostolic Churches, to comprehend the whole city and country adjoining (as Dioceses in succeeding ages did) will believe, that the circuit of those Churches, was the same, when there were but few, that it was when many, yea all were Christians? and who, that denieth (as the Refuter doth) the circuit of a city and country adjoining, to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese; unless it be divided into many congregations, will not take him for a very trifler, which, to make good the contrary, shall yield him none other argument than this; that a Church not yet divided into several assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese; If the founder thereof, did intend, that her circuit should include city and country, as a divided Diocese doth. Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and 
Both premises of the Doctor argument are unsound.  downright answer to his argument last contrived, I at once reject both the promises, 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 circuit, including both city and country adjoining; so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable; (as it doth with the Refuter, who accounteth such a circuit the material cause only, & esteemeth the very form that giveth being unto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies, as members of one body:) a mean logician may see, that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding, he should have yielded us some one or other Medius terminus, which might have served to prove, that such a circuit maketh a Diocesan body, although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof. But now in arguing (as he doth) that the ancient Churches, though yet undivided, were Dioceses because their founders intended, that their circuit should extend over city and country, as the later Diocesan Churches did: the error of his reasoning is no less gross and absurd, then if he had said, Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally; Therefore they were Dioceses properly or 
The D. reasoning is gross and absurd.  actually. For all men know that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese (as he saith all the first Apostolical 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 Diocese, only in the intention of the founder; and not actually; it is impossible, it should be a diocese actually or properly, but intentionally only; especially in their opinion, who place (as the D. doth) the very form and being, of a diocesan Church, in the circuit of her jurisdiction, containing both City and Country adjoining. Let the D. here call to mind what he said pag. 18. of his sermon, & maintaineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the chief Cities of any nation, they intended the conversion of the whole nation; and that when having by God's blessing converted some, they placed presbyters in any of those chief Cities; their intent and hope was by their ministry to convert, aswell in the Country's adjoining as in the City, so many as did belong unto God. He addeth (in his defence) that they whose ministry 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 converting 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 beginning intended, that the Bishop: of the mother City should be the chief 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 own Dioceses, not actually metropolitans, until divers Churches being constituted, and Bishops ordained in the several Dioceses of the province, there was a consociation and subordination of them, unto one chief primate. Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intending the conversion of the whole nation, and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops, as the light of the Gospel should spread itself into the several Dioceses: if this intention I say, cannot persuade the Doctor to take the first Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches, or Metropolitan Bishops: Surely then he might think us very Idiots, if we should take his bare word (when he disagreeth with himself) for a fit proof to persuade us, that the like intention (of erecting a Church in any city or Diocese, under 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 ministry, first erected in the city.  
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 circuit includeth the city (wherein it is seated,) & the Country adjoining, only 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 though countries adjoining, only 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 himself putteth betwixt the actual being of Metropolitan Bishops, or Churches, and the intention of those that first founded Churches in Mother-cities. And the Assumption is in effect the Doctors own assertion, as he explaineth himself pag. 69. 73. & 128; for in the last place quoted he saith expressly, that the Country's subject to the civil jurisdiction of any city, were actually under the Bishop's charge after their conversion, and intentionally before; wherefore without contradiction to himself, he cannot reject the conclusion. So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches, shall hold proportion with the grounds of his disputation; he must 
The Doct. in his next, must change & add & detract as here he doth, or else etc.  (in his next) first, change his main ten●●t or conclusion, and plainly profess that howsoever he undertook to prove, that the Apostolic Churches were Dioceses properly, yet that was not his meaning, but rather this, that they were Dioceses intentionally, that is, that it was their founder's intention that in time to 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 falsehood of his antecedent) with an Index expurgatorius, wiped away this clause great and ampl● cities; and by a Metonymy or some other trope (as we shall hear an one) turned his laying, they were the cities and countries, to this meaning, the circuit of the Churches contained both cities and countries adjoining: so now, he must once again limit the word, contained, to an intentional containing, as if he had said, it was the intention of their ●●unders, that in time they should contain such a circuit. But (to pass forwards) this position is in truth more absurd and incredible than the former. 
The Doct. proposition more absurd than before.  For in affirming before, that the circuit of every of those Churches contained both the city and country, with a favourable construction being understood, to speak (after that usual Metonymy which he noteth pag. 52.) of the Christian people in city & country, his assertion might the more easily gain his Refuters assent and allowance, to pass uncontrolled: so long at least, as he should remain constant in his judgement touching the multiplying, or distinguishing of parishes in such a circuit, which in his sermon (pag. 18. & 22.) he denieth to be done in the Apostles times, and when the Apostle john wrote the Revelation. But now in avouching the circuit 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 draw any judicious reader that opposeth to him in this controversy, to subscribe to his assertion. But let the Doctor speak I pray, Even as (saith he pag. 49.) the subject 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 little 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 himself had made the application of his comparison) we should more easily have discerned, how fit or unfit, it is for his purpose. The point which he would (at least should) illustrate by this similitude is this, that the circuit of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it, was the same aswell before the division of parishes as after. Me thinks therefore, to make the protasis of his comparison answerable to the apodosis he should have rather said, Even as the subject of the leven in the intention 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, than it had rather darkened then lightened that which he indeavoureth to persuade. Because it is better known what the subject of the leven is, before the lump be divided, then after: whereas in his assertion before expressed, the state or constitution of the Church, after parishes were multiplied in city and country, and subordinated to the jurisdiction of one consistory, is brought (as better known) to show how fat the circuit of the Church and spiritual jurisdiction stretched, when as yet but an handful of people (in comparison of the rest) was seasoned by the Ministry of the gospel. Perhaps his meaning is that as he which putteth a little leven into an whole bache of bread, intendeth that the leven should in time, spread her virtue over all, and so the whole mass of meal made one body of a well leavened lump: so also the Apostles and first founders of Churches, when they first planted a Church, and placed Presbyters in any city or Diocese, did intend, that the leven of their doctrine, being conveyed into the hearts of the whole multitude, all might be made one body of a Diocesan Church. If this be so; seeing in this comparison the Church is as the leven, or that part of meal which is first leavened, we may by his own comparison discover the absurdity of his former assertion. For as the circuit of the leven (or meal leavened) is at the first putting in, (and for a while after) far less, than when all is leavened: so also the circuit of the Church, at the first erecting of it in any city (& for some ages after) was far less than when the whole people of the Diocese embraced the faith. Again, as it is contrary to the intent of him that putteth in the leven, that the loaves being once divided, should any longer remain parts of one lump; or that among the loaves more regard should be had to that little portion of meal that was fi●st soured, to make of it a Mother-loafe, unto w●● the rest of the loaves should owe any homage: so it may seem (by this comparison) 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 subordination of those Churches, that all should be subject to the jurisdiction, of one Cathedral Church seated in the city. But to leave his comparison to his his second thoughts, if he can make any more advantage of it hereafter; I now demand 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 answer 
Sect. 10. add sect. 6. p. 49  thereunto, doth aforehand prevent it, and will have us to understand that he knoweth it. And therefore goeth on and saith. If you ask me how I know this? I answer. First, because the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles days unto our age, hath so understood the intention of the Apostles, and of their first founders; the circuit of every Church, having from the beginning, included not only the City but the Country thereto belonging. I must here demand again; how came it that the Church of God, did understand the Apostles intention to be such? And how cometh the D. to know that they had any such understanding? 1. Did the Church of God receive their understanding in this point from the mouths or pens of the Apostles? If they discovered their intention by writing; be the Doctor entreated, we pray him, to show us where we may read it for our learning? If not by writing, but by tradition? It is strange a matter of such consequence, for the well-ordering of all Churches to the world's end, should be committed to such an happ-hazzard. 2. And how hath the Church informed the Doctor of their understanding? hath he received it also by tradition, or from the writings of the 
The D. first reason confuted by himself.  Lords worthies in all ages? Why doth he not either quote us their books wherein they affirm it; or give us the catalogue of such as have from hand to hand conveyed it to him? Till he hath given satisfaction in these particulars, let him not think but his reader will deem his first reason to be a speech void of reason, yea a monstrous untruth confuted by himself, as shall well appear in the examination of his reasons following.  
His second reason he layeth down thus; saying. Secondly because that division of Churches which was 300. or 400. years after Christ, with their limits and circuits, was ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning, as before hath been testified by diverse ancient Counsels. Ordinarily and from the beginning? So he saith in deed. But 1. doth any Council that he hath alleged, (pag. 22. & 37. or elsewhere) testify the circuits of the Churches, to have been from the beginning of their planting by the Apostles, the same, that they were in their own times? Is not all the question (in those councils) of Country parishes, or such parts of any Country as neither desired to have a Bishop, or were challenged of divers Bishops? The beginning therefore (whereof they speak) must be taken for the time of erecting Churches in Country villages, and subordinating them to the Bishop of the City adjoining. Neither yet do they ascribe this to any ordinance, or intention of the Apostles, or first founders of the Church, in the City; but to ancient custom, (as the words of the Ephesin Council show, which he hath set down. Can. 2. pag. 37.) ratified by ecclesiastical laws, and Canons (falsely called Canons) of the Apostles. 2. But why saith he, the circuits were ordinarily the same? Meaneth he, it was no common use to alter them? Or that it was against order and unlawful? It cannot be the later, since he confesseth (pag. 23.) that if there were cause, (sc. for the greatness of the Charge and number of people etc.) the circuits of Dioceses were lessened, & new bishoprics erected. Behold then, how worthily the D. reasoneth. The division of Churches with their circuits, remained till 400. years after Christ, the same which it had been from the beginning of erecting Churches in the remote parts of any Diocese, and subordinatinge them to the Bishops of the Cities adjoining, unless the greatness of the charge required the circuit to be lessened & a new Bishopric to be established. Ergo, it was the intention of the Apostles, that the Churches which they planted, should have the same Circuit 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 grew over great for one Bishop, & the number of people in some parts, desired to have a new Bishop: the Circuits 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 Circuit of every Church should always continue the same, aswell when all in City and Country were converted, as when there were but a few. But let us hear 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 usually fellow the division of the Common wealth: in so much that those Countries that were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction, exercised in any City, were also subject ordinarily to the ec●lesiasticall etc. Is not the Doctor's plenty (think ye) turned into mere penury; when (the testimony of ancient Fathers and councils failing him) he is glad to seek relief at their hands, whose judgement otherwise (ordinarily and usually) he rejecteth? And yet (alas for pity) they (whom he meaneth) cannot yield him any comfort. For what say they? Forsooth, that in the distribution of dioceses, provinces and patriarchal pre-eminences, the state ecclesiastical followed the civil. And when did the Church take up this Course? Do they say that the Apostles began it, or intended any such matter? No, it was thought a convenient course by the Bishops after the Apostles days, for the better managing of Church-causes in their Synods, and Meetings, that as for civil justice; so also for ecclesiastical affairs, recourse should be had to the Cities and Shire-townes. Neither was this order universal or perpetual, as the Doctor himself acknowledgeth in Pergamus and Thyatira. pag. 63. yea he affirmeth that by ancient custom, the whole nation of Scythians, having many Cities, towns, 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 seen pag. 10. & 40. of this his defence. Wherefore this reason of his, doth also confure (and not confirm) his fantastical conceit of the Apostles intention. And it argueth he spoke directly against the light of his conscience, when he said; that the whole Church of God, ever since the Apostles days unto our age, hath so understood (as he doth) the intention of the Apostles, and the first founders of the apostolic Churches. Wherefore since he hath no better ground for his bold affirmation, (that the circuit 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 laid in the sand of his own vain imagination, viz. that though those Churches had not been divided into several congregations, yet had they each of them been dioceses.  
But now (to return to the point, from which he hath long wandered 
Sect. 11. add sect. 6. page 50.  at his pleasure, to little purpose) he addeth, that at the time of writing the Revelation, it is more than probable, that they contained divers congregations. If it be more than probable, then, I hope, his arguments whereon he buildeth are more than probabilities, even firm and invincible demonstrations. But if there be not so much as a shadow of probability, in any thing he hath alleged; no man can justly blame his Refuter, if he say; It is more than probable the Doctor is deceived; and seeketh to deceive, with his vain brags of proving, what he avoucheth. Let us therefore examine his best probabilities. The first is, That▪ when Paul had continued but two years at Ephesus, the holy Ghost testifieth (Act. 19 10.) that all which inhabited Asia (so properly called) did hear the word of the Lord. And having both placed many Presbyters amongst them; and continued with them for the space of three yearees; afterwards sendeth T●mothy to be their Bishop, who ordinarily continued among them, until his death. And that we should not think, there was but that Church at Ephesus in Paul's 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 words, 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 subtly set down. If his meaning be to persuade his reader, that there was more 
The D. layeth down his consequence subtly.  than one Church at Ephesus in Paul's time, because he mentioneth Churches in Asia, his consequence is worse than nought: nothing hindereth his Refuter to think, that there was one only 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 may gather, 1. Cor. 16. 5. 8. 10. compared with Acts. 19 21. 22. yet, when after this, he had speech with the Elders of Ephesus (those many Elders which he now telleth us, Paul had there placed) they had no several titles or cures, but in common attended the whole flock or Church, as himself avoucheth (serm. pag. 18.) from the very words of Paul, Acts. 20. 28. where he doth apparently contradict himself, if he now labour to persuade, that there were at that time more Churches (or distinct congregations) 
A contradiction in the D. if he etc.  than one that Ephesus. But if, (in arguing as he doth) he intent no more than this; to show that in Paul's time, besides that Church at Ephesus, there were in Asia some other Churches; what is this to the purpose? I mean to prove, that in Saint john's time, each of the 7. Asian Churches contained divers congregations.  
As for that he addeth of Timothy sent unto Ephesus to be their Bishop, & his ordinary continuance there until his death; it is sooner said then proved, as shallbe showed hereafter; & were it true, it giveth him no help, to justify his former assertion, of divers congregations in every of these Churches. But 2. he proceedeth to show that Peter likewise by his preaching converted many in Asia. And 3. after the death of Peter and Paul, S. john went into those parts, preached the Gospel for many years, ordained Bishops & Presbyters where need was. 4. Wisheth us to add to the Ministry of the Apostles, the preachings of the Bishops and Presbyters ordained by them, and Disciples whom they had instructed, by whose Ministry some Churches were brought to the faith, as that of Colossae (in the Confines of Phrigia) in Paul's time. From all which particulars in stead of concluding, (that which he pretended to make more than probable, viz.) that the 7. Churches of Asia contained (each of them) divers 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 city & country belonging to it, any more than one ordinary congregation, after the preaching of such and so many for the space of 45. years. Whereunto for answer, 1. I also appeal to the conscience of every indifferent reader, whether the D. hath not proved himself 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 city & country belonging to it) any more than one ordinary congregation. Therefore it is more than probable, that they all contained divers congregations. But 2. how often will the D. contradict himself? doth he not confidently affirm, (serm. pag. 18.) that in the Apostles times parishes were 
10. The D. conradicteth himself.  not distinguished, not any Presbyters assigned to their several Cures? And doth he not still maintain the same position? (def. pag. 69.) only he excepteth the Church of Alexandria, which was far● from any of these 7. And. 3. had not the Churches of jerusalem & Rome as great helps to enlarge them, by the Ministry of many excellent Teachers, and for as many years? yet himself denieth any ordinary congregations to be multiplied in them. See we what he saith plainly 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 heretics as Paul foretold; since that which he foretold, (Act. 20. 29. 30.) did principally concern the Church of Ephesus, and himself complaineth of their general forsaking him in Asia. 2. Tim. 1. 15. moreover since it appeareth, even by the testimony of john (or rather of Christ himself) that Ephesus, had left her first love; and that partly by persecutions and partly by false Teachers; the prosperity and growth of those Churches was much hindered. Revelat. 2. 4. 9 13. 15. 20. and 3. 2. 16. the indifferent reader will easily se●, how little likelihood there is, that there should be either in Ephesus, or in any the rest of those cities of Asia, any more than 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. years, it is probable there were more than 7. ordinary 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 than 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 several Congregations.  
And this may suffice (I doubt not) to show, that the Doctor 
Sect. 12. ad. pag. ●1.  hath said nothing to disprove that first branch of his Refuters reason (for the denial of the consequence of his Proposition) when he said, that it doth not appear, neither is it true, that every one of these Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies. The other two branches the Doctor telleth us, he will join together. And in deed, they must concur, not only one with the other; but also both of them with the former. For if he could have proved, by much more pregnant arguments, than he can, that those 7. Churches had been (ea● of them) divided into divers congregations; yet it will not follow, they were Dioceses; unless it appear also, that all of them did depend upon one Cathedral Church as chief; and had not the power of ecclesiastical 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 city and Country (as there were but 7. in all those seven Churches) 2. If the Churches both of city & country were subject to the B. of the city. 3. If the parishes both of city & country had neither Bishop nor Presbytery▪ but Presbyters severally assigned to them. 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordained by the Bishop of the City; & not only they, but also the rural Bishops were subject to his authority, (all which I have by most evident arguments▪ and testimonies proved already) then did the several congregations and parishes (which I have also proved were all but members of one body) depend upon the chief Church in the City as their head; neither had they the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction whereof they speak, as I have also proved before. All this wind shaketh no corn, a short answer 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 afterwards 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 maintained by the D; as is before observed, 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies whereby he saith he hath already proved the particulars, which he hear● assumeth for undoubted truths; they are (every Mother's son of them) of under age, & neither of growth nor strength to bear out the matter, and sway the conscience of any that considereth what is the question. The reader will remember that the point here denied, is, that there were in every of these Churches, many congregations which depended upon one as chief, without power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in themselves. All his testimonies are (as appeareth cap. 2. of this defence) far beyond the compass of the first 200 years, the counterfeit epistles of Cl●mens and Anicetus excepted, which he citeth, (cap. 2. sect. 3.) yet need I not except them, seeing the first author of them, was a very novice in respect of true antiquity, as the Doctor well knoweth. Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctor's best proofs in this Enthymem; drawn out of the best of them, thus;  
It appeareth by Counsels and Fathers after Constantine's time or a li●le before, that parishes in cities and countries adjoining, were subjecteth to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of the city, and members of one Diocesan body: Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation, there were in every of the 7. Churches, divers congregations, which depended on one chief, without prower of government in themselves.  
At length the Doctor cometh to the defence of his assumption, 
Sect. 23. add sect. 7. def. pag. ●2. 54.  which affirmeth (as the Refuter truly gathered, from his own express words (serm. pag. 18.) that the 7. Churches of Asia, were great and ample Cities, and not the Cities alone but also the Country's adjoyning●, And because his Refuter told him (pag. 54.) it was faulty both in words and matter, the Doctor chargeth him to cavil egregiously; but is not 
Not the Refut: but the D. is the caviller, or at least slanderer.  the D. rather an egregious caviller, at least a notable slanderer, if his Refuters censure be true? First for the words, I demand again (as his Refuter did before) who ever said 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 deny the later, but he laboureth to excuse the former. If (saith he) he discerned the speech which I used to be unproper, had he not so much, neither ar● (I mean rhetoric or logic) nor grace, (I mean charity) as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope, or to explain my speech, 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 esteemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgement; and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors; and such as being full of odious censures etc. will not without prejudice or partiality read what is truly said for the defence of our Church? for so he speaketh of them pag. 1. 3. 9 10. of his preface before his sermon. If therefore himself discerned his own speech to be improper, had he not so much (I say not rhetoric or logic to explain his meaning but) grace, that is prudence or charity, to prevent both all mistaking in the simple reader; and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites, by a plain and naked delivery of his true meaning? Had he remembered that he was to prove, the Churches to be properly dioceses, he might have conceived that his readers of all sorts, would expect proper, and not improper speeches, to conclude his purpose. For how hangeth this reasoning together, in the Doctor's logic? The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adjoining; therefore 
The Doct. reasoneth stoutly.  they were properly Dioceses. Mutato genere predicationis, non valet consequentia. It is a poor defence therefore for him to demand as he doth, who ever heard that stars were angels? or that the cup is blood? because it is said in his text, the 7. stars are the angels; and Christ elsewhere saith, this cup is my blood. If he can show any text either of scripture or any author, old or new, that hath said as he doth, we will cease to wonder at the strangeness of his speech. But when he further demandeth, whither when he said, the churches were the cities and the Country, his Refuter could not understand him as speaking (after that most usual metonymy) of the Christian people in the city and country, nor yet explain his words as the nature of the argument contained in his speech did lead him? I answer, in the Refuters behalf, he did well perceive by the Doctor's words following, (where he speaketh of an intent and hope, the Apostles had, to convert the whole people of city and country, by the ministery of the Presbyters, which they ordained in every city, etc. that if he had limited his speech only to those few, that were already converted to the faith; the Doctor might have had a just quarrel against him, for perverting his meaning. Wherefore though he find fault with his words: (as he had good cause) yet he stayeth not there, but contradicteth also the matter or meaning; notwithstanding he doth explain his words so, as the nature of the argument did lead him, viz. that those 7. Churches contained the people of those 7 Cities, whether already converted, or to be converted hereafter, by the Bishop & presbyters of each City; for so he seemeth to interpret himself (serm. pag. 19) But he durst not in plain terms so affirm, for then the simplest of his readers might have replied, that those Churches (for the present) contained no more of the people, in City or Country, than such as were already brought to the ●aith, which were (as his Refuter truly avoucheth, neither can the Doctor deny it) but a few, like to the number of Christians which was in London and the towns about it in Q. Mary's days; or which now is in Paris, or some Cities in France. Wherefore to say as he did, that the Churches were great Cities &c.) might better serve his turn (as the Refuter: judged) to dazzle the eyes of the simple, that they might think the people of those Churches to be (well near if not altogether) as many 
The Doct. useth cunning in his purgation but yet in rain  as the cities contained. Now the D. to purge himself from so foul an imputation thanketh God that he ●s free both from desire and intent of dazaling the eyes of the simple: but, (this notwithstanding) let the reader observe the cunning which he useth in this purgation. The intent of dazzling he disclaimeth; but he contradicteth not that which his re●: objecteth, uz. that he would have his reader to think, that those Churches contained as many people as the cities did; only he quarreleth with him, pag. 54. for straining his words to 
The D. quarrel is fond and causeless.  this meaning, as if he had said, that all the people in the city and country had been a● that time Christians; which is in deed a causeless quarrel & a fond cavil, seeing in the D: logic & divinity, here is a great difference between these two speeches. All the people of the city & country were Christians, and, the Church contained within her circuit all the people of city and country: for though he reject the former as absurd, yet he maintaineth the latter for a sound position. Else why doth he not interpret himself to have spoken (according to an usual metonymy) of the christian people only? q. d. The 7. Churches were the christians, which then inhabited the cities and countries adjoining. Why doth he rather choose (pag. 53.) to explain his meaning thus. The Churches were, (that is contained) not only the cities, but the country, and to illustrate his interpretation by such an instance as this. A man is not only body but soul also: that is, man consisteth of body and soul; or, whole man containeth these two parts: for if every of the 7. Churches doth so contain city and country, or consist of those two parts, as a man containeth, (or consisteth of) soul and body: then both the whole city and the whole country adjoining, must necessarily concur to the very essence or being of the Church; & consequently (in his estimation and understanding) none of those Churches did consist of (or contain,) only a few of the people (as a part) of city and country, but rather all in general. Wherefore if he will clear himself of that foul imputation, which he seemeth so far to abhor; let him deal plainly and disclaim his construction, he now enforceth (of containing both city & country) and stick to the usual metonymy, of the christian people in city and country. So his arguments will stand in this form.  
Whatsoever Church in S. john's time was, or cont●yned, the christian people of an whole city and country adjoining: the same was properly a diocese, yea such a diocese as ours are.  
But every of the 7. Churches of Asia was or contained in S. john's time the christian people of an whole city and country adjoining. 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 unto this form, his assumption will (perhaps) be allowed to pass, with some connivance till there be some good cause of calling it into question: but he will find it a labour surpassing all his skill and strength, to make good the proposition. Wherefore I have little hope that he will make this exchange; seeing he indeavoureth his best, to justify aswell the words as the matter of his first assumption against 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 city should be given to the 
Sect. 14. add sect. 8, pag. 53.  Church? Let him look back to Apoc. 1. 11. & he shall find that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna etc. I answer, the Ref: (how unlearned soever in the eyes of the D.) hath no need to learn at his hands, that the name of a city may be (and with ecclesiastical writers is) put, metonymicè, for the Church which was in that city: yet will it not be very easy for the D. to show us, that the Apostles used this phrase of speech in their writings. For when they speak (not of the place or city itself but) of the Church seated in any city, they usually explain themselves by some such words as these. The Church which is in jerusalem or Antioch etc. 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 jerusalem Lidda etc. Act. 8. 13, 22. Ephes. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 2. As for the words of Apoc. 1. 11; (whereunto he sendeth his Refuter to learn that the 7. Churches were Eph●sus Smyrna etc.) let him know, that he hath learning enough, to see that the D. gloss hath no warrant from the text. The words are, k●ipempson tais e●clesiais tais en Asia, eye Eph●son, 
The D. gloss is without warrant of the text.  kieis Smurnan, etc. And send to the 7. Churches which are in Asia, at Ephesus and at Smyrna etc. for it is no strange thing to find, ●is put for en: and our latin translators (as the vulgar, Vatablus, Beza &c.) do with one consent turn eye Epheson etc. Ephesi (vel Epheso) Smyrna &c. I wish the D. to see whether the Holy Ghost himself (the best interpreter of himself) doth not turn eye Epheson, eye Smyrnan etc. Apoc. 1. 11. by en Epheso, en Smyrna, etc. 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, do note the persons to whom any letter or mes●age is sent, they do, 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 sent 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 joh. 16. 3. Acts. 19 31. and 23. 30. Tit. 3. 12. As for the proposition eye in embassages etc. it doth always note the place and not the persons, as may be seen 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 together. Luc. 1. 26. 27. the Angel Gabriel was sent from God (eyes polin) unto a city of Galilee, called Nazareth (pros parthenon) to a virgin etc. and 4. 26. unto none of them (s●. the widows of Israel) was Elias sent, but only eye Sarepta &c. (pros gunaika cheran.) to Sarapta etc. to a widow there. See Act. 9 2. and 15. 2. in which last place as some translators take eyes 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 jerusalem, unto the Apostles & Elders; which transposition though they use not, neither Apoc. 1. 11. nor Tit. 3. 12. (where Paul saith, make haste to come to me pros me, eye Nicopolin) to me, unto 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, unto which repair was to be made. And as the D. discretion did see this, in Paul's speech unto Titus (lib. 4. pag. 107.) to wit, that those words (●is nicopolin) were necessarily added, because else Titus should have been uncertain; both where Paul was to be found; and whether he was to go: so doubtless (if prejudice had not blinded his eyes) his discretion would have led him to see also, that those words (●is Epheson etc. Apoc. 1. 11.) were no less necessary, to give unto john sure direction, unto what parts of Asia he was to send, and in what cities those Churches had their assemblies, unto 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 senseless perverting of the meaning of God's spirit, for any man to say that the scripture testifieth Paul to be Nicopolis, Tit. 3. 12. & the Apostles and Elders to be jerusalem. Act. 15. 2. then may the indifferent reader very well wonder at the D. 
The reader may wonder at the D. oversight.  oversight, in affirming (so confidently as he doth) that the 7. Churches were Ephesus, Smyrna etc. & that this is to be found Apo●. 1. 11. But 3; to give the D. the utmost advantage he can desire, from those words eye Epheson kai Smyrnan etc. Apoc. 1. 11; (viz. that they are thus to be interpreted, q. d. to the Church at Ephesus etc. and consequently that the name of the city is put by a metonymy for the Church in the city) how will this warrant him to say, that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna etc. or rather (as at the first he said) that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities etc. It is well known that Achaia was a large country and contained sundry provinces (see Art: in Act. 18. 27. and Hiper: 1 Cor. 1. 1.) and when the Apostle saith (2. Cor. 9 2.) that Achaia war prepared a year ago, for their benevolence to the Saints; it must be confessed that by Achaia, he meaneth (as he interpreteth himself cap. 1. 1.) all the saints that were in all Achaia: yet were it a strange speech (and such as I suppose as the D. learned ears are unacquainted with) to say, that they whose hearts the Apostle had prepared, were a large country and contained many provinces.  
But to proceed, the D. for a new supply, telleth us, it is so usual with good Authors, speaking of Bishops, to say, they were Bishops of such or such a city, that he might fill a volume with quotations to this purpose. In deed, 
The D. hath filled his great volume, with quotations, to prove what no man doubted of, and leaveth the main question without relief.  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 man doubteth of, & left the main matter in question, destitute of all relief: for whereas he should have showed, that it is usual with good authors, speaking of the Ch: in the Apostles times to say (as he doth,) that they were great and ample cities, & not cities alone, but also the countries adjoining: he wholly silenceth this point, and telleth us, that many good authors do entitle the Bishops of succeeding ages Bishops of this or that city, but he had reason to do so; for the former is indeed so uncooth, that he hath not any one good author to clear him from singularity in an absurd phrase of speaking: but the later he found himself well able to confirm▪ and therefore (to send him home his own words pag. 54.) full soberly he goeth about it, telling us, that he could fill a volume with quotations, but a few testimony shall suffice, and very learnedly out of his reading he showeth, that Eusebius saith Evodius was the first, and Ignatius the second Bishop of Antioch, and th' 〈◊〉 Ignatius writing to Policarpus, styleth himself Bishop of Antioch. As if the Church of Antioch must needs be a great city, because Antioch was so, whereas the D. himself acknowledgeth, that for 200. years and more, it could scarcely be verified of any city or country, that they were all Christians. All the rest of his testimonies are not only after division of parishes, (as himself saith) but also after Constantine's time, when whole cities with their countries adjoining were subjected to the faith, and therefore if they proved (as they do not) that they had said, the Churches were then great cities; yet would it not have levied him, in so affirming of the 7. Churches in S. john's time.  
To come at length from the words to the matter of his assumption, whereas the Refuter told him, that the 7. Churches, 
Sect. 15. add sect 8. pag. 54. and 55. and sect 12. pag. 62.  could not contain the people of those cities, because some few only were true christians; the generality of them remaining pagans: the D. not daring to contradict him herein, yet quarreleth with his proofs, and feign would maintain (if he could) that the Church contained both city & country though the christians were never so few. First therefore because he showed 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 own.  multitude, and that in the sight of his own people: the D. (having scoffed at his learning & reading) addeth that which doth not only justify 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. years, the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles. Every body therefore knoweth, say I, that the Churches in S. john's time must needs consist of a very few, in comparison of the rest; and therefore neither were the cities the Churches, neither did the Churches contain the people thereof. 2. Again, whereas the Refuter added, that the Church of Smyrna writing of the said martyrdom of Policarpus, entitleth herself, the Church of God which is at Smyrna, & therefore asked, whether a whole diocese? or country of Christians di●●●habite Smyrna? the D. saith, it is an obi●ctim scarce worth the answering, but yet vouchsafeth it a frivolous answer, uz. that the whole di●cese was seated chiefly in the city, as the soul which is in all the body, is said to be in the head; and that though by the Church at Smyrna, we should understand only, that part which did inhabit the city; yet the ●aming it the Church which is 〈◊〉 Sm●rna, excludeth not the Churches in the country from being of the same body or diocese with it. Whereunto for reply, first to the last; what meaneth he to beg that which he should prove rather, (if he could) to wit, that there were 
The D. beggeth  CHURCHES in the Country, which were parts of the same body with the Church in the city? for if this cannot be proved; the former part of his answer is absurd, where he compareth the Church in the city to the head of the body. For it is a monstruous body, that hath either no body at all, or an head bigger than all the rest of the body. Moreover, to bury in silence his unseemly (may I not say blasphemous) comparison, in comparing a Diocesan Ch: seated in the city to Gods sitting in heaven; how absurd is he in 
The D. comparison is more than unseemly & absurd.  comparing the Diocese to the soul, which is in the head and in all the body beside? For what shall the body be (trow ye) if the whole Diocese be the soul? The city (he saith) is the head; the country parishes (belike) are the rest of the members; the city and country joined together, do make the Diocese: yet the Diocese is not the body; but the soul of the body.  
Hereunto I may add, 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, etc. and not of Eph●sus the Church, of Smyrna the Church etc. as if the whole cities were the Churches. The Doctor's answer (pag. 62) is, that although the whole city of Ephesus, meaning Civitas, was not the Church until it was wholly converted to Christianity; yet the whole city (meaning ●●bs) was contained within the circuit of the Church, intended by the Apostles etc. neither is it material that the Church is said to have been in Ephesus, seeing, in urbe, the Church was chiefly seated, as was said before. I suppose the Refuter is not ignorant of that difference, which the learned hystorians put between urbs & civitas. Vrbs (ut M. Varro lib. 1. linguae latinae tradit) ab orb & 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 high 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 city meaning Civitas (saith he) was not the Church till it was wholly converted to Christianity. Well, than it seemeth, when he saith, the Churches were cities, he took not the word city for civitas, which chiefly noteth the people that live in a communion together. He than acknowledgeth, he took the word city for that which is called urbs; the walls and howls within which, the citizens, for the greater part, were enclosed. If so; he showeth himself too absurd, to be confuted with any other argument, than such as is framed in Bocardo. If not, we may then (with good leave I hope) conclude, that seeing the Church of Ephesus was neither urbs nor civitas, therefore it cannot at all be truly said to be the city, much less both city and country. And to what use then serveth (if I may be so bold to ask once again) that difference he yieldeth between urbs & civitas? Forsooth the whole city m●aning urbs was contained within the circuit of the Church intended by the Apostles. Well, and may not the same be said of the whole city meaning civitas? Else why doth he tell us, that when the Apostles planted presbyters in every city, they intended the conversion of the whole city and country by their ministery? Thus wisely hath the Doctor distinguished between 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 adds, to show his understanding of the text, sc. that the Church was seated (not wholly but) chiefly in urbe; either beggeth the main question, (as before was noted) if he think there were some other Churches in the Country, 
The Doct. beggeth, or else consenteh 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 towns and hamletts in the country, did ordinarily assemble with those of the city, for the public works of God's worship.  
Thus have we heard all that the Doctor can say in defence of his 
Sect. 16. add sect. 8. 〈◊〉. 54.  assumption, as he first delivered it, when he said, those Churches were great and ample cities etc. As for the change which he hath now made choice of, viz. that they contained both the cities and countries adjoining, he hath nothing else in defence thereof, than a naked repetition (in a manner) of that which was before delivered, to help the consequence of his reasoning: yet I will vouchsafe to mention it, lest he should think better of it than it deserveth. If any man ask (saith he) how it may be said, that the Church contained City and Country, when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen, were in either of both. I answer (as before) that the circuit of the Church or Diocese was the same, when there were fiwe, and when there were many, yea when all were Christians. His former answer (whereto he now referreth us) affirmeth the circuit of the Churches to be the same, aswell before the division of parishes as after, (not actually but only) in the intention of the Apostles or first founder. Which limitation he remembreth again in that answer, which was last examined in the former section. And if he do here also understand it, why doth he conceal 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 plainly discover to his reader, how far●▪ he goeth (in this defence) from the words of his assumption as he first laid it down 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 consequence of his argument. And it had been too much to lay before the eyes of his reader at once, all three changes or alterations; that one of 
The D. hath 3. alterations, but cannot defend one of them.  turning were into contained, when in stead of this they were cities, he saith, they contained the cities etc. is more than he can well defend. But before I come to try the strength of his defence; I must a little better ●ifte the changeling he giveth us in steed of the former assumption viz. that the circuit of every one of these 7. Churches contained both the city and country adjoining. First therefore I demand what he meaneth by city and country? 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 city with the suburbs and the whole country subject to the city? If so, than this whole circuit, (in his understanding) was the circuit of every of those 7. Churches. But then, I demand again, did those Churches contain in their circuit, only the walls, dwelling houses and fields, and not also the people inhabiting within that circuit? if he should either exclude all the people or include all, (the state of those times being such; that the general multitude in all cities and country were Pagans, as he confesseth pag. 54.) he should contradict both himself & 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 company of the faithful, and signifieth a company of men called out of the world unto salvation by Christ, that is to say, a company of Christians. Wherefore, as I will not do him that wrong, to think he meaneth by city and country, the houses and fields only: so if question be made, what people he encloseth, within the circuit of those Churches (or of the cities and countries, which, he saith, they contained) unless he will departed from the truth, and that with contradiction to himself, he must acknowledge that he meaneth none other, than the Christian people of those cities & the countries adjoining. And yet, if he limit every Church to so narrow a compass, for the people which it contained; who will believe him, (or how will he persuade and prove) that the whole city meaning Vrbs (to use his own words) and the whole country belonging to the city, was contained within the circuit of the Church? for since the Church of any city or place, is nothing else, but the company of Christians there. If it be absurd to say, that a small company of Christians (not an handful to a great heap in comparison of the heathen, that filled city & country) did contain in their circuit, an whole city, with the whole country adjoining: then is it no less absurd to affirm the same, of any Church, which is entitled the Church of this or that city, yea, take all the people of any city or country; who is so simple, but he knoweth that the city and country containeth them, and not they the city? Wherefore, though, all the people had been converted to Christianity: yet had it been a gross error both in logic and philosiphie to say, that the Church did contain the city and the country. To leave then, the natural and proper signification of city & country: and to carry the words by an usual metonymy unto the people (q. d. they contained city & country, that is, the people of city & country) I desire to be informed from his own mouth, whether he mean those people only, that had already received the faith, or those also, that were in time to be converted? The former doth best agree with that foundation, laid by him in this defence (chap. 2. sect. 2. and 3.) where he restraineth (as before is observed) both the name and nature of a Church unto a company of Christian people, but so small a company as at that time embraced Christianity, will fall far short of his purpose; not only of concluding the Churches to be properly dioceses; but also, of enclosing, within that whole flock or Church, over which the Presbyters were made Bishops, (Act. 20. 28.) the whole number of such as belonged to God, in city and country; even those that should afterwards embrace the faith, as well as those that made present profession thereof, for so he understandeth 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 little after he saith, were provided, not only for the cities themselves, but also for the Countries adjoining, which were converted or to be converted. Which words do clearly show, that by the Cities & Countries (which at first, he said, were the Churches; now he saith were contained in the circuit of the Churches) he meaneth all the 
11. A contradiction in the Doct. understanding of the word Church, & a childish error.  people in general, and not those few only that were already converted. But in this construction of his words (besides an apparent contradiction with himself, in a main principle of Christian doctrine, which restraineth the name of a Church to a company of Christian people:) he falleth into a childish error (far unbeseeming a Doctor in divinity) in breaking down that partition wall, which all sound divines have set, between the visible Churches of Christ; and the invisible company of the elect, not yet brought home unto the faith. For howsoever such as God appointed unto life, and intendeth in time to call, are in his account members of his 
The D. assumption senseless & absurd: & his defence of it much more.  invisible Church; yet it is against common sense, as well as the grounds of true divinity; 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 aimeth at) I reject his assumption as an absurd and senseless position.  
And the defence which he tendereth, is much more absurd, when 
Sect. 17.  he saith, that the circuit of the Church was the same, when there were few & when there were many, yea when all were Christians. For until country towns were converted, and subjected to the over sight of the Bishop of the City adjoining; how could they and their people, be reputed parts of the Citie-Church, or enclosed within her circuit? Wherefore since it is confessed (serm. pag. 24.) that Country towns remeined heathenish for a time, after the conversion of the City; it must be confessed also, that the Church's circuit at the first, did not enclose the Country villages, as it did afterwards. Notwithstanding, to justify his former assertion; he allegeth, that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country, when all were Christians, then when there were but a few; 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 few. 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 apostolic Bishops, had over those few in the City & Country adjoining, that first yielded obedience to the Gospel. For he acknowledgeth (Def. pag. 54.) that it could scarce be verified, in any place till Constantine's time (which was above 200. years after the Apostle john's days) that all the people of City & Country were Christians. But with what bands can the D. tie together these parts of his reasoning? 
with what hands can the Doct. tie together the parts of his reasoning?  The Bishops in Constantine's time and after, had the like jurisdiction, over all the people of City and Country, that the first Apostolic Bishop's, had over those few that first embraced Christianity. Therefore, the circuit of the Church was at the first, when they were but few, the same that it was after, when all became Christians. Is there not much more probability in this consequence? The Bishops in Constantine's days and after, had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country, that the first apostolic Bishops had over those few, which at first embraced Christianity. Ergo, the circuit of the Church and Bishop's charge, was far less, whiles there were but a few; than it was when all the people of City and Country were converted unto 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 reasoning; all the proofs which he braggeth of for the demonstration of his antecedent (the ancientest of them being after the first 300. years, as appeareth (Def. pag. 36. etc.) do give just occasion of returning into his own bosom that definitive sentence, which he delivereth against his opposites, viz. that the general consent and perpetual practice of all Christendom since the Apostles times, aught without comparison to prevail with all men (in persuading them to acknowledge, that every Church's circuit, was much enlarged, by the general conversion of all, in Cities and Country towns:) above the authority of a few, selfconceited persons (such as the D. and his associates) not so singular for learning, as they are singular in opinion: when they would make the world believe if they could, that every Church's circuit, was the same at first, when but a few embraced the faith, that it was after, when all the people of City & Country, were made members of one diocesan Church. If the D. shall fly (as to a Sanctuary) ●o his former evasion, viz. that the Ch●c●●●uite contained at the first both City & country, in the intention of the Apost or first founders, I have enough already said, to drive him out of this starting hole, unless he can provide some better forfication, to relieve himself in this behalf. But he supposeth, that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumption; by repairing the breaches, which his Refuter had made, in the reason, which his sermon tendered in defence thereof.  
His words are these, whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia, numbereth but 7. and naming the principal, and (some of them) mother-cities of Asia, saith, the 7. stars were the Angles of the 7. 
Sect. 18. add sect. 9 pag ●5 56.  Churches; it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Bishops. were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but the country's adjoining. From hence his Refuter drew this connexive syllogism; (answer p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbereth ●ut 9 and some of them mother cities; then they were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone but the country's adjoining. But our Saiviour etc. 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 showeth how this lyllogisme is to be framed; and there we find a double proof laid down in defence of his assumption, as he hath now shaped it, uz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuit the cities and countries adjoining▪ the which he affirmeth to be proved, first jointly thus, if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised 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, compriseth all under these 7. as being the principal, and containing within their circuit all the rest. Concerning the Doct. jointly, let us severally observe: first that he concealeth his conclusion; secondly, that he departeth from the words laid down in his sermon: and thirdly that he followeth not his own directions given for the reducing of an Enthymeme, or connexive argument, into a simple syllogism, 
3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting.  1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion, the reason is apparent: he concludeth not his assumption, which is in question. For his proposition being such as it is, (uz. that if the 7. Churches comprised within their circuit all the Churches in Asia; then all both in cities and countries) his conclusion must be this & none other; that the 7. Churches did comprise within their circuit all the Churches that were both in the cities and countries of Asia: a point far differing, from that which himself proposed to prove; to wit, that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and countries adjoining; that is, (as himself explaineth his own meaning pag. 52.) the circuit of every one of those 7. Churches contained both the city and country adjoining for the consequence of his proposition (as he hath proposed it) runneth more currant than it would; if he had said, as he should, thus. If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuit all the Churches in Asia; then every of those 7. Churches contained in her circuit, the whole city with the country adjoining. For here a man might very well deny, the consequent; although he saw better proof, than the D. hath brought, for the justifying of the Antecedent. 2. But when departeth he from the words of his sermon, both in the antecedent, & in the prosyllogisme or confirmation thereof? when he said, that our Saviour writing to the Churches in Asia, compriseth all under these 7. as being the principal etc. For taking it for granted that there were more Churches in Asia. than those. 7; and that our Saivour in writing by name to these, did intend under their names to write to all the rest: could the D. imagine that any man, which deny those other Asian Churches to be written unto, would upon his bare word, embrace that which now he affirmeth? s●z. that our Saviour in writing to all the Churches of Asia, compriseth all under these seven as being the principal, and containing within their circuit all the rest? This later (I grant) is more direct for his purpose, I mean, to prove that those 7. churches (at least some of them if not all) were Dioceses; in as much as other Churches were contained (as he supposeth) within their circuit: but he (as often before) showeth himself a notable trifler, in begging the question, when he taketh this for granted, which, he 
The Doct. beggeth.  could not but know, without good proof would never be yielded: 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 maintaineth 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 been Churches in S. john's time: all the world may wonder what records he will bring to prove, that there were any other Churches in Asia▪ then these 7. which his text nameth? And yet unless he prove also that those other Churches (how many or few soever) were contained within the circuit of those 7. or some of them; he must be much beholding to his reader, if he will take his naked affirmation, for sufficient warrantise in this behalf. 3. And since he rejecteth that connexive form of reasoning, which his Refuter gathered naturally from his own words; he might have done well to have practised 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 task, and therefore he would not put one finger to it: notwithstanding, that he may s●e how willing his Refuter is to learn, and how ready 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, numbereth but 7. and nameth the principal, Ergo, those 7. Churches (were great and ample cities etc. or since he will needs have it) contained each of them in her circuit the city and country adjoining. To bring this Enthymem into a Syllogism, some little change of words must be made, either in the Antecedent, or in the consequent, thus. Whatsoever Churches are specially numbered or named as principal, by our ●av. Christ, when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia; those Churches did contain each o● them in her circuit the city and country adjoining. But the 7. Churches (mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20.) are specially numbered and named as principal by our Saviour Christ, when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia. Therefore the 7. Churches (mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20.) contained each of them in her circuit the city and country adjoining. Or thus, whosoever writing to the Churches of Asia, numbereth but 7. and nameth them as the principal; he thereby signifieth that those 7. Churches contained in their circuit, each of them, the city and country adjoining: But our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches in Asia, numbereth but 7. and nameth them as the principal. Ergo, he hereby signifieth, that these 7. Churches, contained in their circuit, each of them, the city & country adjoining. Now to give the D. his choice of these arguments, (not forbidding him to make a better if he can) since there is no certain or manifest truth in the 
The D. disputeth by begging 〈◊〉.  proposition, which containeth the Hypothesis of his Enthymeme, we may from his own rule conclude, that he disputeth sophistically, and taketh that for granted, which he cannot make good, while he hath a day to live.  
Thus have we seen how well he argueth to prove his assumption 
Sect. 19 ad. pag. 43.  jointly; let us now attend a little, how he confirmeth it severally. 1. The Church of Ephesus (saith he) contained a great and ample city (in deed, metropolis, or mother city) & the country subject to it. 2. the Church of Smyrna a mother-city and the country belonging to it etc. & so proceedeth from one of them to another, to Thyatira, & Philadelphia, with their territories. But where are his several proofs, for these several 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 beg. 7. times to g●ther.  is grown past shame in it, (so as we may be past hope of dryving him from it) else he would never produce. 7. false positions, to confirm his assumption before atteinted of falsehood: For since every of those cities, remeined, for the greater part, heathenish, in the Apostle john's time; it cannot be, that any of them did contain the whole city, much less city and country. The truth is, each of these Churches was contained within those cities, as a small heap of corn is contained in a great and large barn. 2. And why doth he here also departed from the words of his sermon; which were that some of those 7. Churches; were mother-cities? doubtless he saw, it was a very 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 from the words of his sermon.  were every of them great and ample cities etc. And had his Refuter thus analysed his words; it is likely the D. would have been more offended, than he is with that form which he used, in putting all his speech into one connexive argument. 3. But to take his argument as he hath set it down, 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 etc. did contain together with their cities, the whole provinces subject to those mother-cities? or doth he limit the country to that part only, which made a particular diocese? The later best fitteth his first purpose, sc. to prove that every of the 7. Ch: was (properly a diocese: but the former agreeth best, both with his own interpretation of his words, p. 63. when he saith, that some of those Churches were Metropol●is, that is, not only mother-cities, but also metropolitan Churches: and with his former speech, which affirmeth, all the Churches in the cities, and countries of all Asia, to be contained in the circuit of those 7. Churches. Notwithstanding if this be his meaning, he playeth the Sophister, in his induction. For by city & country in his conclusion (which is the assumpon of his principal syllogism) he meaneth paroikian et thoran, which are the parts of a Diocese; and his meaning must be the same in the two last Churches, Philadelphia and Thyatira. Wherefore 
well hung together  his argument hangeth together in this fashion. Of the 7. Churches; 5. contained Mother cities & the Provinces subject to them: the other two contained Diocesan cities & the countries to them belonging. Ergo every of those Churches were of a like circuit and constitution, in containing a Diocesan country together with the city. 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 contained within the circuit of Sardis and Pergamus, as parts of the Country & Province subject to those cities. And hence it will follow that these 7. Churches, were not of one form and constitution; but of differing condition; some being only Diocesan, the rest metropolitan or provincial Churches. So that, like as his first speech 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 do well to restrain unto the same 5. Metropolitaine Churches, that which now he affirmeth of all 7. viz. that they comprised within their circuit, all the Churches that were in Asia, whether in the Cities or in the Countries thereunto belonging. But since the spirit of God, giveth equal honour to every of those Churches, & no prerogative to any one above another, his proofs had need to be very pregnant & demonstrative, that shall persuade the contrary. And this may suffice, to show how little cause he hath, to brag (as he doth p. 52.) that he hath made good his assumption 
The D. braggeth without cause.  by necessary proof: for in both his proofs (first jointly and then severally) his antecedent is false, and his consequence sophistical.  
Let us now cast a look a little upon his dealing with that frame of argument; to which his Refuter reduced the proof 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 himself in vain (as the issue hath already, & I doubt not will hereafter show) when he saith, his refuters' hap is so hard, that he is not able to prove any one either proposition or assumption of his, to be untrue. To infringe the proposition, it is answered, that though it were granted that our Saviour wrote those epistles, to all the Churches of Asia; yet it will not follow that all the rest depended as children upon the mother. For put the ●ase, the Emperor finding some abuse commonly reigning in Asia, should have written to those principal and mother-cities, for the reforming of those abuses, with intent that all other cities and towns, should be warned by his reproof of them; might a man conclude thereupon, that all other cities and towns 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 Emperor should so do, with that intent, that what he writeth to them, might by and from them be notified, to those towns & villages, which were within the circuit of their jurisdiction: would it not strongly prove that all those other towns & villages were subject to them? As if he had said, grant me but thus much, that all the rest of the towns and villages in Asia 
Will th● D. never cease craving.?  were within the circuit of the jurisdiction, of those 7. Churches or cities: & then I can strongly prove, that they, were subject to them. He addeth some experiment from ourselves; when the King or his Council would have any thing intimated to all his subjects in certain countries; their warrants are directed to the Lieutenants of each country and from them the high to constables, etc. And when the Archbishop would have any thing imparted to every parish, he directeth his letters to the Bishops, the Bishops to the Archdeacon's, and they to their officers in every Deanery &c. (which showeth a subordination of officers in greater and lesser circuit 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 ear, hear what the spirit saith to the Churches, would have it understood, that what he writeth to the Angel, he writeth to the Churches, which were under his charge. To all which I answer, 1. to make his similitude clear and suitable in the later part to the former, he should have said, that Christ intending to admonish or reprove all the Churches in Asia, directeth his letters to the provincial or metropolitan Churches; they to the diocesan, the diocesan to the particular congregations under them. Or else, that what he wrote, to the Angels of the metropolitan Churches, they imparted to the diocesan Bishops, & the Diocesan Bishops to Parishe-Presbyters. But then he should have assumed that which he cannot prove, neither by Scripture, nor tradition; wherefore it is plain that his similitude halteth down right. 2. 
The D. similitude halteth.  And since the 7. Churches are equally written to; and the Angels of each Church are equally honoured with a several epistle directed to them; we may very well persuade ourselves, 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 ecclesiastical state should follow the civil, or that the Churches planted in Mother-Cities or Shire towns, should contain within the circuit of their jurisdiction, the towns & 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 trial hereof) unto ourselves and our own stories. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the days of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner, than Bishop of London, for the abolishing of candles, ashes, palms, 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 Canterbury; a●d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write, (see his letters, Act. & Monuments, pag, 1183. last edit.) May I ask the Doctor now, whether this do strongly prove, that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterbury, were subject unto the Bishop of London, and contained within his Church's jurisdiction at that time? If he know the contrary, than I hope he will confess, 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 unto these. 4. Yet to make the weakness of his collection the more apparent, let him weigh the worth of these consequences following. It was Christ's intent, in speaking as he doth to Peter, Math. 16. 17. 18. 19 Luc. 22. 31. 32. john. 13. 8. 10. & 21. 15, that the rest of his fellow-Apostles, should take notice of all that he spoke to him, for the i● instruction and consolation. Ergo the rest were in subjection to Peter. Again, the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christ's 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 women. 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 only all Achaia, but all other Churches in the world subject, to her jurisdiction. But, who seethe not what absurd conclusions may be multiplied, if a man should proceed in this vein of reasoning? 5. As for that Epiphonema, which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angel of each Church. (Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches) if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause, to persuade his reader that those 7. Churches did (every one of them) contain many several congregations within their circuit; he would never have dreamt of any such construction of those words, as he now commendeth to us, viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel, he writeth to the Churches that were under his charge. For as he hath no ground for it; either from the coherence of his text, or from any interpreter old, or new; so it seemeth to have unadvisedly slipped from him; seeing as it is confuted by himself; so it overthroweth one main part of his building. Confuted it is by that himself setteth down, in the end 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 either the place or society; whether of a nation, or city etc. 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 under his charge;) then those Churches were interessed with the Angel, in all that which is commended or reproved in him. And hence it will follow, that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered (as he conceiveth serm. pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135.) from the commendation or reproof, given Apoc. 2. vers. 2. & 20▪ then the Daughter-churches distinguished, either in City or Country adjoining, 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 alleged) to establish in the hands of one Bishop or Angel only.  
Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition. In 
Sect. 21. add sect. 10. D. pag. 57 62.  the assumption the Refuter observed two untruths, in as much as it cannot be proved, either that all other Churches in Asia, were written unto, as within the circuit and jurisdiction of those 7; or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City. To make the untruths of the former apparent, he reasoneth disiunctively from the divers acceptions of Asia, distinguished by historians into Asia Major▪ Asia minor, and Asia more properly so called. Concerning the first; because it is unlikely, (or rather impossible) that our Saviour writing to that third part of the World (which was not much less than both the other) should subscribe and send his epistles only to those 7. that are in one little corner of it; the Refuter professeth, he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us believe, that all the Churches in Asia Major (which contained the great Kingdom of China, with the East-Indies, Persia, Tartary and a great part of Turkey) should be parishes, belonging to some one or more of these 7. Churches. Secondly to restrain 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 divers 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 dependants on these 7. Thirdly therefore, to come as low as may be, and to understand by Asia, that which is properly so called, and otherwise Sarrum; even there also or near, we find divers other Churches, as those of Colosse, Hierapolis & Troas mentioned in the Scriptures, (to let pass Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers) which did not belong to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be clear, that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia; but only to those 7. that are named. Lo here the sum, & almost the words, of the Ref. answer touching the first part of the D. assumption: 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: seeing he could not be ignorant, but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps, is meant only Asia properly so called. Secondly he saith, he maketh a great flourish, partly to show some small skill in Geography, but chiefly to dazzle the e●es of the simple, in showing how unlikely it is, that the great kingdoms of Asia major, and the many famous Churches of Asia minor, were but dependents on those. 7. Thirdly to teach him (if he do not know) that none of those countries were contained 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 many parts of Asia minor, are reckoned as divers countries, from that Asia, which is mentioned in the scripture. Fourthly he addeth, that if the Ref. would needs have shown his skill in Geography, he should have done well, to have set down the bounds and limits of this Asia, whereof we spoke. And because the Ref. should not prevent him, that he might have all the praise for skill herein, he undertaketh to do it. Fiftly, he cometh at length to refute, that which his Ref. objected concerning those Ch: which he mentioned to be either in Asia, properly so called, or near there about. Now come we to our answer: and first concerning the crimes, wherewith he chargeth his Ref. I appeal to the indifferent reader, whether the D. himself be not guilty of them? I mean, of labouring to dazzle the eyes of the simple, 
The D. is guilty of what he imputeth to the 〈◊〉  and of cavilling against the light of his conscience: seeing it is clear, 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 persuade his reader, that the D. doth so largely stretch it; for he professeth the contrary, as before appeareth) but only to fortify his argument, whiles he showeth 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 unto them. Next, touching the bounds of Asia properly so called, because it is a point of skill and cannot easily be determined, the D. to show his variety of reading, indeavoureth to reconcile the scripture and those that writ of Geography, who vary from him (as he confesseth) in this point. According to the scriptures, in his account, Asia includeth jonia, 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 less called Pergamene: which excludeth from that Asia, whereof john speaketh: because Phrygia, and Mysia, Olympina, are reckoned apart from Asia Act. 16. 6. 7. For we are not to merveil (he saith pag. 60.) that a less circuit is assigned to it in the scripture, seeing within a less compass than that which the scripture assigneth thereunto, it is circumscribed by others; which seclude from Asia, both Lydia and Caria as he showeth out of the subscriptions in the Nicen council, & from the speech of Eunapius, in Maximo. But what if Saint john and Saint Luke follow 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 towns and countries, which are mentioned in the new Testament (in his Epitome trium terrae partium) entreating of Asia minor properly so called, affirmeth that Peter (1, Pet. 1. 1.) & john (in those 7. Ch: of Asia) do follow the most usual partition in that age received; the same which Ptolemy & P●iny set down; & that Luke, (Act. 16. 6. 7.) being lead by another division, which some also than entertained, restraineth 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 ut receptam haud dubiè et eo seculo vulgatam, secutus videtur Petrus Apostolus. 1. epist. 1. 1. ubi Bithyniam et Galatian, 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 johannes secutus videtur, Apocalypsim suam septem ecclesijs Asiae inscribens (viz. Ephesinae, Smyrnaeae, Pergamenae, Thyatirenae, Sardyanae, Philadelphenae et Laodicenae) quae universae, Bythinia, 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 down the words of Luke, Act. 16. 6. 7. he addeth. Ex quibus verbis manifestum fit, aliter Asiam accipere Lucam, quam Petrus aut johannes 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 complectitur. quam certè et Hieronymus specialiter Asiae nominè vocari tradit. Hujus partes erunt jonia, Aeolis et Lydia, fortissimae et cultissi●ae omnium Asiae regionum, quae intra Maria, Euxinum et Cilicum prominent. To this testimony, I refer the Doct. because I hope, he will reverence his gray-hairs and great reading, though he lightly esteem the Refuter for his small skill in Geography. And withal I pray the reader to take notice of this, that the Doctor presumeth all men will take his word for the limits which he giveth to that Asia, whereof S. john speaketh; for he disagreeth with both those accounts, which himself mentioneth, in giving to Asia a less circuit, than the former, which include both Phrygia & Mysia major in it; and a larger than the later, which seclude both Caria, and Lydia from it. And though he seem to ground his opinion on the testimony of S. Luke in his story of the Acts 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, sailed by Ephesus, and therefore from Trogillium, he came to Miletum, and from thence sent for the Elders of Ephesus to come to him; which showeth that Miletu● was not within Asia by his estimation; & therefore not in jonia (wherein Ephesus stood) although many do there place it; but in Car●a as ●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 john's Asia is of a larger circuit; in as much as it includeth Laodicea, which with Ptolemy is a city of Caria; but more generally is reckoned within Phrygia.  
To come now at length, to his refutation, of that which is objected 
Sect. 22. add pag. 61. of the D.  by his Refuter why our Saviour writing to the 7. Churches, should not under them comprise all the Churches in Asia: the objection standeth thus, even there or near, we find diverse other Churches, as thos● of Colossa, Hierapolis and Troas mentioned in the scripture (to let pass 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 john 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 always the name of a country (or taken for Phrygia minor) but sometimes the name of a city in Asia, called Antigonie, or Alexandria? or is he so unacquainted with his Refuters' opinion concerning the form & nature of visible Chur. that he should conceive he would entitle an whole country (such as Phyrgia minor is) with the name of the Church of Troas; and 
Doth not the D. cavil against his own conscience?  join it with the Church of Colossae and Hierapolis, which he holdeth to be but particular congregations▪ shall I say, that here also, he cavilleth against the light of his conscience? for can he think that Troas (which is mentioned Act. 16. 8. 11. and 20. 5. 6. and 2. Tim. 4. 13.) was the country of Phrygia and not rather, some citi● 
Troas urbs marit. in littore Asiae Aret. in Act. 16. 8.  in the sea costs, either of the same country or some otherwhere adjoining? The truth is, (as the learned in Geography who have examined the towns and countries in S. Luke's history do● conceive) that the Troas which is pointed at in the forenamed places, was a city in that country called Troas, as appeareth by Pliny lib. 5. cap. 30. 16. who placeth Alexandria in Troas; that is, the city 
Vide dictinar: Histor Car. Step. in Alexandria●  or town of Troas in the country of Phrygia minor. Ioach: Vadianus (in his forenamed Epitome p. 487) entreating 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 procul Asso, promontorium Lect●m attollitur, Aeoliam et Troada disterminans, Plinio. Ind Troas oppidum, Colonia Romana, et Apostoli etiam aetate Alexandria dictum, proximum Hellesponto, & Tenedo Insulae, in ipsis Hellesponti faucibus jacenti; atque 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, which were cities of Phrygia major: for so he will affirm of Troas, a city of Phrygia minor; that neither the one nor the other were within Saint john's Asia: because Saint Luke severeth Phrygia and Troas (that is in his understanding, Phrygia major and Phrygia minor) from Asia, Act. 16. 6. 8. But the answer is already made, that the D. is deceived in taking john and Luke to embrace one and the same partition of Asia; for the limits thereof. The Apostles Peter and john do follow the most usual understanding of those that gave unto it a larger circuit (as appeareth in reckoning Laodicea, a city of Phrygia or Caria within Asia: and therefore the Churches mentioned by the Refuter (viz. Troas, Hierapolis and Colosse) being all within Phrygia, are enclosed in Saint john's Asia. But the D. hath some other evasions, which cannot yield him the relief he expecteth. It is recorded (saith he pag. 61.) by Eusebius (in Chron) that in the year of Christ 66. and 10. of Nero, these 3. cities Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colosse were overthrown with earth quakes; and although Laodicea flourished again in S. john's 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. john's time he readeth 
The D. shifteth  not &c. A poor shift; for, to make the best of all the allegation for his purpose; it is no more than this; he neither readeth nor remembre●h any mention, of any Church at Colosse, i● S. john's time: nor of any Church flourishing 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 flourishing Church at Tro●s, and another at Miletum (a city in the borders of Caria, which himself esteemeth to be within S. john's Asia) since the Apostles made choice 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. Cap. 2. 16.) do think there was a Church, because Paul was conducted thither from Troas (Act. 20. 13. 14.) there to meet his companions 2. Yet if that be true, which the Doctor saith, that Papias was made Bishop of Hierapolis by S. john; let the reader judge, how unlikely it is (which he would persuade) that at the writing of the Revelation there was no Church at all there; seeing S. john lived not above 4. years 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. Again what necessity is there in this consequence, which the Doctor taketh for undeniable? Those 3. city▪ were overthrown with the earthquake, Ergo the Churches whic● there flourished before, did then perish with the cities. 4. And why doth he answer 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 remained in S. john's time) become subordinate unto them? When all is done, he must seek to his first answer, and see if he can make it good; viz. that they were with▪ in S. john's Asia. Wherefore he may in his next defence bu●ie this in silence as an idle flourish, to dazzle the eyes of the simple, or to show some small skill in histories. He addeth one slender prop borrowed from Theodoret▪ to prove that Colossae was no part of Asia. Theodoret (saith he) being of opinion that Paul had been at Collossae, proveth it, because it is said, that he went through Phrygia. Neither l●t any man object that Paul was forbidden of God, Act. 18, for Luke speaketh of As●● and Bithyni●, not of Phrygia. I grant that Phrygia was not within S. Luke's Asia: and I have proved that it was within S. john's 
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 high, si●● Laodicenses, sunt Asiani. Some other authorities also might be added, to sway the balance with the Refuter; which accounteth those Churches (of Colosse, Hierapolis and Troas) within the limits of Asia, properly (and in Saint john's understanding) 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. add p. 61. & 62.  they were inferior to those 7. which Saint john nameth as the principal and both of them subject to Ephesus. If the Doctor had remembered now upon his second thoughts, what he spoke upon his first, (or at least wrote in his sermon, pag. 62.) he would never have used this poor shift: to make it a question whether 
A poor shift in the Doctor.  Magnesia and Trallis were converted to the faith, when john wrote his Revelation: for there to prove that Onesimus was that Angel of Ephesus, to whom john 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, between the 90. year of our Lord and 99; in the midst 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 supposal, that without any staggering, he saith he is able to show 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 Doctor's premises will serve to justify the Ref: against himself in this manner. When Ignatius wrote his Epistles, the Churches of Trallis and Magnesia flourished and enjoyed their Bishop's Presbyters and Deacons; neither were any thing inferior in estimation and honour unto other Churches; as appeareth by his Epistles written to them, and placed before others. Now he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome, that is, betwixt the year of our Lord 90. and 99 And S. john wrote his Revelation in the year 97. Therefore it may well be supposed (yea it is so evidently proved, that the Doctor▪ cannot contradict it) that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were flourishing Churches, when S. john wrote his Revelation. 2. But we will not make an advantage to ourselves, by the D. error. For that which he now affirmeth (sc. that Ignatius wrote his Epistle a little before his death) is more agreeable to the truth, if we may believe Eusebius (to whom the D. in his sermon referreth us for the better confirmation of his assertion) seeing Eus●bi▪ 
Lib. 3. cap. 35.  affirmeth, that the epistles of Ignatius to the Churches of Ephesus; Magnesia, Trallis etc. 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. own account pag. 72. of his serm.) in the year of our Lord 107; but as others think, was later, to wit, in the year 109. or 111. (See Bucholcer Ind: Chrono. log. & Euseb: in Chron.) yet Nicephorus (lib. 3. cap. 2. referreth it to the 3. year of Trajane, which was at the utmost but 6. years after john's 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, aswell with Bishops as with other officers, (as is before noted) Let the reader judge 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 persuade; especially seeing 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 saw before in answ. to his 6. section & pag. 61.) that any man should make any scruple to yield, that many particular congregations were settled before that time, within the Diocesan circuit, of that Ch: of Ephesus. For is it not much more likely, that Churches should be erected, rather in some cities within the Province, them in some villages within the Diocese? and if in any cities, what are more likely than these whereof we speak? But what shall we say to the last branch of his answer, viz. that if they were Churches at that time; yet they were both of them subject to Ephesus? These are his words, hear we now his proofs; and then give him his answer; it appeareth, saith he, by the subscriptions in the council of Cal●edon; and by the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperor. Why? doth it there appear, that Magnesia and Trallis at their first conversion, were subjected to the Church and Bishop of Ephesus? No, but it appeareth there, that in time of the council held at Chalcedon and in the days of the Emperor Leo (both which were at least 350. years after john's death) the Bishops of Magnesia and Trallis, were subject to the Bishop of Ephesus, as their Metropolitan. And he taketh it for granted, that what soever Churches were subject to any Metropolitan city, or the Bishop thereof; in those times (of the Chalcedon council and of Leo the Emperor, they were subject to the Church and Bishop of the same city, from the time of their first embracing the faith. But what 
The Doct. beggeth of his Refuter in one place, what he denieth to himself in an other  he now taketh for a known truth, in the next page (63) he showeth to be an apparent falsehood: for there he affirmeth that Thyatira was in S. john's time subject to Pergam '; but in the time of the council of Chalcedom subject to Synada, & in the Emperor L●os days, subject to Ephesus. And in the same emperors days, Pergamus which anciently had been a mother-city, was now subjected also unto Ephesus. Wherefore he himself hath said enough to infringe the consequence of his own reasoning. viz. that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were from the first erection, subject to the Church of Ephesus; because they were so subjected 350. years after S. john's days. Perhaps he exp●cteth (as it seemeth by his conclusion in this section, pag. 62.) that his Refuter should prove the contrary; but he is forgetful and must be remembered, that in all this controversy he is the opponent, and his Refuter the respondent: & therefore without reason expecteth it; yet to let him see, that his Refuter was led by reason, and not by idle conceits, I will tender him these probabilities. 1. In the civil distribution of provinces, and administrations for government, Philadelphia was subject to Sardis & Thyatira to Pergamus, as he noteth pag. 63. out of Pliny, lib. 6. cap. 29. and 30. but in ecclesiastical government the Churches of Philadelphia, and Thyatira, were nothing inferior to Sardis & Pergamus: for they were all honoured with the name of candlesticks, and Churches, in the midst whereof Christ walked. Apoc. 1. 11. 20; and their Angels equally dignified, with the name of stars held in Christ's right hand, vers. 16. 20. and equally saluted by a several 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 unless some other reason can be alleged, than 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 been any such subjection, or subordination in these Churches, who shall better know it, and who more ●●tt to have intimated it: then Ignatius who wrote to every of those Churches? I mean 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 firmly to be collected from that pre-eminence, which 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 principatum omnem supra omnes obtinens. And ad Philadelp. as he enjoineth the whole clergy and laity (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 words do prove most clearly, that in his time no Bishop, yielded subjection to another, as his Metropolitan or head. And therefore neither was Demas then Bishop of Magnesia, nor Polybius of Trallis, any more subject to Onesimus the Pastor of Ephesus, than he was to either of them. So that the Refut: confident conclusion, standeth firm against all the D. attempts to shake it; that our saviour did not under the name of these 7. Churches, writ 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, lie still under the burden of that falsehood, which is ascribed to it. For if none of them were cities; (as hath been sufficiently maintained already, against the Doctor's allegations) how could any of them be Mother-cities? Yet he undertaketh briefly to declare, that some of them were Metropoleis, that is, not only Mother-cities, but also Metropolitan Churches. Where first we are to mark the Doctor his, not only, but also. as if it were a small matter to affirm and prove, that some of those 7. Churches were Mother-cities, he can easily maintain that; and for an overplus, he will prove, (which is a matter of more difficulty, and not so easily entertained) that they were Metropolitan Churches. Well, let his proofs be heard, they are absolutely denied to be Mother cities; and though some of them may be granted to be Metropolitan Churches, if thereby nothing else be meant, then that they were such Churches, as were seated in a Metropolis or mother-city; yet in the common-understanding of our age, which esteemeth them only for Metropolitan Churches, that have diocesan Churches subjected to them, they may also be denied 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  jurisdiction, where the precedents of the Roman Provinces held their assemblies and kept their courts, were mother-cities to the rest which were under the said jurisdiction: But such were. 5. of these &c. May I ask him, what he meaneth by these? what; the city's 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 entered into the Refuters thought, to deny the cities of Ephesus Smyrna etc., to be mother-cities. If he mean, that the Churches in those cities were heads of the civil jurisdiction, etc. he is absurd, who will believe him? and he abuseth Pliny, for he speaketh of the cities and not of any Churches seated in them. His argument therefore is none other than this. The cities of Ephesus Smyrna etc. were heads of the civil jurisdiction, as Pliny testifieth: But the Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna were the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna etc. Ergo th● Churches of Ephesus and Smyrna etc. were the heads of the city's jurisdiction: and consequently mother-cities. Thus he justifieth one falseshood with another, a less with a greater; and for 
The D. justifieth one falsehood by another, so well performeth he his first promise; his second he forgot  want of better proof, he recoileth back to his first assumption before confuted, to wit, that the Churches of Ephesus & Smyrna etc. were the very cities. And thus we have heard all that he can say, to show 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 policy) to overpass it, then to meddle with it. For, unless he could prove that the Angel and Church of Thyatira, were subject to the Angel and CHURCH of Pergamus: and likeweise, that the Church of Philadelphia and her Angel, were subject to the Angel and Church of Sardis: (which were to control and contradict the text of scripture which equalleth them one with the other) it were in vain to affirm, and indiscretion to undertake to prove, that any of these 7. Churches were metropolitan Churches.  
And this may suffice for refutation of all that he hath said in defence of that one and only 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 took for the converting of any nation (viz. first to preach the gospel in the chief city thereof and after the conversion of some few, to ordain Presbyters, in hope by their Ministry to conver● the rest,) was carried by the Refuter to conclude (by a new prosyllogisme) the main point of the former argument, to wit, that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities, with their countries adjoining? And he had reason so to refer it, because he found both points thus knit together, it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof the Angels were Bishops were great and ample cities etc. For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation, first preached to the cheife-cities etc. But because the D. changeth the Analysis, and carrieth it from the particular question of the 7. Churches, to the general Thesis, which his sermon proposeth (touching all the visible Churches, which flourished, aswell in the age following the Apostles; as in their own times) I will, for the present, pass by it whiles we are to examine, what he allegeth more directly to conclude, his explication of the text, that he handleth; to wit, that the Angels of the 7. Churches were diocesan Bishops, such as ours are which is the third point of his 5. mentioned in his sermon, and handled in the 7. chap. of this book, and whereunto pertaineth 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 now come to examine how well the D. opened that doubt, which his Refuter told 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. add sect. 3. and 4. cap. 2. lib 1. of the. def. pag. 31 32. 33. 34.  be meant 7. singular persons only, which were 7. chief Pastors or Bishops in those Churches; for in his sermon he had taken this for granted, as if there were no question to be made thereof; now though he & Bishop Bilson also (as his words show; perpet. govern. p. 235. 289) are therein very bold, yet lest the Refuter should seem to be void of reason in tendering this doubt, he putteth the D. in mind, that the Holy Ghost doth not (in the unfolding of the mystery of the 7. stars and. 7. candlesticks) so precisely limit, the number of the Angels, signified by the stars, 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 Bishops, he must give us, at least, some likely reason, why the Holy Ghost limiteth not the number of the Angels, aswell as of the Churches to 7. and no more: which ●e spoke to provoke him, (if he meant to defend his sermon, and the argument which he draweth there, for the justifying of our diocesan Bishops in their function) to give us some probable reason; why the Ho: Ghost hath not so clearly limited the number of the angels to 7; as he doth the number of the Chur. But albeit the D. took notice of those words of the Refuter, yet hath he not yielded (in all his defence) any show of reason, to give to his reader or Refuter any satisfaction in this point, neither answereth he directly to that which his Refuter objected; but in his name setteth down such a 
Th● D. dealeth deceitfully.  frame of reasoning, as might best serve his turn, both to divert his reader from expecting any such matter at his hands, as was demanded; and to persuade, that his Refuter reasoned over-weakly, to prove that the number of Angels was not limited. In which later point, (not to insist upon the former) whosoever judiciously compareth the Refuters own words with those which the D. ascribeth to him; he may soon discern 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 plainly and expressly limit the number of Angels unto 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, limited to the number of, 7; as plainly as the number of Churches, are in the words following; every child might have seen that he falsified 
The D. clippeth the Refuter words and preventeth his purpose.  his text; therefore) he giveth his Refuters a more general proposition to prove; to wit, that the Holy Ghost hath not (at all, any where, or any way) limited the Angels to 7. And secondly, that he might the easilier draw his partial readers to apprehend the weakness of his Refuters arguments, he blusheth not both to clip his words, and pervert his purpose. He clippeth his words in making him to speak peremptorily, that the Holy Ghost would have said, the 7. stars are the 7. Angels etc. whereas he speaketh comparatively, 
The Doct. clippeth the refut: words and perverteth his purpose  & by way of probability, that as it is said. The 7. candlesticks are the 7. Churches; in like manner the Holy Ghost (it seemeth) would have said, The 7. stars are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, in case, he had intended to signify no more but 7. Angels. He perverteth his purpose, in drawing this speech to prove the former, which (being taken as it was meant) needeth no proof. For the words of the text do show, that the number of 7. is not given to the Angels, in such express terms, as it is to the Churches. This therefore being in itself evident, the Refuters meaning was, from hence to infer a probable reason, to prove that the Holy Ghost, in explaninge the mystery of the 7. stars, had no intent to teach, that the Angels signified by those stars, were. 7. persons only, and no more. His reasons may be thus disposed.  

If the Holy Ghost hath not limited the number of the Angels to 7. by saying the 7. stars are the 7. Angels of the Churches: than it seemeth, he intended not to signify that they were but 7. and no more.  
But he hath not by so speaking limited their number to 7.  
Therefore it seemeth, he intended not to signify, that they were but 7. and no more.   
The consequence of the proposion (being the only point that can be doubted of) is confirmed by this prosyllogisme.  

If the Holy Ghosts meaning to limit the number of the Churches, be clearly discovered, by twice mentioning the number of 7. Churches, (in saying that the 7. stars are the Angels of the 7. Churches, and that the 7. candlesticks are the 7. Churches:) than it seemeth▪ he would have said the 7. stars 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 answer, than (in pag. 32) that the Holy Ghost hath more plainly limited 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, septem. 7. by septeni, seven a piece; but when he saith. The 7. stars are the angels of the 7. Churches, he plainly signifieth, that there were just so many of them, as of the Churches. But hath this Doctor (think you) any fellows among men of his degree and learning, that will subscribe to this answer, and say as he doth, that the words of his text do plainly signify, that there were just 
The Doct. hath not many fellows in shifting.  so many of the angels as of the Churches, and that they do more plainly limit the number of 7: then if it had been said. The 7. stars 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. stars 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 conclude, 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. Kings with horses and chariots, and went up with them to besiege Samaria; if the Refuter should deny 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 plainly limited to the just number of 32; then if it had been said, that those 32. Kings had 32. horses; for if it had been so said, the later number of 32. might have been expounded by 32. a piece. But why strive I to discover the vanity of the Doctor's false and captious shifts, which lie open to the view of all that are not blinded with over gross partiality?  
Since therefore it is apparent that his text limitteth not the number of Angels unto 7, as it doth the Churches; there is no reason he should so lightly overpass those things from thence inferred by his Refuter as he doth saying, (pag. 33.) It is not material what the Refuter infers from the not ●mutation of them. Let the reader weigh the inferences with his answers to them and then judge. The inferences are these, That the Hol● Ghost in not limiting them to any number, would have us to understand. 1. that there was more angels or Bishops then 7 in these Churches (as that place. Acts 20. 17-28. concerning Eph sus showeth) and consequently they were not Di●●●s●● Bishops. 2. Where the ●●s●ription of every epistle written to these Churches, is to the angel in th● singular number; it must not be taken literally for one only, but figuratively, and by a synecdoche, the singular for the plural, for more th●n one. But because there is a vail that hideth the light from his eyes, though he i● scoff desireth his Refuter to help him remove it; yet will I yield to his request in good earnest, and afford him some help, by refuting his arguments produced which hung in his light, and whereby he persuadeth himself (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 contrary. His first argument is thus framed by himself.  
The stars 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 stars which Christ held in his right hand Apoc. 1. 20.  
Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. or limited to the number of 7.  
A word or two to the assumption, and then three or four to the whole argument. The assumption is false and not proved by the place quoted, which saith, that the 7. stars are the Angels of the 7. Churches, and not as the assumption saith, the Angels are the 7. stars. And I hope when the D. shall consider it, he will find (not that they are all one, but that) there is a great difference between them. For when it is said, the 7. stars are the Angels, it is a metonymy of the adjunct, as if it had been said, the 7. stars do signify the Angels of the 7. Churches: but so it cannot be said, that the Angels signify the stars: These 2. sentences therefore are not all one, there is a sallacy in the equivocation.  
To the whole argument I shall need say little more; for if the D. will but draw the curtain and look a little upon these arguments which are of the like form and figure; he may without any further help or more a do, discern the deceit of his own argumentation.  
1. The ram which Daniel saw (cap. 8. 3.) was one only individuum or singular thing.  
The Kings of the Medes and Persians were that ram vers. 20. Therefore the Kings of the Medes and Persians, were one only individuum or singular thing.  
2. The horns which Zacharie saw (cap. 1. 18.) were just 4. or limited to the number of 4. so were the Carpenters which he saw, vers. 20.  
But they that scattered judah were those horns; and they that frighted them away, were the Carpenters.  
Therefore, they that scattered judah were just 4 persons, or limited to the number of 4. and so were they also that frighted them away.  
3. Aholah and Aholibah were two women, the daughter's of one mother etc. Ezech. 2. 3. 2 3. 4.  
Samaria and jerusalem were Aholah and Aholibah vers. 4,  
Therefore Samaria and jerusalem were two women the daughters of one mother, etc.  
4. The wise virgins which took oil in their lamps to meet the Bridegroom were just 5. or limited to the number of 5. So were the foolish virgins which lacked oil in their lamps, Math. 25. 14.  
But the sincere professors of Christ and his truth are the wise virgins, and the profane or hypocritical professors are the fo●lish virgins (as all agree in their comments.)  
Therefore the sincere professors of Christ & his truth are just 5. or limited to the number of 5. And so are the profane or hypocritical, etc.  
Thus I could go on, a tribus ad centum, but by this time, I hope, the D. seethe the equivocation which lieth in his own argument: for either he lacketh the word stars in a double sense, to wit, for the type in the proposition, and for the antitipe or thing signified in the assumption; or else (and rather) the equivocation lieth in the word were, which in the proposition is taken, substantive, but in the assumption significative. For seeing himself doth thus interpret his text (serm. pag. 2.) The 7. stars are (that is, do signify) the Angels of the 7. Churches, his assumption is false, unless it be thus understood, q. d. The Angels of the 7. Churches, were signified by the 7. stars, which Christ held in his right hand. And if it be so understood; then to avoid four terms, (which mar the fashion of his argument) the proposition must be thus changed. The persons whose ministery is represented by the 7. stars, which Christ held in his right hand are just 7. But this is so gross an untruth; that the D. cannot but see it, and unless there be an other vail to shadow him will be ashamed to avouch it; much more to allege the words of the Holy Ghost (Apoc. 1. 16. & 2. 1.) to maintain it; seeing he acknowledgeth all the Ministers of the gospel to the world's end, to be, by their office, stars and shining lights (so his sermon of the dignity of the Ministers, p. 61.) And in this sermon in quest. p. 55. he saith of Dioc: Bishops in general that they are stars 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 vail of this first argument, I might here proceed to the second. But before I come to it, (to prove the contradictory 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 stars which Christ held in his right hand.  
But all the Ministers of the word, that had charge to feed; and oversee the Christian people, in those 7. Churches; were more than 7. singular persons only. Therefore the persons signified by the stars, which Christ held in his right hand, were more than 7. singular persons only.  
The assumption needeth no proof, (more than what is after gathered from Act. 20. 28.) since it is of all our adversaries acknowledged, and the denial of it is the utter overthrow of their whole building. For how should this text justify the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers; if there were not divers Ministers in each of these Churches, subject to one Bishop? And if there were but only 7. angels, (that is Bishops) in these 7. churches, there was then but one only angel or Bishop in each several Church; but it is clear by that place of the Acts, that there was more than one in that Church of Ephesus, seeing it speaketh of Bishops in the plural number ordained, 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, seeing it is also confessed by the Doctor (serm: of the dignity 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 Stars is used to signify the Ministers of God, and to explain their function is this, viz. that as the stars are set in the firmament to shine upon the earth (Gen. 1. 17.) and to govern the night: (Psal. 136. 9) so it is the office of the Ministers in general (& not of Diocesan Bishops in particular) to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation (Mat. 5. 14. 15. joh. 5. 35. Phil. 2. 15. cum cap. 1. 1.) that men which naturally are in darkness (2. Cor. 4. 6. Eph. 5. 8.) may have their hearts 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 duty, of all Ministers in general, thus to s●ine and enlighten others; it must needs be granted, that the name of stars doth equally agree to all. 2. And in this sense the word is used, when it is said, that the third part of the stars was darkened (Rev. 8. 12.) & that the Dragon's tail drew, the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth, (Rev. 12. 4.) For hereby we are to understand the corruption and apostasy (not of Bishops & Archbishops only, but) of preachers & Teachers in general; which in huge heaps and multitudes, were drawn to embrace & teach, heresy, superstition, and idolattie. 3. Moreover, although it be so with the Ministers of the word, as it is with the stars, that (as one star differeth from an other in glory. 1. Cor. 15. 41. some here excelling others in gifts and labours, (1. Cor. 12. 4. 11. & 2. Cor. 11. 23) shall also exceed them hereafter in glory: (1. Cor. 3. 8.) yet it no where appeareth in holy scripture, that the name of stars is given to any one degree, or order of Ministers; much less appropriated to the episcopal function, to declare their pre-eminence, dignity or advancement above other preachers. 4. Neither is that gracious protection and safety which is assured to the Ministers of Christ (by his holding the 7. stars in his right hand. (Rev. 1. 16. 20. & 2. 1.) any privilege proper to Bishops, but a favour which he communicateth to all, that faithfully serve him, in their Ministerial function whatever it be, for the promise both of Christ's presence and assistance (Exod. 3. 12. Mat. 28. 20.) to protect or deliver from evil. jer. 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 pre-eminence, 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 Christ's presence to assist protect & preserve them: (all such I say) were signified by the stars which Christ held in his right hand.  
But all the Ministers of the word, that had charge to f●ede, 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 Christ's presence, to assist, protect, and preserve them.  
Therefore all the Ministers of the word in those 7. Churches, were signified by the stars, 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 than one in each Church) are also comprehended under the name, of the angels of the 7. Churches; For,  
All the persons (which then living in those Churches) were signified by the stars which Christ held in his right hand; were comprehended also under 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 stars which Christ held in his right hand.  
Therefore, all those Ministers (which were diverse in each Church a● is before showed) were comprehended under the name, of the angels of the 7. Ch.  
But there willbe a fit occasion hereafter to fortify this conclusion: I will therefore pass to the D. second syllogism, which standeth thus;  

Of ●. monads or unityes, such as be 7. singular person, the number is just 7. 
Sect. 3.  The angels were 7. monads or unityes, as being 7. singular persons,  
Therefore, of the angels, the number is just 7.   
May I demand of him, what moved him to add this clause to his proposition, such as be 7. singular persons? Did not his science and conscience tell him, that there are in the scriptures sundry monads or unityes of men & angels, which are not to be taken for so many singular persons; but rather for so many several ranks or societies? so that if this clause had been omitted, he foresaw his proposition had been liable to just reproof. Again, when he saith that the number is just 7. doth he not mean, that the number is just 7. singular people, or 7. individua? Who then hath such a vail before his eyes, 
The Doct. proveth idem per idem.  as not to see, that this argument is a frivoulous trifling and a vain stryving to prove idem per idem? for thus he reasoneth,  
The angels were 7. monads, as being 7. singular persons;  
Therefore they were just 7. individua, or 7. singular persons.  
Wherefore, for a direct answer to the argument as it standeth, it shall suffice, to reject the assumption, as a palpable begging of the question. And it is as palpable an untruth which he adjoineth: for the proof thereof, when he saith. That it appeareth by the inscription of the 7. Epistles written to them, that the Angels were 7. singular persons. For it 
The D. assumption beggeth the question and he proveth it by an untruth.  cannot appear by those inscriptions, till he hath proved, 1. that the Angels of the 7. Churches, signified by the 7. stars in his text, were none other than those Angels, to whom the Epistles were directed; and that the Angels written to in those inscriptions, were 7. singular persons. There are, I confess, which grant the latter & yet deny the former. For though they primarily understand to● pro●stata, the precedent of the Presbytery by that one Angel noted in the inscription: yet they restrain not the name of stars or Angels in his text to those precedents only; but intent them 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 proof, this point, viz. that the Angels in his text are the same in number, neither more nor less, than those Angels that are (according to their sense) primarily pointed at in those inscriptions. Others there are, who though they acknowledge a precedent in every society of Ministers, throughout those Ch; yet they limit not that title in the inscription to the precedent only; but take it for the whole society. Wherefore this is a second point, which the D. ought strongly to have confirmed, if he would have reasoned sound. For whereas he addeth, that whosoever is able to count 20. may easily 
The D. again proveth idem per idem, or one untruth by another.  find just 7. if he mean (as he must, to conclude his purpose) just, 7. singular persons, what else doth he again but trifle, in justifying one untruth by another, or rather in labouring again to prove idem per idem? And may it please him in his next defence, to recite them plainly 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) keep tale for him and tell in the end, that (notwithstanding his boast) he hath 7. times together begged, 
The D. beggeth 7 times together.  what he should and would have proved, but cannot. For he hath already been put in mind (and that with more show of reason than he can remove,) that in the inscriptions of those epistles, the word Angel in the singular number, noteth the whole company of Angels or Bishops, which were in each Church, and not one singular person only.  
If his meaning be, (as it seemeth by his last words, (7. Angels neither more nor less) to reason thus. The Angels to whom the 7. epistles were written, were, 7. Angels, or 7. monads of Angels, neither more nor less. Therefore they were, 7. singular persons; though the falsehood of the consequence appeareth by that already said; yet to make it more apparent, I here tender to his view these few arguments.  
1 The Angels by whom the Gospel is said to be published. Apoc. 14. 6. 8. 9 were 3. Angels or 3. unities of Angels, neither more nor less, Therefore they were 3. singular persons.  
2 The Kings meant by the 7. heads of the beast. Apoc. 17. 9 10. were 7. neither more nor less: Ergo. 7. singular persons.  
3 The Virgins mentioned Math. 25. 1. 2. were 10. neither more nor less, The two five there noted show 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 monads or unities.  
5 The parties refusing the marriage banquet were 3. monads or unities, so reckoned one by one. Luk. 14. 18. 19 20.  
6 So were the servants that had the talents committed to them Math. 25. 15. 18.  
7 The men sound in the field at the last day are only two unities, so are the women at the mill, Math. 24. 40. 41.  
Shall we therefore conclude, that every of those were so many singular persons, neither more nor less?  
8 And must we also limit the number of those 144000. mentioned Apoc. 7. 4. 8. to so many persons, neither more nor less, because 12. times 12000. do● precisely conclude that number? It is well known that in these scriptures, a certain number is put for an uncertain and unlimited; and that in some of these, (where a distribution is made of divers unities) we are thereby to understand, not so many singular persons precisely; but so many ranks or orders of persons agreeing in one thing. as Apoc. 14. 6. 9 three ranks 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 agreeing in one excuse etc. In like manner, if the Refuter shall say, that those 7 monads of Angels reckoned up, Apoc. 2. & 3. were so many societies of Ministers, conjoined in one charge of one Church; the D. may see his interpretation is backed, by many like speeches in script. where one monade or unity, is put for many linked togithe in one society.  
Pass we now on to his 3. argument; from which we might well 
Sect. 4.  pass seeing it might have been better spared then ill spent; it being nothing but a new repetition of what he urged before, to prove the assumption of his second; only he hath here set in form 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, do sh●w that they were 7. singular persons. But lest he should judge better of it, than there is cause, I will not refuse to examine it, and this it is.  
To whom the epistles were written; they were just 7. (for they were written singult 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 just 7.  
Once again I must demand wha● he meaneth by just. 7? If 7. singular persons only; the proposition is grossly false; and that also which he addeth for the proof thereof: for those epistles were not written singulae singulis personis, each to one only person, but rather singulae singulis soc●ita●ibu●; each epistle to that society of Angels or Bishops, which attended on the Church, in that city 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 ear to hear; as the conclusion of each epistle showeth 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 only 7. persons. For, as we need not deny, the Angels to whom the epistles were written, to be (as Arethas saith) just of the same number with the Churches: so we may grant 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 meant only 7. overseing Angels, other Angels or Minist. excluded, as shallbe showed hereafter in answ. to his next section. 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 than one Minister or Church-ruler. Mr. Fox in his meditations on the Revelation (pag. 7. 9 17.) gathering and conferring together the opinion of all interpreters that he could meet with, saith they all consented in this, that under the person of an Angel, the Pas●o● and Ministers of the Churches, were understood; let the reader see what he saith there concerning Augustin; Primasius, Hay●o, Beda, Richard, Thomas and others. I will also here show what some of them say. Augustin (epist. 132.) saith thus, Si● enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus etc. Quoth si deAngelo superiorem C●lorum, et non d● pr●positis ecclesiae; vellet intelligi, none consequenter diceret habeo adversum te etc. whereby he plainly showeth, that though he spoke afterwards but as of one; yet he understood it of more than one, as his, 2. homely upon the Apocalyps showeth. Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae, habeo adversum te, dicit prepositis ecclesiarum. That he saith to the Angel of Thyatira, I have somewhat against the, he saith it to the rulers of the Churches. And though Bishop Bilson allegeth 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 under the name of an Angel; yet have we reas● to think, he meant not to appropriate to one only person, either the title of prepositus ecclesiae, or the praise there spoken of; seeing in the self same epistle compared with his 2. homely before named, he includeth both the company of Presbyters & the whole Church, and it is easy to show out of other his writings, that by prepositus ecclesie, ruler of the Church, he understandeth all them that had authority to preach the word, and to rebuke men of sin, etc. see his Tract on john, 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: neque 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. jerom on the same place, and Phil. 1. 1. Gregory in his moral: on job. lib. 11. cap. 3. Beda in Luk. lib. 2. cap. 7. Rupertus Tincinens. lib. 1. in Apoc. c. 3. Albin. lib. 1. in joh. 1. Aretius' in, Apoc 3. 1. Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Angelo's ecclesiasticarun in dextra sua habet Christus, hoc est, pastors omnes et episcopos seu verbi Ministros potestate sua regit etc. And that it was not his meaning, by the Apostles meaning of the word Angel in the singular number in each inscription (as the D. would have it) to understand one only chief Pastor or Bishop over the rest, but all the Ministers of each Church under that name, may appea●e by that he saith, that the 5. epistle was written unto the Pastors of the Church which was at Sardis, in cap 3. 1. & again 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 Bishops etc.  
To pass by our own writers, Mr. Fox, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Brightman and others, I will only note what D. Ful●e saith in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1. 20. S. john (saith he) by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should wear on their heads, miters, and hold crosier staves in their hands, like dead Idols: But them that are the faithful messengers of God's word, and utter and declare the same. Again they are called the Angels of the Churches, because they be God's messengers unto the Churches. But to shut up with the D. own testimony, (of more worth in this case then all the rest) in his sermon of the dignity & duty of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. he telleth us and that with proof from scripture; that neither the name of Angels nor the whole title Angels of the Churches, do argue any pre-eminence in degree. Wherefore (to end this point) since I have made it clear 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 show that their number is not limited; the Refuter (or his friend) hath done enough to pull that vail from his eyes, which was the occasion (as it seemeth) of his wandering so far as he doth, out of the right way of truth in his sermon, and the defence thereof. For unless a man would freely yield unto him (what he assured to prove, but neither 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 infer (as he doth) that they were Diocesan Bishops.  
But howsoever he cannot by strong arguments overthrow 
Sect. 〈◊〉  his Refuter as he wisheth; yet by opposing him with a few questions, and 2. syllogisms 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. syllogisms 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, seeing his Refuter saith, that in Eph●sus there were more angels? I answer (as his Refuter had told him before, and he could not but hear) that the Church of Ephesus was then one only 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 flock (Act. 20. 17. 28.) neither dare I nor the Refuter, without better reason than the Doctor doth yet bring any, forsake the grammatical sense, and expound him, as speaking of more than 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 only of particular congregations? I answer, that the last time I talked with him, he told me, he took the word Angels, to belong in common 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 only of particular congregations; that last clause is added to exclude, not any such as have the office of Teachers in one congregation: but the D. Bishops, such as exercise a Prelacy 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 answer to his second syllogism, the Doctor may be pleased to know, that his skill in reasoning much faileth him; as will soon be seen, if his Refuter (who is as he saith but a smatterer in logic) do but divide 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 than one:  
But at Ephesus there were many Pastors.  
Therefore, at Ephesus there were more particular congregations then one.    

The Doct. syllogism hath 4. terms.  Behold here 4. terms in stead of three: wherefore the conclusion may be, and is false, though both the premises be true. If the Doctor will 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 less slanderous, to father such a saying on his Refuter whom he calleth his adversary. If 
The D. assumption false and slanderous.  he shall strive to make good the assumption thus changed, by that second argument, which is closely enfolded 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 return him his proposition, as having no colour, either of allowance from the refuters words, or of confirmation in his own defence. In deed if he had said, that many angels of particular congregations, are many Pastors of several congregations, his proposition might have passed without controlment: the word Pastors being taken in a large construction for all Ministers which break the bread of life to their people. But then he should be as far to seek for the proof of that which he must assume, viz. that at Ephesus there were many angels of particular congregations; for it hath been already said, 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 been spoken, the answer to his 3. question (or 2. as he hath set it down) and of his first syllogism, will ask no great study or labour. For whereas he demandeth, whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors than one? I answer 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, Acts 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 kingdom, is not proper to diocesan Bishops; 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, Bishops and Pastors, he was well content to forbear all strife about words, and thought it sufficient to seclude diocesan Bishops, by restraining 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 Bishop of a particular congregation is but one.  
But each Angel of the Churches (saith the Refuter) did signify a pastor 
The D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by the double construction of the word pastor.  or Bishop of a particular congregation. Ergo each Angel did signify 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 understandeth by the word Bishop in his writings. And though the assumption be true, rightly understood, yet is it false in the D. understanding; 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 answer; 2. conclusions directly (as he saith) contradictory to some other his assertions; yet as he hath not effected his purpose; so hath he discovered falsehood and deceit in his own reasoning. 
Sect. 6.   
And thus at length are we come to his first question, wherein he would know of his Refuter, 1. what reason he hath to forsake the grammatical sense, in understanding 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 than one? There were of the jews, who having seen many great signs wrought by Christ, yet, (as if he had never yielded any sign at all) said unto him, we would see a sign of thee Math. 12. 38. and 16. 1. and what sign showest thou? john 6. 30 And the D. is not unlike them herein. Can he be ignorant that his Refuter (answ. pag. 3.) yielded reasons, why he interpreteth the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle, not literally for one person, but by a synecdoche for the whole company of Angels in each Church? Yea & though he twice 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 behalf. Wherefore there is reason to demand of him, 1. with what face he dareth suggest, so false a conceit into the mind of his readers, viz. that the Refuter hath either no reason at all; or at least no good reason, to understand by the Angel (in the inscription of each epistle) more Angels than one? And 2. why he should so stiffly urge the literal sense, when he hath not answered that which is urged to infringe it? Notwithstanding, to move him once again, to enter into the consideration of this point, I here tender him one of the Refuters reasons, in form of argument, thus.  
If there were more than 7. Angels in the 7. Churches; then the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle, must not be taken literally, for one only person, but synecdochically for more than one.  
But the first is true; (as that place of the Act. 20. 17. 28. concerning the Church of Ephesus) showeth: 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.  
Therefore the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle, must not be taken literally, for one only person, but synecdochically for more than one. And seeing the D. here reasoneth with his Refuter, for the superiority of Bishops, from the name Angel, as heart doth with D: Reinolds for the sovereignty of the Pope, or of one Priest, from the name Priest; it shall not be amiss, to fit him with the same answer, that D. Reinolds gave Hart. Not so; (saith D. R. p. 252.) The name of Priest in 
Deut. 18. 3.  this law signifieth the Priests etc. The law giving sentence, against him that disobeyeth the Pieist, meaneth the Priests, according to a kind of speech, wherein the whole i● noted by the part. And giving the reason why he so interpreted the singular by the plural, he saith: It is clear, by reason that the punishment of the transgressor, hath relation to the law; and the law willeth 
Deut. 17. 9  men to go to the Priests. If D. R. for that cause had reason to forsake the grammatical sense, why not the Ref. here? seeing the scripture sendeth us to divers Bishops in one Church, Act. 20. 17. 28.  
But to proceed in the refutation of his assertion or answer before expressed; since it is granted there were more Angels or Bishops then one in each of those 7. Churches: the reader is to be advertised, that now the controversy is come to this issue, whether the singularity of the word Angel, be a reason of more weight to carry it to one only person, than the plurality of Angels in each Church is, to interpret it by a synecdoche for the whole company. The D. affirmeth the former, and (to countenance his cause) putteth this difference between the name of an Angel or Bishop in general, 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 only that hath prehemenence above the rest, is to be honoured with the name of the Angel of that Church. On the contrary, I affirm the later, & therefore will undertake to prove, that where there are many Ministers or Angels (such as he acknowledgeth to be in every of the 7. Church's) they have, every of them, in regard of their function, equal right to be called, the Angel of that Church; and thus 〈◊〉 reason.  
If all the Angels or Ministers in each Church had equal right to be called the Angel of that Church, wherein they administered; then this title, the Angel of the Church, aught to be understood synecdochically for the whole company, and not literally for one only.  
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 equal right to be called the Angels of that Church, wherein they minister. All the Angels or Bishops in each of the 7. Churches, were God's messengers, sent to oversee and feed his flock.  
Therefore all the Angels or Bishops in each of the 7. Churches, had equal right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they minister.  
The proposition is the D. own assertion. (serm. of the digni. of the Ministers pag. 61.)  
The assumption is his own also, (in the next section pag. 34.)  
The conclusion therefore I hope will pass for currant.  
Moreover it is no less absurd to say, that this or that Minister is an Angel or Bishop, but not the Angel of the Church which he overseeth; then to say, he is an Elder or Minister, but not an Elder or Minister of the Church etc. 2. yea, to yield the name of an Angel simply, or the Angel of the Lord, to agree fittlie to every Minister of the word, & yet to restrain this title, the Angel of the Church to one that hath a pre-eminence above other Ministers, is to deceive himself and others by a mistaking of the cause, why the Ministers represented by the Stars, are called the Angels of their Churches, rather than the L. Angels: for the only 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 compared; the name of the Lords Angel, is much better to express a pre-eminence in him, that is so entitled, them the Church's Angel; seeing this later debaseth his Ministry, much more than the former. But as these names, the L. Minister or servant, and the Church's 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 yielded, why also these titles, the Lords angel, and the Church's angel, should be divided into several functions.  
To conclude, if neither the singularity of the number, do argue a singular person; nor the right reason of the whole title, implieth a pre-eminence in one above others, seeing it is granted, that there were many Angels; and proved that the title here used, is (in regard of the signification of the phrase) common 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 been said to show that this title: The angel 
Sect. 7.  of the Church, is to be taken for the whole society of Ministers in every Church; rather then for one singular person▪ set in a singular pre-eminence above the rest; yet to satisfy those which perhaps may demand, why the Son of God should give in charge to john, to write unto the angel, as one; rather then to the angels, as to many; it shall not be amiss 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 stars, by which those Angels were shadowed: which could not have been, if there had been express mention of more Angels than 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 than 7, Churches; or that they kat hexochen are called Church. 5, to note a pre-eminence in jurisdiction or government over the rest: so it were no less absurd to infer (from the literal mention of one Angel in every Church) that there was but one only person in that Church, to whom, the name of the Angel of that Church, did by special right appertain. 2. Their unity in the Ministerial function, & joint commission to attend upon the feeding and governing of one Church, (which ought to be accompanied with a common care, and joint labour, as it were with one hand, and heart or affection, to further the Lords work in the people's salvation) is much more fitly declared, by the name of one Angel, then of many; if we observe the phrase of speech, used elsewhere by the Holy Ghost, and in other names or titles, to the like purpose. We often find the name of (one) prophet, (jer. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Esai. 3. 2. Hos. 9 8.) or Priest, jer. 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 general body of the ministery (or whole multitude of Prophets or Priests &c.) in the Church of Israel or judah; when the spirit of God intendeth to reprove, threaten or admonish them, as occasion serveth.  
3 Neither need it seem strange to us, that a multitude or company of Ministers, should be understood under the name of one Angel; seeing a multitude of heavenly Angels (employed in one service for the good of God's Saints) is sometimes in the scripture shut up, under one Angel in the singular number, 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: seeing also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels, (jointly labouring in any one work) is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit. 1. King. 22. 21. 22. Mar. 1. 23-27. and 5. 2-3. Luk. 4. 33. 34. and called the Devil or Satan, Luc. 8. 27. 30. 1 Pet. 5. 8. Heb. 2. 14. Ephes. 6. 11. 12.  
4 Moreover, seeing it is a thing very common and usual, (throughout the whole book of the Revelation) by the name of one Angel to understand a multitude or some whole society of Ministers and Teachers; it was very meet that the beginning of the book, should be suitable to the other parts; and that the first vision should have none other construction, than such as might hold proportion with, (or rather as a line lead us to the right understanding of) the rest that follow.  
Here john seethe 7. stars in the right hand of the son of man, which are interpreted, to be the Angels (or Bishops and Ministers) of the 7. Churches; and he writeth 7. epistles to so many Angels. In another vision, he seethe 7. Angels, to whom were given 7. trumpets, (singulae singulis) to every Angel one trumpet, and they blewe their trumpets successively one after another, and with differing effects. Rev. 8. 2. 6. 7. etc. After this, he saw. 7. Angels and 7. vials given unto them (singulae singulis) in which vials were 7. plagues, successively also powered out by every Angel in his time Rev. 15. 6. 7. etc. 16. 1. 2. etc. In these latter visions, (like as in the former) some of our best Interpreters do understand by Angels, the Ministers and preachers of God's word; for in every age, they lift up their voices as trumpets, (Esa. 58. 1. Num. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 12.) to show the people their sins, and to proclaim the will of God unto men. And when they denounce his judgements against the contemners of his truth and bind them up in their sins (Math. 18. 18. joh. 20. 23.) they after a sort, pour out the vials of God's wrath upon their heads, (jer. 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 time of every vials pouring out, or of every trumpets blowing) that one Angel precisely mentioned, was one supreme Bishop, that had a prehemenent pastoral authority 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 faithful Ministers, which in their times 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 said, (yea it is and must be acknowledged) of those 3. Angels, which followed one another (Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9) to recall men unto the true worship of God, after it was corrupted by Antichrist. Marlorat on that place▪ Method Collat. pag. 322. and Mr. Fox his meditations upon the Rev. pag. 286. 290. Wherefore if we compare together the parts of Christ's Revelation; it is much more consonant to the true use of the word Angel in other places, to affirm with the Refuter that one Angel in each of the 7. Churches, signifieth (not any one only chief Pastor, but) all those Ministers or Teachers, which with a common care and joint labour, attended 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 uphold his assertion. And (that the D. may have his own words returned home again) 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 from falsely conceited limitation. 
Sect. 8.   
Yet as if he had made all cocksure on his side, in his next section, he triumpheth 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, whom the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church; it willbe easy both to free my text, fr●m the c●vils, which more than once my adversary objecteth against it, and also out of the text to clear the main controversy in hand. But it is a mere cavil in the D. joined with slander, to say that his adversary objecteth any cavil against 
The D. cav●lleth & slandr●th.  his text. In deed his Refuter hath said more than once, (and it is so clear a truth, that he need not blush to avouch it an 100 times) that his ●ext yieldeth him no sure soundation, whereon to raise any sound argument, to justify the calling of diocesan, Bishops; because he hath no shadow of reason from any word in his text, to conclude that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. singular persons, much less so many diocesan Prelates For though he boast that he hath manysistly proved the former, yet seeing his proofs are disproved, it mought be told him in imitation of his own rhetoric (sect. 12. pag. 47.) that his manifestly is a manifestly. But let him be foreborne therein, and let us see how his proofs do hang together 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 whom the Holy Ghost ●●lleth the angel of that Church. It shallbe granted 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 repetition of one thing) to conclude the former. Wherein also how weakly he reasoneth, is already showed at large, in as much as he cannot prove, that there was one only person in each Church, saluted by the name of the Angel of that Church. Neither will it follow (as is before observed) that the angels of the 7. Churches (mentioned in his text (are 7. singular persons only, (much less that they were so many diocesan Bishops) though it should be granted that in the inscription of each epistle, one only person beareth the name of the Angel of that Church. It will therefore cost him more labour and sweat, than he supposeth, before he can out of his text, clear the main controversy which is in hand. For since the D. is here the Opponent, & maintaineth 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 necessary and invincible force of argument, what himself affirmeth. But as for the latter (to return back home his own sweet phrase pag. 105.) he fair and mannerly slippeth his neck out of the collar, and contenteth himself to attempt the former. And I may well say to attempt it; for he leaveth the strength of the objection untouched, 
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 find nought to prove his kind of Bishops, or aught to show any such quality of their function as he immagineth. For to be lights in the candlesticks, stars of heaven, angels in this kingdom, the heaven of heavens, which is all the D. doth or any other can show out of the words; is not proper to diocesan Bishops; but common to all true Pastors of particular congregations, as his own self confesseth, (serm: of the d●g: and duty of the Ministers pag. 20. 61.)  
But to prove the D. once again and to examine the force of the objection, I will set it in order before his e●es thus.  
Whatsoever text is such, that neither the D. d●th, nor any other can, fl●we out of the words thereof, any thing, proper to diocesan Bishops; but rather common to all true Pastors of particular congregations: the same ye●ldeth no proof to uphold his kind of Bishops.  
But this text (Apoc. 1. 20.) of the D. is such, as is before said.  
Therefore, it yieldeth no proof to uphold his kind of Bishops.  
The assumption which only needeth to be cleared, may be thus manifested.  
The name of stars or angels together 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 Bishops.  
But all that the D. doth, or any other can show out of the words of the text (Apoc. 1. 20.) is either the name of stars, or angels, or at least this title, the angels of the Churches.  
Therefore, all that the Doctor doth, or any other can show, out of the words of his text. (Apocal. 1. 20.) to justify his kind of Bishops, is common to all true Pastors of particular congregations, and nothing in it proper to Diocesan Bishops. Here the assumption is in itself evident; and the proposition is enlightened by the D. interpretation of the words of his text (serm. pag. 3.) compared with the application thereof unto all Ministers in general (serm. of the dignity and duty of the Ministers, p. 20. 61.) ut supra. For in the former place, he ascribeth, to the Pastors or Bishops understood by those names or titles▪ none other duty or dignity then this, namely, to be as lights set on a candlestick, or shining in the Church, which is as heaven upon 
A contradict: in the D two sermons  earth; and as angels in God's kingdom, the heaven of heavens. And in the later, he giveth all this and much more to the office or function of Ministers in general, yea he allegeth this very text (pag. 46. & 63.) to prove that they are both stars shining before others with the light of doctrine and good example; and angels of the Lord, or rather angels of the Churches; & therefore to be received as angels. For as herein they are like to angels (p. 56.) that they are sent forth unto the ministery, for their sakes that are heirs of salvation, Heb. 1. 14.) so they seem to have some pre-eminence, in respect of their Embassage, and spiritual authority; seeing the preaching of the gospel, is committed to men and not to angels, as appeareth by the story of Cornelius, Act. 10. 6. etc. Neither hath God said to any of the angels at any time, that which he speaketh to his Ministers john 20. 23. whose sins you forgive they shallbe forgiven etc. Wherefore as the D. cannot (without check of conscience) so neither can any other (without apparent gainsaying the truth) either deny the names & titles mentioned in his text to be common, to all true Pastors of particular congregations, or restreyn any one of them to Diocesan Bishops.  
Having thus laid open the strength of the Ref: objection, I come 
Sect. 9  now to examine the force of the Doct: answer. I answer (saith he p. 34.) that all Ministers who have charge of souls, are in a general sense, called Angels, Pastors, Bishops, because they are messengers sent from God, to f●●de and o●●rsee his flock: 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 Bishop of that Church; he is plainly noted to have a singular pre-eminence above the rest, whereof see more in my answer (sect. 12.) to page. 6. Here let it be 〈…〉 against the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 to insinuate (yet 〈…〉 ●●pressy 〈…〉 that it is an honour proper only to diocesan. Bishops (and 〈◊〉 common to other Ministers) to be called the Angels of their Churches. But it is already showed, that the honour of this name or title, cannot be denied unto any Minister, that hath charge of souls: 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 cunningly slideth from the text, which he proposeth to handle 
The D. slideth from his text to the inscriptions.  to the inscriptions of the 7. epistles, (Rev. 2. and 3.) he is again to be advertised, that though he could justify the pre-eminence of one Minister above others from those inscriptions; yet it will not follow that diocesan Bishops, are only meant by the Angels of the Churches, in the text he made choice 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 plainly noted to have a singular pre-eminence above the rest; it nothing justifieth his cause, but discovereth rather the weakness thereof; seeing he no otherwise proceedeth than he began; I mean in assuming 
The D. still beggeth.  for granted, what he should have proved; and in pressing us with weak 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 enforced to acknowledge that there were many other Angels or Bishops) he will needs have that one to be called kat hexochen the Angel or Bishop of that Church; & so from thence infer, that the same one Angel is plainly noted, to have pre-eminence above the rest. The strength of which reasoning may appear by these goodly consequences following.  
1. There were others with Paul, whom he might rightly call his fellows and helpers; wherefore he entitleth Titus' kat hexochen his fellow and helper on the behalf of the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8. 23. and so plainly noteth in him a pre-eminence above the rest.  
2. In like manner, seeing there were others who in a general sense might be called Apostles or messengers: they whom he calleth (in the same place) the Apostles or messengers of the Churches, were so called kat hexochen, to note in them a pre-eminence above the rest.  
3 The same may be said of Paul, when he entitleth himself 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 himself a fellow-Elder, and a witness of Christ's sufferings 1 Pet. 5. 1.  
4. And why then may not Bellarminargue from Math. 16. 19 & john 2. 15. 16. that though others, in a general sense may be authorized to feed the sheep of Christ, & to guide the keys: yet these things are spoken kat hexochen to Peter, and do there plainly note in him, a pre-eminence above the rest.  
5 Without all contradiction, the diocesan Byshopprick of Epaphroditus, willbe dashed in pieces with this argument following, if the D. former reasoning have any validity in it.  
There were some others at Philippi; who were in a general sense yoke fellows to the Apostles; wherefore, when he speaketh precisely to one singular person, I beseech the faithful y●ke fellow etc. Phil. 4. 3. this one is called kat hexochen his faithful yoke fellow, and consequently this title noteth in that one, an episcopal pre-eminence above the rest.  
But what if we should grant as much, as his words do ascribe unto that Angel of each Church, (viz. that this title is given to one only, and plainly noteth in him a pre-eminence above the rest) will he from hence infer, that because one angel in each Church, had some pre-eminence above others, therefore that one was a diocesan Bishop? If so; (as he must to clear the main controversy now in hand) surely he faileth grossly 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 feigned and Platonical Idea, or Poetical species, and that affirmatiuè: for seeing there are divers sorts of pre-eminence (viz. of order or o● dignity; and in gifts, or in degree of ministery, or in charge and power of jurisdiction) it is a silly and simple argument to say▪ In each of the 7. Churches one Minister had some pre-eminence above the rest. Therefore he had pre-eminence above them in degree of office or ministery. But when he inferreth. Therefore he had the pre-eminence of a dio●. Bishop; it is no less ridiculous, then if he should say, it is a bird, therefore it is a black swan.  
But since he referreth us to his answer 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 himself to show, what was the pre-eminence of these Bishops, in respect whereof, they are called the angels of the Churches, thought it not fit, to suffer him with begging, to carry that away, which he ought to have proved. to wit, that the BISHOPS which are entitled, the Angels of the CHURCHES, were so called in respect of that pre-eminence, 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 general calling of their ministery, and not because of any sovereignty or supremacy, over other their fellow Ministers, as the Doctor implieth here; and plainly, (though untruly) affirmeth afterwards. In these few words, the DOCTOR findeth (as he supposeth, to say no worse of him) two untruths: the former he saith is an error the later, a plainly: because, though he give to Bishop's superiority over other Ministers, yet neither sovereignty nor 
The Refut. cleared of the Doct. slander.  supremacy. Concerning the lie which the Doctor slanderously chargeth on his Refuter; I shall have fit occasion to speak hereafter; here only will I clear him of that error ascribed to him, for saying that the Bishops of those Churches are named Angels in regard of the general calling of their ministery. Let us therefore hear how worthily the Doctor disputeth, to convince him of error. Though (saith he) to be called Angel generally agreeth to all Ministers, yet for one, and but one among 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 regard of their general calling; but a peculiar stale, belonging unto ●●e, who hath singular pre-eminence above the rest, that is to say, a BISHOP. Behold here how he disputeth; now 1. Can any judicious reader (that compareth this speech with that which he delivered before pag. 34. find in this latter, any one material point, more than 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 seen, but the selfsame sentence, varied in a few words, that carry the same sense. A thing which every novice in grammar schools, that hath but read his copia verborum, might have done in the turning of a hand, as they say. This slight dealing becometh neither so great a logician, nor so grave a divine, much less so censorious a Doctor: yet behold 
The D. ●wisteth a 3. fold cord of vanity.  a greater fault, or rather two other greater defaults, to make up a threefoulde cord of vanity. For he hath neither convinced his Refuter of error, nor justified his own assertion by him reproved.  
2 To convince his Refuter he reasoneth thus.  
No common title belonging to all Ministers, in regard of the general calling of the Ministry; is given kat hexochen, to one only among many Ministers in one Church.  
But the name of Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is given kat hexochen, to one only Minister among many, in each of the 7. Churches.  
Therefore, the name of angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is not a common title belonging to all Ministers, in regard of their general calling to the Ministry. Both propositions are false; for it is already proved, that under the name of Angels, (or the Angels of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 20.) all the Ministers of the word, how many soever are comprised; wherefore the D. bare affirmation, that one only in each Church is k●t hexochen so entitled, is no better than a bare broaching of an untruth, (his own 
The D. contradicteth himself, delivereth an untruth, & beggeth the question.  sermon of the dig. and duty of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. (which directly contradicteth this,) being judge) with the begging of the question. And to evince the falsehood of the former proposition, it is easy to give instance of sundry titles belonging in common to all Ministers, which yet are sometimes k●t hex●chen given to one singular person, as when john is entitled The Elder 2. john. 1. and 3. joh. 1. Paul a Minister of the Church or a Minister of Christ and of his gospel, 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, unto some one among many 2 Cor. 8. 23. Phil. 2. 25. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Wherefore unless there were more truth than is in his reasoning, he hath small reason to charge his Refuter with error, for affirming that the Bishops, of whom his text speaketh, are named Angels in regard of their general calling of the Ministry. 3. See we now, whether he hath any more strength of truth, to maintain his own assertion, to wit, That they are called the angels of the Churches, in respect of a preheminent superiority in power and jurisdiction over other Ministers. His argument must be framed to this effect.  
Whatsoever title is given kat hexochen, to one only among many Ministers in one Church; the same is a particular style, belonging to one that hath singular pre-eminence above the rest; that is, to adioce sand Bishop. But the name ●f Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is given to one only, among many Ministers, in each of the 7. Churches.  
Therefore, the name of angels (Apoc. 1. 80.) is a peculiar style belonging to one, that hath singular pre-eminence 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 Bishops, in regard of their episcopal superiority 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. uz.) is false & hath no breath of life in it, except to beg the question. As for the proposition, the falsehood of it, is more gross, & palpable 
The D. beggeth in the assumption and delivereth a flat falseshood in the proposition.  than the former. For, besides that which is before delivered, to show that some titles, belonging in common to all Ministers, are and may be given, kat hexochen, to one only among many, (which argueth that the giving of a title kat hexochen to one, doth not prove the same to be a peculiar style belonging to one that hath a singular pre-eminence above others: this may be added, (which was also before observed) that if it should be granted, that such a title is a peculiar style, belonging to one, that hath a singular pre-eminence above others; yet from hence to infer, that it is a style peculiar to a diocesan Bishop (to use the Doct. words again) is as ridiculous, as if a man should say, it is a bird, therefore a black swan: or thus, Mr. Dow. among many Ministers is a Doctor, therefore he is a Duke, a Dean, a Bishop, or Archbishop. Wherefore, since both the premises, 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 own error, the better; I will this once thus argue, against him, and that from his own pen.  
If this text Apoc. 1. 20, (together with cap. 2. and 3. following) be rightly applied in his sermon of the duty & dignity of the Ministers: then the name of angels of the 7. golden candlesticks Apoc. 1. 20. is not a peculiar style, belonging only to diocesan Bishops; but a common title appertaining to all Ministers in general.  
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 style peculiar to diocesan Bishops, and not common to all Ministers in general: then those texts of holy scripture are wrongly applied to all Ministers in general; in the D. sermon of the dignity & duty of the Ministers.  
But the first is true. Therefore also the second: And consequently, which way soever, the D. turn his head, he cannot escape the blame, both of error in misapplying his text, and of contradiction with 
The D. misapplieth his text, & contradicteth himself.  himself.  
But 4. because in his latter argument the D. concludeth not that assertion, which his Refuter before contradicted: it shall not be amiss to see, if his last conclusion, will necessarily infer it, by way of consequence. For though he be a Doctor, and his Refuter but a smatterer in logic, as he saith; yet shall he do 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 style belonging to one that hath asingular pre-eminence above other Ministers in any Church or country; the same is given to that one, in respect of that pre-eminence.  
But the name of Angels (Apoc. 1. 20.) is a peculiar style, belonging to one, that had the pre-eminence of a diocesan Bishop, in each of the 7. Churches. Therefore, the name of Angels, is there given to one only diocesan Bishop, in each Church in respect of his diocese.  
The falsehood of this assumption being already laid open; it shall suffice to show the unsoundness of the proposition; for which purpose observe we these few 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 pre-eminence above all other Ministers in that Church or country where he conversed, when he wrote those epistles. 2. So also is the name of a Minister of the gospel 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 said for the title which Peter giveth himself 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 pre-eminence, 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 convince his Refute● of one error, he falleth into 3. or 4.  of one error, he hath enwrapped himself under the just blame of 3. or 4. And this I might hope would be enough to stop his mouth, from pleading for the pre-eminence of diocesan Bishops, 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.  wereunto 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 pre-eminence in one above the rest, or was a style peculiar to one alone. For it is but a private fancy, peculiar to the D. and some few others, whereby they would feign persuade the world, that these Angels were diocesan Bishops like to ours; & as vain is it, as private. For the Refut: may grant all that Mr. Beza & D. Reynolds say; and yet still deny, that the name of angel is gvien to the precedent only, or exclusiuè, as if the rest of his fellow Ministers had no right to that title with him.  
As for his idle digression, in assaying (pag. 34.) to show against Beza, that the precedent had a perpetuity in the presidency; it is not worth worth the answering; being as weakly maintained, as it is here unseasonably inserted. For although we give unto Timothy (being an Evangelist) a standing presidency during his abode at Ephesus; yet the D. reasoneth absurdly, when he inferreth that such as succeeded him in the presidency, had the like perpetuity therein; unless he could prove their ministerial function to be (as Timothyes was) superior to other Presbyters.  
No less absurd is his reasoning, when he undertaketh to show from the testimony of the most ancient authors in the Church, who were those singular persons, whom the Holy Ghost calleth the Angel of the Church at Ephesus, and likewise at Smyrna etc. Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus, as Ignatius testifieth, and Policarpus the Bishop of Smyrna. If therefore Onesimus was but one man, and likewise Policarpus; we may be bold 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 answer whereunto I say, that if Ignatius or any other, had levied that Onesimus was the only person at Ephesus whom john 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 been bold (not to make his bold conclusion but) to say, that he had one ancient author on his side in that point, though as one swallow maketh no summer; so one ancient giveth him no sufficient warrant, that he hath the consent of the most 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 relief to that his assertion; which in this 4. section he laboureth to maintain as we shall have occasion further to affirm when we come to the last Chap. of this book, wherein that he saith here concerning Onesimus and Polycarp, (being again repeated by him. lib. 4. pag. 40. with some addition) shallbe further debated. Let us now go forwards.   

Chap. 3. Containing an answer to the D. argument handled lib. 2. chap. 7. sect. 2. pag. 120. concerning the presidency of the Angels of the 7. Churches.  
The D. is willing (it seemeth) to play at small game, rather than to set out▪ and to lay hold upon a slender advantage, rather 
Sect. 1 ad. D. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect 2. & Ref. pag.  than to leave his diocesan Lords, no footing in his text. If an eminent superiority 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 better evidence fail, the confession of the Presbyterians shall serve to give them a presidency: And though commonly he refuse the syllogisms, which his Refuter reduceth into form; yet finding one handsomely framed to his hand, (though himself intended, as he saith no such argument:) he is well pleased to make use of it, and to stand forth in defence of every part of it. The syllogism runneth thus, 

The Precedents of the Presbyters were Diocesan Bishops.  
The Angels of the 7. Churches, were precedents of the presbyteries.  
Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were Diocesan Bishops.    
Concerning the Assumption, it hath been already showed, upon what reasons, we hold it questionable, whether these Angels were 7. only persons, of chief 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 Presbytery, mentioned in their writings; the one a Presbytery of governing Elders assisting the Pastor of each congregation: th'other a Presbytery of Ministers set over divers churches. Now because the former could yield the Doctor no colour of help, to convey a Diocesan Bishopric to these angels; & he had expressly mentioned the later, in the last words 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 presidency over a college of Ministers, assigned to sundry particular congregations. And this he added, that he knew none that did confess the angels of the 7. Churches to be some of those Precedents. Now the Doctor taking those testimonies of Calvin and Beza (whom he hath often v●lified in other parts of his defence) for plentiful proof of his assumption; he referreth us to that he hath alleged out of their writings, (lib. 1. cap. 2. sect.) whether if we go, we shall find 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 presidency which one Minister in cash city (called a Bishop) had over other Ministers his colleagues, was brought in, by human consent, and for the necessity of the times; there is no likelihood, that he held those angels in S. john's time, to 
Humano consensit pro tempo●●● necessitate.  be Precedents of such a Presbytery. Yea his words do sh●w● (〈◊〉 1.) that he speaketh of that form of government, which took place under the. Bishops that flourished after the Apostles; and before the papacy was discovered. And though Mr B●za do affirm, the Angel of the Church at Ephesus (and so the rest each of them in his place) to be the Precedent of the Presbytery there, (Annotat. in Apoc. 2. 1.) yet hath he nothing (neither there, nor de Minist. grad. pag. 160.) that can be drawn to show, that he esteemed the Presbyteries or College of each Angel to be (all of them) Ministers of the word, and Pastors of several Churches. But what need words be multiplied in so plain a case? Affirmeth he not himself (serm. pag. 22.) that the parishes were not yet distinguished, nor Ministers assigned to their several Cures? And must he not then understand those Presbyrerians (with whom he pretendeth to have agreement) to speak of such a Presbytery, as had the charge of one only Church, not yet divided into several titles? Howsoever than he make a show of justifying his assumption against the Refuters denial thereof; yet 
The D. subscribeth to his Ref. and proveth what was not gainsaid.  indeed he subscribeth unto it; and indeavoureth to prove it in a sense, which now was not contradicted; for it is no disadvantage to us in the main 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 Bishops, 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 precedent of a Presbytery in the Apostles times to be a Bishop; (much less a diocesan Bishop) in the usual construction of the word, opposed to other Ministerial functions. For if some Presbyteries were a company of Apostles & Apostolical men, who were more than Bishops (as he acknowledgeth. (serm. pag. 38. and def. lib. 3. pag. 81.) needs must their precedent be more than a Bishop. And who doubteth, but that, as james the Apostle was precedent not only of the Synod Act. 15. but also of the standing Presbytery, Act. 21. 18? And Timothe an Evangelist precedent among the Presbyters at Ephesus for the time of his stay there, by S. Paul's appointment 1. Tim. 1. 3. so also every Apostle, and Evangelist in the absence of the Apostles, was the precedent of any Church where they made their residence, though but for a short continuance. Thus was Paul the precedent of that Presbytery, which imposed hands on Timothe, (2. Tim. 1. 6. cum. 1. Tim. 4. 14.) & of the Ephesian Presbytery (during his abode amongst them Act. 20. 17. 31.) And the like presidence even at Ephesus, S. john retained (doubtless) 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 clergy of that Church; or to make him inferior unto any of them. And since the D. acknowledgeth, that so long as there remained any Apostles, or Evangelists, or Apostolical men, they were the governors of the Churches (lib. 4. pag. 72.) we have reason to think, that he cannot without contradiction, affirm in general of all the precedents that moderated the first Presbyteries, that they were properly Bishops; for he accounteth none of the Apostles to be properly Bishops, (lib. 4. pag. 57) and he subscribeth (serm. pag 86.) to the saying of Tertullian (de prescrip: adv: haere●.) that in the Apostolic Churches, their first Bishop had for their founder and Antecessor, one of the Apostles or Apostolic men. Now if all the precedents of Presbyteries were not properly Bishops; how could they all be diocesan Bishops, yea such as our Diocesans are? 2. Certainly the very name of a precedent, that had a Presbytery adjoined to him, for the managing of Church▪ causes, doth strongly argue the form of Church-government then, to have nearer affinity with an Aristocracy, (such as other reformed Churches have restored) then with a Monarchy, which our diocesans hold. The D. argument therefore may be thus retorted against him.  
The Precedents of the ancient Apostolic Presbyteries were no diocesan Bishops such as ours.  
The Angels of the 7. Churches were the precedents of such Presbyteries.  
Therefore they were no diocesan Bishops, such as ours.  
Or thus, Diocesan Bishops, such as ours, are not precedents of such presbyteries, as ●he ancient apostolic Churches enjoyed.  
But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaents of such Presbyteries▪  
Therefore, they were no diocesan Bishops.  
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 will be thus confirmed. Diocesan Bishops such as ours do govern monarchically (by their sole authority) and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbytery, as the ancient apostolic Churches enjoyed.  
But the precedents of those ancient Presbyteries, did not govern monarchically (or by their sole authority) and without the advice and assistance of their Presbytery.  
Those precedents 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 james his presidency, lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all Bishops 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 necessity, that the Bishop should use their advice and counsel, because otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a law etc. And touching the proposition; as he intimateth (serm, pag. 97. and def. lib. 4. pag. 102.) the government of our Bishops to be monarchical: so he confesseth that Bishops now have not that assistance of Presbyters, which the ancient Bishops had (lib. 1. pag. 190.) And this confirmeth also the truth of that other proposition of the later argument: For if diocesan Bishops, such as ours, have not any such Presbytery associated to them, for advice and assistance in government; then they are not precedents of such Presbyteries, as the ancient apostolic Churches enjoyed: But the former is an apparent truth and confessed by him, (serm. pag. 16. 17. def. lib. 1. pag. 190.) where he saith, that the assistance of those Seniors that directed the ancient Bishops, is long since grown out of use. Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches, be a resemblance of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time (as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189.) since they have another precedent, then called Archipresbyter, now Deane; how can the Bishops of our da●es be their precedents, unless he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads?  
But let us see the D. own defence of his proposition before contradicted. If saith he, the Refuter willbe 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 willbe manifest; uz. that the precedents of the Presbyters (provided for whole dioceses) whom the Fathers call Bishops, were diocesan Bishops. The argument is thus digested by himself in a connexive syllogism pag. 122.  
If the Presbyteries were allotted to whole dioceses, and not to several parishes: them the Bps. who were precedents of those Presbyteries, were not par●●●onal but D.  
But the first is true. Therefore also the second.  
The assumption whose proof is laid down (viz. chap. 4.) I reserve to be handled hereafter; now I refuse his conclusions for the weakness that I find in the proposition; if he speak (as he ought) of diocesan Bishops such as ours: for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesan, as he supposeth, the Apostolic Presbyteries were (viz. to work out their conversion) cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church; & therefore cannot argue their precedent to be properly a diocesan Bishop. Nay rather, if it may appear, that the flock already converted, was but one only congregation of christians; howsoever the Presbytery might be set to endeavour the conversion of the rest of the diocese; yet (to speak properly (there was a parishonall Bishop, and not a diocesan, because the flock or congregation already converted, was more like to a parish, then to a diocese. Yea, say he could prove, that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses, that is, for many particular congregations in each dioces●; why might not their precedent be a parishional Bishop, in regard of his particular Church, which he fed with the word and Sacraments; although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes? For it is clear that Mr. Beza (of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Bishops he boasteth, (lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127.) doth hold it as necessary that the precedent of the pastors of a diocese, should have (as the rest) his particular parish to attend upon; as it is esteemed fit, that a provincial Bishop 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 Bishops, after parishes were multiplied and Presbyters assigned to them; the pastoral charge of the mother-Church the chief Presbyter or Bishop retained to himself, when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to them. Neither might he remove his seat 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 cathedral Churches (which were the Bishop's seas & Mother churches to the whole Diocese) were never Parishes; nor the meetings there parishional, but panegyrical: it willbe but a frivolous exception in this place: for there will still remain a difference of that moment, betwixt the ancient Bishops or Precedents of the Presbyteries & our diocesans; that will enable us to hold fast our former assertion, that those precedents were not diocesan Bishops, of that kind that ours are. For besides the forenoted disagreement (that ours are not in deed precedents of any such Presbytery to advise and assist them in the Church government) it is well known that ours are not tied by virtue of their calling, as they were (by the D. own confession, the truth thereunto enforcing him, lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158.) to preach the word & to administer the sacraments, in the Cathedral Church of their bishopric. By this time therefore, I hope, the reader may see, that although we should grant, the Apostolic Presbyteries to be allotted unto whole dioceses: yet that will not warrant him, to conclude their precedents to be diocesan Bishops, such as ours; and consequently, though we should yield the angels of the 7. Churches to be the precedents of such Presbyteries; he cannot necessarily infer, that they were diocesan Bishops, like to ours at this day.   

Chap. 4. Containing 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 now come to that argument; wherewith the D. closeth 
Sect. 3.  all up, lib. 4. cap. 6. sect. 3. the which we might well overpass; seeing he hath not one word in it, more than is already answered. Yet lest he should think better of it, than 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. stars which were in Christ's 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. stars which were in Christ's right hand.  
Therefore th● Diego: Bishops of the 7. churches had divine both institution and approbation.  
The proposition which needeth no proof, he proveth 1. by the name of angels. 2. by the name of stars. 3. by Christ's holding the stars in his right hand. But the Assumption which carrieth both these names to Diocesan Bishops, and affirmeth that they also were the stars in Christ's right hand, as he took it for granted in his sermon; 
The D. proveth what needed▪ not proof, & 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 again put him in mind of his doctrine in his former sermon (scz. that all Ministers are stars & Angels etc. he again repeateth his answer before refuted, to wit, that these name's kat hexochen are attributed to Bishops to signify their pre-eminence. To the rest of the Refuters words, he vouch safeth none other answer then this, that they are th● uttering of his splean, and emptying of his gall against Bishops. Wherefore I will acquaint the reader with the substance of them, that he may judge, whether they deserve so to be censured. Is there not (saith the Refuter pag. 155.) pre-eminence of dignity to ministers as stars, vnl●sse some of them may be as the sun, from whom all other have their light? all faithful Ministers shine as stars in the eyes of the Churches, though they lift not up themselves, to darken the brightness of their brethren, by their gl●ttring and glorious blazing. As for the 12. stars, Rev. 12. 1. he saith, they are either all Ministers, or else the 12. Apostles only. For him therefore, to appropriate this to diocesan Bishops, is rather to show his flattering humour; then sound to expound the text. And then wondereth if the Doct. blushed not and trembled not, when he spoke of the prerogative of glory which his diocesan Bishops shall have in the world to come: and when he made the prophet Daniel patron of such Lordly idleness etc. and showeth that it is so much the more to be wondered at, & lamented in him, because of that which he knoweth & professeth in his former sermon, that all Ministers are stars & angels etc. as the reader may at large see, pag. 156. In which words of the refuter there are these 4. Arguments closely couched, which do clearly discover, how the D. abuseth the text he handleth. 
The Refute proveth by 4. arguments that the D. abuseth hi● text.   
1. To appropriate unto di●●● Bishops, that which is either common to all Ministers or proper to the Apostles, is rather to show his flattering humour, then sound to expound his text.  
But the name of stars (Apoc. 1. 20.) is common to all Ministers; and all Ministers are understood also by the 12. stars. (Apoc. 12. 1.) unless we shall reperte it only to the Apostles.  
Therefore to appropriate the name in both places, to D. Bishops, is rather to show his flattering humour; then sound to expound his text.  
2. The name of stars cannot express their pre-eminence, 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. affirm.  
Therefore etc.  
3. To appropriate to Diocesan Bishops that prerogative of glory, which Daniel noteth in the stars he speaketh of: cap. 12. 3. is to make the Prophet a patron of Lordly idleness, or, at least, to give that prerogative, unto a work of another nature, then that which the prophet mentioneth. For that which (by daniel's doctrine) maketh men shine like stars in heaven, is the turning of many unto righteousness, by faithfulness and painfulness in the ministery of the word.  
But the works which lift up Bishops above other Ministers; are the ordaining of Ministers, the suspending of them etc. works of Lordly idleness; & not of painfulness or faithfulness in the Ministry of the word.  
Wherefore the D. in appropriating to Diocesan Bishops, that prerogative of glory. Dan. 12. 1. maketh him a patron of Lordly idleness etc.  
4. He who knoweth and professeth, that all Ministers are stars & angels (so entitled. Apoc. 1. 20.) and that the preaching of the word, is the chief work of the ministery, to which double honour is due: cannot without contradiction to himself magnify their Ministry by the same titles, who either claim by privilege to be exempted from that great and necessary work of their calling; or load themselves with so many cares and so much business not belonging to their function, that they cannot have an hour to think upon that service, for which they are chiefly counted Stars & Angels; or which is worse, by their sole authority, thrust out painful labourers etc.  
But the D. knoweth and professeth as is abovesaid.  
Therefore he falleth into an apparent contradiction (which is to be wondered 
The Doct. contradicteth himself.  at and lamented) in magnifying by the same titles the function of Diocesan Bishops, who either claim the former privilege. etc.  
Now because the Doctor's only relief against these arguments of the Refuter standeth in referring us to the former; I only desire the indifferent reader to consider the answers before and hereafter made to his best proofs, drawn either from his text or any other scripture, for the justifying of the interpretation of his text, or the doctrine of his sermon; and then to judge whether the large proof he speaketh of, be not mere begging of the question; and a gross contradicting of himself.   

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 pre-eminence and diocesan jurisdiction of his 
Sect. 〈◊〉.  Bishops; we are now to proceed to that argument; which himself syllogistically fram●th; to prove that they had a corrective power over other Ministers; and thus he layeth it down. 

Those who either are commended for examining and not suffering, such in their Church as called themselves Apostles, and were not, or were reproved for suffering 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 Bishops) had a corrective power over other Minister's.    
The conclusion which the D. first aimed at (serm. pag. 49.) when he laid down the parts of this assumption, (as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48.) was this; that Bishops had authority to censure and correct, even those Presbyters which assisted them (as parts of their Presbytery) in the government of the Diocese. Wherefore the Refuters answer (pag. 101.) knit the parts of his reasoning together in this connexive proposition.  
If our Sau. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephes●s for examining and not suffering them that said 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 Bishops ●ad majority of rule, for correction over diocesan Presbyters.  
And to show how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent, he saith that neither were these Angel's diocesan Bishops; nor those persons with whom they dealt, Diocesan Presbyters. To this, the D. replieth, 
The D. reply is frivolous, false, and slanderous.  that the answer is frivolous; because he hath before proved the former, & his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shi●●. Whereunto my rejoinder is, that the first part of his reply is frivolous, or rather false; and the second a malicious slander. 1. For to say he hath proved, and not to show where, is mere trifling. And if he have not either in his sermon, or any part of his defence before-going, any one syllogism 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 Counsels (granting 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 seen page 99 100 102. & 104. of his answer) is it not a malicious slander, to say, he devised it, a●d that for a shift? especially, seeing in the rest of his answer to this argument, he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan. But the Doct. saith (pag. 124.) that he neither used the word at all; neither (if he had) would he have used it in 
The D. understands not his own testimony.  that sense, scz. for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government; for in his understanding, the country. Ministers are called Diocaesani (Council. Agath. cap. 22. & Tolet. 3. cap. 20.) and the Presbyters which in the city 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 College or Presbytery, which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese. The words of the Council are these. H● verò clerici, tam locales quam Diocefani, qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint, querelas suas, ad Metropolitanum defer non differant. Neither doth the Council of Agatha. cap. 22. distinguish them from the city Presbyters, as the Doctor would persuade but, rather giveth, both names to the same persons. Id statuinus quod omnes jubent, ut Civitatenses 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 quarrel about words, and to come to the matter; seeing it is clear, that the Do: first intended by this argument, to prove that Bishops had corrective power, over those Presbyters, which assisted them in their Diocesan charge; is not the Refuters answer very direct and pertinent (to show the looseness of the D. reasoning) when he telleth him, That the Teachers against whom those angels, either did or should have s●t themselves; were not such Presbyters? Wherefore if the Doct. hath neither yielded any such reason of his own, to prove that they were such Presbyters; nor removed the presumptions which the Refut: alleged for his denial; doth not the blame of a weak consequence●ly still heavy upon his shoulders? Let the indifferent reader weigh the answer of the one, and the defence 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 subject to the Bishop, should call themselves Apostles? And addeth, any man's reason will give him, that these false Apostles, were men, who coming from some other place, would have thirst themselves into the Church, there, to have taught with authority, and by right of Apostleship. And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan heresy in the Church at Thyatira, he saith, that they also might be such intruders; or it may be they were some that took upon them to teach, having no calling thereto; but however; it no way appeareth, that they were Ministers and members of the presbytery, assisting the Angel of that Church. Now what saith the Doctor? Doth he make the contrary appear, viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbytery? No, for he will not determine, whether they were Presbyters, or in a higher degree; whether of the Bishop's Presbytery, or not; and whether of the Diocese originally, or come from other places. Only he saith, it is plain they were Teachers; & that being in their Diocese, the Bishop had authority either to suffer them to preach, or to inhibit them, etc. Wherein observe we, 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the main point of the Refuters answer, scz. that it no way appeareth, that they were members of the Presbytery of that Church wherein they conversed. 2. And whereas he saith It is plain they were Teachers; if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers, it is more than he can prove; his bare avouching that it is plain; doth not plainly convince 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 either to suffer them to preach, or to inhibit them &c.; either it is frivolous, if he speak of no other permission or prohibition than is common to every Pastor or Minister, in his own charge (since the Refuter in that sense granteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbid 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 speak of such a judicial licensing or silencing, as Bishops in these days 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 Bishops, & 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 Presbytery of that Church) because they called themselves Apostles, belike; they were better men. Is it not then against sense, to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Bishop; because he imagineth these, who were subject to their censure, were better men? Is this the Refuters imagination, or is not rather the D. conclusion grounded upon his own 
The D. cannot uphold his cause but by untruths  imagination? Why then may I not return him his own words p. 124▪ Is the D. conscience no better, than still to father upon the Ref: untruths for his own advantage? bewrayeth he not thereby, what a cause he maintaineth, that cannot be upheld but by forgeries? The Refuter; to make good his denial, of that which the D. presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning, (uz. that the false Apostles were Presbyters and parts of the Angel's Presbytery) affirmed that it was against sense to imagine, that any such would assume to themselves the name and pre-eminence of Apostles; and that any man's reason would rather give him, that they were persons that came from some other place. Add herunto, that if they had been of the Ephesian clergy, and so known to the whole Church, to have embraced an ordinary calling and settled charge amongst them; how should they with any colour persuade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ? Doubtless the very consideration of the known difference, betwixt the extraordinary Ministry of the Apostles, and the ordinary function of Presbyters, might have been sufficient (without any further search) to discover their lying forgery, which being known to have place among the latter, should usurp the name & authority of the former. But the text saith, Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be liars 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 number of those wandering Prophets, which as grievous wolves from without, entered in to devour: then of those perverse teachers, which springing up among them, did draw disciples after them. See Aretius, Beza, and Marlorat, in Apoc. 2. 2.  
And touching the false Prophetess ●e zabell, seeing she is expressly said to be a woman; though good Interpreters do gather from hence, that women were suffered to teach publicly in that Church (see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20.) yet were it too gross to imagine, that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers, or to the charge of Presbyters. And though it should be granted, that they were men (not women) which are deciphered by the name of that woman jezabel; yet the very name argueth their greatness & their prevailing by their subtle persuasions (no less than jezabel did by her commanding power) to draw many un to their wicked ways. And the title of a Prophetess importeth, that they boasted of an immediate calling, & of extraordinary revelations.  
Neither doth the Doctor contradict this: only he saith, If they 
The D. trifleth.  were not presbyters, belike they were better men. A frivolous speech, and an unlikely consequence. For what likelihood is there, that they were better men? seeing some of them were found to be liars in saying they were Apostles? Or how doth the denial of this, that they were parts of the standing Presbytery, argue that they were no Presbyters at all? But say they were of an higher calling (to wit Evangelists or fellow-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 soothe, because himself imagineth▪ that these (who were better men,) were subject to the Bishop's censure: therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny, that Presbyters were subject to his censure.  
To come then at length to that which he first proposed, (the reason I mean which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles & jezabel the false Prophetess, were subject to the Angels of the Churches, wherein they usurped authority to teach) he saith.  
If they were not subject to them, why is the one commended for exercising authority over them, and the other reproved for suffering them? For answer, it shall suffice to ask; why he assumeth for an apparent truth, 
Yet the ●●beggeth.  that which is rather apparently false? viz. that the Angel of Ephesus is commended for exercising authority over the false Apostles? And why he pray supposeth in the consequence of his reasoning, that which he cannot justify? to wit, that the false prophetess of Thyatira, was subject to the Angel's censure; because he is reproved for suffering her. And thus wear lead (as it were by the hand) to see, the falsehood of the proposition of the arg. before by himself contrived. For a corrective power over Ministers, cannot be firmly concluded, either from the commendation of the one that examined them which falsely called themselves Apostles; or from the reproof of the other, that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people. For put the case, the D. were an Archdeacon, (or which would please him better) a Diocesan Lord; & that in the some parishes under his government, corrupt teachers should ●ind free access to the pulpit, but in other places by the careful enquiry of the Ministers and Churchwardens finding what they are, they should be restrained: me thinks, in this case he should highly commend the honest care of the one, and sharply reprove, the careless negligence of the other: yet if a man should from his commendation or reproof infer, that the persons so commended or reproved; had the power of correcting and silencing Ministers: I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicity of such a disputer, then vouchsafe him a direct answer. 
See the looseness of the D. reasoning.  But to leave suppositions and to let him see the looseness of his reasoning by a more direct answer; it is clear that the Spirit of God doth no less commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Paul's doctrine, (Act. 17. 11.) then he doth the Angel of Ephesus, for examining them that falsely assumed the name of Apostles? Will 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 discern between good & evil? (Heb. 5. 14.) to try the spirits of their teachers, whether they be of God or not? (1. joh. 4. 1.) to beware of false Prophets and seducers? (Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4.) to try all things and to hold fast that only which is good? (1 Thes. 5. 21.) yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them? (1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13.) to mark such as teach contrary to the doctrine that they have received, and to avoid them, Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the general band of love, bind every one freely to rebuke his neighbour, & not to suffer sin upon him? (Levi●. 19 17.) and doth not the Apostles sharply tax the Corinthians for suffering the false Apostles to domineer 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 every private hearer, and to commit the managing of the keys or Church Censures, to every mean Artisan; then the D. may see how gross an error it is to think; that the duty of examining or trying, and not suffering false teachers, doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiastical censur●● upon them. And the indifferent reader may perceive, that while the D. laboureth to uphold the preheminent suprioritie of Bishops, he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Ministerial authority, and to bring in a mere Anarchy.  
Perhaps the D. will reply, that besides this trial or judgement of 
Sect. 4.  discerning (which is common to all Christians, & needful for their preservation from seducers) there is another and an higher kind, proper to the guides of the Church; and necessary for the preserving of the whole ●lock, from heretical infection. This we acknowledge to be true; but withal we say, it is none other, than a judgement of direction (as Doctor field calleth it in his treatise of the Church. lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222.) which endeavoureth to make others discern, what themselves have found out to be the truth. And this is common to all the Ministers of the word, Elders of the Church: as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth common to all the Elders of Ephesus, viz. to attend on the feeding of the flock, and to watch against the danger, both of wolves entering in, and of false teachers springing up among them. Act. 20. 28. 31. For how should such danger be prevented by their watchfulness, if it were not their duty, to try out the lewd behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits; and not to suffer them to spread the contagion and poison thereof, in the Church committed to their oversight? This is yet more manifest by sundry canons, prescribed elsewhere by the same Apostle; as when he requireth of every Presbyter an ability, to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine. T●t. 1. 5. 9 and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add hereunto the practice of the Apostles, admitting the Presbyters of the Church of jerusalem, to consultation for the trying & determining of that question, (touching circumcision etc.) which had troubled the minds of many believers at Antioch. Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparent therefore, that in the trial and examination, both of teachers and their doctrine, the scripture knoweth no difference between Bishops, and Presbyters: so that if Bishops will challenged to themselves a jurisdiction and power of correction over Presbyters, because it belongeth unto them, to try or examine, & not to suffer false teaching. Presbyters; then for the same reason, it being the duty of every Pres byter to try, the doctrine of Bishops & not to suffer them to spread any error without resistance; Bishops also must subject themselves, to the corrective power of every Presbyter.  
But he will allege (as some others have done) that there is a third kind of trial and judgement, proper to them that have chief authority in the Church, (to wit, a judicial examination of persons suspected, in open consistory 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 infer, that the angels function, was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops; but who seethe not that this plea is none other, than a mere begging of the question? For, they that deny these angels to 
Still the D. beggeth.  be Bps., such as ours; do not acknowledge any such pre-eminence, in one Minister above another, for the trying and censuring of offenders. Moreover, by this reply, the cause is as little relieved, as if a shipmaster, to stop one leak in the one side of his ship, should make two or three on the other side, more dangerous than the former. For, to cover the falsehood of the proposition; a double error or untruth is discovered in the Assumption. viz. 1. that by the trial which the Angel of the Ephesian Church, took of the false 
The D. to stop one leak maketh two.  Apostles, is meant a judicial conventing of them in open Consistory; and proceeding unto censure against them, being found liars. 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative, of that one which is here entitled, the angel of that Church.  
The falsehood of the former doth appear in part, by some things already spoken; it being before showed, that the trial and examination 
Sect. 5.  both of teachers and of their doctrine, appropriated unto Ministers in the apostolical writings, is none other than that judgement of direction, whereby themselves and their people are informed & guided, in this carriage, towards those teachers. I add 1. that the Doctor cannot parallel the words or phrases here used. ou dune bastasai k●k●us ' kai epeiraso etc. Apo. 2. 2. & hoti eas ten etc. ver. 20. with any other text of holy scripture; where the same words do imply such a judicial trial, as he supposeth to be enfolded under them. 2. And since the persons, which are said to be tried & not endured; professed to be Apostles (and therefore such, as challenged an authority and calling, superior to that Angel) what likelihood is there that they would yield themselves subject, to his judicial examination, and censure? 3. Again, the text saith only, that they were tried and found liars; now if they were in open Consistory, judicially tried; why were they not upon the discovery of their false dealing, enjoined to give open testimony of their repentance? And (if they refused so to do) why did they not bear 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 would have made much more, for the angel's commendation, then that which is expressly 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 burden of those false Teachers, and their heretical 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 think▪ that those false Apostles, were in open consistory convented and censured, as the Doctor imagineth. And yet were it as clear as he could wish; how will the second point be manifested, which the Doctor presupposeth rather than proveth? viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers, was the peculiar right of one Bishop, here called the angel of the Church? To tell us that he hath before proved, that by the Angel of each Church; one only Bishop is meant, will be no sufficient defence; seeing his proofs are already disproved, cap. 3. sect. 1. 2. 3. etc. and reasons yielded for the contrary, viz. that under the name of one Angel, the whole college of Ministers or Elders is understood. 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 may very well retort the Doctor's argument against the preheminent power of Bishops, & for the joint authority of Presbyters, in this manner;  
They, who are either commended for examining and not suffering, 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 College of Ministers and Elders in each Church) had the corrective power over Ministers.  
And since it appeareth by the commandment, which john had to write unto 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 granted that one Minister (to wit, the chief Pastor or Precedent of the Presbytery) is principally aimed at, in the name of the angel of each Church; yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction, was his peculiar right; nay rather, it will follow, that so far as his fellow angels; and (not they only but) the whole Church, did partake with him, in the praise or dispraise ascribed to him; so far also, they had their part in the power of judicial proceeding. Wherefore, if the Doctor's meaning be (in his assumption to restrain the praise or dispraise mentioned (Apoc. 2. 2 20.) unto 
The D. wresteth the text; or must yield the cause.  one only person (whom he reputeth to be the Bishop) his Assumption is to be rejected, as an erroneous wresting of the text, contrary to the true meaning thereof: But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption, (viz. that in the praise or reproof 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 administering the Church-censures. And this may suffice for answer to all that he hath alleged from his text, or any part of the holy scripture, in defence 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 uphold 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 Doctor's text, handled by him, Lib. 3. pag. 150. etc. against the Refuters answer. 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 Provincial 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.  
Therefore, we should not think much, that they are called Lords.  
The consequence of this argument lieth in this proposition, That unto whomsoever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title; to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferior, which is not universally true; as the D. (I suppose) will confess in many particulars. For the name or ti●le of Mayor, Bailiff, Alderman, Constable, etc. I might say King, Duk●, Earl etc. must needs be (in his understanding) by many degrees inferior, to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in common to all Ministers of the word, (sermon dignity and duty of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62.) such as are Co-workers, and Stewards of God, etc. But to give the former unto Ministers, were to bring confusion into the Church, & to overthrow that difference, which the laws of God & man have set between civil & eccles. functions. And though a man should offer to salve this mischief, with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiastical Majors or Kings &c. (by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords given to Bishops) yet I persuade myself, he would not easily admit of this disorder, yea doubtless, he would think it a great disparagement, to his reverend Fathers & spiritual Lords, that every painful Minister of Christ, should be equalled with them in those honourable titles, which do now lift them up above their brethren. And yet (by his own confession (pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned,) they have (all) right to those titles of Doctors, Fathers, Pastors, and Saviour's of their brethren, which are more glorious, than that name of Angels of the Churches, which he now appropriateth unto Bishops. 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 himself to titles of the same nature, I mean such, as declare the same kind of honour, either civil, or ministerial. For, I make no question, but the D. would judge it, as unbeseming his diocesan Bishops, to bear the name of Archdeacon's, Officials, or Curates etc. as for Kings & Emperors, to be called Dukes, & Captains, or high Constables. And I judge it much more absurd, to argue (as he doth) from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers, to show the dignity of their function; unto titles of civil honour, appertaining unto great personages, that excel in external pomp, and worldly glory.  
And this is the exception which the Refuter took to the D. argument, when (to show the inconsequence thereof) he said, that 
Sect. 2.  the titles which the D. compareth together are of a different nature. For Angels and stars are glorious creatures of heaven, and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office; but Lord, Lordship, and Grace, are terms of civil honour, not so well be sitting the Ministers of jesus Christ. Hereto the D. replieth, I confess they do not so well befit them, because they come short of the honour and excellency, which in the name of angels, the Holy Ghost ascribeth to them: as if the honour of the episcopal function were much abased (not increased (as the world judgeth) by those titles of civil honour, given unto Bishops, for what else can he mean, in saying they do not so well befitt them because they come short etc. And why then are ye so unwise (o ye Princes and Nobles) as to give unto Bishops, for the honouring of their those titles that do debase them? Be wise and instructed from henceforth, to deny them these base terms, 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 souls, the light of the world, and saviour of their brethren (see the D. serm. of the dignity of the Ministers, (pag 62. 64.)  
But why maketh the D. a show of removing his Refuters answer, 
The D maketh show of removing his Ref. answ. but doth not once touch it.  and yet leaveth it altogether untouched? For he cannot give his argument a discharge from the inconsequence objected against it, till he show, either that the titles which he compareth, are not of an other nature; or that the terms of civil honour controverted; do well beseem those, whose calling is adorned with titles of greater honour, in another kind; to wit, in regard of a spiritual and celestial dignity. To attempt the former, were to quench the light of common reason: and to endeavour the latter, is to convey the controverted titles of civil honour (by an equal right) unto every Minister; seeing the titles of greatest spiritual dignity, do equally belong to all the Ministers of the word, as is before observed. The D. therefore, as one that wittingly will not see, the weakness of his consequence, spendeth all his strength in fortifying the Antecdent; viz. that the names of Lords etc. given to Bishops by earthly Princes, is a title of less honour, then that which the Holy Ghost giveth them in calling them the Angels of the Churches. I will not now urge him a fresh to give us some better reason, than any he hath yet proposed, for the proof of that which he taketh here for granted; sz. that the Holy Ghost appropriateth unto Bishops, such as ours; the name of the Angels of the Churches; I will only examine how well he hath proved, that this is a more honourable title: then the name of Lords.  
They are called, saith he, not only Angels, that is, messengers and Ambassadors of God, as all Ministers are in respect of their ministery: but each 
Sect. 3.  of them also, is called the Angel of the Church whereof he is Bishop, 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 governors & guardians: therefore the name Lord given to them in respect of their government & authority, is a title of less honour; than that; which in the same respect is given them by Christ. Here also I must pass by a double error (in his words) before discovered, namely that bishops only and not any other Ministers, have right unto this title, the Angels of the Churches; and that more 
〈◊〉 As if it were more honour to be the knight of a shire (in Parliament) then to be the King's lieutenant?  honour is implied in this latter, then in the name of the Lords Angels or Ambassadors, which he acknowledgeth to be common 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.  
Every Bishop is called the Angels of the Church whereof he is Bishop, in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church; like as the holy angels are said 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 less honour, than the other that is given in the same respect. Why? if both titles be given to Bishops, in one and the same respect, doth it not rather follow (by good probability) that equal honour is implied 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 (neither in this, nor in the former Enthymem) supplieth he not the consequence or proposition, which (according to his own 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 government the name of Lord (given unto Bishops) 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 temporal: he would have us to conceive, that it is for that cause, a title of less honour, than 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 pretend, for the justifying of the consequence of his reasoning) we are then to inquire, whether he be not deceived, either in laying down the reason of the name Lord, given unto Bishops, or in making that the cause of a less 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 common to them with the Lords temporal, for who knoweth not the distinction? between the Lords spiritual and temporal? We are not ignorant of the distinction, so often mentioned in the acts of parliament, but the D. seemeth not to know the right meaning and use thereof. For if the Bishops be not civil Lords, nor their Lordship a civil honour, because they are distinguished from the nobles of the laity, by the name of Lords spiritual; than it followeth that their Lordship and honour annexed thereunto, is merely spiritual. But it is so well known to all the world, that Bishops do partake with temporal Lords in all the appurtenances of civil Lordship and civil honour; that to deny it, were delirare cum insanis, to play the mad man. The reason therefore, of the distinction retained in our laws, is rather to show the different condition of the persons, than the diversity of their Lordship; because the one are spiritual persons or clergymen; and the other temporal men or lay-people. Or ●f the D. will needs have their very Lorpships to be distinguished by those terms. Spiritual and temporal; then the difference must be this, that Bishops have, (besides their civil Lordships and temporal Baronies, common to them with the Lords temporal) an ecclesiastical Lordship, or Lordlike rule in spiritual causes; in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spiritual. However it be, since he denieth them to be civil Lords, and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them, in regard of the same government, which is implied under the name of, the angels of the Churches; he should in reason, derive the Lordship of Bishops, rather from Christ's Lordship, which is spiritual, then from the dignity of Lords temporal which is merely civil. For if that be true which he conceiveth; Bishops have no more affinity with noble personages in the name of Lords: then they have with all civil 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 souls. In like manner, our nobles and our Bishops do agree in the name of Lords; but the one are civil 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 souls; so they are Pastors not of men's bodies, but of their souls; so he maketh (or at least, might from the like ground affirm) Bishops, to have the name of Lords, common to them with Christ; seeing as he is a spiritual Lord; so are they also Lords spiritual, and not civil. Wherefore, if we may measure the greatness or smallness of that honour, which any titles convey unto Ministers, by the greater or less excellency of the persons, with whom they, in those titles, are compared: then have we good warrant to conclude, the honour included in the name of Lords, attributed unto Bishops; to be by so much greater, then that which is implied, in the other title of the Church's Angels; by how much our Lord Christ is greater than all angels. But no stayed 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 their honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure, and that under one and the same title. For compare the name of Pastors or shepherds given to Ministers (Ephes. 4. 11.) with Christ, the chief Pastor and great shepherd of the sheep. (1. Pet. 5. 4. & Heb. 13. 20.) then is it a name of far greater honour, than the name of Angels, or Angels of the Churches: but it is by many degrees more base, if it be referred to the shepherds that watch & attend on their flocks in the fields, from whence (in truth) it was at the first derived. Wherefore, it must be confessed, that there is a manifest falsehood enfolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning.  
And this serveth well to justify the later point before proposed, 
Sect. 4.  scz. that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord, being common to Bishops, with Lords temporal, to be a title of less honour, than the name, of the angels of the Churches, that hath reference to the celestial Angels. We may with much more probability affirm, that by how much it is a greater honour, to have a Lordlike government in any Church; then to have a tutorship, or Guardianship therein: by so much, the name of Lord given to Bishops, in respect of their government; is a title of greater honour, than the other, which expresseth their Guardianship, which in some respect is allowed, to the Churchwardens of every parish. For, why should we not measure the height of that honour, which titles do imply, rather by the nature of that government which 
18. The Doct. contradicteth himself.  the names import; then by the condition of the persons or things, with which the titles do compare the persons so entitled? To end this dispute, let the reader observe here a shrewd show of a plain contradiction in the Doctor; for whereas now he granteth the name Lord to be given unto Bishops in respect of their government and authority: a little after (pag. 153.) he denieththe title to be given them, with relation, but as a simple title with honour & reverence. For how can it be a simple title of honour, used without any relation or reference unto those that are governed by them; if it be given them in respect of their government? And thus much for answer to the argument, drawn from the name of Angels in his text, to justify those honourable titles, of Lord and Lordship given to Bishops.   

Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. etc. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Bishops, like to ours.  
There remaineth some what (alleged by the D. to show that ●●e 7. angels were Bishops, for the substance of their calling, like to ours) as yet unanswered: but it is from human, and not divine evidence. He promiseth indeed (serm. pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence, that the government by Bishops, was used even in the Apostles times, and not contradicted by them. His scripture proof is nothing but this, The 7. Angels were the Bishops of the 7. Churches as all confess, and for the substance of their calling like to ours, as I (saith he) have proved. Which proofs, because his Refuter had removed, before he came to that part of the sermon; he therefore told him; that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion, but what was already answered: now the D. telleth us, that this is untrue. For (saith he) I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Bishops. That they were Bishops? 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 show that they were Bishops like to ours; but so to affirm were to avouch, an untruth: wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an untruth 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. proofs from scripture; which was the thing promised b●t not performed: Wherefore he may very well again, be once told; that ●ayling in his proofs from scripture (which only is sufficient to make good his assertion) how much soeverhe say beside, he must be beholding to his reader, if he be persuaded by him. Notwithstanding, let us not refuse to hear what those his arguments be, wherein he resteth so confidently. The former (saith he) though this great Analyser, either did not, or would not see, it is this: That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus: Policarpus the Bishop of Smyrna, and Onesimus the Bishop of Ephesus, Policarpus the Bishop of Smyrna, and Onesimus the Bishop of Ephesus, and what is said of two, is to be understood 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: unless he had better explained 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 said of two, the same must be understood of the rest? If his meaning be, that as he nominated two; so we must believe he can nominate the rest, if he list; he must pardon us, in case we entertain not the thought; seeing he he is not likely to have concealed their names, if he had ever met with any evidence that revealed them.  
But why doth this great disputer (who maketh so many and great protestations of his upright dealing) so falsely, and yet wittingly, charge his Refuter (whom in scorn he termeth the great Analyser) not to see, or not to mention this his first 
The D. falsely yet willingly slandereth his Refuter.  argument? Doth he not expressly point unto it, when he saith (pag. 128.) that the sum of all that the D. hath, is comprised in 3. points, 1. that Policarpus was the Bishop of Smyrna; and Onesimus, as it may well be supposed, the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus? 2. that from the 7. angels etc. Had the Refuter put the word Angel, in stead of the word Bishop which he used; the D. had had no colour of cause, as he had no cause, to quarrel with him: but the old proverb is verified, wrangl●rs will play at small game rather than sit out; and men set to pick quarrels, will take hold of small occasions, rather than want some colour of just cause to complain.  
But to leave his evil and idle wanderings, and to examine his 
Sect. 2.  argument, the first standeth thus in form.  
Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus.  
But Policarpit● and Onesimus were Bishops, (he should say) Bishops like to ours.  
Therefore, two of these angels were Bishops, like unto ●urs. And the second thus.  
From the 7. angels a succession of Bishops, was continued in those 7. Churches, until thaes council of Nice, and afterwards.  
Therefore, those 7, angels were Bishops, like to ours.  
To both these jointly the Refuter answereth thus: that the Bishops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan, as they were which followed in succeeding ages. The D. Replieth (pag. 43.) that if ever there had been within the compass of a diocese more Bishops than one at once, since the Apostles times; or if it could be truly alleged, that the circuit of the bishops charge, was enlarged from a parish to a diocese; then there were some colour, for this exception; but these conceits (saith he) I have disproved before, and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude, that if the successors of these 7. Bishops, were in the end of 300. years, diocesan Bishops; then were their first predecessors such. For answer whereunto in a word, I say 1. That it is beside the present question, now to inquire, whether there ever were within one diocese, any more Bishops than one, at once etc. 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 upon 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, (count Haeres. lib. 2. haeres. 68 contra Milet) doth not he affirm, that there were divers Bishops in one Church or city, though not in Alexandria; nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos, velut aliae urbes? Secondly as touching his own testimonies which he produceth to show that Policarpus was Bishop of Smyrna, & Onesimus Bishop of Ephes. in S. john's time: I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himself, as he may easily discern, if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. 
The D. contradicteth himself.  62. with serm. pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. together. In thenbch 4168-0138 the thing promised b●t not performed: Wherefore he may very w●l again, be once told; that failing in his proofs from scripture (which only is sufficient to make good his assertion) how much soeverhe say beside, he must be beholding to his reader, if he be persuaded by him. Notwithstanding, let us not refuse to hear what those his arguments be, wherein he resteth so confidently. The former (saith he) though this great Analyser, either did not, or would not see, it is this: That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus: Policarpus the Bishop of Smyrna, and Onesimus the Bishop of Ephesus, and what is said of two, is to be understood 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: unless he had better explained 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 said of two, the same must be understood of the rest? If his meaning be, that as he nominated two; so we must believe he can nominate the rest, if he list; he must pardon us, in case we entertain not the thought; seeing he he is not likely to have concealed their names, if he had ever met with any evidence that revealed them.  
But why doth this great disputer (who maketh so many and great protestations of his upright dealing) so falsely, and yet wittingly, charge his Refuter (whom in scorn 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 expressly point unto it, when he saith (pag. 128.) that the sum of all that the D. hath, is comprised in 3. points, 1. that Policarpus was the Bishop of Smyrna; and Onesimus, as it may w●ll be supposed, the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus? 2. that from the 7. angels etc. Had the Refuter put the word Angel, in stead of the word Bishop which he used; the D. had had no colour of cause, as he had no cause, to quarrel with him: but the old proverb is verified, wranglars will play at small game rather than sit out; and men set to pick quarrels, will take hold of small occasions, rather than want some colour of just cause to complain.  
But to leave his evil and idle wanderings, and to examine his 
Sect. 2.  argument, the first standeth thus in form.  
Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus.  
But Policarpus and Onesimus were Bishops, (he should say) Bishops like to ours.)  
Therefore, two of these angels were Bishops, like unto ●urs. And the second thus.  
From the 7. angels a succession of Bishops, was continued in those 7. Churches, until thaes council of Nice, and afterwards.  
Therefore, those 7, angels were Bishops, like to ours.  
To both these jointly▪ the Refuter answereth thus: that the Bishops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan, as they were which followed in succeeding ages. The D. Replieth (pag. 43.) that if ever there had been within the compass of a diocese more Bishops than one at once, since the Apostles times; or if it could be truly alleged, that the circuit of the bishops charge, was enlarged from a parish to a diocese; then there were some colour, for this exception; but these conceits (saith he) I have disproved before, and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude, that if the successors of these 7. Bishops, were in the end of 300. years, diocesan Bishops; then were their first predecessors such. For answer whereunto in a word, I say 1. That it is beside the present question, now to inquire, whether there ever were within one diocese, any more Bishops than one, at once etc. 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 upon 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, (count Haeres. lib. 2. haeres. 68 contra Milet) doth not he affirm, that there were divers Bishops in one Church or city, though not in Alexandria; nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos, velut aliae urbes? Secondly as touching his own testimonies which he produceth to show that Policarpus was Bishop of Smyrna, & Onesimus Bishop of Ephes. in S. john's time▪ I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himself, 
The D. contradicteth himself.  as he may easily discern, if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. 62. with serm. pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. together. In the former he saith that Ignatius his ep●stles were written but a little before his death; and therefore he denieth the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis, to have been Churches extant what time the Apostle john 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 between the 90. year of our Lord and 99 and that his epistle ad Ephes: is a pregnant proof that Onesimus was the Bishop of Ephesus when the Revelation was written as he confidently avoucheth, (lib. 4. pag 40). For Ignatius his death fell out, Anno 111. (as Euseb: noteth in Chron. & Cent. 2. col. 169.) which was 14. years after the Revelation was written. But if his epist. ad Ephes. wherein he mentioneth Onesimus their Pastor, be a sufficient proof, that Onesimus was the Bishop of Ephesus, what time the Apostle john wrote the Revelation; because he wrote while Clemens lived; that is, between the years 90. and 99 (as he says serm. pag. 62.) than his epistles written to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis, willbe as pregnant a proof that those Churches flourished, when john 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 suspicion, whatever the D. then or now hath said to free them. The ep●stles of Igna●tus and Policarp, that now go under their names, saith D. Fulke (in answ. to the Rhem: on Act. 6. 7.) are not authen●●k; but gathered out of the Apocryphal constitutions of that counter●●yt Clemens. And concerning Ignatius, whom the Rhemists on 1 Pet. 2, 13. alleged to prove that the Bishop must be honoured above the King: these words (saith he) show out of whose sh●pp that epistle came; he (meaning Ignatius) was a man of greater religion, then to correct the scripture in Solomon Proub. 24. 21. and Peter etc.  
3. Were those testimonies freer from exception than they are, yet they yield him no relief; seeing they speak not one word either for their diocesan jurisdiction; or for their preheminent superiority above other Presbyters in their Churches. But of their Byshoppricks what they were, and whether such as he supposeth; we shall have fit occasion to speak hereafter; there is enough already said to show, that his best evidence is to weak to persuade what he undertaketh 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 God's truth, nor any human testimony worthy of credit to support it; I may well join with his Refuter and say, he buildeth upon the sand of his own conceit, and not upon the rock of Christ's truth, when he raiseth from thence, his high Turret, that the calling of Bishops, (such for the substance of their calling as ours are) is of divine institution.  
And thus much for the first part. Have patience a while, Christian Reader, and thou shalt (God willing,) have the other two, that are behind.    

The faults escaped in the printing are thus to be corrected.  
Pag. 7. l. 16. the. p. 8. l. 14. deny. p. ●0. l. 8. put out, he. pag. 41. l. 12. Mountebank. pag. 72. l. 23 put out, him: l. vlt. for who, read how. p: 30. l. 2. for and, read, what. p: 102. l. 18. put out, is. p. 110. l. 28. praeerant. p. 118. in the title, for points read point. p. 175. l. penult: put out, in a connexive proposed. p. 195. l. 33. for that, read, at. p. 197. l. 13. put out, no. p. 205. l. 11. put out, and p. 206. l. 27. dividebantur, p. 209. l. 7. put out, for p. 229. l. 36. Miletum. p. 227. l. 14. Mariam. pag. 237. l. 20. for lacketh, read, taketh. p. 245. l. 1. Tuiciensis. p. 274. l. 27. can. p. 281. l. 25. read, not bearing. p. 286. l. 5. put out, that.   

THE SECOND PART OF A REPLY, Answering A DEFENCE OF A SERMON PREACHED AT THE Consecration of the Bishop of  and Welles, by George Downame, Doctor of Divinity.  
In defence of an Answer to the foresaid Sermon Imprinted Anno 1609.  1. Thes. 5. 21. 
Try all things, and keep that which is good.  
Imprinted, Anno 1614   

To 〈…〉  
THose two motives which do most usually and not unjustly persuade the Reader to believe his author, (the credit of the man, & the apparent evidence that he bringeth) have by many been thought to have united their forces in Doctor Downames defence. For the man himself, he hath been generally accounted judicious, learned, painful, religious, sincere, and ingenuous, the defence he hath made carrieth such an appearance of learning, antiquity, & truth with it, that not only to himself (through too much love of his own) but to divers others also, it seemeth not subject unto any reply or refutation, so that, this attempt of his adversaries in gainsaying, and that so confidently, fully, and roundly, without any fear, fainting, or staggering, will doubtless be censured, before it be pondered.  
But if such thoughts can be brought to endure but the calling back a while, to the reexamining of the grounds they are built on: the hollowness of them will soon bewray itself. For be it granted, that sound learning and good conscience is this man's praise and privilege above the most of his fellow-champions (though this defence doth so bear itself on the former, that it giveth small proof of the later) yet that doth not free him from dangerous deceit and error; especially in questions of this nature, which have on the one side so much to sway with beside the cause, and on the other, nothing but naked & despised truth. Neither can it be thought, that impartial desire and search of truth, did so take up his mind in all this enterprise, as that blinding prejudice had no place in it. Let the wise consider & give sentence, whether he that was the son of a Bishop, the servant or Chaplain of a Bishop, and that none of the best, the favourite also of a third Bishop, whose consecration he desired to grace, one that sought needily to raise himself in Bishop's favour; whether such a man (I say) be likely to preach and write in these causes even to the overflowing of passion, with a mind so clear and free from prejudice!  
It is the most charitable excuse that can probably be afforded to divers of this guise, that such beams as those are do lie in their eyes, which hinder their sight where the light is clear. Nay most of our climbers do look so strangely upon these questions, as if their eyes stood clean awry. Platerus reporteth of a German soldjer, that being shot in the face, he had his eye so turned, and his nose so peirsed, that always after his eye could see nothing but through the passages of his nose. Just such a shot have these men received from the world; all that they see is through their nose: and except they can smell some profit or preferment by the way, their eyes will not serve them to discern of any thing. I affirm not this of Doct. Downame, (though he among other alehouse jests which he rudely breaks upon his adversary, doth tell him of seeing to his nose end) yet he hath also plainly bewrayed, that he looked through a false glass of his own imagination, when viewing the scriptures, he spied such a Church & Bishop in them, as in his book he tells us of. The Philosophers wright of certain colours, which they call intentional, because they are not such in deed as they seem to be: as when through a glass that is red or green, the bodies adjoining do appear so also. Such a glass it was without doubt that made this man to think that he saw an intentional Church and an intentional Bishop, that were diocesan and provincial, such as the Popish and English are, intentionally as he saith, though not really and truly. The Popish Doctors make too too much of intention in giving of orders & other sacraments: yet that is an intention answerable to the words pronounced. But now we are told of an intention that the state of all Churches dependeth upon, which was not expressed by any words; but so far fetched and hardly gathered, that it giveth suspicion of such a trick as once was taught Themistocles, by a man of Lacedemonia; that because he might not take the tables away wherein a law was engraven, he would therefore turn them upside-down, which was as good as to take them quite away? for when the institution of a Church and Bishop which is found in the scriptures may not be wholly removed, the next course is to give it a turn, by carrying the intention to a contrary point. To such strange shifts they must needs be driven, which will stretch the scriptures, as shoemakers do● leather, with their teeth, that they may bring them to agree with human inventions.  
The unlikeliness of this devised intention, will easily appear to any, but him which hath been so accustomed to cathedral churches, that every thing sounds in his head to the tune of the organs that he hath heard there.  
The papist, he telleth us (just as the organs go at Rome) 
Boz. de jur. nat. & div. eccl. pot. l. 1. c. 18.  that the extent of a bishops jurisdiction is not any ways limited, but by the Pope's appointment; his power of itself indifferently reaching over all the world. Our prelatists, they would persuade us (to the tune of Canterbury) that neither Church nor Bishop hath his bounds determined by the Pope, nor yet by Christ in the scriptures, but left to the pleasure of Princes, for to be cast in one mould with the civil state. Now the plain Christian finding nothing but human uncerteinties in either of these devises, he contenteth himself with plain song, & knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such societies as may assemble together for the worship of God, and that unto such he hath given their peculiar Pastors, he (I say) in his simplicity, calleth these assemblies the churches of Christ, and these pastors his Bishops, as for other intentions, extentions, and circumscriptions, which come from men, he dares not receive them, for fear they should lead him from that certainty he findeth in Christ's institution, and leave him floating among men's presumptions.  
Besides, it must needs seem strange to a serious wellmeaning Christian, when it shall be told him, as these Cathedral men will have it, that his pastor whom he dependeth upon at home, hath not the charge of his soul committed unto him from Christ, who appointed no Bishops nor Presbyters but Diocesan; that the L. Bishop whom he never saw, is properly his pastor, the parish minister being but the Bishop's curate or vicegerent, and therefore standing no further bound then as the Bishop appointeth; so that by his permission he may be a nonresident, or residing there he may only read divine service (so the cross & surplus be not neglected) or howsoever he makes his agreement. Will not this seem uncouth to simple men, who have always been told of a straighter bond to tie their ministers unto duty? especially when they shall hear on the other side, their own duty so strictly urged, of keeping to their minister though he be but a reader, of paying all tithes to him even by God's appointment, though he never appointed him to whom they are paid? certainly if Apparitors and Summoners brought not more terrible arguments from the carnal courts, than D. Downame hath from holy scripture to prove & persuade these paradoxes with, there must a new generation arise, that knew not the L. nor what he hath done for Israel, before they would be embraced.  
As for the scripture proofs which are gathered by him, the foundation or principal cornerstone of them, which he deemed to lie in his text, that is utterly dashed in the former part. Which being done, the rest that dependeth on that, were ready to fall of themselves. Yet it hath pleased his adversary, for their more thorough scattering, in this second part to give every one his several knock. A labour not necessary, were it not that the insolent confidence wherewith they are avouched, hath I know not how amazed and scared some weak and fearful minds, but for the better bringing both of him & them to themselves again, that course is taken, than which there is no shorter or director. For when the question is, what Church & Bishop is Apostolical, the next way is, to search the scriptures, & hear what they say of themselves, before we regard what fathers or counsels do make them say. D. Downame therefore hath no reason to take it unkindly (which yet I know he will) at his adversaries hand, that he hath for evidence divided the house, causing holy scriptures to go by themselves in this second part of his Reply, remitting the voices of men to the last place, that they also may speak by themselves. When divine & human suffrages are shuffled together in one, the simple hearer perceiving a sound which seems glorious to him, though they be men that speak, yet he is presently ready to cry as the people did to Herod, the voice of God and not of man. In confidence of this stratagem, the beggarly ceremonies which we borrowed of Papists have been lately maintained as Apostolical.  
The method therefore which this writer hath followed, is for the readers good. His answers are such as will speak for themselves. Only this I may forespeak, in their behalf, that if they seem (as in the former part I fear they will) in the logical terms and forms of reasoning, to be over troublesome for the common reader; the greatest part of that blame must rest upon the defence, which they were bound to follow. For the defendant taking it too much in scorn, that his logic (wherein of all other things he would be thought to excel) was somewhat impeached by his Refuters' analysis, be did so vehemently strive to maintain that part of his credit, that his Refuter was forced to give him that trial which such logicians trust to. The studious reader will bear with this necessity, and seek out the truth, though it lie among thorns.   

THE SECOND PART. THE FIRST BOOK.  

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 Apostolical Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes.  
IN the Doct. first section I find nothing but a vain 
Sect. 1. add ●ect. 1. & 2. D.  flourish, and therefore will overpass it without answer. In his second section, he telleth us, that at first, he intended only a light skirmish, and therefore finding that his adversary brought a main bartell into the field against him, he thought good to bring in a new supply; before he put a new life into his former arguments, to make them return upon his Refuter a fresh. And for as much as he was to entreat of Churches, Parishes, & Dioceses, he resolveth first to begin with the names, that are diversely taken, and first with the word Ecclesia, which he telleth us, is in all places of the new Testament (excepting Act. 19) appropriated to the companies of the faithful. For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two companies; the one is the world, which is the kingdom of darkness, containing many particular companies, which are all the Synagogues of Satan: the other, the kingdom of God: this later is called Ecclesia, signifying 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 unto salvation by Christ; that is to say, more briefly, th● Church doth signify a company of Christians. To all which, I (for my part) most willingly subscribe, and from thence do infer, that (in the Doctor's understanding 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 Satan's Synagogues in any of the cities or towns of Asia. And therefore he contradicteth the truth, whereunto he now beareth 
The D. contradicteth the truth & himself.  witness; when he indeavoureth to persuade (pag. 36. 42. & 54.) that every of those 7 Churches, contained in their circuit, the whole city & country adjoining, although the Christians at that time, were but a very few in comparison of heathen: And that the church or flock, which in those (and other) cities, was committed to the care of the presbyters there ordained, was, not only 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 Doctor's table following in the next page, wherein he presenteth to his Reader in one view, the divers significations of the word Ecclesia, reduced by him unto certain heads, his reader 
The D. table of ecclesia is erroneous 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 catholic company of Gods elect, which is the invisible Church. For 1. all that were there and then (Act. 2.) called by the Ministry of the Apostles, were called to a visible communion; and when their number was much increased, so many of them as dwelled at jerusalem remained members of that Church, as himself 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 ordained, (1. Cor. 12. 28.) that is, the catholic militant church, as himself understandeth the later place? 3. And to let pass his referring Act. 8. 3. to the whole militant Church dispersed, whereas it appeareth to be meant of that Church of jerusalem, which was not yet scattered abroad, as vers. 1. 3. &. 4. compared do● show; it is 4. more to be wondered at, that he should also carry to the catholic militant church, that of 1. Tim. 3. 15. seeing he holdeth Timothy 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 well together) how 
2. contradictions in the Doct.  will he accord his understanding Mat. 16. 18. of the militant part of the Church, with his own interpretation (p. 106. of this book) where he taketh it, for that universal congregation of Gods elect, which is spoken of Ephes. 1. 22. and 5. 25. 6. As for those places which he saith do definitely signify a Church congregated into a Synod or Congregation; though by the line which is drawn in his table, they seem to belong to the Church of a nation: yet I guess, they should have been referred rather to the Church of a city or country adjoining. And if so; then (although he leave it doubtful whether it were a set or uncertain congregation; yet) he plainly acknowledgeth that by these places (Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. & 14. 23.) is meant the Church of a city and country adjoining, gathered into one congregation; and then he forgetteth himself in construing those words otherwise pag. 104. & 105. following. Yea though 
a contradiction in the Doct.  he should now carry those places as the line draweth them, to the Churches of an whole nation; yet can he not escape the blame of an apparent contradiction, in his understanding of Act. 14. 27; (both places of his book compared;) besides a gross oversight, in making the Church spoken of Act. 11. 26. & 1. Cor. 11. 18. etc. to be far more large than the church mentioned. 1. Cor. 1. 2. & Act. 13. 1. And 7. touching the places which he taketh to signify indefinitely any company of Christians etc. 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 less strange, that he which could discern a church definitely deciphered, Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 14. 19 34. 2. Cor. 8. 23. 1. Tim. 5. 16. & 3. joh. 6. should not discern as much in Act. 15. 3. 4. &. 18. 22. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 8. 19 1. Tim. 3. 5. & 3. joh. 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 city and country adjoining; 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 society, whether of nation, or city & 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.) etc. we may very well understand the particular Churches, which were under the charge of every angel, to whom the epistles are directed.  
Thus much to his significations of the word Church, from which 
Sect. 2. to the Doct. 3. sect. pag 6. & 6.  (being so manifold as he saith) he proceedeth to show what is truly & 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 truly a church, & also a true church. But it is more than he can prove, as shall appear in the examination of some particulars following. He addeth, that as the whole company of the faithful 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, I must ask, what he meaneth by this phrase is to be termed? doth it imply a necessity, or only a liberty and conveniency? If the first, what reason hath he to debar us from retaining the phrase of speech, which himself confesseth (in the former page) to be usual in the new Testament, namely to call the Christians of an whole nation Churches in the plural 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 faithful of an whole nation; save only that of Act. 7. 38. which is spoken of the jewish people, whiles they were one congregation (not yet divided into several Synagogues, or Church-assemblies) under the guidance of Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. But he argueth a p●ri in this manner. The whole people of the jews profissing the true religion were one Church; though containing very many particular congregations or Synagogues: (which were also so many Churches) Even so, the whole people of 
The D. reasoneth inconsequently from the Church of the Lewes to the Churches of the gentiles.  England, professing (through God's mercy) the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, is to be called the Church of England. The consequence hereof might be denied; for why should the form and constitution of the jewish Church under the law, be a more fit pattern for us to follow, than that form of Church-constitution which was established under the Gospel, for the Christians of all nations, both jews & Grecians? Is there not more strength in this consequence? 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, judea, Galilee 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, profess the faith of Christ in England, are rather to be termed the Churches, than the Church of England; especially seeing the number of Churches or congregations, is far greater (in all likelihood) than the number of families was in any one nation in the Apostles times. Notwithstanding, if the Doctor can (as he assayeth) parallel the people of England, with the jewish nation in that which properly made them as some think one church; he might take more liberty to include them all under the name of the church of England. To effect this, unto that which some allege (viz. that the Church of the jews was one, because it was under 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 common wealth, ruled by the same laws, professing the same religion; both before there was one high-Preist, and after there were through corruption more than one. 2. Neither was the high-Preist a type of Christ in respect of his pre-eminence, and government over the Priests & people; but in respect of his sacrifice & intercession for the whole people etc. To the first I reply as followeth. 1. It is evident, that the Christian jews in judea were one people or common wealth, ruled by the same laws & 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 jewish Church was one because they were one common wealth etc. 2. Neither do they affirm who hold the Church of the jews one, that their unity depended only upon the person of one high priest; but upon God's 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 perform the parts of his worship in one uniform order, under the oversight of one high priest, assisted by inferior Priests and Levites. But 3. how will the Doctor prove, that they were (as he saith) one commonwealth, ruled by the same laws, before they had one high-preist? Is not the law of their high priesthood, as ancient as any of the laws given by Moses, to settle them in one form of a commonwealth? (Exod. 28. Levit. 8. cum seq.) And 4. when through corruption there were two high-preists (Luc. 3. 2.) which executed the office by their courses, one after another (as other priests 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 year? (john 11. 49. with Act. 4. 6.) What great difference then of one high priest, 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 main point of the objection untouched, and weakly performing what he undertaketh. 1. It is observed before, that they who in this point concur with the Doctor, viz. that the jewish Church was but one, do hold their unity to arise, from God's ordinance, 
The D. maketh an idle and feeble flourish.  who conjoined the whole nation in one society, not only under one high-preist; but also in regard of one tabernacle at the first, & after that, of one Temple, unto which they were all bound to resort 3. times in the year, there to worship God in such sort, as he had prescribed. Which ordinances, viz. of one high priest & 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 jesus 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 less evident, that the same Christ, was also shadowed out by their tabernacle & temple. Heb. 8. 2. and 9 8, 9, 11, 12, 24. joh. 2, 19, 21. In another respect, one tabernacle compact together of many parts, and one temple composed of many stones, was a figure of that one catholic church, which, as one temple or house, 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 together in that one temple under the Ministry of that one highpreist, was a lively type of the gathering together of all the elect, unto the heavenly jerusalem, to the general assembly & Church of the first borne written in heaven, and unto jesus the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12, 23, 24, 25) as sheep which come into one fold under the oversight of one chief Shepherd, john 10. 16. Heb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 2, 25. There is an apparent truth therefore in that which the Doctor proposeth as a frivolous allegation, viz. that these legal ordinances were figures and therefore are ceased; especially seeing, it is held that there is neither any one national Bishop answering in degree of office and pre-eminence unto their one high priest; nor any one national temple unto which the general body of the people do resort for the practice of God's evangelical 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 gospel.  
2. All that the Doctor saith, is no more but this; he denieth the high Priest to be a type of Christ in respect of his pre-eminence & government over the Priests and people. What meaneth the Doctor? neither in respect of pre-eminence? no● yet of government? belike then, he was a type of Christ; quatenus a Priest; but not as a high Priest? yet as the scripture (Heb. 9 7. 8. 11. 12. 24.) so the D. acknowledgeth that the high Priest figured Christ; by his entrance alone into the sanctuary, which none other Priest might do: how then can he deny that he prefigured Christ in the respect of his pre-eminence which was peculiar to his office? and why not also in respect of his government; over Priests and people in things pertaining to God? what meaneth else that name of great high-Preist; and great Priest set over the house of God? Heb. 4. 14. and 10. 20. But 3. let us hear the D. reasons, why he thinketh that the high-Preist was no type of Christ in respect of pre-eminence or government. Forsooth then had he aswell as Melchisedeck, been a type of Christ's government and Kingly office, aswell as of the priesthood: and consequently Christ might have been a Priest of the order of Aaron aswell as of Melchisedech. And a little after; Christ's government appertaineth to his kingdom and not to his priest hood. As if all pre-eminence and government were peculiar to princes, & inseparably annexed to the kingly office? Surely if Christ have no pre-eminence nor government in his Church, as he is our Prophet and Priest; but only as he is King; then is he in these Offices considered a part, inferior to all other Prophets and Priests that had their part in ecclesiastical government. But how can he be a great Priest over the House of God (Heb. 10 21) and sit not only as a King, but also as a Priest upon his throne; (Zach 6, 13) and yet have no manner of government by his priestly function? Wherefore the government now invested in Christ, might be (yea undoubtedly was) figured a part aswell by the ecclesiastical government of the high-preists succeeding Aaron; as by the civil government of David and the Kings that sat on his throne. I conclude then that the levitical high-preist was a type of Christ, in respect of his ecclesiastical pre-eminence and government: although his principality and regal government, joining in one with the priestly function, was rightly figured (not in Aaron but) in Melchisedek. And, although the conjoining of both these pre-eminences together in Christ, was also praesigured, in jehoshua 
The D. pro poseth a weak consequence and a false antecedent to justify an untruth  an high priest of Aaron's line, (Zach. 6, 11, 13.) yet it were gross ignorance in the grounds of divinity from hence to infer, that therefore Christ might have been a Priest after the order of jehoshua (or Aaron) aswell as of Melchisedeck. It is apparent 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 success the Doctor hath had, in his endeavour 
Sect. 4.  to prove, that the name of a Church in the singular number, is to be given unto the people of an whole nation professing the faith, though divided into many thousand particular Churches; He proceedeth to tell us, that likewise the Christian people of any City or country adjoining, whether that which we call a province or diocese, though consisting of many particular congregations; is rightly termed a Church; as the Church of jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadelphis etc. I confess, that this latter, hath a like right and title, to the name of a Church, with the former: to wit, by the custom of speech & human ordinance; subjecting the particular Churches of an whole country or nation, to one Diocesan or Provincial Bishop, or to one national Synod: But I deny, that the scripture doth give any more allowance unto the one, then to the other: & I doubt not but his proofs for the later, will be found as weak as the former. To draw his words before set down, into an orderly form 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 jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus etc. mentioned in the Scriptures, is rightly termed a Church: But the Christian people of any City & Country adjoining, though consisting of many particular congregations, whether in a province or diocese answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus etc. mentioned in the scripture. Therefore, the Christian people of any City and country adjoining, though consisting of many particular congregations, whether in a province or diocese; is rightly termed a Church. Here the assumption is a mere begging of the question, for he is 
The Doct. beggeth the question  not ignorant, (as appeareth in the beginning of his 4. sect.) that they, against whom he contendeth, do hold; that the visible Churches instituted in the new testam●, were none other than parish assemblies, containing one congregation: & yet he assumeth for granted (as if they were bound, to take his word for sufficient warrant) that the Christians of an whole diocese or province, distributed into many several congregations, or parish assembles, do carry the same Church-constitution, with the first Apostolic Churches; as of jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus etc. The contrary whereof may be gathered from his own positions in his sermon & the defence thereof. For he affirmeth and maintaineth (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 Paul's time they were perfectly constituted; seeing (in his opinion) they had many of them, their Bishop & their Presbytery and Deacons; which (as now he saith pag 7.) do make an accomplished or fully constituted Church. Wherefore still there remaineth this difference, between our diocesan and provincial Churches, and those Apostolic Churches mentioned in the scriptures (as the Church at jerusalem, 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 proceed we on, the Doctor at length descendeth lower, and 
Sect. 5. add pag. 6.  saith; That in like manner, the Christian people of any one town or village, containing but one congregation (which we call a parish) is truly called a Church, as perhaps that of Cenchreae. And further, that the company of faithful in one family, doth deserve the name of a Church, as hath been showed (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, city and country, town, parish or family (family I say, being alone, and not a part of a congregation: but an entire church or parish by itself) 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 ministery of the word and sacraments, and eutaxie or some good order of government: not that all governors are to be placed in every society 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 selfconceited fancies, mingled with some 
The D. maketh an hotch potch.  truths sound 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 town or village, containing but one congregation; and to the company of faithful 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 speak here doubtfully (with a perhaps) yet afterwards he saith certainly it was a parish. (pag. 104. following) 4. And there is required (besides the profession of the true faith) the Ministry of the word and sacraments and some good order of government, to make the Christians of any city town or family a true visible Church. Of the former sort are these supposals: ●cz. 1. that the people of an whole nation and city, with country adjoining, may make one visible Church; aswell as the company of one town or family. 2. and that all Church government are not to be placed in every visible Church. His meaning is (as afterwards he showeth) that a Bishop and his presbytery may not be had in every parish: it sufficeth if they be seated in the city, and that particular parishes in city and country, do 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 persuade the simple, (that will take his words for payment) that there ought to be the like difference for Church-government, which is for civil policy between 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 Dean and Prebends of our cathedral Churches) as to require for every village, a Major and Aldermen, of that state, that they bear at this day in the city of London. For we 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 etc. Who goeth on and showeth how base and unfitting a thing it is, for the great pomp and state of Bishops at this day to visit poor villages; and how unable such places are to bear the charge of their expenses in their visitations. No merveile therefore if it be too great a but then for every parish to maintain an whole college of cathedral Clercks', together with the retinue 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.  heart, this false conceit; that the state of the ancient Bishops, & their presbytery, was no less unfitting (in regard of their pomp and charge) for a country town; 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. add ●ect. 4. pag. 6. 7.  of a Church as it is used in the scriptures; attend we now to his conclusion. All this (saith he) I have the rather noted, because some having first strongly conceited, 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 etc., whereas in very truth, scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians, as we call a parish, can be alleged out of the scriptures. I hope the indifferent reader will discern by the answer already made, that the Doctor deserveth to be censured in 
The D. deserveth to be censured in his own terms  his own terms; viz. that having first strongly conceited all the differing forms of visible Churches which are now in use (scz. national, provincial, diocesan, and parishional) to be lawful; hath haled the places of scripture, where ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of his conceit: whereas in very truth he cannot allege 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 esteem a national or provincial or diocesan Church. And as for parish assemblies which contain one congregation, though he can scarcely afford us any one testimony, yet it is already showed, that besides the Church of Cenchreae, (which he acknowledgeth to be a parish) he granteth that the most of the Churches in the greatest cities during Paul's 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. contradicteth himself.  & 14, 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 22. & 14. 5. 12. 19 23. 28. 34. 35. 3. joh. 6. which are so many testimonies to justify the congregations which we call parishes. But we need not to go further than to his words ●mediately following; for in granting that at the first conversion of cities, the whole number of the people converted (being sometimes not much greater than 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 we 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 suit, or begging of 
The D. reneweth his old suit 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 mean, that form 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 apostolic Churches to be Dioceses properly, because the Presbyters first ordained (when as yet they had no Bishop) were trusted not only with the feeding of those few already converted; but also with the care of endeavouring the conversion of the rest, both in city and country; & therefore he applieth to their ministery, that comparison of a little leaven, which by degrees seasoneth the whole lump, now used (in the words following) to show 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 fit occasion to show in the answer 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 necessary upon the increase of Christians) in the cities and countries adjoining, they should all remain under the government of one Bishop or superintendant seated in each city. Mean while the reader may see, that the Doctor hath little cause to boast of his conquest, before he hath put on his harness, for the conflict. Wherefore he but bloweth the trumpet of insolent vanity, when he faith, 
avain blast of the D.  that all the disciplinarians to the world shall never be able to show, that there were, or aught to have been after the division of parishes, any more than one Bishop and one Presbytery for an whole Diocese. He should remember that he being the opponent in this controversy, the burden of proving lieth on his shoulders; and therefore it had been 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 show, that they intended and ordained; that the city Church should spread her wings over the whole diocese, and cover under the shadow thereof all the people, after their conversion and distribution into many parishes writings to justify this assertion) will easily draw us to acknowledge, that diocesan Churches were instituted by the Apostles. But till this be done, though he writ ten volumes more, and each of them ten times greater than this: yet he shall never be albe to convince the conscience of his indifferent reader in the point which he undertaketh to prove; to wit, that the Apostolical Churches were properly (and if not actually yet at least intentionally) dioceses & not parishes.  
But though he cannot fortify his own assertion, yet will he assay 
Sect. 7. add sect. 5. pag 7.  to throw down their hold that oppugn it, with this jolly Enthymem: The word Eeclesia signifies (according to the usual phrase of the Holy Ghost:) any company of Christians, whether great or small. Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit, which imagine there is no true Church, but a parish. Wherein he doth neither rightly 
The D. in one Enthymem, saniteth 2.  set down their assertion; nor assume a clear 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, unto some other societies, viz. the Catholic militant Church on earth; the invisible society of Gods elect, absolutely Catholic; the people of a particular congregation considered without and beside their Ministers; and the company of a Christian family. The truth is, he holdeth the only true visible Church, endowed by Christ with the spiritual power of order and government in itself, to be none other than a particular congregation. Neither is the truth hereof infringed, by that which the Doctor assumeth: seeing 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 Ecclesiastical government to belong unto every such company of Christians, or to any other society, than one particular congregation. 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth, that 
The D. reasoneth ex non concessis.  which he shall never be able to justify: when he saith that the word ecclesia signifieth (according to the usual phrase of the Holy Ghost) any company of Christians, great or small. For he cannot show any one place of scripture, where the word Church in the singular number is given 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.) showeth 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 judea, Galilee and Samaria. Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches etc. I will this once tender him this argument. The word ecclesia in the singular number, doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese, nation or province. Ergo, the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine, that the Christians of an whole Nation, Province or Diocese, though distributed into many congregations may not with standing (by the warrant of the word) be rightly termed one Church. Yea it serveth, rather to confute then to confirm, the point now in question, viz. that the 7. Churches (mentioned in this text) were properly Dioceses & not Parishes.  
As for his large discourse touching the divers significations of these words, Eeclesia, Paraecia, Diaecesis, commonly 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 sum of all that he saith, is this; In ancient writers, Ecclesia, paroecia & Dioecesis, having reference to a Bishop, & his whole charge, do signify a Diocese and not a parish. Which how true it is I cannot now inquire, unless I should digress 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 mentioned 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 comprised within it) which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth. Leaving therefore this whole discourse, and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as appertaining 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 Apostolic Churches were properly Dioceses; because the presbyters ordained, by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities & countries, that is, to dioceses.   

Chap. 2. containing an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolical Churches were properly dioceses not parishes, because the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles, were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses. 
Sect. 1. add sect. 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64.   
We have already heard in the former part, how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia, to be great and ample city together with the countries adjoining; when he saith, it cannot be denied, but they were such because our Saviour, writing to the Churches of Asia numbereth but 7; and nameth the principal, some whereof were Mother cities. He addeth immediately after, For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation, they first preached to the cheise cities thereof. Wherein, when through God's blessing, they had converted some, their manner was to ordain Presbyters, hoping by their Ministry to convert not only the rest of the city but also the countries adjoining, 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 argument to be so obscure and unfitting as it is before showed to be) he judged it in effect all one to say, It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches, were great & ample cities etc. for it is evident that the Apostles in the chief cities of any nation, where they had converted some to the faith, did usually ordain Presbyters, by their Ministry to convert the rest of the city and country adjoining: and to transpose the sentences in this manner: It is evident that the Apostles in the chief cities of every nation, where they had converted some to the faith, did usually ordain presbyters etc. Ergo, it cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities etc. But the D. saith, his analysis mistaken, 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 syllogism) he framed a proposition for the nonce to cavil withal. A rash censure, the less to be regarded, because the Refuter may safely appeal to Gods own tribunal, who knoweth that he dealt sincerely; and was led by the connection of both sentences to conceive the meaning to be such as is before showed. 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 main conclusion of all that followeth the first argument (concerning the 7. Church's) to that place. viz. that the Presbyters in the Apostles times, were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses. But he thought it needless to carry the word for so far; when there was need of help to prove the point aforegoing. Notwithstanding, let him walk in his own way, I doubt not, but to make it appear, that the argument and the prosyllogismes thereof framed by himself, do discover both his own mistaking of his Analysis (to say no worse) and the weakness of his arguing, aswell now in this defence, as before in the sermon itself. The main conclusion to which he sendeth us, hath these words (serm. pag. 18. lin: ult. etc. The Presbyteries therefore in the Apostles times, were appointed, not to feveral parishes, but to whole cities, & the countries 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 look to be required with shrewd words for my labour) to propose to the view of the Reader in this manner. The conclusion showeth to what the Presbyteries in the Apostles times, were appointed. 1. Negatively; They were not appointed to several parishes. 2. Affirmatively; they were appointed to whole cities and the countries annexed. Which is first explained, 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 than it appeareth, that in the words of his sermon before 
Sect. 2.  going pag 18. 19 we are to expect the proof of these. 5. points (for else he stretcheth his conclusion beyond the bounds of the premises, which should infer it) viz. 1. the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles, were not appointed to several parishes. 2. they were appointed to whole cities & the countires adjoining. 3. those cities & countries were Dioceses. 4. one end of that their appointmet, was to convert etc. 5. the other end was to attend & feed the conoverted. But of these 5. propositions, he concealeth wholly in this defence the third and last. The former it seemeth he took for granted; and therefore now coupling the two first together, he setteth them down in this manner. The Presbyteries ordained 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 said before, that the Presbyters were in common to attend the whole flock converted, feeding them with the word & sacraments; and to labour the conversion of the residue etc. but how great a difference there is between these two ends of the Ministry of the Presbyters, ordained by the Apostles; and those that his conclusion mentioneth; it is easy for the simplest of his Readers to discern, Whether the change were made unwittingly, or of purpose to deceive, I will not determine, neither will I press him for resolution of the doubt, unless he please. It is the analysis of his conclusion and all that appertaineth thereunto, which we now look after. His conclusion (whatsoever it was at the first) is now comprised in this copound axlome before delivered. The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses; which he maketh the antecedent of a Enthymem, to infer the principal question (touching diocesan Churches in general) viz. Therefore the Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical 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 ordained by the Apostles, were appointed for whole cities & countries thereto belonging, to labour so far 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 chief cities thereof etc. to the words, neither were the parishes. Which half persuadeth me, that he hath borrowed his first argument for the proof of the Antecedent, from the second & fourth points (before noted to be couched) in that conclusion delivered in his sermon. For other wise his analysis cutteth than off from the conclusion as superfluous branches; & maketh his first argument to be Cryptically enwrapped under the confirmation thereof. Now if it were borrowed thenee; then the words following (serm. pag. 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished etc.) in all equity should be, not a second argument, to confirm his first antecedent; but rather a new prosyllogisme to justify the general proof thereof. To conclude, 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 words 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) than a beggarly 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 been as ready as now he is to charge him with mistaking his Analysis. But let him make the best advantage of his own Analysis; & let us try the valour of his syllogisms, which he proffereth to our 
Sect. 3.  view. And first of that Enthymeme, which concludeth the principal question in this manner;  
The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles, were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses. Therefore the churches endued with power of ecolesiasticall government were not parishes but Dioceses. This consequence, saith he, the Refuter granteth, ingranting the connexive proposition of the Syllogism, 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 endued with power of ecclesissticall government, the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed. Lo 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 own heedless oversight, to say no worse? for had he well perused the parts, he might have found 5. terms in his syllogism. viz. 1. 
The D. hath 5. germes, in one syllogism.  Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles. 2. appointed to Dioceses not to parishes. 3. appointed to visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government. 4. the Churches (themselves) endued with such power. 5. Dioceses and not Parishes. To redress this gross fault; if so simple a Scholar 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 yielded the same predicatum, which his conclusion carrieth, as thus; The Churches, to which the Presbyteries ordained 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 only charge of the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles. The assumption then to be added, must be one of these; viz. The Churches which in the Apostles times were endued with the power of ecclesiastical government were those unto which the Presbyteries ordained by them, were appointed. Or thus; The Churches which the Apostles endued with power of ecclesiastical government were the whole & only charge of those presbyteries which they ordained. So the conclusion would naturally flow from these premises, to wit; Therefore, the Churches which the Apostles endued (or were endued in their times) with the power of ecclesiastical government, were Dioceses properly (such as ours) & not parishes; which of these soever he shall choose; the proposition is to be refused, as utterly false. Against the Assumption (whether former or later) I have nothing to except. This only I say, if the Doctor shall dislike the later, as too narrowly limited by those words, whole & only charge. I must then tell him, his syllogism is also herein deceitful and faulty; 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 as much as he supposeth, they were appointed also, to an other more principal 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 only charge of the Prebyteries ordained by the Apostles; then the premises of his syllogism do make war, the one against the other. For the assumption so understood, directly crosseth the assumption and the fortifications thereof, which are (pag. 65.) fitted to confirm the Proposition or Antecedene of his main argument; and consequently, through their sides, it pierceth the heart of the proposition itself. For if the visible churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, were the whole & only charge of the presbyteries ordained by the Apostles; then were they not appointed for the conversion of the rest of the city & country: neither was that work the end or motive that swayed the Apostles to ordain 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, restraining 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 nought, and such as of which he hath no grant from his refuter to boast of. For unless it be presupposed, that the Dioceses, to which he saith, the Presbyteries were appointed, were Churches, and like to our diocesan Churches; his argument willbe deceitful 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 ours, do 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 understand Diocesan Churches like to ours) we are come to examine the first of his two arguments, which himself frameth to prove the proposition before denied in manner & form following;  
They who were appointed to whole cities and countries to labour so far 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 ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities and countries thereto belonging, to labour so far as they were able, the conversion of all that belonged to God.  
Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles, 3: 44 PM 5/7 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 weak of that argum: he framed to a conclusion somewhat differing, he mought well have been jealous of his rejecting this proposition also. For since the Presbyters of which he speaketh were planted in the chief cities of such a nation, as the Apostles desired to converse; what hindereth but the countries annexed might be Provinces, or rather whole Nations, and not Dioceses properly? Moreover, how can they be said to be appointed to Diocesan Churches such as ours (for to speak of other Dioceses, that are estranged from Christianity, is to rove far 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 remained Pagans and Infidels? To provoke him therefore in his next defence, to undertake the proof of this proposition which he now taketh for granted, 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 own assumption, with the help thereof to conclude; the contradictory of his former proposition, in this manner. The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed to whole cities and countries, for the working out of their conversion. Therefore, the Presbyteries ordained 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 estranged from the faith, that their conversion must be laboured, are not diocesan Churches like to ours. Therefore, neither they, who were appointed over such cities and countries, set over diocesan Churches such as ours. The Antecedent is a truth so apparent to all the world, that it were madness to contradict it: And the consequence is such as (I verify think) no man of common 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 show his valour) he will needs have a fling at them, though with shame to himself. 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 said that, all in the city and country were in S. john's time converted. For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this, that the Apostles ordained Preseyters for such an end (as he supposeth) yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities & the countries adjoining. And he backeth it with this reason, that, the seed of the word in many places was thick sown, 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 unpartial readers will take it for a sufficient refutation, to say, it is a cavil not worth the refuting? The second exception is of more moment; because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors own argument before set down. For the ordaining 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; unless there be a necessity that all which in time were to be converted by their ministery, should be and remain 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 said, to justify his denial; and the Doct. to maintain the affirmation, of this necessity. 
Sect. ●.   
In defence of the negative, it was alleged (answ. pag. 57) that it is very likely if not certain, that they of Cenchrea received the gospel from Corinthe; (for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe, and not far from it, as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London) yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth; for it is called the Church of Cenchrea. Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply, first layeth down his own opinion touching this matter, and then indeavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea, out of his refuters hands. His own opinion (or rather definitive sentence,) quast ex cathed a & satis pro imperis) he delivereth in this manner. I say, that they whose ministery was intended for the conversion of the city and country; to their care and charge, both for the first conversion of them, and government of them being converted, the city and country belonged. And the Doctor only saith it, and dareth the Refuter or any of his unlearned associates, contradict it? No verily; they will rather assent to him so far, as truth and reason grounded on the truth of God's word, will permit them, that is kat ●● & in parr, but not aploos and in general; for it is most true, that the Apostles and Evangelists whose ministery was intended, either to begin, or to bring forwards the conversion of any city and country, had the care and charge of the people in those parts, aswell 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 perpetuity, or for a time only, till they might be furnished with their proper Ministry? And when the faith spread itself from any of those chief cities which first entertained it; into the towns adjoining (& that with such increase that the number of believers in those places, were sufficient to make two or more Churches or congregations) did they all remain still parts of one Church; and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies? Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversy; wherefore if the Doctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative, he should have plainly contradicted the refuter, and said, there was a necessity, that all which were brought to the faith, in any city and country adjoining, by the labours of any appointed for their conversion, should remain (though never so many or far distant) members of the citie-Church, which first entertained the gospel. Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proof than his bare word, I say it, to conclude this necessity. And it was not easy for him to yield any sound reason, for the justifying of such an assertion; in wisdom therefore he judged it better, to say and affirm that which (though it belief pertinent, yet) might seem more reasonable (viz. that such as were converted by their labours, that were appointed to endeavour their conversion, should submit themselves to be governed by them) and in stead of yielding any pregnant demonstration to confute his Refuters' exception, to make a show of removing that which was alleged 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, endued with power of ecclesiastical government, but subject to the ●ur●sliction of the Church of Corinthe. Thus he faith; but hath he any other reason, than such as before, (I say it) to show 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 proof is, most certainly so it was. I doubt not therefore, but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost, equalling the believers 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 endued with power of ecclesiastical government) than his denial that hath no other confirmation than I say it, or so it was; for what authority hath he, either to subordinate one to another, or to confine in one ecclesiastical body, those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches?  
Thus much for his Proposition; his Assumption cometh 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 chief cities; the other is the motive, their hope by the Ministry of the Presbyters placed in the city to convert them which belonged to God, both in city and country; grounded on the force of the Gospel, testified by our Saviour, Math. 13. 13. Thus he saith, but why contriveth he not his two arguments into. 2. distinct syllogisms, that we might see the strength of each of them a part? Nay, why doth himself 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 chief cities, so they placed Presbyters to the same intent; hoping by them to convert, both city and country; then were they appointed and it was their duty, to labour the conversion of all belonging to God both in city and country. 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 convert any nation, first preached the Gospel in the chief cities thereof. 2. and having converted some there usually ordained Presbyters. 3. by their Ministry to convert the rest of the city & country. Why then should he not take home to himself those words of his, wha● cannot he bring within the compass of his syllogisms? 2. Moreover, since he saith, that the last of the 3. parts distinguished by his Refuter; is the assumption itself, and inferred on the two former; as he setteth them down; doth he not confound the assumption, with one (at least if not with both) of the arguments which should confirm 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 understand such a speech to carry this meaning, that the very end whereat he aimed in his preaching, was the enlarging of his favour etc. And that an hope to gain more grace with them moved him to undertake the work? If then himself, or any friend of his should deny and contradict this speech; 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 manner: The enlarging of his favour with his good Lord the Bishop etc. was the very end which he proposed to himself when he preached. And he hoped by this means to gain more grace. Therefore (doubtless) he preached this sermon to enlarge his favour etc. 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 conversion of the cities and countries adjoining; 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 laid down. It shall not therefore be amiss to compare them a part, with the point whereunto they are referred, and to avoid blame (if it be possible) I will stick close to the words of his own connexive proposition before delivered; & derive from 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 chief Cities; so they placed Presbyters to the same intent. Ergo, those Presbyters (or Presbyteries) were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God both in city & country. The pith of the argument, lieth in the later branch of the antecedent. viz. the Apostles placed Presbyters in the chief Cities, for the conversion of the whole nation. And it seemeth to be fortified in this manner. The Apostles placed Presbyters to the same intent, for which themselves preached in the chief cities. But they preached there with an intent to convert the whole nation. Therefore they also placed Presbyters in the Chief 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 main argument (propounded sect. 4) in this sort; The Presbyters (or Presbyteries) ordained by the Apostles, were placed in chief 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 syllogism, and the instances that he giveth (pag 66) to prove the assumption thereof. (For if) Th' Apostles placed Presbyters in chief Cities, to the same intent, for which themselves began to preach there: (If also) Paul's intent in preaching and staying at Corinth an whole year and 6 months, and 3. years at Ephesus, was to convert, (not the diocese of Corinth or Ephesus only, but) the whole nation of Asia, and Achaia (Than it will follow that) Paul in placing Presbyters at Corinth and Ephesus (did not appoint the for them for the diocese of Corinth or Ephesus, but for the whole country of Achaia and Asia; to labour as far 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 chief Cities, to convert both city and country, (And this their hope was grounded on the force of the gospel testified by our Saviour, Math. 13. 53.) Ergo, those Presbyters were appointed (and it was their duty) to labour the conversion of all, that in city and country belonged to God. For unless their hope, (the motive that guided their intention) should be absurdly restrained into a far narrower compass, than the end which they intended: the country whose conversion he encloseth within their hope, and so alotteth to the charge of the Presbyters, as the lump that was to be leavened by their Ministry, must be the whole nation and not so small a portion as one Diocese. But as I purpose not to dwell upon this advantage; so I need not use many words to remove the ground of both his arguments, since they have no other foundation, than his own wavering fancy, which doth not well accord with itself. It is time I should compare the Refuters answer & his defence together, to see whether his second thoughts have any more weight of reason in them then the first.  
It can never be showed (saith the Refut: answ. pag. 57) neither may it be reasonably thought that it was any part, of those Presbyters proper 
Sect. 7. add p. 66  duty, to labour the conversion of the residue, either in city or country. 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 heaen also, if they were present in their congregations: 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 employ themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians. By these few words (saith the Doctor) the deep wisdom of the parish disciplinarians, may easily be sounded. 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them, when there were but a few converted, and before parishes were distinguished, were in the same estate, that now they are being fully constituted etc. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set, was only that number of Christians already converted etc. 3. that their proper office was to attend them only which were already converted; and not to labour the conversion of the rest, etc. The last of these I confess is plainly averred by the Refuter, and the second by consequence implied. But the first hath no shadow of any foundation in his words; so that the Doctor his deep wisdom hath drawn it (I suppose) out of his own drowsy imagination. And yet if it be an erroneous conceit, why bendeth he not the stroke of some one reason or other against it? Yea how will the D. free himself from error; seeing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer, that doth more savour of that conceit, than these words of the Doct. (Def. pag. 54.) that the circuit of the Church was the same, when there were few, and when there were many, yea when all were Christians) and those in his sermon pag 25. that upon the division of parishes, there happened no alteration to the state of the Bishop.  
2. Moreover, if the second be an error, whose hand is deepest in it? whether the Refuter who allegeth Act. 20. 28. to show 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 speech, 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 only that number of Christians; which were already converted. And he had good reason so to judge, because that flock only was the visible Church, which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus. But now he seethe it is an error so to conceive; because our Saviour calls the elect not converted, his sheep, joh. 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 neither know nor could be taught to discern, by any notes that come within their understanding; because the Lord (who knoweth all that he hath chosen, and appointed in time to call; and to whose eyes, things to come are as manifest, as things present) doth entitle his elect, though yet unborn, or at least unconverted, by the name of his sheep or his people.  
3. As touching the third point, the Refuter hath plainly discovered his judgement, how far he granteth it, and in what respect he denieth it, to be the duty of Presbyters, to labour the conversion of Infidels. For besides the common duty of Christians, to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith, they are (as he faith) to preach unto them, if they will come into their assemblies; but to employ their labour in travailing to and fro in any country or diocese, to preach unto them, where they find any concourse of people: this he denieth to be any part of the Presbyterial function; and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle, or Evangelist. Which plain dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor, by showing how, & in what course holdeth it their duty, to labour the conversion of infidels; whether by the like traveil and employment, that the Apostles & Evangelists, undertook in places where the gospel 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 denied them, any way to labour the conversion, of any that were allenated from the faith) he resteth on this trifling reply, as though, saith he, the Apostles intended by their Ministry the conversion: and salvation of no more, but those few that were at first converted. And then for the better manifestation of their wisdom (he should have said of his own inability to make good his assertion) he opposeth them with a few questions, which yet are more than needed; but let us hear them; & they are these;  
1. Whether the Presbyters ordained 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 only to attend that small number of converts? 4. whether the Apostles in ordaining many, intended not the conversion of more than 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, seeing they are already answered. viz. that the conversion of city & country did not belong to their office, as any proper work thereof (and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordaining 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 unto his Reader (as it seemeth) two arguments to justify his own assertion; for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner, The Presbyters ordained 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 beside converted: wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their ministery, 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 ordained 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 suspense, till he hath made good proof of this assertion; I sear it will weary 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 certain Disciples (about 12. in number, that had been partakers of john's Baptism) by imposing hands on them, gave them the gifts of the Holy Ghost, so that they spoke with tongues and prophesied. From hence he gathereth, 1. that these persons were at that time, enabled by the gifts of the spirit, for the work of the ministery. 2. Yea ordained Presbyters & appointed to take the charge of that Church. 3. That they did equal the number of all that were beside converted. 4. And consequently that sometimes in Churches newly constituted, the number of people converted was not much greater than 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 than the first, and the third more absurd than the second, and therefore the last which floweth from these, hath nothing to relieve it; for as there is not a syllable in the text, to uphold either the one or the other; so it suiteth not with the Apostles wisdom, so far to exceed here the proportio which he held in other places, between 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 usual course of the Apostles in all places where they came, to plant the gospel, 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 contrary order; at his first coming to Ephesus to ordain them 12. Ministers, and himself to stay there 3. years after, to labour their conversion, by his own preaching. 3. Again, we may truly 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 fed, 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. 127.) if the number of converts that were bound to maintain the, were but so many persons, or thereabouts? 5. And if he shall ask, to what use, their gift of prophecy was employed, 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 show that all prophesying was not enclosed within th' breist of his preaching presbyters. But I have said enough to show, that we deny not without cause out assent to his idle fancy of a number of Presbyters given to some Churches, by far too many for the number of persons already converted. Wherefore till he hath yielded better proofs for this supposal, it cannot conclude his purpose. viz. that the Apostles intended the conversion of city and country adjoining, by the ministery of those Presbyters, which he ordained in any city that had entertained the faith.  
The 2. last questions before delivered, intimate this opinion selted in the Doctor; that if the Presoyters ordained in cities by the 
Sect. 9  Apostles, were not appointed to labour the conversion of the rest (yea if they did not endeavour it) then there was no means to effect their coversion. (Hereto if the Assumption be addeth) But there was a means 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 bind them, so) they did endeavour it. But the proposition is false, and discovereth an high presumption in the Doctor, that dareth limit the wisdom & work of God, unto one only means & that such as he fancieth to himself, without any warrant, (yea against the clear light) of the word. For was not the conversion of Infidels unto the faith, the principal work of the extraordinary 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 ordained by them; did they not use the labour of their fellow helpers, to finish the work which they had begun? 3. And why doth Mr Doctor take no notice of the means mentioned by the Refuter, to wit; the private labours both of the pres-byters, & of every well affected Christian striving to win others unto the faith; and the public exhortations and instructions, directed by the Ministers to those heathen, that had access to the church-assemblies seeing the scripture acknowledgeth that even by these helps, the work of the Lord in the gathering together of his Saints hath been very much furthered? Rom. 16. 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15. 16. & 4. 3. jam. 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 shortened, who had given them good (as of his blessing upon such weak means, so also) of his working out the calling and salvation of such as belonged to his kingdom, by many other ways. Act. 8. 4. 5. 26. 40. & 9 38. & 10. 3. 5. & 11. 19 21. Isa. 2. 3. Zach. 8. 23. joh. 1. 41. 45. & 4. 29. 39 & 12. 20. 21. Apoc. 3. 9 And therefore we have no cause to think, that any fear of wanting fit means for the conversion of Gods elect, that yet were drowned in paganism, should carry them, to commit this work, unto those Presbyters whom they ordained for the feeding of the flock already converted.  
So much to the 7. questions, there remaineth 3. more to make 
Sect. 10. add pag. 67. 68  up the complete number of 10; which (though they be nothing to the present business, yet) may not be overpassed, lest 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 ordinary congregation were not the congregation divided? 3. upon this division, was there a Bishop and Presbytery assigned to every congregation; or only one Presbyter etc. Because these questions are fitted (as also the former were) not so much to be informed what we hold, as to show what himself would have to be embraced; 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 do show themselves to be of shallow judgement, & their parish discipline to consist of undigested faucies, in that they imagine 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 Presbytery, like as that one Church had, before Parishes were divided in the Diocese; and that as now Ministers are appointed to atted their several Charges; so also then it was the proper office of the Bishop and his Presbytery to attend the flock already converted. No merveile if the Doctor's stomach, which afflicteth nothing but that which favoureth the Diocesa discipline cannot digest these points; yet will it be hard for him, from the resolution of his questions, to gather any well digested argument, to prove them undigested sancies. In the two former; he presumeth (as it seemeth) upon an agreement with his Refuter in these two points, viz. that of those many presbyters, which the Apostles ordained in any one City; one only was properly the Pastor or Bishop, and the rest his Assistants. And 2. that when more were converted then could well assemble together in one ordinary congregation, the congregations were divided. But in the f●●st of these, he grossly forgetteth himself. 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 ordained 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 fed in common; doth he not at unawares 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 showeth de grad: Minist. cap. 9) If therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus (& consequently the presbyters mentioned. 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 maintaineth) if they were not properly Pastors? In the answer, which himself maketh to the last of his questions; lieth the weight of all that yieldeth him any advantage. And since it inquireth altogether the sacto (what was done) and not the jure, (what in right aught to be done) unless he had kept himself within the times of the Apostles, and grounded his assumption 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, aught to have one only Presbyter, (and not a Presbytery 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 adjoining. 2. that the first Presbyters were not (as Ministers now are) set over the flock converted only, but over the whole city and country to labour their conversion, because upon the division of congregations in the diocese when each congregation had her Presbyter to attend it; the Bishop of the city and his Presbytery had a general superintendency over all, not only to govern them, and their Presbyters; but also to labour the conversion of the rest. And doth not himself weaken the consequence of his own reasoning? when he telleth us (lib. 3. cap. 1. sect. 9) that the Churches of former times (before Constantine's days) were not in all things established and settled according to their desires; for in time of persecution their government was not always such as they would, but such as they could attain unto. 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 only, had her presbytery to assist the Bishop, the rest of the Churches having each of them one only Presbyter: and 2. that the Bishop's Presbytery in office and charge differed from the rest of the Presbyters in this; that the presbyters were restrained to the feeding of their particular Churches; & the Presbytery assisted the Bishop; in procuring the conversion of such as yet remained in infidelity.  
It is a known 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 equal with the Mother-Church of Ephesus, in this, that as she, so they had, (not one only presbyter, but) a presbytery together with a Bishop; or Precedent to govern them. For he teacheth out of his text (Apoc. 1. 20.) that the 7 churches of Asia, had each of them her Presbytery and a Bishop entitled by the name of an Angel: 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 Crete) were to ordain Presbyters in the several cities; and that by Paul's direction, aswell by letter as example; and addeth, that he no where readeth, that they assigned several Presbyters to their several Cures, enyther in city or country. So than it is clear by the Doctors own confession, that how many Churches so ever were multiplied within the episcopal charge of Timothy & Titus, they all had (& by Paul's direction ought to have) a presbytery, and not a single presbyter in any place to attend them. Wherefore for the better manifestation (I say not of the Doctor's wisdom, but) of the truth or falsehood of his 2. assertions mentioned in the end of the former section; though I presume not to oppose him, yet I crave his resolution in these sew questions. Were not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to inform all Bishops (even Diocesan Bishops if there were any such ordained by the Apostles) and their successors unto the world's end; how to exercise their function, aswell in respect of ordination, as of jurisdiction? see this maintained, lib. 4. Def. pag. 75. 83. & 85: if then these epistles gave them no direction for the placing of a singular Presbyter, but rather for the ordaining of a (Presbytery, or) company of Presbyters, for those Churches, that were (or should be) multiplied in their charge: doth it not follow that every diocesan Bishop, aught to have a Presbytery, (& not one Presbyter only) to every Church that should grow up in his Diocese? If he shall say that the Apostles charge of ordaining 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 only for cities, and not for countrytownes? Or did he appoint the Bishop, and Presbyters of cities to labour the conversion of the towns and villages, and yet give them no instrustion how to settle a ministery among them? must diocesan Bishops fetch their pattern, for the right way of establishing particular Churches within their Diocese, from Damasus his pontifical, and the practice of evaristus 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 poor sentence (Presbyteris Romae, titulos divisit evaristus) give warrantise unto these assertions? 1. That each title was a distinct Church. 2. That each title had one only 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 presbytery that assisted him in his Diocesan government. 4. That besides those presbyters so distributed to their cures, there were others which remained with the Bishop, as assistants unto him in the Mother-church. Till these particulars be supported with better proofs, than yet the Doctor hath produced; I doubt not but the discreet reader will see, he was led by prejudice rather than by any sound reason, whom he pronounced it an undigested sancie, to affirm, that as every particular Church in the Apostles times had; so now it ought to have a presbytery to govern it.  
But, say he could prove by invincible arguments, that the 
Sect. 12.  parish-assemblies which are multiplied in every Diocese, aught to have one only presbyter, and not a presbytery, 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, between the presbyters of parish Churches, and the presbytery of the Mother-church, when he giveth to the later, and denieth to the former, the duty of labouring the conversion of all, that either in city or country, remain estranged from the faith? It is before observed that in his conceit, the presbyters of Ephesus were placed by S. Paul to endeavour the conversion of all Asia, as far as they were able: and yet nevertheless, he giveth to the several presbyteries of other cities, as Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira etc. the charge of converting all within their Diocese. Now if the general charge of the whole nations conversion, first cast upon the presbytery of one chief city, be no bar against the presbyters of other cities, to deny them the like charge, for the rest of each city and country adjoining, why should the Diocesan charge of any presbytery, in any one city, debar the presbyters established in country towns, that embrace the gospel before some others, from endeavouring the conversion of the rest in the same town, and the hamlett adjoining? If he have any testimony (divine or human, ancient or modern) to justify this difference, why doth he overpass them in silence? If he have none, is it not as indisgested a fancy, as ever was broached by a man of learning? And to come to our own times, since there is in many Dioceses, great scarcity of able Teachers, and the Doctor is persuaded that without the word preached, men ordinarily cannot attain to salvation; no nor yet to any degree thereof in this life (viz. neither to an effectual vocation, nor to justification, or sanctification, as he teacheth elsewhere. (serm. of the dignity and ductie of the Ministers, pag. 27.) I would feign know who there are that stand charged, by office and duty to labour the vocation of such, as have not any able preacher set over them? Whether the Bishop and his presbytery; or the preachers that are licenced for the Diocese, or the Idol-ministers only, that have charge of souls in those places committed to them? For why should not the Bishop & Presbytery stand charged, with the office and duty of labouring their vocation at this day; if it did of old belong to their office, to work out the conversion of such as remained in unbelief? and yet why should they bear the burden 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? Again, if all licensed preachers ought in duty to lend their help for this work; how shall this duty (of labouring to reduce unbelievers to the saith) distinguish the office of the ancient Presbyters, first ordained by the Apostles, from the function & charge of Ministers, which now are allotted to their several Cures? but if the cure of souls: which is committed to such Idols, do discharge all others from the bond of this duty, how shall the people under their charge be brought unto salvation? It cometh to my remembrance at length, that the Doctor saith, our divines in the universities, are ordained (as the first Presbyters were) to the national Church in common; before they be assigned to their peculiar titles or cures (serm. pag. 50. in the Margin) shall the burden of this work rely on their shoulders? I hope that in his next defence, he will clearly resolve us of these doubts; mean 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 altogether the same, with the charge of those preaching Elders, which were planted in the first Apostolical Churches, to feed the flock that dependeth on them? (Acts 20. 28. 1. pet. 5. 2.) & that the conversion of Insidels then, was none otherwise a work of the office of those Presbyters, than it is the duty of our Ministers now, to labour the vocation of those, which in parishes adjoining to them do want the ordinary means 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 infer that conclusion which he indeavoureth to justify. viz. that the Presbyteries ordained 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 ordained 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 divided into several Parishes, nor Presbyters assigned to their several Titles or Cures; but were in common to attend the whole flock, seeding them that were already converted, and labouring the conversion of the rest, so far as they are able both in city and country: them were not the Presbyteries appointed to Parishes, but to Dioceses.  
In the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several Parishes etc. 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 perpetual manner propounded the proposition connexively thus, Is the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times, nor the Presbyters assigned to their several titles or cures; but in common were to attend the whole flock converted, or to labour the conversion 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 connexive proposition, wherein he also made a change of one phrase, for his advantage; for having 
The Doct. changeth a phrase for advantage.  at the first said that in the Apostles times, Parishes were not distinguished, now he saith, the Churches in their times were not divided into several 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 leaving out (as he saith) the words of the greatest force, viz. that they were appointed to labour the conversion of those that belong to God, etc. A worse fault in deed, were it true; but hath he no other way to 
The Doct. to disgrace his Ref. calunniateth.  disgrace his Refut: then by so false a calumniation as this is? doth he not faithfully set down his own words, to wit, that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flock converted, and to labour the conversion of the residue? In deed for brevity sake he omitted the words following (so far as they should be able, both in the city & countries adjoining:) but doth not himself use the like abbreviation, pag. 66. 
The Doct. 2. argument is but a beggarly repetition of the point urged in the former.  lin. ult. pag. 67. lin. ant penulr, and 68 lin. 14? But though I commend 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 conversion of those that belonged to God, so far as they were able, both in the city and in the country's adjoining. For this maketh good, what before was touched (cap. 2. sect. 3.) scz. that his 2. argument is but a beggarly repetition of the same point, which he urged in the former. And seeing in his reply, pag. 74. (to his Refuters objecting it an error before refuted) he maketh no other defence than this; that ●e b●th provid it to be an evident truth & discovered the shallowness of their indgment that deny it; It were sufficient to send him back for his answer, to that which hath been already spoken, to show the weakness of his defence. 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, either in maintenance of his own 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 evident truth, and well may it seem so to him; but all things are not so as they seem; yet if his reasons be of any worth, I will grant him a seeming truth in it. First he asketh how the Presbyters could be assigned to several 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 city and country, how were they not appointed to dioceses? Behold here, how the Doctor is driven to disjoint his proposition, (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 than a gross 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 again to return him his own) what cannot he bring within the compass of one of his syllogisms? 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 carelessly, I leave it to his own conscience) I would flatly have refused to assent to his connexion: for the Presbyters ordained 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 congregation) although the Churches planted by the Apostles, were not as yet divided into several parishes, or distinct congregations. And to the second connexion propounded after the same manner, which he taxeth in his Refuter with an if, in stead of when, which word his proposition embraceth; I answer as before to the proposition of his former argument (sect. 4. cap. 2.) It doth not follow, that the Presbyters were appointed to Dioceses, (that is, to diocesan churches such as ours) although it should be granteth, that they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God both in city and country.  
Neither do his questions that follow, give him the least relief, to justify this consquencewhich I disclaim, It seemeth his meaning is to persuade his Reader, that the denial of his consequence will enforce his Refuter to father this fancy; that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country & were afterwards converted, belonged to one parish. And the absurdity hereof (he hopeth) will appear by this; that after their conversion, they were divided into many parishes both in city and country. 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 denial of his consequence, will drive us to acknowledge, that all the people which in an whole city & country belonged to God as being ordained to life and in time to be converted, were to be reckoned one parish. For it is flatly denied, that they did before their conversion, belong unto any parish, or visible Church at all. And it is a blind fancy 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 atheism and infidelity? yet, as if he had sufficiently fortified the proposition or consequence of his own 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 City and Country being assembled together; could make but a small congregation: but he demandeth how they could be of one parish, before there was any parish at all? do you not see the Doctor is wise enough to make his bargain well for his own advantage, when he hath a fool in hand, that will give him all that he asketh? for in effect he saith, grant me; 
The Doct. beggeth.  but thus much that there was not any parish at all in the Apostles times; and then I can justify my denial of your consequence, when you thus reason, that all the Christians in one city & the country adjoining, at the first were but as one parish, because they were but a small congregation, when they were all gathered together. His last refuge is to tell us, he hath before proved, that the circuit 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 nakedness of his cause, that enforceth him to lay hold on so bare a covering as I have showed this to be in the answer to his third Chapter and 6. section.  
We have seen how weak his stays are, whereon his proposition 
Sect. 3.  leaneth, but for his assuption he provideth much more weakly. It is that, (saith he) which the Refuter himself holdeth. But this defence (say I) is such as the Doctor himself contradicteth (pag 74.) 
The Doct. contradicteth himself  and proveth to be a soul untruth delivered not of ignorance, but against the light of his own conscience. For there he acknowledgeth that in his assumption, the Refuter findeth one error repeated, which was before noted (concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination) & chargeth also the main points in it to be altogether void of truth. But let us hear what it is, which he saith his Refuter holdeth; Forsooth, that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostlestimes. Well but can he from hence conclude, that his Refuter joineth with him in his whole assumption? Nay rather we may see a threefold trick 
A 3. fold trick of cunning in the D.  of cunning in the Doctor, namely, in changing the first branch of his assumption, in justifying it by his Refuters' allowance; and in concealing the other parts of his assumption. 1. he changeth the first branch, because he could neither challenge any allowance of it from his Refuter, nor yet yield any sufficient reason 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 ordinary or set congregation of Christians, assembling in one place to the solemn service of God, (see pag. 4. of his sermon) 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 assembly guided in ecclesiastical matters, by their own Presbyters (see answer. pag. 58. and this Defense, lib. 2. p. 74.) Wherefore, to say, that there were no such parishes distinguished in the Apostles times, is all one as to deny, that in their times there were any distinct congregations or assemblies, which ordinarily (if they were not by sufficient causes hindered, for this exception himself taketh notice of (Def. pag. 83.) assembled together in one place to the solemn service of God etc. he thought it wisdom therefore to let go this point, and to tender another in stead thereof, which might pass without controlment, viz. that in the Apostles times, the Churches were not divided into several parishes. But this argueth against, rather than for the D; forseing Churches which are not divided into several parishes (or titles and cures for these are one and the same in the Doctor's phrase of speaking) do make but one ordinary congregation of Christians; they must needs be parishes, to the Refuters understanding; yea to the Doct. also, as he delivereth the state of the question (serm. pag. 4.)  
2. But why doth he rely for the proof of his own assertion upon his Refuters' approbation? Is it not because in his own judgement, there is no general truth in it? which may appear by his own exception; for in excepting the church of Alexandria, he much weakeneth not only his assuption, but his whole argument. For if his study for this defence 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 evaristus his days, 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, than he hath yet attained to, for the like distribution, made in some other Churches: yea, he hath already told us (pag 50.) that it is more than probable, that the 7. Churches of Asia at the time of writing the Revelation contained divers 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 settled in Asia) S. john also preached the gospel, in those parts for many years, & ordained 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 appoinred to parishes, because there was not in any church many parishesin their days: why then should there not be some probability (sufficient at least to weaken the consequence of his argument) in the contrary assertion (viz. that some Presbyteries might be appointed unto Parishes; seeing some Churches, (as that of Alexandria for certainty, and those 7 in Asia, in very great probability) 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 proof of them, he wholly silenceth them (not of ignorance or forgetfulness, 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 perpetual 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 pass his scoffs more fit for a vice in a play then a Doctor of divinity, in re tam seria as this is) that his Refuter wrangleth & as a man confounded, yet resolved, to conntradict, though against the light of his conscience, denieth the conclusion, & contradicteth himself. The contradiction objected, will come to be examined, in his defence of the Assumption. All that is said to weaken the consequence or proposition, he taketh to be but a bare denial of the conclusion. And first he so conceiveth of his question (what if every one of the Churches then, were but one parish etc.) because he cannot see, how it impugneth the consequence, in any respect. But had he had so much charity towards his Refuter as he would have yielded to himself, 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 than were but one parish, which by reason of the multitude of people had many Teachers? so he might have seen, that he impugneth his consequence; so far as it inferreth, that the Presbyteries were not appointed unto parishes: and that therefore, he both wrongeth him to say, that in that respect he giveth it no answer at all; and sporteth himself in vain with the hope of a victory that turneth to his ruin. For his question rightly conceived (as before is showed) doth in plain phrase of speaking import thus much. q. d. Be it granted that parishes in the Apostles times, were not distinguished in any city and the country near adjoining, nor presbyters assigned to their several cures? this nothing hindereth, but that every one of the Churches, which by their ordination enjoyed a presbytery (or company of teachers) might be one parish; that is, one ordinary congregation of Christians assembling together, in one place. And that which is added touching the French & Dutch Churches, serveth (not to prove the main conclusion, as the Doctor supposeth, therein mistaking his Refuters' Analysis; but) to justify the denial of the consequence, by a parallel comparing those outlandish churches, here in England, with the ancient Apostolic Churches in this manner;  
It is well known that the French and Dutch Churches here in England have first a presbytery or company of Teachers allotted to them, 2. no parishes distinguished in any city for them. 3. nor presbyters so assigned to their several cures, as our parish Ministers are. Be it also granted that the Apostolic Churches in cities had the like: yet the French and Dutch Churches are, (neither doth the want of distinct parishes, and presbyters assigned to their several cures, hinder their being) each of them, one parishional (& not a diocesan) assembly, that is, one ordinary congregation of Christians, assembling together in one place. Why then might not those Apostolic Churches be, yea how should the want of distinct parishes etc. hinder their like being? If the Doctor will needs have the comparison brought into a syllogism, it may be thus framed.  

What, hindereth not the French & Dutch Churches, which here in England, have a presbytery (or company of Teachers) allotted to them; from being each of them one parishonall assembly: that cannot hinder the Apostolic Churches, which in Cities enjoyed their presbytery (or company of Teachers) from being each of them, one parishonall assembly.  
The want of distinct parishes, and presbyters so assigned to their several Cures as our parish-Ministers are; doth not hinder the French or Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbytery (or company of Teachers) allotted to them, from being each of them, one parishonall assembly.  
Therefore, the like want, cannot hinder the Apostolic Churches, which in cities, enjoyed, their presbytery (or company of Teachers) from being each of them, one parishonall assembly.   
As for his cavils agianst his own Argument, framed (I will not 
Sect. 5.  say, for the nonce to cavil withal, but) upon a mistake of his Refuters meaning; though I might pass 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, lest any one should stumble at them.  
First therefore, whereas he hunteth after some differences between the Apostolic Churches, and the French or Dutch Churches here in England (thereby to show 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; neither is he so simple, but that he may see his Refuter principally intended herein to compare the Apostolic Churches, with the French and Dutch Churches; that as the later have; so also the former had, by reason of the multitude of people many teachers to attend them; and yet remained one Church assembly, not distributed into several congregations, under several Ministers. Herein therefore, (if the comparison hold, (as himself confefseth and argueth for his advantage, pag. 74. 75.) all the differences that he allegeth (were they as many more as they are) cannot contradict, or infringe the truth of the Refuters speech, when he saith, do 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 Apostolic Churches; for he saith, Their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of Laymen placed among us, not with purpose to convert either the Ci●●● or count●●● to them, but to attend them of their own Church: whereas contrary wise, the Churches in the Apostles times, had a Bishop and a Presbytery of learned men placed among them; (as leaven is put into the lump) with purpose to convert the re●● both in Ci●●● and Country. As if he would argue, that they agree not in the points assumed by the Refuter for his purpose; because they answer not his expectation in the particulars, which his imagination ascribeth (though his arguments cannot convey them) to the Apostolic Churches. As for that other difference (viz. that the French Church in London is but one, among many prosessing the same religion, whereas the Apostolic Churches were not so, before the division o● parishen, but planted among heathen peo-ple) though he make it a chief one; yet is it srivolous and of no value, 
The Doct. pulleth down with the one hand, what he setteth up with the other.  especially seeing himself (pag. 72.) compareth the French Churches here with those ancient Christians, who dwelled 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 unawares, pulleth down with the one hand, what he setteth up with the other. For against this comparison, (between those churches that lived among the Arrians, and the French Churches among us) alleged to prove that the later are (as he saith the former were) models of diocesan Churches: I may return his own 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 laymen, and wanteth a Bishop which they had; neither are they placed and retained, for the the conversion of the city and country to them, as (in the Doctor's 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) weakeneth his arguing, to show 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 showeth 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 Apostolic Churches, to be parishes; he doth notwithstanding fly to another sort of parishes, viz. such as ours now are, deprived of the power of ecclesiastical government, and subordinate to an other Church, as members thereof; to his exceptions therefore, in this behalf this reply may suffice. That which is one Church among many in one city; 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 city, (as the Doctor acknowledgeth, p. 7. 1) It is therefore one parish, as we understand a parish in this question. Again, That which hindereth not the french and dutch Churches among us, 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 Doctor's exceptions (viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches do dwell in many distinct parishes, (according to the circuit of our English division of parishes, in London and other places) a●d that their Churches are endowed with power of ecclesiastical government, and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof, these exceptions (I say) do not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them, one ordinary congregation, assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God. Therefore neither do they hinder them, from being each of them, one parish, as we take a parish in this question.  
As for that one speech inserted, touching the French and Dutch Churches (when he saith, they have a Presbytery 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 forgetfulness in himself. For if that he speaketh, of having a Bishop once in e●●e, and still in poss●; 
The Doct. speech either is untrue 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 own? If to the Church of Geneva; as he needeth not Alascoes' testimony, 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, neither in the first reformation could; neither now can obtain the government of Bishops, to be settled among them, though they would; but it is no new thing to meet with the Doctor's slippings this way.  
We come now to the Refuters regestion; when he striketh at the Doctor with his own weapon in this manner; ●● there were no parishes 
Sect. 7. add P. 70. lin 8,  in the Apostles times, how could there be Dioceses; seeing every Diocese, consisteth of divers distinct parishes? The Doctor telleth us, it is but a flourish, and a kind of answer that best fits him that is at a nonplus. But it is well known that this kind of answer, is very usual with divines, nothing inferior to him, either in school learning or divinity; & that, to contradict any assertion belonging to the question, aswell as the conclusion principally controverted, doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theological & scholastical disputations? yea, it is in deed, of special use, to put the adverse part to a nonplus; or at least to let the indifferent Reader see the weakness of his argument and therefore no marvel though the Doctor's patience be not a little troubled with it. But see we how he bestirreth himself to escape the stroke of it. Good Sir, saith he, what is this to my consequence? Again, to what end is this spoken; to deny my consequence, or the main conclusion? And a little after, Therefore, when he would s●●me to deny the consequence of the proposition, he doth not so much as touch it; but by taking a supposed advantage, against the assumption, he d●ni●th the principal conclusion. Good Mr. D. with your patience, is there no difference betwixt the denial of the conclusion; and the retorting of an argument against it? And is it nothing to you, if your main conclusion fall to the ground; so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand uprights? but it is a fault in the Refuter; when he would seem to impugn your consequence, to pass by it, and to set upon your conclusion, when you thought it had been sufficiently guarded. Belike you looked not for such a stratagem at his hands, whom you took 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 believe you, pa. 80.) he can see no further than his nose end. Yet perhaps if you had seen 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, do you think your consequence is altogether 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 Dioceses, when there were none? If therefore the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times, do argue that there were no dioceses; doth it necessarily argue also, that the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles, were not appointed to dioceses? But the Doctor we see is a man of that courage, that though he foresee 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, than 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 overthrown, for the other will fall of itself afterwards. Again, I must tell him, that howsoever his consequence (as he hath now with his detraction proposed it) may seem in vincible; yet himself (such is his hap) hath showed us a way how to crush it. For if the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times will argue (as is afore showed) that the presbyteries were not appointed to dioceses; then it will also argue that they were appointed to parishes, for he must confess (unless he will confess himself to be ignorant in logic, as he saith lib. 1. pag. 60.) that in this controversy this di●●unction is implied, viz. that the presbyteries 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 proof of our parishes. The which the Doctor (as it seemeth foreseeing, falleth upon 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 divers distinct parishes)  
But in the Apostles times there were no parishes distinguished. Therefore neither were there any dioceses in their days, such as ours are.  
How necessary this clause, dioceses such as ours, is, I have showed heretofore, because Bishops such as ours cannot be had without dioceses such as ours. And here it maketh the consequence of the argument as clear as the Sun in a clear summer's day. Yet the Doct. denieth it; because he imagineth that the diocese was the same, and the circuit of the spiritual 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 than thrice sodden, the falsehood and vanity of which evasion is already sufficiently discovered, in the answer to his 3. cap. sect. 6. & 8.  
It shall here suffice in one word to remember him of this, that his own words do convince, that the want of parishes distinguished, argueth there were no dioceses such as ours, which in execution (and not intention only) comprise all the inhabitants of City and Country. I might put him in mind of another difference, betwixt our and the ancient dioceses, which in circuit (as he saith) answered to the civil; seeing ours do not so; for some of them contain many shires within their circuit: and sundry shires are dismembered by the spiritual jurisdiction, which draweth them to several dioceses. But let us see how he removeth the pillar, that upholdeth 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 answer miserune 
An absurb evasion.  kersphogeton) an absurd evasion, and no better than a very denial of the conclusion? For (to borrow the Doctor's 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 answer him, 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 answer for a poor evasion of one that is at a nonplus; yet such and none other is the Doctor's answer. And. 2. that it may appear to what purpose his answer serveth, I will here frame the argument, that fortifieth the consequence before denied, and leave it to the reader's judgement, to give sentence betwixt the Doctor and the Refuter in this case.  
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 said, that there may be and were dioceses, before there there were any parishes? so that under 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 far short of his purpose. First he saith, a batch of bread consisteth of many loaves after the distinction, which before it contained undistinguished in the lump. 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 patriarchs (and consequently provincial and patriarchal Churches) grew & followed, th'one, upon the combination of Dioceses, and the other upon the consociation of Provinces (lib. 4. pag. 7) so his Refuter holdeth that these Diocesan Churches and Bishops, had their original, from the conjunction of many particular congregations subjected to one Diocesan consistory. And it is evident so to be, in as much as, the first Churches planted in cities by the Apostles, were for a while (as the Doctor himself confesseth pag. 6. and 103.) but a small congregation; and when more were converted then could well assemble together in one ordinary congregation, the congregations were divided; & still as people in diverse places were converted, the Churches (as he also acknowledgeth pag. 67.) were multiplied; so that the many parishes which grew 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 contained within the bowels of the citie-church undistiguished, as the loaves are in the lump before their division: but rather as the first constituted Churches consisted of divers families, but by the combyning of many christian families in one ecclesiastical assembly: so also they became (in process of time) diocesan and provincial Churches; not by retaining 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 number daily increased,) under the the oversight of one diocese or provincial Bishop.  
His second comparison (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 woman's offspring is a man, before the parts of an human body are form 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 Apostolic Church's, which had no parishes distinguished in their circuit, were notwithstanding properly Dioceses, yea such as ours are at this day; then to affirm, that a child 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 pains for recovery 
Sect. 10. add 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 several cures. 3. that they were not only to attend the whole flock converted, but also to labour the conversion of the residue. 4. and that in both these duties they must labour in common. In what sense the first is contradicted by the Refuter we have seen before (sect. 3.) where was also noted how far it differeth from 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 receive a direct answer (which here he expecteth) to his question, (whither the Churches were thou divided into parishes or not?) viz. that although the Apostles did distinguish parishes, by constituting particular congregations, in several places, (that is, in each town or city that entertained the faith, one Church-assembly; yet none of the Churches which they established in any town or city, was in their times subdivided into several 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 been) then was not every Church but one parish: Is they were not; then the Presbyters were not assigned to their several cures; and so the Assumption is true. The Doctor taketh on immediately after these words against his Refuter, for being transported with a spirit of contradiction; whereof by and by; in the mean time, is not the Doctor 
The Doct. contradicteth him.  himself a strange kind of disputer, that will contradict one branch of his own assumption, to justify his main conclusion; and yet assume the same, to confirm 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, than each Church in their times, was but one parish, (that is to say, one congregation) and so he erreth in his main 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 answer, I give him to wit, that his first horn hath a weak consequence; & his second is sophysticall. The one is weak, because that which maketh an, Church, bearing the name of this or that city, (as the Church of London or Sarum) to be more than one parish, is not the distribution of the people of each diocese, into many parishes; but the combining of the parishes so divided, into one Diocesan body. If therefore, he will prove the Church of Alexandria, or any other which he supposeth to have been divided into sundry parishes in the Apostles times, not to be one parish, he must make demonstration of that which he often averreth, but neyver proveth by any testimony divine or human, 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 several parishes, until the Churches were divided into parishes, he taketh the Presbyters not jointly for the Presbyteries whereof his conclusion speaketh, but singly for each Presbyter or Minister apart. For we may grant that the assignment of one Presbyter to take the charge of one parish, followed (in course of time) the multiplying of parishes in one Diocese; and yet maintain that Presbyteries were appointed to several parishes, (that is to say, to particular congregations) before any Church planted in cities by the Apostles, was divided into several parishes. Wherefore, had the Doctor regarded in what sense the Refut: taketh these words; Presbyters and Parishes or several Cures; when he denieth the two first branches of his assumption; he would never have made so srivolous a flourish, as he doth, (both here & afterwards, pag. 76) of a false conceited contradiction for his persuasion that every of the Apostolic churches was but one parish, made him to censure the assumption as void of truth, in that it denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times; and the presbyters (or Presbyteries ordained by them) to be assigned unto their distinct charges. Neither shall the Doctor ever be able to prove (though he strive till his heart ache) that in this impugning of his assumption, he contradicteth his own persuasion formerly delivered.  
But let us see how he freeth his assumption from the errors or 
Section 11. ad pag. 74.  untruths objected against it? First touching the third point before set down, viz. that the Presbyters were not only to attend the converted, but labour the conversion of the residue; he was told that it was but the repetition of an error, before noted in the former argument: whereto he answereth nothing, but that he hath proved it to be an evident truth. Wherefore his proofs being disproved, the error remaineth unsalved. And the repetition of it (seeing he confesseth 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, seeing the two are in effect but one, 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 error twice produced for two distinct arg.  common) 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 endured that the Apostles should be suspected, to appoint or allow of any disorderly confusion. But to ordain many Presbyters or Ministers in common to attend, not only the feeding of the whole flock converted; but also to labour the conversion of the residue in the city and country adjoining: is to authorize and give allowance to a disordely confusion. Therefore it is at no hand to be endured, that the Apostles should be suspected to have ordained many Presbyters or Ministers for such attendance in common.  
The proposition cannot be doubted of, neither taketh the Doctor any exception against it. The assumption he contradicteth, but answereth not the probabilities urged to clear it. And first the disorder and confusion is declared by a like example, of a school erected in some great town, by some great scholar, who (having entered his Auditors in the principles of grammar, & being drawn away by some occasions) appointeth certain Ushers in common to take care of all that were so entered, and to gain as many more as they could, not of the same town only, but of all other towns round about. Now if they thus left to their liberty, shall go now hither now thither, and teach now these, now those, as it best liketh himself and them; is it not likely (think yet) that there would be good teaching and learning in such a school? To this case, the Doctor maketh no other answer but this; that he is worthy to be put into a cloakbagg which proposed it; but is not himself more worthy of the cloak bag, that could find no better answer? Surely if his refuter had made such an answer he would have said so; but I will not, for he showeth himself to have wit enough to scoff it out, when he is at a nonplus. For seeing he showeth not the dissagreement of the things compared together, who seethe not reason to think, the comparison is much fit than he would have it. 2. Again the Refuter asketh how such a common employment (of preaching here and there at random) could be orderly then, since it was afterwards disorderly: (for the Doctor acknowledgeth (serm. pag. 20.) that this promiscuous attendance, was taken away by evaristus, for avoiding confusion). And 3. he also intimateth, that schisms must needs ensue, when the people being tied to the hearing of no one preacher, might upon their fancy run some after one, some after an other, and so peradventure leave some quite without auditors. To all which the Doctor in his discretion giveth his grave consunre; That which he (meaning the Refuter) bebleth concerning disorder and confusion, is wholly to be ascribed to his own 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 unconfounded man, noteth such disorder and confusion? or was not the confused conceit he spoke of in his own brain? But is the Doctor in deed so shallow conceited as he would seem to be? can he not discern (by the plain mentioning of the teachers & hearers going to & fro, from one company, and from one town to another; the one to teach the other to hear, whom and where themselves list) that the disorder and confusion objected, lieth neither in the first or second branch of the assumption (which concern the distinction of parishes, and the assignment of Presbyters to their several cures) nor yet altogether in that which he maketh the third, (scz. that the presbyters were in common to attend the whole flock) but in this rather, that they were in common to endeavour aswell the conversion of the residue in city and country, as the feeding of the whole flock already converted? Wherefore that which he allegeth from the state of the French and Dutch Churches among us, to show there is no disorder or confusion in the three points which himself proposeth; is in deed, but mere babbling, and a deceitful drawing of the reader from the question, which is not whither one parish 
The D. cunningly withdraweth the reader from the question  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 Presbytery (or company of Ministers) may be appointed in common to the charge of an whole city & the country adjoining; so as each of them may at his pleasure bestow his labour either in teaching any part of the people converted, wheresoever they shall meet together in an uncerteyne assembly; or in preaching to any of the rest that remain infi●●elitie; and in travailing for that purpose from one part of the Diocese to an other, as his own mind shall guide him? the former is that which the Refuter granteth, and judgeth to be the state of the Apostolic Churches, therein like to the French and Dutch here in England: 
The D. case is but poor and weak.  the later he disclaimeth for the reasons before mentioned. Herein therefore behold, and pity the Doctor's poor and weak estare, for whereas before as appeareth, sect. 5.) he renounced the comparison which his Refuter made between these outlandish Churches, and the ancient Apostolic Churches, (though fitly agreeing in the points wherein they were to be compared, as is showed sect. 4.) Now; (for want of better help, to wipe away that disorder and confusio objected against that common employment, which his conceit ascribeth to the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles) he is feign to apprehend the same comparison; & to conceal that disagreement, which (though then it were impertinently urged, yet now) serveth well to show, how weakly or rather deceitfully he disputeth. For although in one congregation assembling in one place, many Ministers may without confusion, teach at several 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 either in whole or in part; and sometimes on the instructing of such, as in an whole city & country adjoining do yet remain in unbelief. Moreover, it is well known that there is no such community in the charge which the French and Dutch Ministers have of one congregation, as he attributeth to the Presbyters first ordained by the Apostles; for among these the Doctor giveth no cheiftie or pre-eminence to any one above the rest, neither perpetual not temporary, in any Pastoral duty of feeding or governing the people depending on them; seeing in his conceit they had neither Bishop nor Precedent, to guide the, or to moderate their meetings, in the absence of the Apostles; who (as he supposeth) retained all episcopal government in their own hands. Which confused parity, or rather Anarchy, as it was never embraced 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 words to the Presbyters of Ephesus, Acts. 20. 28. the Doctor seemeth inconstant, and at odds with himself 
Sect. 13. add 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 common to attend the whole flock converted, feeding them with the word and Sacraments; where note that he limiteth the word flock and the duty of feeding to the company already converted; which argueth (as may well be supposed) that he did not then conceive, the residue of the City and Country yet unconverted to be any part of that flock or 
The D. agreeth not with himself in the applicatio of Act. 20. 29.  Church there spoken of: but now he streatcheth both words to the whole number of all, which in City and Country belonged to God, and were by their ministery to be converted; and rockoneth it (as we heard before sect. 7.) one of the Refuters indigested fancies, to restrain the flock over which those presbyters were set unto the number of Christians already converted. Hear we now the reasons that persuaded him to change his opinion; for he useth not to do and undo without reason. First, he urgeth the use of the word flock. john. 10. 16. where the flock (he faith) is that, for which the good shepherd gave his life; unto which appertained the sheep which his Father gave him (even the elect not yet converted as he saith pag. 66.) not only among the jews, but the Gentles also; even that Church, which God (meaning Christ who is God) is said to have redeemed with his blood, Acts. 20. 28, and that people of his, which he saveth from their sins. But how will he from his allegations infer, that the flock, in which those Presbyters were set as overseers Act. 20. 28. was the people belonging to God (aswell unconverted as converted) in the City of Ephesus and the Country adjoining? Doth not himself weaken the consequence when he faith. This is spoken of the Church in general? 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 faithful in one parish may be called the flock and Church of God, aswell as a larger society of such as belong unto God, in a nation province or diocese; is not the Doctor yet, as far to seek as at the first, for a found reason to persuade his conscience, that the people yet unverted, but belonging to God's 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 feed; May not a man with half an eye discern, 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 himself; so as he may gainsay his adversaries present assertion. Yet there is a worse fault that accompanieth this change of opinion in him; for he absurdly confound the visible Church of Christian professors known unto men, with the invisible Church or flock of Gods elect, known only to himself, yea we may thereunto 
The D. co●radicteth himself, con foundeth the visible & invisible Church, & maketh the Apostle author of a senseless charge.  add a third fault no less absurd than the former; when he makerh the Apostle Paul, the author of a senseless charge imposed on the presbyters; viz. to attend on a flock the number and parts whereof they neither knew nor could know, and to feed with the word and Sacraments, such as were not yet begotten unto the faith.  
Attend we now a little, to the advantage which he maketh to his ●ause from this text; & to his removal of the disadvantage, which his Refuter draweth from thence: If, saith he, they were to attend the whole flock in common, then were they not assigned to several 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 own pen maketh him guilty of the fault (which upon far less cause) he imputeth (pag. 55.) to 
Mark whethe D. be not confoun-ded in himself.  his Refuter, scz. to bring within the compass of one syllogism, two arguments which tend to justify, the main 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 showed sect. 1.) yea observe further that the second parr of his assumption (which by this reckoning, is the only main point of his argument) is made a part of the consequence of his proposition (as appeareth sect. 2.) By all which laid together, 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 several 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 several 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 ace at least, lower than before, when he said (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 common, if it had several parishes for the parts thereof? & how the flock could be undistinguished, or attended on in common; 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 wind out of the briars of a contradiction, if his speeches be well compared?  
Neither 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 used to signify that Church and all one with the word flock) do signify any other company of men, than a particular congregation only; then is there no truth in the assumption, that denieth parishes to be distinguished, and the Presbyters assigned to their several cures.  
But the first is true; Therefore also the second.  
Nay, saith the Doctor; the contrary rather is to be inferred thus;  
If the word Church did signify one congregation, and was in every city but one; and if such was the flock, which the Presbyters were appointed to attend: than it followeth that the flock was not divided into particular parishes, nor the Presbyters assigned to several cures.  
Lo here again 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, than the division of one parish into many. For as often before, so now and again must I ring it into his ears; that when his Refuter holdeth in this question, the Apostolic 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 Apostolic writings signify any other outward conopany of men, the such as were gathered into one particular assembly; 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 assumption, which denieth parishes to be distinguished, and presbyters assigned to several parishes. But rather than the disgrace of any untruth shall lie upon the Doctor's assumption, he will reject the assumption of his Refuters argument; which denieth the word ecclesia to signify any other outward company of men, than a particular congregation only. For he telleth us, he hath already said more to confute that ignorant conceit, then will be answered in haste. But for aught he hath alleged from the scripture (which is the only guide of the conscience in questions of this nature) more hath been said to confute his slender objections, then upon his third thoughts he willbe 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 than his strength to confute any thing his refuter hath delivered. First, whereas he had said, that the word, (to wit, the English word flock, (for the gr: word was not at all mentioned) is ordinarily used, of beasts & fowls that herd and flock together in one company; the Doctor falsely chargeth him to have said, that the word poimnion, or poimne is so used, and then (in great modesty) professeth it is beyond the compass of his reading etc. which is but to fight with his own shadow; for he should (if with truth he could) have said, that he never read or heard the word flock applied to fowls. Secondly, it is to no purpose to tell us, that the flock of Christ's sheep mentioned, Luk. 12. 32, and joh. 10. 16. is not one only particular congregation; unless 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 own words, pag. 75) then one only assembly. But himself acknowledgeth (as the truth is) that in john, 10. 16. the universal Church of Christ (which comprehendeth the elect yet unconverted and therefore is invisible) is understood by that one flock, whereof he is the great shepherd. And that little flock to whom he speaketh, Luc. 12. 32. fear not little flock etc. is none other than that company 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 itself, vers. 1. 22. 32. 41. and (besides the judgement of many worthy divines writing thereon) the use of the word to the same purpose elsewhere, as Math. 26. 31. Wherefore, the Doctor hath nothing worth the objecting against that assertion of his Refuter, which affirmeth the flock and Church, whereto the Presbyters were assigned, Act. 20. 28. to be one only 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 willbe found (as his Refuter first told him) to have dealt full weakly in a point of so great importance.   

Chap. 4. Wherein is maint●yned their objection, who affirm that the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles, were assigned to one only congregation of Christians; and therefore not to Dioceses properly but to Parishes. Handled by the Doctor, serm. pag. 19 and Def. pag. 78. etc. and Refuter, pag. 60. etc.  
IT pleased the Doctor to make answer to certain 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 itself is to be cleared from one quarrel 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 advertised, that himself layeth down their assertion, whom he contradicteth in these 3. members (serm pag. 4) viz. 1. that properly there is no visible church but a parish. 2. nor lawful Bishops, but parishonall, and 3. that for the space of 200 years after Christ, there were no other but parish-Bishops. And he which peruseth Mr. jacobs' book (entitled reasons etc. proving a necessity of reforming our churches) from whence the D. draweth that extent of 200 years) shall see, that aswell concerning Churches as Bishops, he distinctly handleth. First what they are and aught to be by divine, or Apostolical ordinance; and afterwards what their state and condition was, for the first 200 years after Christ. And although the Doctor in that conclusion which he tendereth to be proved (serm. pag. 17.) mentioneth the age following the Apostles times; yet he toeth not himself to that term, neither in the arguments first proposed by him, nor yet in this defence hitherto continued. Nay his arguments do bound themselves within the Apostles days; & the later, which generally concern the ancient visible churches are directly bend 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 proofs beyond that compass to Constantine's days, and the ages following his time: yet his Refuter must be bound, to the stake, precisely to conclude, that the Churches were not only in the Apostles times, but also in the age following, Parishes properly & not Dioceses. Yea even then when he discerneth (pag. 100) that two ranks of Instances are produced, to prove the conclusion which himself tendereth (the former taken out of the scriptures: & the later out of the fathers:) he would feign enforce him to stretch his scripture testimonies to the whole term of 200, years. A thing unreasonable 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 form or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles; and we must search after human testimonies to find out the first original, 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 own Enthymem (pag 79.) his purpose was to contradict not the main question (though he so affirmed) but the conclusion of his 2. last arguments (which he reduced to the main conclusion pag 64.) And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principal question, to make it more strong for his advantage; I will apply it to the point whereat he aimeth; with a supply only of those words, which are by him suppressed, yet necessary to be added;  
The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles (together with the precedents of the Presbyteries) were assigned, each of them, but to one particular ordi●●try congregation, assembling together 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 ordained by the Apostles were appointed; not to parishes but to dioceses. And for the same cause, I also add to the Antecedent, these words ord●yned by the Apostles. The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference,  
One particular ordinary congregation assembling together 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, 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 down of their assertion against whom he disputeth (serm. pag. 4.) and in affirming here. (def. pag. 79.) that for brevity's sake he first omitted this argument, desiring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue; he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof. Only he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition; when he saith, that he had before showed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations. For (saith he) i● proposition have no better hypotheses to support it, I may deny it; seeing I have proved before that there were dioceses, in the first conception of the Churches, before distinction of parishes. But I answer, that if he hath no better argument to impugn the proposition or consequence thereof; then so slender a proof as that is whereof he boasteth, I need not seek any new prop to uphold it, it shall suffice to refer him to that which is already said in the former chapter (sect. 9) where he may, (if he shut not his eyes) see it proved by the escope of his own reasoning; that the Apostolic Churches before the division of parishes in the city & Country annexed, could not any otherwise be properly dioceses, than a child in the womb can be perfict man, before his body have the distinct members; so that (to return him his own phrase) the addition of this answer hath made his cause somewhat worse than it was before.  
Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before 
Sect. 3. ad 79.  mentioned; (viz. that the presbyteries (and their precedents) ordained by the Apostles were assigned, each of them, but to one particular ordinary congregation, assebling together in one place) the Doctor hath no cause to blame us, though we should refuse to maintain 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 tendereth to us; to wit, that in the first 200. years, all the Christians in any one great city, made but one such congregation. Wherefore till he produce his Author, from whom he received this argument; I will pray leave to think, he forged it, for his own advantage, that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest, though he only threw down 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, whereunto the Presbyteries were ordained by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place. Against which proposition (rightly understood of the time, when the Churches received their Presbyteries and precedents by the Apostles ordination) I find no just exception taken, either in his sermon: or this defence; seeing in both he wandereth beyond the Apostles days, to the age following; whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his main conclusion. Seeing 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 cavil to answer, that they far exceeded the proportion of one congregation, in the next age following and the later part thereof? It is apparent therefore, that these clauses in the first two hundred years, & in the age following the Apostles, were inserted into this question by the Doctor (both here and afterwards pa. 100) only 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.  self in this Enthymem. In the first two hundred years all the Christians in any one great city made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place. Therefore, both the presbytery and the precedent thereof, were assigned but to one congregation. First he denieth the consequence upon this ground; that the Presbyters were provided not only for the cities themselves; but also for the countries adjoining; 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 proof; his refuter thought it enough to tell him, that in as much as he hath before showed his answer to be false, the consequence will remain good notwithstanding. And since he now boasteth that he hath proved his Refuters' affertion opposed against his answer, (viz. that it was no part of the presbyters proper duty, to labour the conversion of the unconverted, throughout the city and country adjoining;) to be an indigested fancy of shallow (if not gidden beads tha● see no further than their nose-end; if the reader please to look back to that already laid down (cap. 2. of this reply; sect. 7. 8. etc.) he ●lay perceive that the Doctor is very nose wise, and his Phan tasia being bewitched with the sweet smell of the prelacy, hath fathered on the Apostles, such an intent (in the placing of Presbyters in cities) as never was discovered, either to his care by any ancient tradition; or to his eye in any monuments of antiquity. Wherefore his censure passed against his Refuter more properly belongeth to himself, viz. that he slubbereth over the proof of his own arguments, as having a better faculty in denying consequences, then in proving any of the premises, whereon his cause relieth; yet as if his dreams were Oracles, he saith (and indeed only saith it, for proof he can yield none) that the ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles instent, as he expoundeth it. He addeth, when all both in city and country were converted to the profession of the faith (which could scarcesly be verified of any city & country for 300 years, after the Apostles began to place Presbyters in Cities, I mean till constantines days as the Doctor observeth pag 54) they acknowledged the generally care and inspection over them all to belong to that one Bishop of the city; 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 down 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 form of argument to this effect;  
All that acknowledged themselves after their conversion, to be part of the City. Church and so belong to the general care and inspection of the Bishop of that city: (they all I say) were a part of that Church from the beginning, orat lest 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 conversion to the faith, acknowledged themselves to be part of the City Church, and to belong to the general care and inspection of the Bishop of that City.  
Ergo all the Inhabitants of city and country were a part of that Church from the beginning, or at least a part of the charge of the bishop and Presbytery, first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that city. And consequently though it should be granted, that in the first 200 years all the Christians of any one great city, made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place; yet it followeth not that the Presbytery & precedent 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 own way, mean while I deny the proposition wherein (as we take it) the strength of his reasoning lieth, & wish him to behold the weakness thereof in this argument following.  
All that acknowledged themselwes after their conversion, to be parts of any city Church etc. were from the beginning parts of that Church etc.  
But all the people which inhabited the several dioceses of any province, as soon as they were converted to the faith (notwithstanding they enjoyed their own Bishops to govern them, yet) they acknowledged themselves to be parts of the metropolitan Church seated in that chief city; & the Bishop thereof to be their primate, or head. All the people therefore, which inhabited the several dioceses of any Province were from the beginning parts of the Metropolitan Church, or at least, parts of the charge of the Bishop and Presbytery seated in the mother city. And consequently the Churches and Bishops of Mother cities, were (in their first foundation) properly provincial, and not diocesan only. The assumption of this Syllogism is the same with that which the D. avoucheth lib. 2. p. 113. lin 25. 29. But the conclusion with the consequent annexed, crosseth that which he affirmeth pag. 20. 1. 3. and 21. 1. 1; which contradiction if he will avoid, he must disclaim the proposition, & so acknowledge that he trusted to a broken reed, when he persuaded his own heart; that the subjection which the inhabitants of an whole diocese yielded (in the 4. age after Christ) to the citie-Church and the Bishop thereof; could argue invincibly that the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles (300 years before) were provided aswell for the unconverted as for those already brought to the faith.  
As for the Antecedent of the former Enthymem, which he rejecteth 
Sect. 5. add pag. 81.  with much disdain; (but with little show of reason to him that weigheth the matter) because it belongeth to another question (as is before noted) I refer the handling of it to another place; for the present, it shall suffice to discharge the Refuter from those calumniations, which the D. throweth on him, for exchanging it with this Assertion. All the Christians in any great city and the towns about it, (unless there were distinct Churches in those towns) made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place. I mislike not (saith the Doctor) his addition of the towns about, so he willbe pleased not to forget to take them into the defence of his Antecedent. If he willbe pleased (say I) to take the Antecedent so, and in such sense, as it is tendered to him; let him never think his Refuter will shrink from the defence thereof. But the Doctor is timorous and feareth to be circumvented with the enclosure of that parenthesis (unless there were distinct Churches in those towns) and therefore he would feign have it to be removed, or rather the word although to be set in stead of unless; where we may see the old proverb verified in him, give him an inch and he will take an ell; was his Refuters' liberality nothing worth, when he was content to annex unto the city, the towns adjoining that had any distinct Church in them? Did the Doctor at first find himself able, to confound the former Antecedent (which spoke only of the Christians that were within the city) and to prove it not only false but also unreasonable and incredible? And is he now too weak to confute that assertion, which (for his advantage) is tendered to him in stead of the former? viz. that all the Churches in any great city and such towns adjoining as had not any distinct Church in them, made but one particular congregation? must he have all the towns annexed to the city; and this also freely granted, that in some of those towns, there were distinct Churches? blame him not though he affect this well; for he findeth himself man good enough, to encounter with such an assertion as this (if his Refuter would maintain it against him,) viz. that all the christians in a great city, and the towns adjoining (though there were distinct Churches in some of those towns) made but one particular congregation. Mean while, to case his heart of that foreconceited fear, which the sight of the parenthesis (in his Refuters' Antecedent) cast him into; 1. he sporteth himself with some unsavoury jests, which argueth that the ridiculum caput (he speaketh of) cleaveth close to his own shoulders; and at length full soberly he undertaketh to show, that the enclosure before mentioned, bewrayeth both weakness in the consequence, and falsehood in the Antecedent.  
First touching the consequence, he judgeth it as weak as the 
Sect. 6.  former, because he seethe not, to what purpose the towns are added because the parishes be excepted. The former overmuch mirth of the Doctor, hath (as it seemeth) marred his memory, for he saw well enough before, to what purpose the towns were added; namely to strengthen the consequence of the first Enthymem framed by himself, against one branch of his answer, which affirmed the Presbyters to be divided aswell for the country as city. For the Refuter (desirous to come as near to the Doctor as the truth will give leave) acknowledgeth that the Christians which inhabited the towns or country round about the city, made their repair unto the city, there to join with the inhabitants thereof in the public worship of God, till their number so increased, that they might conveniently enjoy a distinct Church, in some one, or more of those towns. And as it was meet the Refuter should yield so far to the Doctor: so is it absurd and against common sense; he should be denied to except those towns, 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 inartificial argument, q. d, I cannot see to what purpose that addition serveth. Therefore this later consequence is altogether as weak as the former. Had the Refut: at any time argued so loosely, to infringe any of the Doctor's consequences; he had been worthy to bear this censure, that his faculty 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 only for this fault; but also for a worse in charging the Antecedent of falsehood, when he hath nothing to allege that directly impugneth it: yet let us give him the hearing; By this inclusure (saith he) the Antecedent it bewrayed of falsehood; for 
The D. to charge his Refuter with falsehood delivereth a double untruth, and yet to no purpose.  if there were in the city and country 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 falsehood in his Refuters' Antecedent, & yet all will not serve the turn, when he hath done the most he can. For first, the parenthesis in the Antecedent, doth not necessarily suppose, that the towns round about every city had distinct Churches in them; only it holdeth the matter in suspense, touching some one or more towns in some countries, because (as the Doctor remembreth) Cenchreae near unto Corinth, was a distinct church; and in such a case, it excepteth such towns, and annexeth to the city church the rest. Neither is it true, that he hath manifestly proved the subordination of many Churches unto one, within the Apostles daynes; no nor yet within the first 200. years after Christ. But say there were a truth in both his untruths; and grant 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 falsehood? Did not his passions blind his judgement, when he imagined there is strength enough in this cosequence? for thus he reasoneth. Many Churches in city and country subordinated all to one do make a Diocise; Ergo, all the Christians in a city, and the towns adjoining, which have no distinct Church in them, must needs make more than one particular congregation.  
But perhaps he correcteth his own error, in the words following, when he faith; I say therefore again, that though their Antecedent were true, yet the consequence were to be denied. The which, what is it, but to run from one error to another? For it is before observed, that the conclusion which the Refuter slandeth here to maintain, is no other in effect then this; that the Presbyters first ordained by the Apostles, were assigned (not to the overfight of many Churches) but to one only congregation. Now if there be a truth in his Antecedent (which affirmeth that at that time, the Christians in any city and towns 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 showing that the presbyters received from the Apostles, not only the charge of that one congregation; but also the government of some other churches established, in some other, either more populous or more remote towns. Which to demonstrate, it sufficeth not to assume this, that many churches subordinate to one do make a Diocese; but good proof must be added also, that this subordination of many Churches in country towns to the Church of the city, took place in the time of the Apostles, and was ratified by their allowance.  
Having thus freed the Refuters Enthymem from the Doctor's 
Sect 7.  frivolous exceptions, I will once again produce it to his view; but in another form, which shall not affright him, as the former parenthesis did, in a plain syllogism therefore (which kind of argument he best affects) thus I reason;  
All the Christians which in the Apostles times dwelled in and about any great city, and were called the Church of that city, made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place: But all those Christians were the whole or proper charge, unto which the Presbytery with their Precedent, seated in any city, was assigned by the Apostles. Ergo, the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbytery with their Precedent seated in the city assigned by the Apostles, made but one particular ordinary 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 understood, according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice. pag 83. Only that clause (of Apostles times) is inserted to prevent his wandering beyond the principal question, unto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches, which the Apostles planted. And because it hath very near agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth (cap. 6. pag. 102. etc.) the defence of that willbe sufficient confirmation of this. For if it may appear (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, than 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. himself being judge, who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition, I will take in hand the Assumption, which compriseth the consequence of the former Enthymem; and unto all already said for removal of the D. exceptions, I add this one argument following;  
The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbytery with their precedent seated in any city, was assigned by the Apostles, is comprised in those instructions, which in the Apostolical writings concern the office of Bishops and Presbyters;  
But this only charge is there comprised; to wit, the charge of all the Christians which in those times, dwelling in or about the town or city that enjoyed such a Presbytery, were called the Church of that place.  
Ergo, this only 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 Presbytery; was the whole charge, to which the Presbytery with their precedent seated in any city, was assigned by the Apostles.  
The proposition cannot be doubted of; seeing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient, for the direction of every Minister of God, and perfecting of him in the work of his calling. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places. (Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17) which show that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters, were none other than those Christians, which were members of the particular churches, wherein their labours were employed. For none other but such christians can properly be understood, 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) commanded to know, love and obey such as laboured among them etc. And if the Doctor can yield us any text of holy writ, that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or country, to labour the conversion of all that within such a circuit belonged to God's 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 endued with power of ecclesiastical government, was the proper and whole charge of each Presbytery, ordained by the Apostles in any city that embraced the Gospel. But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times, dwelled in and about any city, and were called the Church of that city was a visible church endued with power of ecclesiastical government. Ergo such a company of Christians, was the proper and whole charge, of each Presbytery ordained by the Apostles, in any city that embraced the Gospel. 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 ordained by the Apostles, were appointed to visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government. And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in general, and of a visible Church in special. cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears, if I thought it needful; but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion, then strive in vain against the stream. Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove, that the visible Churches endued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiastical 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 days of the Apostles, one only particular Congregation, ordinarily assembled in one place. Which is handled in the answer. pa. 66. and in the defence, lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100 etc.  
True it is, that the Refuter cleaving close to the words of the 
Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect. 1. p. 100 & 101.  Doctor's assertion (serm. pag. 17.) setteth down the question these words: Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches endued with power of eccelesiastical 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 term at the least, but a parish etc. yet looking towards his proofs, he confesseth (as the truth is) that his argumentation containeth two ranks 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 term of 200. years, specially seeing he acknowledgeth (pag. 102) that his chief proofs are bounded within the Apostle Paul's time. The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once again, in that plain form that was first given unto it. Only I add the Church of jerusalem 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 answer (for which cause I refer the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect. cap. 5. concerning jerusalem to this place. And so it lieth thus;  
If the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, and jerusalim (being visible churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government) were each of them but one parish: then the other visible Churches endued 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 himself laid in the first argument; drawn from his text: neither was he therein deceived; for in this defence cap. 2. sect. 2. he confesseth, that he presupposed all other Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, to be like to those 7; because it is not to be doubted, but the primitive Churches endued with that power, were of like nature and constitution. But the Doctor burieth all this in silence; and (as if the Refuter had entreated that the consequence might pass without controlment) he seemeth unwilling to yield him so much favour unless it may be lawful 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 years; (he meaneth unto the full end of that term) than neither 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 persuaded? if not, why setteth he such a face of truth upon a lie? If yea, why inwrappeth he his own feet in the snare that he layeth for another? for whether he disclaim or allow the consequence, and the hypothesis, whereon it is grounded; will he nile he, he must bear the blame of a foul contradiction. To disclaim it, is to overthrow (as before is noted) the foundation of his own argument, pa. 42. To allow it, is to make way for the utter ruin 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 verified of all other Churches; which he avoucheth (here and pag. 124) for certainty, 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, endued with power of ecclesiastical government, were also divided into divers parishes, even in the Apostles times, deserveth not the D. now to be beaten with his own cudgel. 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 himself, yet thus it fareth with the Doctor.  
Notwithstanding, I can easily free the Refuter from that disadvantage, which the D. conclusion threateneth. For we can and will hold our own consequence for a truth on both parts already assented to; till we hear him directly contradict the hypothesis, whereon it is grounded (as himself acknowledgeth) viz. that all churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, were at the first of the same nature and constitution: but the later shall hang in suspense, till he hath proved, that it is grounded on the same hypothesis. For in our apprehension, his consequence presupposeth, 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 undistinguished as himself confesseth.  
To pass therefore forwards to the Assumption; because the 
Sect. 2. add sect. 2. pag. 102.  Refuter saith, it appeareth plain by the proof of the particulars. Mr. D. asketh, whether his syllogisms are so soon come to an end? and perceiving that his chief proofs are, that in the Apostle Paul's time, each of them used 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 proofs into form of syllogistical reasoning, presuming (as the Doct. saith elsewhere in his own defence pag 79.) that any man might, from that which the Doct. observeth to be his chief drift conclude his assumption, thus;  

The Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch and jerusalem, were each of them in the Apostle Paul's 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 years; holdeth on and doubleth the wrong, by retaining the same addition of 200. years; that he might have the more colour to cavil with the consequence of the argument; & to charge his Refuter with playing the Sophister, in taking that for granted, which he did not so much as dream of; viz. that each of those Churches continued one congregation; and so one parish, for 200. years, because they were but one congregation in the Apostles times. Wherefore, what he objecteth to infringe this consequence, I overpass as unworthy the answer, seeing he forged it for the nonce to cavil with. True it is, that the consequence of the Entoymem before set down presupposeth a truth in this assertion; scz. that those Churches are parishes whose people are no more, than such as ordinarily assemble in one place. And the Refuter deemed it a vain of time and labour, (yea mere folly to call into question that which was of the Doctor assented unto, (serm. p. 4) viz. that (when we affirm and he denieth every visible Church to be properly a parish) by a parish is meant a particular ordinary congregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemn service of God. Wherefore in denying now the consequence of the argument before delivered, what else doth he, but play the wrangler? For he that meaneth truly, to bring the matter controverted to the right issue, will never offer to gainsay, what is certain and confessed. And because he saith, that the reasons of his denial, are set down at large, cap. 3. sect. 5. & 6. I must tell him that I find nothing there, that directly controlleth the hypothesis of our consequence here; to wit, that every Church which maketh but one ordinary congregation is a parish. And whatsoever is there said touching the point then in hand, it is sufficiently (to use his own words) overthrown already. Wherefore, let us hear those 2. Reasons, which for a surplusage (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 add the conclusion) Ergo, neither were they parishes, before the division of Parishes; because they were each of them one congregation.  
First, I pray 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 said, that those Churches of Corinth, Ephesus etc. were parishes before the division of parishes? or why doth he father on him such a senseless assertion, as this is? For in his own 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 Presbytery (as those Churches had) but only one preshyter assigned to them. 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a superintendant, (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 denial be repelled; but the answer at this time shallbe rather this; that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter. For say that he could (as he cannot) maintain 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 himself taketh notice of (pag. 4. of his sermon) as the substantial 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 demur upon the matter, till the question be debated (which belongeth to another tract) what manner of parishes they were, which received their original, from the division of one city Church into many parish-assemblies. In the mean 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 willbe so bold as utterly to contradict this speech, and say the contrary to it, that it may very well be denied 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 pattern of the first churches, it is evident, that they in their judgement hold two kinds of parishes; the one differing from, the other agreeing with the form and constitution of the first Churches. And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defence of that conclusion, which the Doctor's 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 necessity contradict the Doctor's consequence, & say, that the first Churches, which were parishes (in as much 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 stroke 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 only many congregations, but many parishes also. But the Refuter said before that that assumption had no truth in it. (here also must I add the conclusion) Ergo, those Churches were, not only many congregations but also many parishes. Understand this to be meant of each Church severally, q. d. Ergo each of them was not one only congregation or parish, but many. And mark what followeth. These two just exceptions (saith he) I have against his consequence. So you may discern how just cause he giveth me, to take up against him, his own 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 own words, pag. 73.) when you would seem 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 principal conclusion. I might proceed therefore to rouse him up, with the sweet sound of his own b●lls, pag. 47. and ring this peal into his cares, Is not the denial of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded & c? but I spare him the rest of his speech and return to the matter. His argument is no other than 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 own assertion, which maintaineth the Apostolic Churches to be parishes; because in his understanding, every particular congregation is a parish. And if it be not so also in the Doctor's persuasion, why doth he so often use the words indifferently (viz. several parishes or congregations) for one and the same thing? Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes together in this very argument of his; to contradict his conclusion, and so to justify our own, I tender him for requital this that followeth.  
If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into several congregations or parishes in the Apostles t●me: then the Church's o● Corinth, Eph●sus etc. Were in that age each of them; but on● only congregation or parish. But that assumption ●s by the D. maint●yned to be true, pag. 69. and 73; let him therefore disclaim that Assumption, or give way to this conclusion. Therefore, the Churches of Cori●th Ephesus etc. were each of them, in the Apostles ●im●s, but one only congregation or parish, and not many. But let us hear, what it is that withholdeth his a●sent from the Antecedent (or assumption) of the Refuters, b●for● set down.  
Though I deny not (says he) b●t ●hat ●t the first, and namely in the 
Sect. 5. add sect. 3. pa. ●04.  time of the Apostle P●ul, the most of the Churches, so soon after their conversion) did not each of them exceed, the proportion of a p●pulous congregation: yet ● cannot yield to all his proofs. Even so, but why doth he not answer directly to the point, by approving or contrarying, that which is said of those three churches, Corinth Ephesus and Antioch? If it be false in his persuasion, what maketh him afraid or abashed, to discover the falsehood 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 do the other. And touching the proofs, when he saith, he cannot yield to all, would not a man think he did allow of some? and yet snarleth at every one. But if a man should ask him for his best proofs, that he can produce, to justify that which he acknowledgeth (scz. that the most of the Churches in Paul's time did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation) could he find (think ye) in the Apostolical writings any more pregnant allegations, to countenance his assertion, than such as the Refuter hath produced? Well, let us give him the hearing in his exceptions. First in the scriptures alleged he takes occasion from the date of them, being before the year 55. or 60), to weaken his argumentation; for it soundeth in his ears as is he had said, If before the year 55. or 60, they were but 
The D. is ●pilanthanomin●s cautoun.  one congregation, than they were no more unt●ll the year 200. See how soon the Doctor forgetteth himself; for his own pen testifieth (lin. 1. & 2. of this very page 104) that both the main argument and the proofs thereof do 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 afford? He that can argue at his pleasure from the condition of the 7. Churches in S. john's time (see his defence 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, years; 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 show himself an egregious wrangler, when he will not admit the testimony of S. Paul and S. Luke, to be sufficient for the time of the Apostles, because S. john lived 40. years or more after the date of their writings? especially when no alteration can be proved, by any other evidence, as himself 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 testified 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 gospel in England, that they come, (or for their number may come) together (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.) do by consequence imply that the faithful which then were members of the Church in Corinth (to whom he writeth) came together in one church assembly and into one place (or at least for their number might, & in duty ought, so to assemble together) to eat the Lords supper. Compare the tenor of the Apostles words sunerchomenoon humoon etc. v. 18. 20. with the like phrase of speech (1. Cor. 5. 4.) sunachthentoon humoon etc. Math. 22. 34. 41. and 27. 17. Act. 20. 7. 8. & 25. 17. & 28. 17. sunegmenoon, vel sunelthontoon etc. and it will appear that a concourse into one place, for one work, is imported by the very word sunerchomai, though it had no other words annexed to enforce that construction. Neither can any one instance be given, where it noteth such a distribution into many several societies, as must be implied in it, if it should be applied to the Church of England, which cannot possibly be gathered into one place, for the celebration of the lords supper. But why doth the Doctor bury in silence, that other testimony, 1. Cor. 14. 23. etc. Ean oun sun●lthe he ecclesia holee epi to auto? What, did he skip because he could not spell? Doubtless his own conscience told him, the simplest of his readers would have discerned, that he had spoken against common sense, if he should have said, that the like might be affirmed of the Church of England. viz. that the whole church cometh together into one place. And yet he was loath to acknowledge, that those words evidently approve the Ref: assertion touching the Church of Corinthe, viz. that their number was no more than such, as ordinarily assembled for the worship of God into one place.  
Secondly, whereas he saith, that what is testified for the church 
Sect. 6. add pag. 105.  of Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. might be applied by a Bishop in his visitation to all the Ministers of a Diocese. 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 attended one flock in common (that is communi concilso, et mutu● auxilio,) and were not assioned to several parishes, or parts of the flock. For how can that speech, which importeth a common charge given to many Presbyters, over one flock or congregation (not yet distinguished into several parts or members) fitly be applied (& without any change in the meaning of the words) to a multitude of Ministers which have every one, their particular flock or portion of people committed to his peculiar oversight? If the Doct. shall (either here, or in the for his defence, that these speeches may be fitly applied (though in a differing sense) to such purpose as he affirmeth; it may be replied, that if he confess the sense to be differing, he discovereth his answer to be deceitful; 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 national, provincial or diocesan Church, what meaneth he still to presume, that his bare word will be taken for currant payment? I confess, it is sometimes put for the universal Church (as john 10. 16.) but he can allege no place in all the Apostolical writings, where it is given to any visible church, that comprised in her circuit many distinct congregations. Wherefore he can with no show of reason contradict his Refuter in affirming it to be a new conceit (& 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 unto a thing, which at that time had none existence in rerum natura? or how can he affirm without contradiction to the truth (elsewhere acknowledged) that the Church of Ephesus was a national or provincial Church? for provincial Churches grew up by the combination of many Dioceses, under one Metropolitan Bishop, (as himself affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 21) but as yet Ephesus had no Bishop at all, if that be true which he maintaineth touching Timothy their Bishop, in his account; (serm pag. 79. and 80. and Def. lib. 4. pag. 90.) viz. that he was not ordained Bishop, till after Paul's 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 unto it, above the rest of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. and 2? But himself reckoneth them all alike principal; (lib. 2. pag. 43. lin. 2.) at the least equalleth 4. other with Ephesus in the dignity of Mother-cities. p●. 63. following;  
Thirdly concerning the Church at Antioch, rather than the D. will acknowledge, that the people thereof assembled together 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 apparent (saith he) that not all the Church consisting of busbandes and wives, their children and servants; but some of the cheese and principal, perhaps not many (perhaps not any) besides those of the clergy, were called to that meeting. Thus he saith, but why doth he not acquaint us with the reasons that made this apparent 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 Liturgy, fasting and prayers, which were then performed. Act. 13. 2. 3? doth not himself acknowledge the Liturgy to be the public service of God in the congregation? serm: of the dig: and duty of the Ministers pag. 25. lin. penult. Is it not the judgement of the sound divines? leitourgein significat (saith Aretius upon that place) talieta ergazein, publica obire muni●. Collectaerat, ecclian (saith Zanchius de oper: redempt. pag. 714.) quta Lucas ait lcitourgo●ntoon autoon. If then the whole body of that Church (without exception of age, sex or outward estate) joined in prayer and fasting, when they were separated to the work; shall we think, they disdained to assemble the whole, or made special choice of few, when they gathered the Church together, to relate unto them what God had wrought by their Ministry? Is it not safest, & most consonant to the rules of sound interpreting the text, to understand by the church here, the multitude, and not the clergy only, or some few principal men; seeing in another case (& not long after) it is expressly said, that they which were sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch from the Synod at Ireusalcm sunagago ntes to p●thos) having gathered together the multitude, delivered the epistle? y 2 the D. himself 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 city and country adjoining, congregated into a congregation. (pag 4. of this book). Wherefore, it is apparent, that in contradicting his Refuters proofs from the scriptures; he doth but labour to obscure the light, which himself discerneth well enough; but is loath that others should apprehend.  
His other testimonies are out of Eusebius, Ignatius and some 
Sect. 8. 2d pag. 105. sect. 4.  of our own writers as the D. saith, of all which, this is his grave censure in general. 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 persuade that Eusebius and others take the word in a larger sense, to wit, for the whole diocese, or at least for city and suburbs, though containing many particular parishes: to make it appear that Eusebius taketh the word as we do, for one particular congregation of Christians, he urgeth that phrase, which he asketh concerning Timothees Bishopric, which he saith, was of the parish in Ephesus. Now it were, (saith the Refuter) a strange kind of spach, ●r Eusebius to term the Diocese (or the whole city and suburbs) of Ephesus, the parish of Ephesus; for who would say, the parish in London, for the Diosese of the Bishop of London; seeing the whole city 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 several companies assembling together in one place Parishes or Churches, as of Crete, Pontus etc. lib. 3. ca 4. & lib. 4. cap. 22. To all which the Doctor maketh a slight answer, 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 either taketh notice of the main 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 falsehood of it.  
Unto Ignatius who witnesseth, that the Church of Ephesus, in his time, came together (ipi to auto) into one place, he giveth the like answer, 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 divided into many congregations) to come ofc together into one place. But he that should so write, would be thought to speak very iproperly & obscurely; seeing it is impossible they should all meet together in one place, for the public service of God. As for 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 from 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 go we forwards; whereas Ignatius calleth the Church at Antioch sunagogen, a Synagogue, which properly noteth one congregation; as rich 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 poverty, in as much as he doth therein again but beg 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 struck it dead, willeth his adversary to tell him, what manner of parish Syrsa was; and desireth that may hear 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 leaveth that most pregnunt & authentic evidence of Ignatius to his adversary to muse upon. See you not how brag he would seem 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 himself 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 than one congregation. Can there come a worse inconsequence from one that is but a smatterer in school disputations?  
Thus are we come to the testimonies of the new writers. viz. tindal, Bale, Fulk, Perkins; Our great Church-Bible, and D. Bilson. 
Sect. 9 add pag. 106. & 107.  All which, the Doctor saith (excepting two testimonies of tindal) the Refuter most childishly allegeth. But what if his exceptions be more childish, than 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, do 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) alleged). And that translation is justified not only by Mr tindal Thomas More, but by john 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 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 Priests alone; but for the congregation of the faithful, and namely that it is so taken Act. 20, 28. Fron 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 congregation, and did not consist of many. Now is not this inference grounded on good probability? for can it be imagined that these learned & worthy men would have so interpreted the word ecclesie, by congregation, if they had not been persuaded, 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 have consisted of many distinct congregations: were it not a more just exception, than any they have alleged, to weaken their interpretation; seeing a multitude distinguished into many congregations, cannot properly be called one congregation? But let us hear the Doctor's exceptions. First he telleth us, that the ancient english Bibles, do use the word congregation, not only where mention is made of particular Churches, but of the universal Church also, as Mat. 16 18. Ephes. 1. 22. & 5. 25. even so; and we know it well; and esteem the reason to be alike; for as particular Churches are each of them one visible congregation, and not many: so is the Church universal, one invisible congregation; the former gathered together into one assembly; open to the eyes of men at one time and in one place; the other gathered together into one mystical body, which (though hidden from men in this world, yet) is ●no nituitu manifest unto God, and at the last day, shallbe actually congregated into one assembly in the view of men and angels. Secondly the Doctor layeth down the reasons moving the first translators of the Bible into English, to avoid the name Church and in stead thereof to use the word congregation. 1. Because CHURCH more properly signifieth the place of meeting, than the congregation itself, which is meant by ecclesia. 2. Because the Papists had abused it, to signify, either generally the romish Church, or particularly to import the romish Clergy. 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 together in one place, & whither the second doth any way infringe it?  
Thirdly concerning the testimony of D. Fulk; the Doctor saith, 
Sect. 10. add pag. 107.  the allegation thereof, showeth extreme want, either of judgement or beneftie: but I persuade myself, the want either of the one or other, will more justly fall upon the Accuser, than the Refut: when things are indifferently weighed on both sides. For wherein hath he failed? 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 plainly, that he held the Church of Ephesus (and all other Churches in cities) to consist but of one particular congregation? In deed, if his defence of our Bibles, translating ecclesia by congregation, had been limited only to that text Ephes. 5. 23. (as Mr Doctor indeavoureth to persuade) the Refuter had showed little discretion, in the choice of that testimony, to argue that which he inferreth: but as the Rhemists (in their annot. on that text) tax our first english Bibles with corruption (not for mistranslating the word in that place only, 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 general to justify the Translators in so doing. They rather used (saith he) the word Congregation than Church to avoid ambiguity; because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians; and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering together, of all the members into one body, which in the name of church doth not appear. Is it not plain that in his understanding, the word eccksia signifieth properly, such an assembly of Christians as is gathered together into one body, in one house or place, such as commonly we call a Church? See I pray, how he interpreteth himself in his answer 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 special, yet his defence of the translations in general, doth not only 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 several congregations, but) of one particular Church-assembly only. Wherefore, the Doctor mought with more judgement & honesty have set a less face upon it, then to charge his Refut: with want of either, for alleging his testimony. Fourthly, as touching the testimony of Mr. Perkins, the same inference also clearly ariseth from his assertion, viz. that the 7. churches were particular congregations. For he would never have so said unless he thought each of them to be one particular congregation; seeing it were absurd to entitle any Church, a particular congregation, which is known to consift of many particulars. And for the same cause, who can with reason judge otherwise, than that D. Bilson also took the Church of Ephesus to be one congregation, when he allegeth Act. 20. 28. to show, that the Church in the new Testament, is put for the congregation of the faithful, & not for the Priests alone. Wherefore whereas the D. in the conclusion reneweth his challenge, that our new writers are childishly alleged; what else doth he, but show himself to be set to outface all? The which the more appeareth by that his tax laid upon his Refuter for alleging Mr tindal which (as he saith) was not a childish mistaking, but a wilful 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 committed again. lib. 4. cap. 7. sect. 9 But if any fault be here committed (save the mistaking of pag. 135. for 133.) it is in the Doctor, who mought also have amended that mistaking; seeing he could not but see it, when he patched up his own allegation out of both those pages; but it seemeth he had rather make two faults then mend one. And that it may appear how he falsely accuseth his Retuter; let the reader consider, that as the words set down by him are not Mr Tindals' words at large; but a brief of them; so they are a true brief of them. For proof whereof it is clear, 1. that he maketh Bishops, Priests and Elders all one, pag. 53. 54. 251. 345. 2. He saith that by their office, they were always abiding in one place to govern 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, Priest, or Elder had the charge, no larger, than one particular company 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 ordained by the Apostles for the governing of the Church; he saith. The Apostles disguished no man, but chose men anointed with the same spirit (viz. wherewith Christ anointed 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 anointed thou readest 1. Tim. 3. etc. This Overseer becanse he was taken from his own business & labour to preach God's word to the parish, bath right by the autboritie of his office, to challenged an honest living of the parish, etc. Likewise in every congregation, chose they another after the same ensample, as is to be seen Act. 6. whom after the grword we call Deason, that is in English, servant or Minister, whose office was to help and assist the Priest, to gather up his duty, and to gather for the poor etc. But of Mr Tindalls' judgement and words we shall hear more at large when we come to that place, where he saith his Refuter falsifyeth his testimony again; in the mean time, let the reader judge with what face the Doctor so charged his Refuter.  
Thus much shall suffice to show, how the Doctor sought but startingholes, in all his exceptions against the refuters testimonies. For when he hath done wrangling with all his proofs, he returneth to his denial of the consequence (pag. 111.) viz. that though it were granted, that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of one ordinary congregation; yet it would not prove them to have been parishes. As if he could deny them, to be each of them one parish (that is, one con-gregation) & yet grant them to be one only ordinary congregation.  
Having done with those 3. Churches of Corinth Ephesus & Antioch; 
Sect. 11. add cap. 5. sect. 8. pa. 89.  we are to proceed to that which the D. answereth concerning the Church of jerusalem; viz. to the assumption of that syllogisma which affirmeth (Cap. 5. sect. 8. pag. 89.) the Christians of lerusalem to have continued one assembly meeting together in one place (during S. Luke's story) 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 jerusalem never was a parish so far was it from continuing so still etc. and the D. dwelleth wholly in a manner upon this answer; but the Reader is to be advertised, that he doth but trifle & quarrel with words, rather than impugn the main point of the argument, for when the Refuter affirmeth that the Christians at lerusalem continued one parishonall assembly, meeting together in one place; the later clase is the explication, or rather confirmation of the former. q. d. they continued one parish-assembly, in as much as they met together in one place. Wherefore the principal question here for jetusalem, (like as before for the 3. above named Churches) is, whether the Christians there might & did meet together, in one place? to this purpose those places out of the Acts are quoted, and if the D. can make the contrary appear, his labour is well spent, otherwise he doth but beat the air. It is not probable (saith he) that the Church of jerusate 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 together in one place; so that when he striveth to wrest from his Refuter the places alleged out of Act. 2. he doth here (as before is observed sect. 5.) rather quarrel with his proofs, then contradict the thing thence collected. But let us take the particulars of the thing as they lie in order. We read (saith he) of some panegyrical meetings, as it were in salomon's porch and in the temple, such as be the meetings at Paul's cross and at the Sp●tle; but their ordinary and as it were parishonall meetings, were by companies in more private places. It is true, we read of divers meetings, some in more private houses (as Act. 2. 1. 2. 46. and 4. 31. & 5. 42.) and some in more public places (as the Temple Act. 2. 46. & 5. 12. 42.) but that one were panegyrical and the other Parishonall (whether simply, or as it were) I for my part never read author, that hath gone before the Doctor in this distinction; neither doth he yield us any shredd of probability to grace his apprehension. The main point now stood for (viz. that the Christians at jerusalem were but one ordinary assembly, gathered into one place) is apparent enough by the scriptures before quoted; though in the Doctor's eyes they seem to be either ignorantly or absurdly alleged. For however the two first verses of Act. 2. are by some learned Interpreters restrained 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 hold it no absurdity 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 joels' prophesy, urged by Peter, (cap. 2. 17. 18.) and with that riches of God's 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 certain 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 put together make the just number of 120. But I will not contend for this matter, only 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 together) how it should be a parishenall assembly, wherein the 12. patriarshes of Christendom were met together? why? was not jacobs' household, at the first, one family, though the 12. patriarchs of the jewish nation, were there combined in one society? Yea, was not Noah's company in the ark one family, though they were the root of all nations, and people that filled all kingdoms & countries in the world? Or did the coming of Paul & Barnabas (because they were Apostles into the Synagogue at Antioch (Act. 13. 14.) altar 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.  show that those 3000. converts (mentioned 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 together vers. 6. & of those beleeveres which are said 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, joined together in heart and affection, as is said. Cap. 4. 32. and the Doctor knoweth that others prefer the sense the Refuter giveth, yea & acknowledgeth also that it may be true; and may signify, they coversed together in one place, which is to grant as much as the Refuter asketh. For if the words may be so construed, than 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 mentioned vers. 46, & not vers. 44. if so, there is some kindness in him, that will give his adversary another text, as sit for his purpose as the former; for if they all met together for holy exercises in any one place (temple or any other) the Refuters assertion standeth firm. 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, national r●ther then parishonall meetings used to be assembled. As if the comuning in of strangers 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 jerusalem 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 than such as might and did assemble in one place; seeing 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 Synodical (pag. 90.) The later indeed, is commonly taken for a Synodical assembly, because the Synod, selebrated in succeeding ages, followed the pattern there given by the Apostles; in determining the like questions; but if we look to the persons there assembled, it carried no great resemblance of a Synod; for none were called thither from any other Church or Churches in the Country's adjoining, only some were sent from Antioch, to confer with the Apostles and Elders, which then abode at jerusalem; and they gathered the whole Church of the City together, for the hearing and determining of the matter then controverted; which course was imitated in the next age. (before Synods grew into common 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 show; & as the same is clearly collected also from Acts. 6. 2: so there is less reason to make it a Synodical & not a parishonall assembly.  
There remaineth Act. 21. 22. where it is told Paul, that the whole multitude would come together, when they should bear that he was some; which words are, (in all reason) to be refered to those many thousands of believing jews, mentioned vers. 20; for of them it is said, that they were informed of him, that he taught to for sake Moses, and for their satisfaction, he was directed, to go into the temple and to show himself an observer of the law, vers. 21. 24; and however the Doctor (after his manner wrangleth) with the allegation, in saying the word multitude may be otherwise understood; (to wit, of the people of lerusalem in general aswell unbelievers as believers) yet he denieth not, but it may be meant of the believers only, which is a plain confession, that the believers in that Church, were at that time, no more than such as might well assenole into one place. Neither doth the mention of many ten thousands (in those words, posas muriadas etc. vers. 20. make the number such as by no means could meet together in the public worship of God, seeing it is apparent 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 spoke to all the people assembled, vers. 13. 15. 54. Besides, it is to be observed, that a great number of these believers, were strangers which were not inhabitants of jerusalem, but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost: and some of them it may be not actual members of any Church, but such as are spoken of, joh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore, seeing it is evident by the words of S. Looks story, that all the believers which belonged to the Church at jerusalem in that time were assembled together 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, than a diocesan church like to one of ours.  
As for the Doctor's exceptions sect. 6. pag. 87. (viz. that the 
Sect. 14. add sect. 6. pag. 87.  Church of jerusalem 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 remain subject to it; and that it was intended that all the Christians both in city and country should be under the Bishop of jerusalem like as the people of city and country were all under one high-preist) me thinks that reader is strangely and strongly conceited of the Doctor, that will entertain these points, upon his own mere conjecture and bare word. For however it is clear, that many Churches drew their original from jerusalem, and received the faith by their ministery, which had been for a time members of that Church (Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. & 9 19 22.) yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection, that any of those daughter churches, yielded to jerusalem, or the presbytery there established. And therefore the intention which he dreameth of (concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of jerusalem, like as all the jews were anciently under the high. priest) hath neither foundation in the holy scriptures; nor can he gather it from the practice of succeeding ages; seeing their advancing of the Church of Caesarea to the honour of a Metropolitance Church, superior in jurisdiction to jerusalem; argueth that they were altogether ignorant of it. For, among the many and great thoughts of the Doctor's heart, can this enter into it, that they would wittingly departed 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 pre-eminence, which the Roman Emperors (that were enemies to Christ and his truth) should establish in their political government? But what need many words in a plain matter? This is enough for refuting so frivolous a fancy, as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it. Thus have we seen 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 proofs for his Diocesan Bishops.    

THE SECOND PART. THE SECOND BOOK.  

Chapter 1. Showing that in the 4. point of the Doctor's sermon and third book of the defence thereof, there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopal 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 defence he indeavoureth the justifying of the same. And first he entreateth in general of their superiority in degree; but though he boast (serm. pag. 29.) that all antiquity favoureth his opinion; yet he passeth by the Apostolical writings, as too ancient for his purpose. Notwithstanding, when he cometh 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 pre-eminence during life, and their power of ordination and of jurisdiction, not confined to a parish, but extended to the whole Island of Crete, and to all the cities thereof. A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop, or of a national Primate, rather than the calling of a Diocesan Prelare; if he could make good the parts of his reasoning. viz. that Titus not only had such a threefold superiority, but also was by his calling a Bishop, as he supposeth. But this later (wherein the controversy chiefly standeth) hath no foundation in his text; only he telleth us (pag. 50. of this third book) that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon, by the common 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 turn, to prove that Titus was a Bishop?  
In like manner, when to justify the singularity of pre-eminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese, he saith, (serm. pag. 33.) that there was one Timothy at Ephesus, one Titus in Crete, 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 Island of Crect (with all the cities thereof) made but one Diocese; and as if we were more bound to believe Mr. Doctor's word, than the Apostles testimoney, who saith, that there were other Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus, (Phil. 1. 1.) & giveth us to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa, and nothing inferior to Archippus. (Colos. 1. 7. & 4. 12. Afterwards, when the Commission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus, and to Titus in Crete, 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 from his own mouth; for his proofs touching Timothy & Titus are of the same nature, as shall more fully appear hereafter. Now more than this here noted, he hath not in his whole discourse, (I mean either his sermon or the defence thereof) touching the superiority of Bishops to prove by the scriptures, that they have any such pre-eminence allowed then by God. Wherefore, if the Doctor hath found any clear text, to prove the episcopal function and superiority in question, to be a divine ordinance; it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermon and in the fourth book of his defence; where this question 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 stay upon his 3. book.   

Chapter 2. Answering to the 3. section of the first chapter of the Doctors 4. book, and showing that his reasons prosecuted in his 4. book do 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 proofs which he saith are first by consequence and then directly. By consequence he proveth the Episcopal function, to be a divine ordinance, because it is of Apostolical institution. For he taketh it for an undoubted truth, (serm. pag. 92.) that what the Apostles did in the execution of their Apostolical function, they did by the direction of the holy Ghost; and therefore he holdeth their ordinances to be divine, as having God for their author. So then in affirming it to be therefore divine, because it is Apostolical, we take 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 own words declare (serm. pag. 92. in the margin) when he saith, that in this sense & no other, he holdeth the episcopal function to be a divine ordinance, to wit, because what was ordained by the Apostles, the same proceeded from God. But then, what may we think his meaning to be, in his second sort of proofs, which must conclude directly (and not by consequence as before) that the episcopal 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, & then directly) when he cometh to the later, staggereth not to affirm (serm. on Act. 20. 28. fol. 12. 13. cum 17.) that the Prelacy of Bishops is directly the Lords own institution. And to explain his meaning, he addeth; that the holy Ghost (not only by the Apostles who had received him in great measure, but) even by Christ himself, who (joh. 3.) was endued with the spirit without measure, ordained this superiority. And as he buildeth upon the Fathers in this behalf; so the Doct. acknowledgeth this to be the judgement of many ancient Fathers, that Christ instituted the episcopal function immediately by himself. fee his defence lib. 4. pag. 48. 49. & lib. 3. pag. 32. Now if his later sort of arguments briefly trussed together (serm. pag. 92. & 93.) do bend unto this conclusion; then are his forces like to the troops of the Midianites, who (judg. 7. 22.) set their swords every 
A contradiction in the D. arguments.  one against his fellow throughout the host, for this conclusion cutteth the throat of the former; and the former pierceth through the heart 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 himself; than it is for one living creature to be both a man and a beast; or for one and the same soul, to have her original both by mediate derivation and by divine infusion. But if in both ranks he aim at one mark (viz. to prove that the episcopal function is mediately 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 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 kinds of proofs, do all come to one general argument, the former to justify the Assumption; and the later, the consequence or proposition, yet if the main point be well weighed, which the later rank of arguments doth conclude; (viz. that Bishops were ordained of God) it will appear that his direct proofs (so called) do fetch as large a compass, as the former; and do in deed, (not directly but) by consequence only prove, the episcopal function to be of divine institution. Wherefore, to blear the eyes of his reader, that he might not see how indirect his direct proofs are; he promiseth (serm. pag. 92.) directly to prove that the episcopal function is of divine institution; or, that Bishops were ordained 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 necessary truth to be embraced. His general argument, which by consequence argueth the episcopal function to be a divine ordinance is thus framed, (serm. pag. 56.)  
What function or government is of Apostolical institution; that is to be acknowledged a divine ordinance.  
The episcopal function or government by Bishops, is of Apostolical institution. Therefore the episcopal function is a d●vine ordinance.  
To the proposition of this argument, as the refuter yieldeth free passage; so do I, only with the addition of this caution, that it holdeth only in such ordinances, as are mediately divine, for no immediate ordinance of God or Christ, can be said to be of Apostolical institution. And therefore (were it not that the D. is often found to forget himself) I should wonder, why he now undertaketh to prove, that the function or government of Bishops, was instituted by the Apostles, seeing in his former book (pag. 32.) he saith, that divers ancient and approved Fathers teach, that these two degrees of Ministers (viz. Bishops and presbyters) were ordained by Christ; & therefore inferreth, that it cannot be denied but that the calling and superiority of Bishops is of Christ's own institution. If it cannot be 
A contradiction.  denied, why doth the Doctor underhand impugn it? For if it were Christ's own institution, as the Fathers (if we may believe the Doctor) do teach; than it cannot be an Apostolical 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 (described in his first assertion) are of Apostolical institution, that he is well assured, that his Refuter with all his partakers, will never be able sound and substantially to confute; before I proceed to examine the strength of his evidence; I will give him a little taste of his own weakness, in this argument following.  
Whatsoever calling or superiority cannot be denied to be of Christ's own institution; the same is erroneously, and weakly maintained to be of Apostolical institution.  
But the calling or superiority of Bishops, cannot be denied to be of Christ's own institution.  
Therefore, the same is erroneously and weakly maintained to be of Apostolical institution.  
To impugn the proposition were to labour to quench the light of reason; and if the Doctor contradict the Assumption; he must not only eat up his own words before set down; but also oppose himself against the judgement of the best approved Fathers, who (as himself testifieth) have taught the contrary; and then the stroke of his own tongue, (which he whet as a sharp razor against his Refuter,) will recoil into his own sides in this manner. Do the Fathers testify with one consent, that these two degrees of Ministers (Bishops and Presbyters) were instituted of Christ; and hath the Doctor the forehead to deny 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 deny credit to all antiquity; it is a plain evidence, that he is addicted to novelty and singularity, the Doct. himself being judge, for they are his own words lib. 3. pag. 23. Again, in a matter of fact, the authority and testimony of some one Father, aught to overweigh the whole nation of disciplinarians (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 kind of flowers gathered out of his own garden, but I will spare both him and them; seeing I am to attend upon those arguments, which he hath produced to prove his episcopal function and government, to be of Apostolical institution.  
The first argueth that function to be Apostolical, because it was generally and perpetually used, in the first 300 years after Christ & his Apostles, & was not ordained by general councils; which argument since it altogether balketh the whole book of God, and is fitted only, to make some use of his extravagant learning, and great reading in the councils & Fathers, & of his long digression in his former treatises, to another question: I shall do him no wrong to pass by it, for the present, and refer the examination both of it and the testimonies therein unto a fit time: for the question is not, how long Bishops have had the possession, of that superiority and government, which now they retain; but by what authority and warrant (of God or man) they were first seized of it: and there is good cause to suspect their title to be nought; when their defendants (not being able to bring forth any authentical evidence, signed & sealed by the hands of the Apostles from whom they pretend to derive their tenure) do lay the weight of their cause, either upon prescription of long continuance; or upon the testimony of Fathers, that lived for the most part, 2. or 3. hundred years after the thing was or should be done, which they stand forth to testify. Especially seeing the true records of all ordinances, delivered by the Apostles unto the Churches of Christ, are neither perished nor locked up in any private Cloisters or closerts; but communicated to the public view of all men, who lift to search what form of government they prescribed.   

Chapt. 3. Answering the 2. Chapt. of his 4. book, and the reason there tendered to prove the episcopal function to be of Apostolical institution; b●cause it was (as he falsely suppo●eth) used in the Apostles times, and not contradicted by them.  
In the 2. Chapter of his 4. book, he stayeth himself within the 
Sect. 1. ad lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 1. pag. 17. of the Doct.  compass of the Apostles times, and indeavoureth to show that the Episcopal function now in question was then in use; his argument for proof thereof cartieth this form, (serm. pag.  
That government which even in the Apostles times, was used in the Apostolical Churches, and not contradicted by them, was undoubtedly of Apostolical institution.  
The government by Bishops, was used even in the Apostles times, and not contradicted by them.  
It was therefore undoubtedly of Apostolical institution.  
Concerning the proposition, how ever it be true in their opinion, which hold that there was but one form of government in the Church and the same instituted by the Apostles: yet the Doct. was told by the Refuter (answ. pag. 127.) that it cannot serve his turn, who by his distinction of gold and silver (sermon pag. 95.) maintaineth, that there may be an other government in the Church, & that good, besides that which he affirmeth to be of Apostolical institution. For the proposition cannot be true, but upon this ground, that the Apostles were not to suffer any government, save that which was of their own institution; and therefore in taking it for granted, he did but reckon without his host. This answer the Doctor laboureth to remove, and then fortifieth his proposition against all future assaults. But first he seemeth to repent the delivering of that his distinction of diverse Church governments which he compareth for their goodness, as it is more or less to gold & silver; saying he did it in favour of the D●sciplinarians, therein clawing a churl, according to the homely proverb. The disciplinarians (which were that churl in whose favour he spoke) were & are the reformed Churches abroad, where the Presbyterian discipline is established, as himself acknowledgeth (lib. 3. pag. 108. & lib. 4. cap. vlt. pag. 145. But his own tongue discovereth the affection of his heart therein, to wit, how 
The D. bechurleth the reformed Churches.  he spoke it as a clawback, in hope to have got thanks, at least at the hands of all that favour the discipline. Which not obtaining of his refuter, in revenge to him, he throweth the name of a Churl on them. And to him he returneth this answer, that he said not simply, that other governments may be admitted, besides that which the Apostles ordained; but only there, where that cannot be had. But whiles the Apostles lived, that which they ordained might be had.  
To these premises I will add the conclusion, which the Doct. aimeth at, though he doth not express it. viz. That therefore 
The D. removed not the contradiction charged upon him by his Refut.  whiles the Apostles lived none other government might be admitted save that which they ordained. 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 to the premises of these arguments following.  

Whatsoever form of Church-government is lawful and good; the same might lawfully be tolerated of the Apostles in some Churches.  
But some other form of Church-government, besides that which they ordained is lawful and good,  
Ergo, some other form of Church-government, besides that which the Apostles ordained, might lawfully be tolerated by them insome Churches.  
Again Whatsoever form of Church-government is lawful and good the same might lawfully be tolerated by the Apostles.  
But none other form of Church-governmennt, save that which the Apostles ordained, might lawfully be tolerated (or admitted) by them.  
Ergo none other form of Church-government save that which the Apostles ordained, is lawful and good.   
The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same, and it is justified by these Apostolical precepts. 1. Thes. 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. & 3. joh. 11. which allow the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing; and deny them the use of nothing but what is evil.  
The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctor's 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 Apostolical institution. And the later assumption is the conclusion, of his answer before set down: wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the conclusions 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 double contradiction in the Doctor.  wind out of one contradiction, he sticketh fast ensnared in two for failing. 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 episcopal government cannot be had: for Mr. Doctor were simple, if he could persuade himself, that so slight an answer might free the reformed Churches that want Bishops, from the obloquys of caviling papists; which he professeth to be his charitable intent, in pleading (so as he did) for them and their discipline. And since silver is simply good, and at all times good, though inferior in goodness, to gold, he dealt deceitfully & not simply or sincerely, with his reader (in comparing these. 2 kinds of governments, for their goodness unto silver and gold:) if he meant not to allow, the presbyterian government any other or larger goodness, then for those times or places, where the episcopal regiment cannot be had.  
But to look back once again to the Doctor's answer before set down; 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 ordained cannot be had, there some other government might be admitted.  
But whiles the Apostles lived, in some Churches that government which they ordained could not be had.  
Ergo, whiles they lived, in some Churches, an other form of government might be admitted.  
The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his own. Th'assumption is fitted (indeed) to contradict his, in the sense that he embraceth, understanding, by the government ordained by the Apostles, the government by Bishops; so that, whereas he saith, it might be had whiles the Apostles lived, I on the contrary affirm, that in some Churches at that time it could not be had. And this (I suppose) will be made good by his own words elsewhere (serm p. 69. 
The D. contradicteth himself.  Def. lib. 4. pag. 62.) when he allegeth the want of sit choice for one reason; why all other Churches besides that of jerusalem wanted Bishops, for many years in the life time of the Apostles. For how could Bishops be had to govern every Church, when there was not sit choice 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 settled 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 among men, as one of a 1000, (as Elihu spukith, job. 33. 23) undoubtedly a worthy Bishop is as one of a million. very hardly therefore will he escape the briars of another palpable contradiction. And it will be no less hard to avoid the stroke of the conclusion, which if he cannot turn aside; then his proposition now in question, will lie in the dust, overthrown (not by any of our weapons, but) by the turning 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 odds betwixt the use of government, not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches; and the retaining of it in all Churches, or the altering of that government which they had once established:) yet will I not prosecute such advantages, seeing we are no less persuaded than he, that there is a manifest truth in it.  
The assumption followeth which hath two parts, the one, that 
Sect. 3. add sect. 2. etc. 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 proof of the later, (besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint john, or rather by our Saviour Christ) he allegeth (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 honour such. Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also james the just, Bishop of jerusalem 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; james 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, james the just 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 understood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours, is altogether false; and the D. doth but beg the question, in taking for granted, what he should have 
The Doct. beggeth  proved, if he could. But if it be understood of such Bishops, as the scriptures testify to have been in the Apostles times; seeing they were no Lordly governors; but Pastors or Bishops in another function; either higher as was james the Apostle, or inferior as Pastors of one congregation, I demand again (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 bear the blame, of equivocating (in the word Bishop) or of begging the question; until he prove 
The Doct. equivocateth or beggeth  that Epaphroditus, james the just, Archippus & Aniipas, were Diocesan Bishops like to ours.  
The best defence that the Doct. maketh for himself is this. Till 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 been manifestly proved to be. If he have manifestly proved (in any part of his serm: or defence before delivered) that the four men 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 certain he hath not) delivered any one word that carrieth the least show of any such proof; 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 four men were Diocesan Bishops. The proof of this Proposition both his Refuter and Reader will call for, till they see it. And I still say, that the proof of the Assumption, (which in a generality affirmeth, that they were approved of the Apostles in respect of their function) might well have been spared. And the Doctor assuredly doth flatter himself in vain, while he conceiveth that there is somewhat in this point which his Refuter could wish had been spared; or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answer. For, what should he have answered, more than 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. Notwithstanding, among the scriptures quoted for the approbation of their ministery; the Ref: (answ. p. 130.) giveth one note touching 
Sect. 4. add sect. 6. pag 44.  the word, sunergoes, Phil. 25, which the Doctor interpreteth a copartner in function; he saith the Apostle meant not to signify thereby, that Ep●phroditus was a Diocesan Bishop; for the Apostle himself was none; neither meant he to equal him to himself in the Apostleship; for Epaphroditus was none: but because he laboured in the ministery 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) neither was it alleged to that end, but as one of the ●●●les of commendation given to him; yet the word Apostle which he alleged, doth prove it. Neither should the Refuter have balked that, to lay hold upon another, unless it were to deceive the simple. And then addeth, that it was malipertly said by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle. Behold here 1. a free acknowledgement 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 expressly declare it? may he not be justly censured in his own words, he would never have balked this point, to lay hold upon another, unless 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 copartner with S. Paul, in the function of an Apostle, though he dareth not plainly 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 said by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle. Nay it were a malapert speech, for the Doctor to say simply and without addition; that he was an Apostle seeing he cannot show any one text in the new Testament, that giveth that title simply unto any other, then unto Christ and his Apostles.  
3. And whereas he saith, that the word Apostle which he alleged doth prove that Epaphroditus was a diocesan Bishop; I demand, why he never alleged the word for that purpose, and show his reader how to discern a diocesan Prelacy in it? In deed in his next argument, (serm. p. 71.) he bendeth his speech that way: & his Refuters' readiness to apprehend his purpose, and to join issue with him therein, may and doth (I doubt not) persuade the indifferent reader, that if the Doctor had as plainly discovered any such proof here, he would never have balked it; he playeth therefore an egregious 
The Doct. calumniateth.  calumniators part, in saying that the Refuter balked the word (alleged to prove the diocesan Bishopric of Epaphroditus) of purpose, to deceive the simple.  
4. But I merveile what giddiness 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, sunergoes, 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 demand therefore, if Epaphroditus had none other Apostleship than a diocesan Byshopprick how could he be a copartner in function with Paul, by reason of his Apostleship unless Saint Paul also, had been a Diocesan Bishop by his Apostleship? And again, if 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, unless his Apostleship were a function divers from the calling of a diocesan Bishop? 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 sunergoes; signifieth a companion in labour, or a fellow workman; & not a copartner in office or function: for it were absurd to imagine, that all were copartners with the Apostle in function, whom he honoureth with the name of his sunergoes, fellow-workmen, or helpers in the work of the gospel; seeing it is given not only 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 whom it may be doubted, whither they had any public ministery (Rom. 16. 9 Philem. 1.) yea unto some, which (questionless) had none at all: as unto Aquila and his wife Priscilla (Rom. 16. 3.) In like manner he giveth unto diverse women this commendation, that they laboured much in the Lord (Rom. 16. 12.) and did wrestle (or fight) together with him in the Gospel; sunethlesan moi Phil. 4. 3.) yet I hope the D. will not say, that those women were coparreners in function with S. 
The Doct. misinterpreteth & con●oundeth  Paul. It is therefore clear, that the Doctor m●sinterpreteth the word sunergos, and confoundeth things that differ, in putting no difference, between a companion in labour; and a copartner in function.  
And touching the diocesan Bishopric of Epaphroditus, as the 
Sect. 5.  Doctor rightly acknowledgeth it hath no relief in the word sunergos: so he falsely averreth, that the word Apostle, doth prove it. The proof 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 patriarchs of 
The Doct. still beggeth.  Christ's Church, which were sent into the who● world, were called the Apostles of Christ; and not the Apostles of any Church in particular (excepting Iames who was the Apostle of the jews) so those Apostolical 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 etc. If the Doctor could yield us, as pregnant testimonies from the Apostolical writings, to show that Diocesan Bishops were called the Apostles of the Churches; as there are to prove, that those 12, whom Christ sent into the whole 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 than this, that the Bishops set over particular Churches were called the Apostles of those Churches. And to maintain this; he hath nothing to allege but that, So Epaphroditus is called by S. Paul the Apostle of the Philippians; who can bear with his so shameless begging? But more of this (he saith) we shall hear hereafter, and I find (in the next Chapter, sect. 12. 13. 14. whereto he sendeth us) some human testimonies to prove that Epaphroditus was the Pastor or Bishop of the Philippians, & an answer to the reasons alleged 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 Ministerial function (which the Refuter said could not be proved to be a Diocesan Bishopric) when he should handle it, he flattly refuseth to enter upon it: yea (sect. 15. pag. 71.) he saith, that there he is so far 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 word that particularly toucheth Epaphroditus. Wherefore, it is apparent, that the Diocesan Bishoprik ascribed to Epaphroditus is presupposed only but not proved, to be enfolded under the word Apostle. And consequently the commendation which Paul giveth him (Phil. 2. 25.) cannot conclude an approbation of his supposed episcopal function. And here by the way, let the reader observe, what a trick the Do: hath to avoid the proof of this point, though he were urged unto it. Now when he should have done it, 
A trick of the Doct. to shift off a proof.  because Epaphroditus is a principal instance, brought to justify the later branch 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 terrify his Refuter with his loud (I had almost said lewd) railing, he calleth him a notorious caviller (pa. 64.) and saith he writeth, as the most of his book, to blear 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 lest the Doctor should conceive better of his discourse, than it deserveth, I will take a nearer consideration of all that he hath said. 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 alleged by him.   

Chapter 4. Declaring that the function of diocesan Bishops, is not mentioned in the Scriptures, under the titles of Rulers or Apostles; & that a diocesan Bishopric is not given to Epaphroditus under the name of an Apostle Phil. 2. 25. as the Doctor would have it, Def. lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 11. pag. 65.  
I knew (saith the Doctor) it was objected that Bishops are not mentioned 
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 ordained by the Apostles, of Whom no mention is in the Scriptures. For prevention of this objection, or assoiling 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 unjust quarrel with his Refuter, viz. that I snatch at words. And if I should demand, from what words in his sermon, the Refuter might (and aught to) have gathered, that those names (which he saith, were attributed to Bishops) were delivered for the prevention of that objection, which he now discovereth; I suppose the Reader should scarce gain any better answer than this, that his own intent is best known to himself. Yet had his Refuter reason to say; (as he did answer P. 34.) that this long discourse touching the time of ordaining Bishops, should help to prove that the Apostles themselves ordained Bishops; for he promised (serm. p. 65.) to explain and prove this point; by showing the time when, the place Where, and the persons whom, the Apostles ordained Bishops, and he saith (Def. lib. 4. p. 49.) that it was not explained only; but also proved by showing the time etc. Wherefore he doth his refuter the greater wrong, to call him a notorious caviller, & to say, he gave sufficient proof of a bad conscience (pag. 64. and 65.) because he complained that in all this section, there was nothing to prove the point before mentioned. 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 plain terms; and therefore (not having so done) he giveth us cause to think, either that he had no such meaning; or that he purposely concealed it; that he might here (as he doth in sundry other parts of his sermon) pick a quarrel with his Refuter for mistaking his Analysis. But since the Doctor will needs (for the better recovering of his spirits) change the tenor of his reasoning; and make answer rather to our objection, then go on with the proof of his own position; I will first set down the objection in form, & then weigh the validity of his answer.  
Whatsoever function or government is not mentioned in the Apostolical Writings; the same was not ordained by the Apostles, neither is it of divine institution.  
But the function or government of diocesan Bishops, (such as ours) is not mentioned in the Apostalicall writings.  
Ergo, the function and government of diocesan Bishops, was not ordained of the Apostles, neither is it of divine institution.  
His answer 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, under the names which he allegeth; then his whole discourse spent this way, is altogether 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 dignity of the Ministers (pag. 60. 61.) all the same names, (save only the name of Apostles) 
A contradiction.  to all Ministers? To clear himself from this contradiction, he saith, his former sermon is of Ministers in general, including Bishops; and divers things there spoken of Ministers in general do principally belong to Bishops. He addeth, all Pastors are Rulers or Rectors of their several flocks; but the bishops are Rulers, both of them and their flocks. And all Ministers are Angels, but the Bishop alone, is the Angel of each Church or diocese. Behold here a plain confession, that in his former sermon he giveth to Ministers in general, the names and titles there mentioned, among which are these, that they are called egoumenoi, Rulers & Angels of the Churches. How then excuseth he, his restraining of these titles, here to diocesan Bishops such as ours? Forsooth, Bishops are included; and divers things spoken of Ministers in general, do principally belong to Bishops. Be it so in his understanding; but can he persuade himself that his bare affirmation will persuade the conscience of an indifferent reader to entertain the opinion? no no, we have learned from his own inditing (lib. 1. p. 200.) how to frame him an answer. If diocesan Bishops, 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 Bishops, But seeing 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 platonical Idea, or poetical 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, therefore a black swan, it were too ridiculous, yet such is the argument 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 pre-eminence over other ministers; it were a weak argument: but when he inferreth, therefore of diocesan Bishops such as ours, which were more rare than black swann; it is very ridiculous.  
But to descend unto the particulars; it is already showed, how 
Sect. 3.  much he deceiveth himself & 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 plain contradiction in restraining now unto Bishops alone, 
A plain contradiction in the Doct.  the same title which in his other sermon he extended to all Ministers, viz. to be called not only Angels, but also angels of the churches. The same contradiction he incurreth, if he will appropriate unto Bishops those words, Heb. 13. 17. obey your rulers seeing he applied them in his former sermon, unto all Ministers. To say, as now he doth, (that all Pastors are Rulers of their several flocks, but the Bishops are Rulers both of them and their flocks) doth rather weaken, than 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 yield obedience unto a Diocesan Bishop set over them? Doth not the contrary rather appear very clearly? But I will let him see his error, not in my own 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 saith, it signifieth leaders, as well as rulers, and in this place standeth rather for Leaders, than 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 steps. If we must mark and Imitate them, them surely, must they be Leaders to direct us, and not Rulers to Master us. Secondly he saith, that by tois egoumenois (whether it be leaders, or Rulers) are meant all christian and godly preachers: and that this is S. Paul's own construction, Remember your Leaders, which have spoken to you the word of God, we be not bound to their fancies or pleasure; but only to the word of truth proceeding out of their mouths etc. But the D. to justify his understanding 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 unto 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 said, communicated unto Bishops; for I know no man so foolish, as to appropriate either that text, (Heb. 13. 17) or the name Prepositis to such Bishops as ours. Jerome was so far 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 etc. Augustin (a principal latin Father) often understandeth. under the name, Praepositi; all the Ministers of the word. Tract. 46. in johan: Habet ovile domini praepositos, et filios, & mercenarios. Praepositi qui fili; sunt, pastors sunt. Et sunt quidem ecclesiae praepositi, de quibus Paulus dicit. Sua quaerentes etc. And de civitate deilib. 1. cap. 9 Ad hoc Speculatores, ho●est, populorum praepositi etc. And epistola 166. ad finem. Quod usq●adeo celestis Magister cavendum premonuit; ut etiam de praepositis malis plebem securam faceret, ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris cathedra desereretur etc. neque enim sua sunt quae dicunt sed Dei; etc. 2. But if the canons (falsely called the Apostles) have rightly appropriated the text unto Bishops; it will follow, that (both by the scripture, and by their judgement that first framed & afterwards approved them) the Pastor's care of souls (and consequently the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments) is proper to the function of Bishops. And if it be so, it will then also follow, and that inevitablie, that those presbyters, whose office is diverse from the function of Bishops (in their judgement, aswell as of the author of that Epistle to the Hebrews) were no teaching Elders, or Ministers of the word. Which to affirm, directly contradicteth the Doctor's assertion (peremptorily maintained 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 ecclesiastical person, doth evermore in the scriptures, counsels and faibers signify a Minister.  
3. If to avoid this disadvantage, the D. shall choose rather to 
Sect. 4. add sect. 12. of the Doct. pag. 65.  grant, that the text is to be undetstood of Ministers in general; as he once understood it; (serm of the dignity of the Ministers) then can his diocelan Bishops find no sure footing in this text; as is already showed.  
All his hope and help therefore, must lie 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 rendered a reason why they are so called; viz. because they succeeded 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 show (to diati) why they are so entitled: especially; seeing he taketh notice of his Refuters quelition, viz. by what authority that title is appropriated unto 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 rendereth; I will desire no other demonstration, than a clear proof of those premises, which must infer 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. hath nothing that can give sufficient confirmation to the one or other. Some testimonies he hath, that may serve to uphold (as far as their strength will 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 shadow of any testimony or reason, to cover the nakedness, either of the first (which saith he was so called, because he succeeded the Apostles in the government of that Church) or of the second (which affirmeth him to be a Bishop in function like to one of ours). All his labour tendeth to make good against his Refut: answer an other point, (something differing from the former) viz. that he was therefore 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 authority he is swayed to embrace that construction which he giveth to the words of the Apostle (Phil. 2. 25.) humoon apostolon first, in translating them, 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 new testament, appropriated unto such as we call Apostles (men immediately called of Christ, to an universal & unlimited ministery;) yet is it well known, both that Epaphroditus was none of them; and that the word (in his most natural signification) is of as large use, as our English word, Messenger. And in this large fence it is used by Christ, john 13, 16. oude Apostolos etc. Neither is the messenger greater than 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 diakonois; for I suppose the Doctor would not allow the word to be so translated in these and such like places. Mat. 20. 26. and 23 11. He that willbe (or is) greatest among you, let him be (humoon diakonos) your Deacon. Rom. 13. 4. for he is (theou diaconos) God's Deacon for thy good. Col. 1. 25. The Church whereof I am made Diaconos a Deacon, & verse 7. Who is for you (pistos diaconos) a faithful Deacon of Christ:) so neither can we sitly give the name of an Apostle, to every one, which in the Greek language may be rightly called apostolos. So that unless the Doctor can yield us very sufficient & necessary reasons, to enforce his translating the text (Phil. 2. 25.) your Apostle he must give us leave to retain the usual reading your Messenger; for as this hath been formerly embraced of all our English translator (the Rhemists excepted): so it is still retained in the newest translation, which with great diligence hath been revised, and published by his Majesty's special commandment. Wherefore, whereas he assumeth it as a granted 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 believe him in his preface to his sermon pag. 3.) he was carried in studying the whole controversy of our Church policy. viz. as one that meant to be the respondent or defendant, and therefore resolved not to departed from the received translation; unless with clear evidence of truth, he might see it convicted of error; doubtless he would herein have yielded to his Refuter, and not have wounded through his sides, (as he doth) our church-governors, and those worthy divines, which in their translation do justify his exposition of this text. Wherefore he deserveth to have the same measure which he meateth to others, to be returned unto him again, to wit, that being (as it seemeth) out of love with our Church-translation; and in affection wholly alienated from our church-governors, he hath studied this question as an opponent and plaintiffc; therefore having sought a knot, as it were, in every bulrush, & strained at every gnatt, he hath picked to many quarrels, against the Church-translation, and his refuters just defence thereof; that by his opposition (though the Church be not deprived of his Ministry, 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 than he will without prejudice and parrialitie read, what is truly said in defence thereof, for he taxeth deeply the credit of their learning & judgement, that have given way unto it; not only in the text principally questioned, but also in two others (2. Cor. 8. 23. & joh. 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; neither is it to be translated other wise than Apostle.  
But his correcting Magnificat in the translation might be the better born with, if he altered not the sense & signification of the word, as he doth, in saying, that he is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippinns, because be was their Bishop or Pastor. And even this construction were the more tolerable; because in a large acception of the name of a Bishop or every Teacher, none will impugn it, that think his Ministerial function to be noted by the name of their Apostle, if he did not thereby understand such a Bishop or Pastor, whose superiority & function is now in question. Wherefore his refuter had reason to demand as he did (answ. pag 135.) Who they are th●● concur w●●h him in his interpretation of the words of the Apostle, especially (seeing in his view of the b●o●●s themselves) he could not find 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 weakness thereof. First therefore, he is to be put in mind of his own speech 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 parallel scriptures, or by inference out of the context itself, deduced by some artificial argument. But what would you have a man to do these helps sailing? The best gloss that he can set upon his cause, and the fairest excuse for himself is, that some old and new writers are partly of his mind. But now if it shall appear, that he hath abused the new writers, & wronged the Fathers whom he allegeth, assuredly if he be not altogether shameless, he will never dare to show his face again in this quarrel.  
1. His new writers are Calvin and Bullinger men well known to be opposite to the Doctor in the main question of the episcopal superiority, that it were more than a wonder, if they should so far forget themselves, as to acknowledge, that the words of S. Paul (Phil. 2. 25.) do give the same episcopal superiority and function unto 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 neither of them, affirm 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' judgement, touching the word Apostolus, to be this, that the name of an Apostle here, as in many other places is taken generally pro quolibet Evangelissa. Wherefore, it is evident that (although he call him their Pastor, yet) he holdeth the true reason of that name, your Apostle given unto him, to be, (not the particular function of a diocesan Bishop, but) the calling rather of an Evangelist (preacher of the Gospel) there exercised for a season.  
2. His Fathers are, Ambrose, Theodoret, Hierom, & Chrysostom; the two later say, that Epaphroditus was their Teacher, and so doth Aquinas. But what is this to justify that episcopal pre-eminence which the Doct. understandeth by the word Apostle? here to help, at a dead lift, he faith, that in jeroms time, by the name of Doctor or Teacher, Bishop commonly was signified; and that they did by the word Apostle understand, not every common Teacher or teaching Presbyter, but specsalem 
The Doct. shifteth, but poorly.  doctorem (as Anselme saith) & instructorem precipuum as saith Dionysius Carthusianus. A poor shift in deed; For how will he persuade that there were no other special Teachers, or chief instructors, but Bishops doth not this rather argue, that he was an Evangeliste? And why presumeth he upon the kindness both of his Refuter and Reader, freely to yield him, without any further proof, both the antecedent and the consequence of his argument? In jeroms time, Bishops were commonly called Doctors. Ergo, when jerom (in expounding Phil. 2. 29. Have 〈◊〉 in honour) faith, not him only qui vester est Doctor, who is your Teacher, he doth affirm, that Epaphroditus, is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians (verse 25.) because he was their Bishop or Pastor. In like manner touching Ambrose, how loosely doth he reason? Ambrose saith, that the Apostles (mentioned. 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 Episcopal 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 words, that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinity with the Apostleship; I mean in this, that he had only a temporary overfight of that Church, as the Apostle himself had before, during the time of his abode there. And this hath confirmation from the words that follow, which the Doctor was wise enough to conceal, his whole speech 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 desired of the people (not because he was their Pastor, but) because he was a good man; and was now sent unto them by the Apostle, (and so made their Apostle) for their present instruction or exhortation, & not to take perpetual charge of them; for as afterwards he saith (in vers. 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss) he was necessary for many other Churches, as one that yielded (solisium er auxilium) both comfort & help to the Apostle. By all which it appeareth, that (in Ambrose his judgement) Epaphroditus by his ministerial function, was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop. There remaineth Theodoret, whose words make the fairest show for him; yet are they not so full, as he pretendeth for that which he saith (in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle, because to him the charge of them was committed etc. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist; seeing they had a temporary charge, of some one or more Churches committed to them. Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properly episcopal, and such as now is controverted. Yea the Doctor himself, doth so understand 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 etc. For he gathereth from Theodoret's testimony, conferred with some words of jerom (Def. lib. 4. pag. 72.) that the first Bishops (so reputed were Apostles, and Apostolic men, that is Evangelists, and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolical men remained, none were chosen our of the Presbyters, to the office of a Bishop, whence it followeth that Epaphroditus (in Theodoret's judgement) is called an Apostle, (not because he was a Bishop, but) for that, he was an Apostolical man, or Evangelist. Wherefore it is but a vain brag 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 affirm, whatever may seem to advantage his cause, and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed; yet the truth will discover itself 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 mentioned, 
Sect. 7. add sect. 13. p. 68  do all go 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 saw his answer, but to justify his own collection from the words of the Apostle, which since he cannot effect, he shall do best, not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions; especially seeing in such a case as this, (when Interpreters do vary about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture) the judgement of the indifferent Reader must be swayed, (neither by the number, years, or learning of the parties, but) by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they do, & best accordeth with the circumstances of the text itself, and with the use of the word or phrase in other places. Wherefore, the Refuter (though he mention the names of some which embrace his interpretation, yet) grounded himself rather upon the probability of reason; then the credit of their testimony. Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himself, to reject so lightly as he doth, the judgement of Mr. Beza and Piscator; in saying they are as much parties in this cause, as the refuter himself. 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 far from condemning, the 
A contradiction.  government of Bishops retained in other reformed Churches, that he wished withal his heart; that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva, the episcopal government had been retained; (for so he saith. 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 branches. 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. do show how he ministered unto him. 2. & the same phrase is used to the like purpose, 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshrens sent with Titus, to receive the Corinth's benevolence, are called Apostles, (that is messengers) of the Churches. In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul, etc. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus, were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians. 2. but he saith, it is unlikely, that either 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 use of the word, or phrase in other places? And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct? Let them be compared together, and sentence given with the truth. First, touching Epaphroditus, that he was their ambassador or Messenger to the Apostle Paul, the evidence alleged 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 confess) it is more than 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 ambassador sent by them to the Apostle, unless some necessary 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 itself, 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 divers of Ignatius his epistles, that when the Churches sent one upon a Christian Embassage; the Bishop was commonly entreated to take that Embassage upon him. In like manner the Philippians, being to send, as it were upon Embassage to Paul, Epaphroditus their Bishop undertook that voyage. He being therefore both their Bishop, and their ambassador, it is more likely that he was called their Apostle, because he was their Bishop, then for that he was their ambassador. I answer, 1. may I not say that the Churches than 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. still presume upon the credulity of his reader to take his bare word for proof, that the Churches in his time, sent their Bishops in Embassage, only upon entreaty? There is small cause he should trust upon it, when his reader shall understand, that he learned this evasion of Bellanrmin 
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 Peter's primacy from Act. 8. 14. where he is said to be sent with john, by the rest of the Apostles unto Samarina. 3. And touching Epaphroditus; seeing he presumeth also that his word willbe taken, in stead of better proof, that he was in like manner entreated to take the journey; he deserveth to hear from me that which Bellarmin doth from Doct. whitaker's (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? nile eiusmodi habetur.) even this in effect, there is no such matter Mr D. But be it that he went by their entreaty, as Timothy at S. Paul's entreaty remained at Ephesus. 1. Tim. 1. 3. May the Church of Welles or rather of Canterbury (for Philippi was Metropolis Macedonia, as aferwards he telleth us, pag. 71.) send their Bishop abroad by the like entreaty, & upon the like business; 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 seethe 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 question in asfirming him to be their Bp.) if he were both their 
The Doct. beggeth again.  Bishop and Ambassador; is it not more likely, that he was called their Apostle, because he was their ambassador (seeing the word importeth so much) then for that: he was their Bp? but he hath better probabilities in store to prove, the contrary; 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. add pag. 66. & 67.  the Scriptures, to signify the Messengers of men. Is it unlikely? why? doth he not know, that the offices of pastors and deacons, are also sacred functions; and that Christ himself is entitled our Shepherd, and Pastor of our Souls. john. 10. 16. & 1. Pet. 5. 25. and the (diaconos) minister of the circumcision, Rom. 15. 8. ● notwithstanding it is certain that both these names (poimen, diaconos) are given in the Apostolical writings to Feildshepheards, and servants of men. Luc. 8. 8. 15. 18. 20. john. 2. 5. 9 In like manner, though the word aggeloes be the name of that sacred function, of the celestial spirits, and communicated even unto Christ himself, Act. 7. 35. 38. Revel. 10. 1. 5.) yet it is given also, in the Holy Scriptures, unto the messengers of men, jam. 2. 25. where Rahab is said to have received (tous aggelous) the messengers and sent them out another way. It is apparent therefore, that neither the holiness of the Apostolic function, nor the worthiness of Christ's person or office, can yield 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 hear 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 been 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 Heming: & Hyper: in 2. Cor. 8.) who concur 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 (jam sure) to be parties with us in this controversy. But what speak I of their judgement, seeing we have the Apostles own testimony; that having given to one this high commendation, his praise is in the gospel throughout all the Churches, doth yet enlarge his praise in saying, & not that only, but he was also chosen of the Churches to traveile with us, with this grace which is administered by us, etc. (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 Corinth's unto jerusalem 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 upon this untruth; 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 relief of the brethren in judea. And ●o that end having dealt before with the Corinthians, sendeth Titus and two others, to receive their contribution. All which I grant, 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 accompanied Titus were sent by Paul, who had undertaken to procure some relief for the poor brethren in judea: Ergo they were not sent by the Churches, whose contribution they carried. He falsely conceiveth, that Paul was as highminded as some Bishops now are; who scorn to associate any others with them, in the choice of such as they send abroad. For we learn from Paul's own 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 Corinth's showeth (1. Cor. 16. 3.) that he meant not to send any other, with their contribution, than such as they should choose and approve by letters.  
The Refuters first reason being thus recovered out of the Doct. hands and maintained against all his exceptions; his interpretation 
Sect. 9 ad. sect. 14. pa. 69.  will stand firm enough (as having both the circumstances of the text itself, and the use of the like phrase also here, to justify it) although his 2. reason should be found too weak. Notwithstanding, I doubt not, but to make it good, if the Refuter may have that favour which reason alloweth to every one; I mean to interpret his own meaning, so as the words may well bear, without wresting, or contradiction to any part of his writing. The reason is this; Is standeth not so well with the property of the word apostolos, which signifieth a Messenger, to entitle any man (in regard of his ministerial function) their Apostle to Whom, 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 whom; as to the party 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 judgement, if he press this for a good consequence. The word is used with reference aswell to the one as to the other; Therefore both phrases of speech do equally and alike agree with the proper signification of the word. For if both phrases have a like agreement with the proper signisication of the word; then in both the word may be (with a like fitness) translated Messenger; but that were absurd; for though we may fitly lay of Paul, or any other called the Apostle of Christ. (1. Cor. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 1. 1. Jude, verse 17.) that he was the Messenger or Ambassador of Christ: yet were it a very improper and unfitting phrase of speech, to say of Paul, that he was the Messenger or Ambassador of Gentiles, when he entitleth himself (ethnoon apostolos) the Apostle of the Gentiles. Rom. 11. 13. To speak properly, he was not their Apostle, but Christ's; vocatus a Christo principaliter ut esset Doctor gentium; as Piscator observeth (upon those words) and himself showeth (1. Tim. 2. 2. 7 & 2. Tim. 1. 11. Where it is said, that unto Paul was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision. Gal. 2. 7. May we (with as good regard to the proper sense of the word evaggelion gospel) call his gospel; the uncircumcised Iewes gospel; as we may call it, God's gospel, from those words. (Rom. 1. 1.) where he saith, he was separated to preach the gospel of God? It is clear that in these places, Rom. 11. 13. and Gal. 2. 7. as also in the verse following, where Peter is said to have the Apostleship of the circumcision) the genetive case must be interpreted, either by the dative, as in the first, I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, that is, to or for the Gentiles, as he saith, 1. Cor, 9 2. if I be not an Apostle (allois) unto others; yet doubtless 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 committed the gospel of the uncircumcision; & to Peter the gospel or Apostleship of the circumcision, that is to say, to me was committed the dispensation of the gospel (cis ta ethne, unto or towards the Gentiles; and to Peter, the like dispensation or Apostleship (eye 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 own? For wherein bewrayeth he is own ignorance? Perhaps in saying that among all the titles that Paul taketh to himself to magnify his office, he never calleth himself their or your Apostle; but an Apostle of Christ, or Apostle to them? Nothing less; if his meaning be explained, as the coherence of his whole speech requireth. viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle; but an Apostle of Christ, or Apostle to them? Nothing less; if his meaning be explained, as the coherence of his whole speech requireth. viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle, taking the word in his proper signification, of a Messenger or ambassador. For the Doct. himself confesseth, that when the Apostle calleth himself 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 Christ's ambassador sent to them. If he shall yet urge that those words may warrant him to say, that Paul was their Apostle; I grant it; but withal he must know, 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 gross ignorance in him; if knowing it, he shall yet endeavour to justify his censure given forth against the Refut: it willbe enough (in the judgement of the indifferent reader I doubt not) to prove himself to be but a wrangler.  
Having said enough in defence of the Refuter for both his reasons; 
Sect. 10. add pag. 70.  we are now to take notice, how that which the Doct. addeth to underpropp his own 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. Church's) do signify the Bishops or Pastors of the same Churches: so Apostoli, absolutely used, is a title of all Ambassadors sent from God with authority Apostolical (Rom. 16. 7.) though kat hexochen given to Paul & Barnabas (Acts. 14. 14.) and the 12. Apostles, but used with reference to particular Churches, doth signify their Bishops. Here the Doctor deserveth to be answered with his own 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 own, and that in divers 
The Doct. discovereth his own errors, while he offereth to show his ref. ignorance.  particulars. For (to let pass 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 shall excuse him of error, 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 celestial Angels) I have before showed that it is referred to messengers sent of men, lan. 2. 25. 2. And surely that text of Rom. 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 Ambassadors sent from God with authority Apostolical. 3. Neither can he make good generally his last assertinon, that the word Apostle used with reference to particular churches, signifieth their Bishops. For (besides the places before questioned phillip 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 doubtless I am unto you. 4. As for the conclusion which he inferreth, (viz. that in the Scriptures, the word Apostolos, is not used to signify Messengers sent from men, neither is it to be translated otherwise then Apostle) I have already showed (sect. 5.) how much he wrongeth our own Church governors (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. john. 13. 16. And 2ly. I have sufficieently discovered the falsehood of his conclusion, having maintained against all his exceptions, the Refuters construction of the 2. former places, and the reasons which he propounded in that behalf. Neither is it hard to remove that which he objecteth touching the later all that he saith is this, though our Saviour do seem to speak indefinitely john 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 seem only to speak indefinitely? And is it evident that he meaneth himself only & c? What seeming reason or evident demonstration, hath the Doctor to justify this? since he hath none, it might be a sufficient answer to tell him, (eadem facilitate rejicuur, qu●asseritur,) the Refuter may as easily deny it as he affirm it. But for the Readers satisfaction this I add. The coherence of the text (both here and elsewhere, where the like speech is used as Cap. 15. 20. Math. 10 24.) clearly showeth, that Christ intendeth to teach his Apostles, that they ought to imitate him in subjecting themselves, both to bear the like afflictions (which is the scope of the other 2. places) and to perform the like services (which he aimeth at in this place) unto another. To effect this his purpose, he argueth (a genere) in this manner; no servant, disciple, or messenger, is greater than 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 than I; and consequently, you ought to subject yourselves, both to do and suffer, what ye have seen in me. I could allege Interpreters old and new, that thus understand the words of Christ, in the general and largest sense: but it shall not be needful to them, that consider how absurd it is to restrain so general a sentence, unto one only particular. For if I may use the Doct. words, Lib. 1. pag. 226. who shall dare to do this without very good warrant? The Doct. conclusion being thus removed out of the way, I here again infer (as the Ref. did once before) that he is deceived & seeketh to deceive by the equivocation of the word apostolos which sometimes in a common and general sense, is given to any one, that is sent as a messenger, though usually ascribed to those, that were employed (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. add sect. 15. pa. 70. 71.  that he was a diocesan 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 own confession) was common to all Pastors, though afterwards appropriated to some special 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 Bishop's diocesan &c: I proved before in the former part; here I am so far from inferring or proving it that I presupposed it, as sufficiently proved before. Whereunto, I cannot make him a better answer, then to return him his own a little before spoken to the Ref. with a little change. This is written as the most of his 4 volumes, to blear the eyes of the simple; For I cannot think that the D. which undertook this course, was so void of judgement, as here he would show himself to be, if he wrote sincerely. What is the point (I pray you) which here he had in hand? was it not to prove that the Apostles themselves ordained Bishops? doth not the title upon the head of every page of this chapter show it? & what Bishops did they ordain in his understanding? were they parish Bishops, or temporary overseers as were the Evangelists? can he justify the caling of our Bishops to be of divine or Apostolical institution, unless 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 descend more particularly to the question, which himself affirmeth to be debated in all this discourse (pag. 65.) viz. whether Bishops be mentioned in the scriptures under this name, the Apostles of the Churches?) is it not to be understood of such Bishops as ours are? If he do neither prove this, nor intent it, but presuppose it, (or rather take it for granted, without proof) and if he prove no more (in this discourse, touching Epaphroditus) 
The Doct. trifleth, deceiveth & shifteth poorly.  then that which this objection admitteth (to wit, that he was a Bishop in the general construction of the word) doth he not show himself to be a trifling deceiver? and what else doth he but blear the eyes of the simple, when he saith, it is sufficiently proved before? But this is the poor shift (to pay him once again with his own pag. 71.) which the Doct. usually flieth unto. When he hath nothing to justify his assertions, he persuadeth himself (such is his judgement) that in the question of Dioceses and diocesan Bishops, he hath the upperhand, (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 foiled 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 Bishop's Diocesan: and therefore if you grant that the function of Bishops was instituted of God, and that Bishops were ordained or approved of the Apostles, than you grant as much as I intent to prove. This then being his best defence, the reader may see the Doctor's sincerity, and that he was not wronged by his Refuter when he told him, that he deceiveth 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 requital) he saith, that they do deceive their readers, in that they would persuade 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 Apostolical writings, is given to Presbyters, and that Bishops (such as ours) are not mentioned in the scriptures. For answer whereunto, he said then (and now repeateth it again) 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 endeavoured to prove by that instance of Epa. phroditus Phil. 2. 25; but his failing therein, is sufficiently discovered; now, once again he attempteth it, let us attend whether his success be any better.  
For (saith he) as I said in the sermon; whiles the episcopal power was in 
Sect. 12. add sect. 16. pa. 71. 72.  the Apostles, and Apostolic 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 Apostolic men, which were (as himself acknowledgeth pag 72) Evangelists? hath not the Doct. then spun a saire thread, to strangle his own cause? But since he pretendeth to repeat the words of his sermon, why doth he curtal them? there he said (pag 71) whiles the episcopal power was, for the most part, in the Apostles & Apostolic men, those who also had that power, were called Apostles: now he leaveth out these words, for the most part, and also. May I entreat him plainly to inform us, what moved him to make this change? It seemeth, he thought these words (at the first) needful to be added; (as indeed they were) to conclude his purpose; for unless he can make it appear, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters (which he calleth episcopal power) was in some other besides the Apostles or Apostolic men of Evangelists; and that those also were called Apostles, (or at least the Apostles of the Churches) he cannot infer his former Assertion, to wit, that those who are now called Bishops, were then called the Apostles of the Churches. And now (it seemeth) he foresaw, that the testimonies (afterwards alleged) cannot prove, any other than the very Apostles or Evangelists (whom he calleth Apostolic men) to bear the name of Apostles, in the apostolical 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 persuaded, 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 error, and persuade him to believe 
The Doct. leadeth his reader into that error which himself dissaloweth.  that which himself dissalloweth? If he be, why urgeth he not those scriptures to prove the main question? seeing none can be found more pregnant, than 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 apostolical? 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 teclesiaipfis compeseunt et verberant inquietoes. If therefore the Doct. will have us to believe, that Diocesan Bishops such as ours, were mentioned in the Apostolical writings, under the name, (not of Bishops but) of Apostles; because Ambrose faith, (Apostoli episcopi sunt) the Apostles are Bishops; let him freely confess, that the functions of Lectors & Exercists (such as the Papists will have 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 us this once, for not embracing the former.  
2. And seeing he faith Cyprian, speaketh to the like purpose. lib. 3. epist. 9 Apostles, ideft episcopos & Prapositos Dominus elegin. The L. chose Apostles, that is, Bishops. Let me again demand of Mr Doct. whether he be persuaded that the Apostles whom our Lord did choose (and who after our Saviour's ascension chose Deacons, as Cyprian in the same place testifieth) were Diocesan Bishops, such as ours? If not, how will Cyprians words further his purpose, which is to prove, that in the Apostolical writings such Bishops are called Apostles? If he be, why is he ashamed (especially seeing he hath Bishop Bilson (perpet. govern. pag. 226.) alleging 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 ordained of God, in his last argument, hereafter following Cap. 6? Nay, why affirmeth he the contrary in this 3. chapped. viz. that some of the Apostles were not properly Bishops. Yea he there acknowledgeth, that it is truly affirmed of the rest of the Apostles, james excepted; that they had not certain Churches assigned to them, and therefore were not Bishops. To conclude, it is apparent 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 pre-eminence, which God gave to the high-prcifts above the rest (Deut. 17. and Numb. 16.) much more earnestly, than he doth the prerogative of Christ's Apostles, above the Deacons. Wherefore the Doctor too much abridgeth the episcopal function of her due antiquity in deriving the original thereof (at the highest) fro Christ's election of his Apostles. For if this later will prove the function of Bishops to be mentioned in the new Testament, under the name of Apostles; then will the former as strongly argue, their function to be mentioned, in the book of Moses, under the name of that priesthood, which was given to Aaron and his successors.  
But draw we to an end; at the last (and for the winding up of 
Sect. 13. adpag. 72.  all the Doctor once again taketh hold of Theodoret, but in vain, seeing 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 than Apostles, or Apostolical men, it is, Evangelist; for if they were either Apostles or Evangelists, than 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 willbe confounded, which ought to be kept distinct, as shall be showed more fully in the examination of that which he hath said in defence of james his Bishopric (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 endure to be contradicted, in any point of the least moment. The process of time whereof Theodoret speaketh, when the name of Bishops was appropriated to such, as in his days 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 Jerome. But Theodoret's meaning is best gathered from his own words, In process 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 been called Apostles. Who seethe not, that in his opinion the name of Bishop, was not appropriated to that function, which in his time time enjoyed it, till the name of Apostle was left to those that were properly so called? But the church-governors were called Apostles for many years after their time, as the refuter showed out of Epiphanius and Isidore. (Answ. pag. 153.) And the Doct. himself confesseth that the name of Apostle continued in use; so long as any Evangelists, or Apostolical men remained. But under that Emperor Antonius Pius (who reigned until the year 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 Jerome 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; neither is it pertinent to the present question, here to debate that matter: seeing we now wait to hear, what can be alleged from the scriptures to prove, that such Bishops, had their ordination and original, 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 main assertion (that Bishops such as ours were in the Scriptures, called the Apostles of the Churches) and the instance produced to prove it (to wit, that Epaphroditus the Philippians Apostle, was such a Bishop) do lie as naked as at the first; having no shredd of Holy writ, nor any piece of reason to  them. Wherefore the conclusions that he inferreth upon these premises (viz that Bishops being then called 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 walls whose foundation is laid in the sand, and daubed with intempered mortar; and therefore how glorious soever in show, yet can they neither longstand, nor yield any firm habitation, for our diocesan Prelates to lodge in.  
It hath been already showed, that (in the judgement of some of the Doctors own witnesses) Epaphroditus and others called the 
Sect. 14.  Apostles (or Messengers) of the Churches, were Evangelists rather than properly Bishops; now to make the probability of this point the more apparent, I here tender to Mr Doctor, and the indifferent reader these considerations. First, touching Epaphroditus; his employment 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 perpetual residence there. 3. Moreover there is small likelihood, the chief care and oversight of that Church and their affairs, was committed to him by the Apostle; seeing 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 etc. But ye know the proof of him etc. him therefore I hope to send etc. which words do 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 faithful in other services; when in a natural care for the affairs of his own Church, he suffereth others to go before him, and striveth not to excel them? 4. Again, in this epistle sent (as the Doctor saith) by Epaphrodirus, it is plain, he singleth out one, whom (though he name not, yet) he honoureth with the title of a natural or faithful yoakfellowe, cap. 4. 3. and beseecheth him to help not only those women, which laboured with the Apostle in the gospel, but Clement also, and the rest of his fellowlabourers. If so much had been said for the singular pre-eminence of Epaphroditus, the D. doubtless would have made his best advantage of it: wherefore me thinks, it should move him, to make a Quere, why the Apostles should thus single out an other, if the chief care of that whole Church, and the oversight of all Bishops or Ministers, that there laboured in the Gospel, were the standing right and singular prerogative of Epaphroditus. And till the Doctor hath yielded some stronger probabilities for his assertion, then are yet seen; I nothing doubt, but the indifferent reader, will see and acknowledge, that from the text itself, we have more reason to deny, than 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 principal end of their Embassage, was to stir up those of Corinthe to make ready their benevolence for the poor Saints 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 seeing there was at that time, store of others that accompanied the Apostle in his traveiles; and might better be spared, as having no settled employment in any one place. Moreover, it may be probably (if not necessarily) gathered, from the Apostles description of those men; that they were Evangelistes', rather than Bishops. Of the one he saith (2. Cor. 8. 18. 19) his praise is in the gospel, throughout all the Churches, and not that only but he was chosen also of the Churches to be (suntcdemos bemoon) our fellow-traveiler, or companion in our journey etc. And of the other (vers. 22.) We have oftentimes proved him to be diligent (or careful) in many things etc. But there is not one word, that intimateth any band, 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 pre-eminence of diocesan Bishops. Wherefore leaving the Doctor to his meditation upon these considerations; let us proceed to some other particulars, urged by him, to justify the title of his 3. chapter, viz. that the Apostles themselves ordained Bishops.   

Chapt. 5. Showing that the supposed Bishopric of the Apostle james, is not supported, but contradicted by the scriptures which the Doct. allegeth. And maintaining the Refuters reasons produced to prove, that he received not the episcopal power or function by any ordination, from his fellows Apostles. bandled by the D. (serm. pag. 62. etc. Def. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. and the Res. pag. 131. 132: etc.  
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 ordained Bishops; and committed the Churoches unto them Therefore the opiscopall function is (without question) of Apostolical institution. First, touching the consequence; because the Refuter said, it was too near 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 itself: the Doct. thinketh he did him wrong, to think he would commit so gross a fault, as to prove the same, by the same; seeing he could not but discern, 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 Doctor's meaning? doth he not (serm. pag. 92.) take both these assertions for one and the same? viz. that the episcopal function is of divine institution, and that Bishops were ordained of God. For if they be not one, in the D. apprehension; how shall the direct proof 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 understand him. In that which followeth I cannot but commend his honest and plain dealing; for beholding an oversight in the Ref; (when in this sense, he acknowledgeth the consequence to be good) he himself undertaketh to lay open the weakness of it, and confesseth freely that a just exception may be taken against it, viz. that though the Apostles ordained the people, yet christ instituted the function; for that is the judgement of many of the Fathers; and among the rest of Cyprian, who (Lib. 3. ep. 9) saith, that our L. himself ordained Apostles, that is to say, Bishops. Whereto I say, that we are beholding to the Doct. that teacheth us to impugn his own argument and now, since (by his own confession) the consequence is not good, he must be beholding to us if we permit it to pass without check; for in deed, it is a clear case, that the ordination of persons, cannot prove the function itself 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 judgement of the Fathers in this very question wherein he relieth most upon their testimony. For if all those Fathers (which affirm the Bps to be the Apostles successors; & that the two degrees of Bps or Presbyters, do answer to the degrees of the Apostles & 72 disciples &c.) do hold the episcopal function to be Christ's own ordinance; (as here he confesseth) and if they that thus teach be so many, so ancient, unsuspected and approved; that it cannot be denied, but the calling and superiority of Bishops, together with the inferior degree of Presbyters, is of Christ's own institution (as he concludeth lib. 3. p. 32.) how cometh it to pass, that the Doctor hath the forehead eo deny it, and maintain so stiffly as he doth; that 
The Doct. contradicteth himself.  the episcopal 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 demonstrated the calling of Bishops described in his sermon to be of Apostolical institution; as he is well assured, his Refuter with all his partakers, will never be able sound & substantially to confute. Perhaps his best evidence is yet behind; for hitherto we have seen nothing that carrieth any such weight with it, that the Refuter should need to call for any help of his partakers to remove it; let us therefore attend on the proof of his Antecedent, which he undertaketh to effect, by showing the time when, the places where, and the persons whom, the Apostles ordained yned Bishops.  
Concerning the time, the Doctor putteth a difference, between 
Sect. 2. add sect. 2. p3. 49. 50.  the Church at jerusalem and the rest. For there, because shortly after Christ's passion, a great number were converted to the faith; and because it was the Mother-Church, unto which the Christians from all parts, were afterwards to have recourse: the Apostles, before their dispersion, (statim post passionem Domini) ordained james the just Bishop of jerusalem. From whence the Refuter gathered this argument. james the just was ordained Bishop of jerusalem, straightways after Christ's passion. Ergo the Apostles ordained Bishops and committed 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 ordained Bishops at jerusalem and in other Churches (which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate) Therefore they ordained Bishops. He addeth, that he proveth they ordained Bishops at jerusalem, because they ordained james the just, and Simon the son of Cleophas, Bishops of jerusalem;) 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 failed in discerning his Analysis, his genesis being so disordered and confused. For the explaining and proving the former antecedent, he proposeth (as appeareth in this sect. & serm. p. 65) these three things to be showed, 1. the time when. 2. the places where. 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordained Bishops. He beginneth with the time, when the first Bishop was ordained; and withal declareth the place and person: Afterwards he showeth jointly the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained 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 argumentation; unless it be to give the Bishops of jerusalem their due place. For in order of time Evodias at Antioch, Linus at Rome, and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishoprics 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 cryptical 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 them. For who (besides himself) would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned; & distinguished his first probation, from the ensuing prosyllogism, so as he hath done.  
But let us see how he justifieth the parts of his later enumeration, wherein he coupleth together, the persons with the places. 
Sect. 3.  First touching james (whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of jerusalem ordained by the Apostles, very shortly after the lords passion;) before he prove the truth of his assertion, he yieldeth two reasons, why that Church had a Bishop, assigned unto it, long 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 parts were afterwards to have recourse. Touching the former, I grant, the number was greater than can be showed in any other Church, within so short a time; but that this was any reason to move the Apostles, to ordain them a Bishop, the Doctor's bare word in affirming it; is too bare a proof, to persuade us to entertain it; especially, seeing he will not allow a Bishop to such Churches, as in number do exceed the converts at jerusalem, when james in his conceit was ordained their superintendant. 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 james his ordination was after their conversion, and not (as elsewhere he saith) immediately after Christ's passion. Now touching the later; I confess also, that jerusalem was the Mother-church, from which (in some respect) all other Churches sprung. For the word of the Lord went out from jerusalem (Isa. 2. 3) & that by Christ's own appointmt, (Luc. 24. 47) and from thence, the light of the gospel spread over all the world by the Ministry 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. Neither deny we, but that many Christians, upon special 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 etc.) were bound to make repair thither, as unto their Mother-church; to whose jurisdiction they were subject, as children to their Mother, there is no syllable of scripture to persuade; much less to believe, that the Christians of all parts, were afterwards to have recourse to jerusalem as the Mother-church. For this assertion, hath no evidence, either of Scripture or ancient Father, to countenance it; let them therefore believe it that list; we own 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 Ecumenical or universal Pope? If by the Christians of all parts, he mean, of all other Churches in the world; as if seemeth he doth, since afterwards he calleth that Church, the Mother Church of Christendom, (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 speech to the Christians of that one nation (the charge whereof, he saith was assigned to james, pag. 52.) it must be the Sea (if of a Bishop then) of a national, and not a Diocesan Prelate. For if the Church of jerusalem was never a parish, because it was intended, that as the people of the city and country were all under one highpriest, so) all the Christians of city and country, should be under the Bishop of jerusalem; (as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89) then, for the same reason, neither was that Church a Diocese, or a province; but a national Church, as was the church, over which the High-preist was set, under the law. Lastly, to grant as much as in any equity can be demanded, viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians; and partly for the great recourse thither, of unbelieving jews (as well as of believers) out of all parts; it was meet that some one of the Apostles, should there abide to feed the converted flock, and to labour the conversion of others: how can this argue a necessity, 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. add sect. 4. pa. 52.  james was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by the Apostles. He beginneth with Jerome; and to make him the more gracious, with the Disciplinarians, he saith, it is that Jerome, on whose only authority 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) altogether a malicious slander. For he is not ignorant, that his refuter every where calleth for proofs from the scripture, as others have done before him, & that his testimony is then only regarded of them, when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth. But it well appeareth by his citing Jerome so oft in his sermon (40. times at least, well nigh twice as oft as he allegeth any other) that he relieth very much on his authority. To him here he addeth Eusebius, Epiphanius, & some others; whose testimony in his conceit, should suffice to persuade for such a matter, as this now in question. But his Refuters' exception is just, such a joint act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church (as the ordaining of james to the episcopal charge of jerusalem) how should it be proved but by the scripture? and who could better testify it, than the Evangelist Luke, who wrote the history of their acts? If then he hath not recorded it, it is a strong presumption, he was never Bishop there. The Doct. replieth saying, as though the Apostles did nothing, but what is recorded in the Acts; 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 registered in the acts. As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses, I overpass that consideration to sect. 15. etc. I am here to advertise the Reader, the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought, to relieve the weakness of his argument. For unless he can make sure and certain Proof of this (among other parts of his induction) that S. james was ordained by the Apostles Bishop of jerusalem; how shall he justify his conclusion before set down, to wit, that the episcopal function is without question of apostolical institution? And how shall certain and sure proof of james his ordination to the Bishopric of jerusalem be made from such witnesses, as the Doctor hath produced? Are not the canonical writings of the new testament, (penned partly by the Apostles, and partly by Evangelists, which were their companions) best able to testify, what function james and other faithful servants of Christ did bear and exercise, in the Churches, that enjoyed their presence? We find many things recorded by Luke, concerning the ministery of Paul and Barnabas, Philip and others, by whose labours the kingdom of Christ was enlarged. Acts 9 15. 27. & 13. 2. 3. & 14. 14. & 15. 22. 31. & 8. 5. 40. &. 21. 8.) Neither are the scriptures silent touching james and his employment at jerusalem, (Act. 1. 13. & 15. 13. & 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9 & 2. 9) why then should this ordination of james to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church, be wholly buried in silence, if it had been the joynt-act of the Apostles, before their dispersion, and an act of that moment, wherein they gave the first precedent of a new function of greatest use & highest place, for all churches in succeeding ages? Was it not as worthy & more necessary to be recorded, than the first institution of the Deacons office. Act. 6. 2. 6? Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption, that james never had any such ordination; seeing there are no footsteps of it, in the Apostolical writings? and seeing the Doctor's defence 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 denieth, that as Christ did many things which are not written, (joh. 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 himself, thus to open so wide a door unto the Papists, to bring in all their superstitions under the name of unwritten traditions? Can he give us any one instance, of an Apostolical ordinance (or of any Apostolic action, of like moment and necessary use for all Churches) that is not mentioned in their writings; neither can be proved otherwise, then by the stories & and writings of the Fathers?  
And this may serve for answer also unto his second question, whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers etc. reporting with one consent a matter of fact, not registered in the acts? In some matters of fact, credit is not to be denied to their report (as that james the Just was martyred at jerusalem; 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 notwithstanding, many worthy men (nothing inferior to the Doctor) esteem worthy of no credit. I will instance only in Peter's Bishopric first at Antioch & then at Rome, which is contended for, not only by Papists, but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacy; let the testimonies be well weighed, which are brought for the maintenance of Peter's episcopal chair in both Churches (Rome especially) even by Bishop Bilson (perpet. govern. pag. 227. 262. and 264) and they willbe found to be neither in number nor in credit, inferior to those that the D. allegeth for james his Bishopric at jerusalem: yet as many other men of singular learning & piety do deny credit to their report: so the Doctor also, (as one nothing moved, either with the authority 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 believe the testimony 
Sect. 5.  of the Fathers for the one, and to deny credit unto them in the other, know he, that we have reason also to withdraw approbation from this which he alloweth. But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question. Although (saith he) the act of making james Bishop, be not set down in the Acts; yet the story so speaketh of his continuance at jerusalem (Acts. 15. & 21.) of his assistance of presbyters, & of his presidency in that Council where Peter and Paul were present; that it may appear, their testimony is true, & agreeable 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 (together with Gal. 1. & 2.) do show james his continuance as jerusalem, as the superintendant of that Church, not for a short time, but for the space of 30. years, even to his death) and also plainly prove that he was Bishop of jerusalem. Thus he saith, and thus, it seemeth, his meaning is to argue.  
The scriptures which show, that james continued at jerusalem as the superintendant of that Church, from Christ's passion to his own death, do also plainly prove that he was the Bishop thereof:  
But his continuance at jerusalem for so long space as superintendant of that Church, is testified, Act. 15. & 21. & Gal. 1.  
Therefore, the same scriptures do plainly prove, that james was the Bishop of jerusalem. And consequently their testimony is true, & agreeable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there.  
A superintendant and a Bishop (according to the natural construction of the words in their original) is all one; & both of them in a general signification, may very well be applied to that presidency & oversight, which every Apostle, or Evangelist, had in every Church for the time of their abode there. For, who had the superintendency or government (or, if you will, the episcopal charge) of the Church at Corinthe, for that space of a year & six months, which Paul spent there in preaching of the word among them; or of the Church at Ephesus, during the space of. 3. years, wherein he ceased not to warn every one night and day, and to teach them both publicly and from house to house. Acts. 18. 8. 11. and 20. 17. 20. 31. But as this superintendency, proveth not S. Paul to have been the Bishop, either of Corinthe, or Ephesus (in the function of a diocesan or provincial Bishop) so neither doth the like superintendency in james at jerusalem, argue him, to have the function of a diocesan Bishop, or Archbishop although it could be proved, that he continued in such a superintendency there, for that whose space of years before mentioned. For it is not the continuance of 3. or 30. years, that distinguisheth the function of a Bishop from an Apostle: but an ordination and assignment, to the perpetual charge of one particular Church. The proposition therefore of the Doctor's argument is not true; unless, he limiteth the superintendency, whereof he speaketh unto this sense; to wit, that james was the superintendant of that Church of jerusalem, in the special function of a diocesan Bishop. But then his assumption is false; not only in regard of such an episcopal superintendency; but also in respect of that length of time, which he ascribeth to him therein: for the scriptures alleged by him do not prove, either the one or the other. 
Sect. 6. add sect. 6. p. 56 & sect. 8. pag. 60.   
For, (to weigh the places first severally & then jointly) what superintendency, other then Apostolical, can the Doctor discern in Galath. 1? S. Paul there testifieth that immediately upon his conversion, he went not up to jerusalem, to them that were Apostles before him; but 3. years after he went up thither to see Peter; and found there no other of the Apostles, save james the L. brother▪ vers. 17. 18. 19 behold here a manifest approbation of his Apostolical function, for he equally honoureth him, and Peter with the name of Apostles; but of any episcopal superintendency, wherein he should differ from Peter, there is (altum silentium) no inkling at all) nay rather, of the two, there reasoning is more probable, which give pre-eminence unto Peter; because Paul went up to jerusalem of purpose, to visit (not james, but) Peter, and abode with him 15. days. 2. As for Gal. 2. he that peruseth the text may very well think, the Doct. had need to have skill in Alchymistrie, as well as in Divinity, if he undertake from thence to extract for S. james an episcopal superintendency, at jerusalem, yet behold how he (pag. 56.) attempteth it in this manner; james, Peter, and john gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, that themselves would be for the circumcision. Gal. 2. 9 And for as much as Peter & john traveiled to other parts, james alwaise abiding at Ierusalem●; it is more than probable, that the Church of jury was peculiarly assigned unto him. But how proveth he, that james did always abide at jerusalem, when the rest traveyled abroad? doth it appear in Gal. 2. that any such agreement, was made between him and them? no, (he saith) it is very probable that so it was; but there is no likelihood, that james was forbidden to go out of jerusalem; seeing the rest were not debarred from returning thither. I but it is more than probable that the Church of jury was peculiarly assigned to him; seeing Peter & john traveiled into other parts. By the Church of jury he meaneth (as I suppose) all the Churches in judea, (mentioned Gal. 1. 22. & 1. Thess. 2. 14.) and perhaps the rest that were in Galilee & Samaria (Acts. 9 31.) for who fit than he to have the oversight of these Churches also. Now I grant that in their absence and during his abode in those coasts; it is probable, he undertook the care of those Churches; like as Peter had the chief oversight of the jews, that were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia etc. (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 follow that james, had any episcopal (but rather only an Apostolical) superintendency over the Churches of jury. But pass we forwards, the Doctor addeth, it is not for nothing that both in Acts. 15. he is noted as precedent, or chief in that Council, and in Gal. 2. 9 Paul speaking of such Apostles, as were at jerusalem, he giveth the precedence, to james before Peter and john. I grant that james was Precedent in that Council held at jerusalem, Acts 15. and that he hath a priority in nomination before Peter and john. Gal. 2. 9 neither 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 unto 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 james after his election to the Bishopric, was superior (though not in degree yet) in order, unto the rest of the Apostles, when & whiles they were at jerusalem. And in the later, he quoteth. Acts. 15. & Gal. 2. to show, that because he was set over the Mother-church of Christendom, to be the Apostle or Bishop of that people, which had sundry prerogatives above all other nations) in respect of that place, he had precedence before the other Apostles. In which words there are some clear truths which must be divided from other more doubtful points. Of the former sort (not to mention again, the presidence & priority before acknowledged in S. james) we account these particulars. 1. that the jews had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations; 2. that the church of jerusalem was in some respect (as is before showed sect. 3.) the Mother-church of Christendom. 3. that james was an Apostle principally to the jews. 4. and that among the jews, those of jerusalem, and the country round about, did more specially belong unto his oversight, whiles Peter and john (who were also Apostles, for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9) were employed in other places. 5. lastly, that during his presidency (in the Council Acts 15.) he was superior in order, but not in degree, unto the rest of the Apostles. But among things more doubtful, besides the question itself of james his election or assignment to the function of a Bishop at jerusalem) I reckon these positions. 1. that a presidency in honour, or pre-eminence in order (such as he speaketh of) is intimated by S. Paul, in setting james before Peter and john. Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him, in respect of his episcopal charge at jerusalem. 3. and that in the same respect, he had the presidency in the council Act. 15. 4. that he was always (after the time of his supposed election to his Bishopric) superior in order to the rest of the Apostles, when and whiles they remained at jerusalem. 5. that this continuance of that superiority in him, appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this superiority or precedence, did grow 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 authority (or consequence of reason) he is led to apprehend a truth in every of them; and remove the probabilities, which do incline our judgements to the contrary.  
For touching Gal. 2. are not the words of the Apostle (ver. 7. 
Sect. 7.  8.) affirming, that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Peter) much more plain for his pre-eminence above james and john in the Apostleship of the jews, than the naming of james before them (vers. 9 can be) for his primacy above all his fellowe-Apostles. Is it not then, much more frivolous and ridiculous in the Doctor to extract for james a pre-eminence in honour above Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, from that slender priority which Paul giveth him in naming him first; than it is in Bellarmine to ascribe unto Peter a preheminent dignity above the rest, because he is usually named in the first place? Why therefore should not that did up the Doctor's mouth, that hath dammed up Bellarmine's?) 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 etc. Gravissime Erasmus (Annot. in Math. 10.) ex ordine recensionis, non efficaciter intelligitur, quis cui sit preferendus. Whit. de pont. p. 27. l. Add we hareunto that which is of all observed in their answer to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not always 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 james here first named, (being one of the Lords brethren) cometh 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 pre-eminence can sound be conveyed to james 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 only that he had a prerogative of honour above the rest of the Apostles; but also that the same did arise from his episcopal charge at jerusalem? for is there any one word in the whole epistle, that giveth the least intimation, of any such difference between him & Peter & john, 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 appear (by the right hands of fellowship etc. mentioned verse 9) that Imaes exercised among the jews the same (and no other) Ministry, that Peter and john did; and that they jointly were Apostles for the jews; 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 Apostolical function, bred no inequality, or disparity betwixt them, in precedence or honour. For if the ancient prerogatives of the jews, gave any preferment to their Apostles above those, by whom God wrought among the Gentiles (as the Do. supposeth) than Paul was in this respect inferior to the other; but the whole scope of his reasoning, tendeth to maintain the contrary; viz. that as elsewhere he faith, he was meden busterekenai) in nothing inferior to the very chief Apostles. 2. Cor. 11. 5. & 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the jews in general, gave not to Peter (who had the Apostleship of the circumcision) any pre-eminence above Paul, the Apostle & Teacher of the Gentiles: how should Peter become inferior unto james, by reason of any pre-eminence, which the Church at jerusalem, might challenge above other Christian Churches?  
Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge, james his presidency 
Sect. 8.  to be probably gathered from the text, because he concludeth the disputation, adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assembly. vers. 19 20. & 28. 29.) so I can by no means allow this presidency to grow unto him, as his right in regard of his episcopal charge in that Church, much less can we take the presidency for a sufficient proof of his Bishopric there; although the Doctor should tell us ten times, that it proveth it. For what strings can knit the joints of this argument together? james was precedent or Moderator in the Synod at jerusalem. Act. 15. Therefore he was the Bishop of that Church. Was S. Paul the Bishop of Ephesus, because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Acts 20. 28. pag. 2. he fate as precedent in the Convocation, when the Clergy of Ephesus, were by his call, come together? Or was Peter james his predecessor in the Bishopric of jerusalem, because he was precedent in the choice of Mathias, to succeed in the room of judas Act. 1. 15? Surgit Petrus non jacobus, ut is cui presidentia discipulorum commissa erat. Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes etc. Whit. de pout. pag. 288.  
2. But to come to that which he saith doth appear Act. 15. viz. that james after his election to the Bishopric, was superior in order to the rest of the Apostles, when and whiles they were at jerusalem.) May I ask, with what eyes he discerned in that text, the appearance of this which he affirmeth? In the Embassage which was sent from Antioch to jerusalem, was there any special respect had unto james above the rest of the Apostles? Or in their entertainment, is there any intimation, of any singular act performed by him, that might any way argue any such pre-eminence in him? Doth not the text rather, (in the whole tenor 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 james? the text saith not so; all the record is, that the Apostles and Elders came together, to consider of the matter. vers. 6. There is no likelihood therefore, that james had any standing pre-eminence among the Apostles, before his presidency in this Synod. And what presumption can he produce from this text, or any part of the whole story to show that he remained superior unto his fellow Apostles, after that meeting was ended? not a syllable out of any text. Wherefore in urging this place to prove, a continued superiority in order over the rest of the Apostles; seeing he is as one, who seeketh to fetch water not fire, out of a punish stone, he discovereth 
The Doct. expumice aquam postulat.  his extreme poverty in this case: And (which is worse) injuriously maketh the Holy Ghost the author of his own fond conceits. 3. For is it not a foolish conceit (to speak no worse of it) to immagin that the function or charge of a Bishop, cast upon james, being an Apostle could give him more honour, than he received of Christ by his Apostolical office? Doth not this overturn that difference of dignity and degree, which God hath set in his Church, among 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 madness, (see Doct. Reynolds conference with heart, cap. 2. divis. 3. pag. 119. & cap. 3. divis. 1. pag. 126) who acknowledging the Apostles to be all equal in the power & honour of the Apostleship; do yet ascribe unto Peter a pre-eminence above the rest, in regard of pastoral or episcopal jurisdiction?  
But to proceed on to the last place; Act. 21. 18. etc. what is there 
Sect. 9  in it to be found, that can give the Doctor any relief? when Paul came jerusalem and went in unto james, he found the Elders present with him, verse 18. he saluted, (not james alone, but) all that were present; and declared what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministery, vers. 19 & upon the hearing thereof, they all glorified God, and said, Thou seest brother, how many thousands of jews there are which believe etc. ver. 20-25. From hence the Doct. rightly collecteth (I grant) that james had the assistance of the presbyters (as he saith pag. 52.) in that counsel and advice, which was given to Paul for the purifying of himself and shaving of his head etc. vers. 23. 24. But if he shall proceed from this assistance of Presbyters, to infer that therefore james was their Diocesan Bishop: First I will make so bold as to deny the consequence; for why should not james his Apostolical function enable him, to hold a presidency, or chief place amongst the Presbyters of jerusalem, during the time of his abode there? we heard before, that Paul's presidency, in the assembly of the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 17. etc., did not make him their Diocesan Bishop. Who doubteth (see junius his Animadvers. in Bellarm. Cont. 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 & authority) worthy to have the oversight or presidency, before the rest of his fellow labourers? The presidency therefore which james had in the assembly of Elders at jerusalem, proveth not, that he was their diocesan Bishop, in office or pre-eminence like to one of ours. 2. Nay rather, we may (upon better grounds) conclude the contrary; for it is clear, by the words of the text aforesaid, that james neither spoke nor did any thing in that assembly, of his own head, or by his sole authority. The Elders were jointly interessed with him, both in receiving from Paul, the report of things wrought by his Ministry; and in giving him advice, how to remove the offence, which the believing Jews 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 sentences are ratified: neitther do they consult with the rectors of their parishes, for the ordering of any ecclesiastical causes; but impose their command on them to execute their decrees. S. james therefore, (though he were an Apostle yet) exercised not that preemi nent authority over the presbyters at jerusalem, which our diocese. Prelates do over their presbyters; and consequently, he was not a Diocesan Bishop, in function & preheminent superiority like to one of ours.  
Thus the Reader may see by special view taken of the places, 
Sect. 10. add sect. 4. pa. 51. 52. also.  which the Doctor allegeth for the episcopal superintendency of james, over the presbyters and Church at jerusalem; that there is no warrant from the scripture, to convey to him any such function. Now to lay them together, let us try if they will afford him any better proof, for that 30. years continuance, which he giveth unto james, in his superintendency of that Church. When Paul went to jerusalem 3. years after his conversion, to visit Peter, there he found james the Lord's brother, Gal. 1. 18. 19 he was present also and Precedent in the Council held at jerusalem. Act. 15. (which was the very time that he mentioneth Gal. 2. 1. as many divines of best note do judge.) Again at Paul's last coming to jerusalem, Act. 21. (about the year of Christ 56. and 7. years before james his death) he was there found among the Elders of that Church. In a word therefore, this is all that those scriptures do testify for the Doctor; viz. that in 30. years space Paul coming 3. or 4. times to jerusalem, found james the L. brother there. Is he not then strangely besotted with prejudice, that can persuade himself, that these scriptures do show his continual residence at jerusalem, as the superintendant of that Church for the space of 30. years, that is, from Christ's passion till his own dying day? What hindereth, (save only a prejudicial conceit, of his supposed Bishopric there) but he might think; that (like as Paul and Peter did, so also) james might spend many years in other places; and yet have recourse thither, (as they also had) so long as the jewish policy remained in force? Was he not ordained of Christ to the office of an Apostle, aswell as the rest, with an ample commission and charge, to go forth into all the world, beginning at jerusalem & so proceeding throughout all judea and Samaria, and unto the utmost parts 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 commanded them, so) they went forth and preached every where? I, but the Doctor will here perhaps, urge that (which he hath alleged sect. 4. p. 51. 52.) though our Saviour bade his Apostles to go 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 jerusalem, divided the world among themselves in such sort, that one being assigned to one part and another to an other, every man walked within his own compass, and did not usually build upon the foundation of an other etc. 2. Cor. 10. 13. 16. Now as they were careful to provide for other parts of the world; so would they not all forsake jewrie and jerusalem, but assign 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 unfitly be called (as he was in deed) the Bishop thereof. And hence is it, that although the Apostles were commanded to go into all the world, yet james stayed at jerusalem until his death. Lo here the Doctor's words, but do ye not see, that his conclusion weakeneth the credit of S. Marks testimony, in like sort, as he doth elsewhere (pag. 116.) one speech of Ieromes. viz. that until factions arose in the Church (which occasioned the bringing in of Bishops) the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. This, saith he, is unture, in respect of the Church of jerusalem; which had james for her Bishop, before any Presbyters were there ordained. So albeit S. Mark saith, that the Apostles went forth (as Christ commanded them) and preached every where: yet the Doctor saith in effect, It is untrue, in respect of james, for though he lived. 30. years after Christ, yet he went not forth to preach abroad, but stayed at jerusalem until his death. But whether Jerome do contradict himself or not, (for how truly the Doctor so supposeth, we are not now to examine:) his testimony is too weak to exempt james from partaking with the rest, in that which Mark affirmeth of all without exception. And it is no small wrong both to james & to his fellow-Apostles; to make them all guilty of transgressing Christ's command, the one in neglecting, & the other in procuring the neglect of the Apostolic function. in the principal 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 jointly: and they were by the spirit of God directed where to employ their labours, Notwithstanding, it is no true vision but a deceitful dream of the Doctors own heart, to immagin, that the Apostles before their dispersion from jerusalem, 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 entered into the line or circuit of an other. For had this been so, then Peter was too blame, to stay at jerusalem with james, when the rest were gone into other parts, Gal. 1. 18. 19 and to make so many years residence as he did in judea, 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 distant one from an other, as he did; (Act. 26. 18. & 11. 25. 26. & 13. 2. with 14. 26. & chapters following) if all the world had been divided unto the 12. before their departure from jerusalem? 3. Or why should Paul & Barnabas be joined in one commission, as joint traveilers in the same line, (Act. 13. 2.) if all the rest had a several circuit, allotted to each a part? 4. Again, doth not that agreement, Gal. 2. 9 (when a distribution, not of Countries, but of people (jews and Gentiles) was made between Paul and Barnabas; and those 3. pillars james, Peter, and john) argue very probably, that there was no such distribution of the universal world into several parts (as the Doctor imagineth) formerly ratified by the holy Ghost? 5. Lastly it is apparent, that Paul, (for the coast into which he traveiled) had not his whole compass allotted him at once, but was guided by special 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 always strove to preach the gospel, where Christ was not named, lest he should build upon an other man's 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 the compass of his own measure allotted to him by God: so I flatly deny, that there was any such general division of the world, made at once. And concerning james, though (for the reasons before named) I persuade myself, he spent not all his days in jerusalem; yet I grant 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 only. But as the direction or assignment which Paul had, to publish the gospel in Macedonia, or at Corinthe (Act. 16. 10. & 18, 9) made him not the Bishop of those people, or countries; neither did Peter's portion of the jews dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia etc. 1. Pet. 1. 1.) argue him to be their Bishop: so in like manner, though I should grant, that james his circuit was for the most part (or altogether if the D. will) enclosed within the countries of judea, Galilee and Samaria: yet this limitation doth not prove him to be, the provincial or natonall Bishop of those Churches. The D. therefore buildeth upon that weak and sandy foundation of his own (or other men's) fancy, in affirming, that he might be fitly called, and was in deed the Bishop of that one nation.  
And he is no less deceived, in avouching, that the charge of that one Church or nation, was peculiarly allotted unto him, immediately after 
Sect. 12.  Christ's passion; or at least about the time of their general dispersion from jerusalem: For, besides that, these two cannot stand together, (there being a good space of time betwixt them, (as many appear Act 1. 14. and 9, 27. and 11, 1. and 12, 2, 3.) he that deligenly observeth the tenor of S. Luke's story, touching the state and government of the Church at jerusalem shall meet with many presumptions, which strongly argue, that for many years after Christ's passion james had no such prerogative; either of superiority in order, above his fellow Apostles; or of superintendency over the presbyters and people of that Church, as is thought to be annexed to his episcopal function.  
The first act of note after Christ's ascension, was the choice of Mathias into the room of judas; wherein the text showeth, that Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and proposed the matter to the Assembly. Acts. 1. 15. 26. whence as the Fathers (Chrysostome & Oecumen: in Acts 1.) do gather, so our own writers do acknowledge, that Peter and not james had the presidency (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 Ghost; 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 wipe away that infamous slander of drunkenness wherewith they were all charged. At which time he also poured forth those gracious words of reprehension and exhortation, which gained in that day 3000 souls to God, Act. 2. 22-41. 3. Within a while after, the taking a new occasion to preach (Act. 3. 12.) had such success, that many of his hearers embraced the faith, (cap. 4. 4.) And this he did, when john was in company with him, (cap. 3. 1. 4. 11.) like as afterwards, when they both stood as prisoners, before the rulers of the jews; he so clearly maintained their innocency, that they were both set at liberty (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 apology for himself & the rest. (cap. 5. 18. 27. 29.) 5. Moreover, when Ananias & Saphyra kept back part of the price of the possession sold, and laid down the remainder at the Apostles feet; their lying and dissimulation, was discovered, and punished, not by james, but by Peter: for at his word, they both fell down dead, to the great terror of all that heard the report thereof (cap. 5. 3-10.) If therefore this corporal punishment stood then in place of excommunication (as some affirm. See D. Dove, Def of Church-govern. pag. 21.) it will follow that (as before in preaching; so here also) in censuring of offenders, which is deemed one principal part of episcopal pre-eminence) Peter as yet carried a greater stroke, than james or any other the Apostles, in the Church at jerusalem. 6. Yea he was had in so high estimation, or rather admiration among the multitude, for many other miracles wrought by his hand, that they brought their sick, & laid them down in the streets, that at least, his shadow when he passed by, might shadow some of them. cap. 5. 15. 7. Add hereunto his residence at jerusalem, ●o well known abroad, that Paul 3 years after his conversion, came thither of purpose to visit Peter, and found him there, Gal. 1. 17. 19 and though after this, he spent some time in other parts of judea, as at Li●da, joppa & Caesarea, in every place winning many to the faith (cap. 9 32. 35. 42. & 10. 24. 44.) yet he returned back to jerusalem (cap. 11. 2.) and not long after, was there cast into prison, cap. 12. 3. 5. Neither did this drive him (after his deliverance thereout) wholly to forsake jerusalem: for though for a time he went into an other place (cap. 12. 17.) yet repaired he thither again; and was there, before the Synod that determined that controversy mentioned chapt. 15. 7. Wherefore until this time (which was about 18. years after Christ's passion; see D. Whitak. de pont. pag. 345) if any of the Apostles had any standing pre-eminence above the rest, either in the ordering of their meetings, or in the government of the Church of jerusalem; we have better warrant to give it unto Peter; then the Do▪ can allege for james or any other. So that if we should take (as the D. doth) this superiority or superintendency for a sufficient proof of an episcopal function; we might hence infer that Peter had it (and not james) at least for 12. years after Christ's passision, (see Doct. Whitak. ubi supra pag. 341) that is, till the second year of Claudius the Emperor. But I purpose not to enforce any such conclusion; it shall suffice from the former premises to conclude, that S. Luke's story contradicteth their testimony, which report james to be ordained by the Apostles (Peter james & john) Bishop of jerusalem, immediately after Christ's passion. For it were absurd to think, that Peter should consecrate him to the office of a Bishop in that Church, and retain in his own hands (for so many years after such consecration) the chief power and pre-eminence, that is supposed to belong to that function. Wherefore, as the Refuter had reason to except against the Doctor's evidence first alleged, being altogether human & not divine: so I doubt not, but himself will see, (if he wink not too hard) that he abuseth the scriptures, which he cited to grace their testimony on whom he principally relieth.  
But to (pass forwards) let us now see what success the D. hath 
Sect. 13. add sect. 4. pag. 31.  in answering the rest of the refuters exceptions. And first that objection which himself setteth down sect. 4. p. 51. in this manner,  
If the Apostles ordained james Bishop of jerusalem; then they gave him the episcopal power. But they gave him no power, which the Lord had not before invested in his person, as an Apostle. Therefore they did not ordain him Bishop. With the Doctrs leave I will change the assumption, and distinguish it from the confirmation thereof, which lieth more clear in the Refuters own words (answ. p. 131.) The argument therefore must stand thus, If the Apostles ordained james Bishop of jerusalem; then they gave him the episcopal power. But they gave him not the episcopal power: Ergo, they did not ordain him Bishop. The assumption as it now standeth, is thus fortified;  
The power of ordination and jurisdiction, was not given to james by the Apostles (for both were invested in his person, by the Lord himself; so as he being an Apostle might use either of them freely as occasion was offered, wherever he became.) But the episcopal power (in the Doctor's understanding, form. pag. 32. 69. 73.) is the power of ordination and jurisdiction. Ergo, the episcopal power was not given to james by the Apostles. Now what is the D. answer? I answer (saith he) by distinction. The power of order, (if I may so term it) james had before, as those who are Bishops sine titulo: but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him, when he was designed Bishop of jerusalem etc. The edge of this answer, is bend directly against the assumption of the Refuters objection; and against the proposition of the prosyllogism added for the confirmation thereof. Only whereas the Refuter affirmeth, the power both of ordination & of jurisdiction to be invested in the person of james by Christ, when he made him an Apostle (& therefore neither of them given him, by his fellow-Apostles) the Do: telleth us that james received from Christ only the power of order; but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him, when they designed him the Bishop of jerusalem. So, in stead of power of ordination & power of jurisdiction, into which the Refuter distributed all episcopal power (and that according to the Doctors own direction, as is before showed) he now yieldeth us a new distribution of episcopal 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 plain dealing should not have done; especially, when he hath to deal with such, as are of a very shallow conceit; (as he saith, lib. 3. pag. 103.) for though they may from henceforth rest persuaded, 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 contradicted by himself. For when he reduceth all episcopal power, wherein they excel presbyters, unto the power of ordination and the power of jurisdiction; he carrieth the later unto public 
The Doct. contradicteth himself, and dealeth absurdly, or deludeth his reader etc.  government, in foro externo, with authority 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 james had nothing to do with this power, by virtue 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 behalf; wheresoever they came; that james had at jerusalem: or Timothe at Ephesus? as the Doctor confesseth cap. 4. pag. 96.  
Again, how often doth he tell us, that this power of jurisdiction, (aswell as that other of ordination) was derived unto 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, retained this power in their own hands, whiles they continued near unto, or meant not to be long from the Churches, which they had planted; and for proof thereof, citeth, 2. Thes. 3. 14. & 1. Cor. 5. (serm. pag. 65. Def. pag. 63.) I ask therefore whence they had this power, which they retained in their own hands for a time, & committed to others, when it seemed good to themselves? he cannot say they received it by any such assignment to some particular church or Churches, as james is supposed to have to jerusalem; seeing he denieth them to be properly Bishops. And if he shall say that the power of governmt or jurisdiction, was enclosed in that Apostolical commission, which they had from Christ (Mat. 18. 18. and 28. 19 joh. 20. 23. and 21. 15. 16.) is it not both false and absurd, to deny that this power was invested in the person of james when he was made an Apostle? Now, if (to avoid these inconveniences) he shall acknowledge that he taketh jurisdiction in an other sense; his market is utterly marred; in as much as he doth only in show (to delude his reader) impugn that which his refuter affirmeth, whereas in deed he justifieth him in his whole argument. For, if both those powers, of ordination and jurisdiction wherein the D. placeth the power and superiority of the episcopal function; were given unto james by Christ; and neither of them, by his f●llowe▪ Apostles, them he received not the office of a Bp. by their ordination.  
Having thus freed the Refuters objection from the force of the 
Sect. 14. showing 6. errors in the D. answer.  Doctor's answer, the Reader is to be advertised of these errors, which Mr Doctor hath broached therein. 1. that the Apostles received from Christ the power of order only, and not the power of jurisdiction. 2. and therefore, by their Apostleship, were but as Bishops sine titulo. For since the D. giveth unto james, in regard of his Apostleship received from Christ, none other power than 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 endued by Christ, with that power of jurisdiction, distinguished by him from the power of order; unless, to avoid these rocks; he will fall into the gulf of an other error, no less absurd, viz. that the Apostles were not all equal in power by their Apostolical function. And if it be so as he saith, that james had power of jurisdiction given him by his fellowe-Apostles; when they designed him Bishop of jerusalem 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 james was) never had that power of jurisdiction, which he enjoyed. Yea 5. the episcopal charge which james had at jerusalem, gave him a pre-eminence above his fellow-Apostles (not only in superiority of order, while they remained there; as before he affirmed; but also in power of jurisdiction. 6. And consequently all other Bishops ordained by the Apostles, were in the like power superior, to the very Apostles, as many as were not properly Bishops. These are the Doctor's 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 brag (preface pag. 17.) where he saith, in his conscience he is persuaded, that no one of his proofs in all his sermon is disproved; nor he convinced of any one vintruth throughout the body thereof; so it may be a good motive to him, no longer to strike, against the power of the truth; seeing the answer which he hath framed to oppugn it, is not only evil and absurd; but (though perhaps against his will and meaning) giveth way unto it, for from his own grant, I thus argue to infringe that assertion, which he laboureth to confirm.  
1. Whosoever is ordained the Bishop of any Church; he receiveth the power of Episcopal order, from the hands that ordain him.  
But james received not the power of episcopal order from the hands of the Apostles. Ergo, neither was he ordained by them the Bishop of any Church.  
2. Again, Whosoever by his designment to the charge of any Church, receiveth only 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 james the Apostle by his designment to the charge of the Church at jerusalem received (in the Doctor's opinion) only 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 designment. And consequently, he was not ordained, to the function of a Bishop in that Church.  
To these arguments grounded on his own answer, I add this that followeth, which the Doctor was willing not to see in the Refuters answer;  
3. Whosoever by Christ's ordination received all Ministerial power, with ample authority to execute the same inall places wheresoever he became; he neither did, nor could receive any new power (either of order or jurisdiction) by a designment to the oversight or care of any particular Church.  
But james the Apostle by Christ's ordination received all Ministerial power, with ample authority to execute the same, in all places wherever he became.  
Ergo, he neither did nor could receive any new power (either of order, or jurisdiction) by his designment to the oversight, & care of a particular Church, such as the Church of jerusalem.  
Thus leaving the Doctor to his best thoughts for his rejoinder in this behalf, let us proceed to the next exception.   

Chapt. 6. Answering the Fathers alleged by the Doctor for james his Bishopric Def. lib. 4. Chapt. sect. 4. pag. 52.  
THe next exception concerneth the age or antiquity of those 
Sect. 1. add sect. 4. pa. 52. & sect. 2. pag. 55.  Fathers, upon whose testimoney the Doctor buildeth his faith, for james his ordination to the office of a Bishop in the Church of jerusalem. The Refuter (finding the ancientest of his witnesses to be Eusebius, about the year 320. etc.) demandeth (answer p.) whither he had none of the Apostles Disciples, which lived then to testify his ordination? the Doctor stoppeth his mouth, with an other question; what one of them whose writings are extant, he could have alleged, whom he would not reject as counterfeit? which is a plain 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 james the Bishop of Bishops, governing the Holy Church of the Hebrews in jerusalem: yet (as if his conscience told him that his epistle was but a counterfeit) he addeth, But suppose that none of the Disciples of the Apostles, in those few 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 weak (as shallbe seen sect. 17.) to overweigh the presumptions before alleged, to show that james received no such ordination from the Apostles, as the Doct. standeth for. It is therefore, but his vain brag, easier to be rejected then levied, to say as he doth, It is not to be doubted, but that james his being Bishop of jerusalem, was a thing as notorious and as certainly known among Christians in those times; as there is no doubt made among us now, that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in K. H. the 8. his time; For is it not rather much to be doubted of; seeing that among all the writings that are extant, of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and sundry others in the first 300. years, the Doctor cannot find any one testimony fit for his purpose. Rem adeo illustrem nullum habere autorem sui seculi, aut secundi etc. portento simile est. Sic Chamierus de Simone. De Oecum. pont. lib. 3. pag. 456. sic ego de jacobo. As for that counterfeit Clement before named, he rather confuteth than confirmeth the Doctor's 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 james) I know not. For doth not this title (usually ascribed to him as the Doctor acknowledgeth) as strongly argue him to be an universal Pope; as the mention of his governing the Church of the Hebrews, in jerusalem, can conclude him, to be their Diocesan Bishop? And since he is said, to govern not only sanctum Hebraeorum ecclesiam Hierosolymis; sed et omnes ecclesias, quae ubique Dei providentia funda●● sunt: if prejudice had not forestalled the Doctor's heart, he would never have forbidden his Refuter (as he doth pag. 55.) to collect from thence, that he was no otherwise Bishop of jerusalem, (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 level of that large jurisdiction, which had no being in any Bishop, for many hundred years after the Apostles, when he saith, that the Bishop of Constantinople though called universal Patriarch, yet was the Diocesan Bishop of Constantinople alone; and that the Pope himself though he clume to be universal Bishop, yet is specially Bishop of Rome? Yet as if he were hired to wrest this testimony out of their hands, that bend it against the Pope's supremacy; 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 signifieth that Clemens directed his epistle, not to james only, 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 james, Bishop of Bishops. And if Clement had meant to join any others with james in the inscription of his epistle, he would (in all likelihood have said, sed et omnibus episcopis per omnes ecclesias etc. so joining to him the Bishops of other Churches; rather than the Churches themselves.  
In the next place because the Doctor's witnesses are all of them 
Sect. 2. add sect. 4. pag 13.  such as lived in the 4. or 5. age after Christ, his Refuter put him in mind of Bishop Andrew's words, who in the like case saith (serm. pag 34. preached at Hampton court 1606.) They wrote things they saw not, and so framed matters according to their own conceits, and many times were tainted with partial humours. And though he professed, he would not take upon him to speak so hardly; yet the Doctor will needs have his reader believe, that the Refuter sought to discredit all historians in general by the mentioning of that speech. Therefore, to free his own witnesses from all suspicion in this case, he saith, the most learned Bishop, truly noted, what might be objected against the historians of later times. But if the Doctor uprightly weigh the intent & scope of that learned Bishop; he may perhaps discern, that Eusebius, (his ancientest witness) is not without the compass of those stories, which he speaketh of. And if he (in his learning) judged it, for that reason; more safe to rely, upon the authentical records of the Conncels & Fathers, that were eye and eare-witnesses of the things which he urgeth: had not the Refuter as good reason to desire also to see james his ordination, justified by the testimony of S. Luke, or some other Apostolic 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 jerom as free as any other? belike the Doctor hath him in suspicion; 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 testimony standing him in good stead; I suppose he will not discharge him of that crime (of framing matters to his own conceit) in applying that which Philo wrote of the jewish 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 cavil (as Mr D. in his quarreling spirit is pleased to censure it) to say, that those Fathers (Euseb. jerom etc.) finding the name of Bishop continued in the succession of one Pastor after an other, judged of those that first governed those Churches, according to them that lived in their times. For if they speak not improperly, (which the Doct. will not admit, for than he must yield 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. years continuance? (see Euseb. in Chron. and jerom de script. eccles. in Petro) unless 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 Thucydides (Hist. lib. 1.) saith of the old stories of the Grecians. Men receive reports of things done before their time, from hand to hand, one from an other abasanistons) without examining & trying of them: So some through a desire (as it is likely) of honouring the sees of Antioch and Rome, and hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both, devised that he sat 7. years 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 james his continuance for 30. years the Bishop of jerusalem) that his desire to magnify that See among others, made him also too credulous in countenancing those speeches of Egesippus and Clemens, which by due examination, might have been found unworthy of any credit.  
For what probability is there in Egesippus his tale (apud Euseb. 
Sect. 3.  lib. 2. cap. 22.) concerning james? that he was a Nazarite from his mother's womb, 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 abstained from eating of flesh, from shaving his head; and from anointing his body with oil, who would not take him by this description, for a pattern of Monkish perfection, rather than of the episcopal function? specially seeing it is added, he was wont to enter alone into the temple, and spent there daily so much time in prayer, that his knees, Cameli instar, tuberculis contractis obduruerunt. Belike he forgot his masters doctrine. Mat. 6. 6. joh. 4. 21. But the best is yet behind. Huic uni licebat in sancta sanctorum ingredi etc., he only had liberty to enter into the most holy place; for he used not any woollen garments; but only linen: if this be true, then as he joined a Bishopric to his Apostleship; so he had the high-preisthood united to his Bishopric; unless we may think the use of linen garments to be a lawful dispensation for any man that was no Priest, to usurp the high-priests office in entering 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 james the just, to john and Peter, and they delivered the same to the rest of the Apostles? For this tale is flat 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 jointly. See we Luk. 24. 45. john. 14. 26. and 16. 13. Act. 2. 4. and 4. 31. 2. Moreover, in this fable, he contradicteth himself (like as liars are wont to do) forgetting what he had said before; to wit, that it was an other james, & not james the just, unto whom, together with Peter and john, Christ gave pre-eminence above the rest of the Apostles. 3. And since we are now in hand, with the reputation of Clemens, and Egesippus, the first reporters of james his Bishopric, (from whom, either at the first or second hand, the rest of the witnesses have received their warrant) it shall not be amiss, hither to draw the examination, of the Doctor's defence (pag. 60.) of their credit, against the moderate censure of the Refut: answ. pag. 133. How unsavoury a speech (saith he) is that of Clement (recorded by Eusebius (lib. 2. cap. 1.) that Peter james and john, would not arrogate to themselves that glory (to have the Bishopric of jerusalem) but chose james the Just unto it? Why? was it a greater glory than their Apostleship? or can there be any lawful calling in the Church too high for them, whom Christ vouchsafeth to make his Apostles; yea chief among the Apostles? Such speeches as this in the Fathers, are like black wenns in a fair body, that have more need of a cover for excuse; then of setting out for commendation. The like may be said of those he calleth good Authors Eusebius and Egesippus, who allege so carnal a respect of the Apostles in preferring james, and after him Simon, to that Bishopric, because they were our Saviour's kinsmen according to the flesh. For certainly they had learned better of their Lord and Master, when he preferred his spiriti●all kindred before his carnal etc. 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. add sect. S. p. 60  Authors etc. What is this but a slanderous scoff? for all men may see, the Refut: endeavoured to salve their credit; as far as the love of the truth, would permit him; neither concealed he the reasons, that lead him so to censure them as he did; yet as if he had yielded no reason of his censure, the Doctor asketh, why unsavoury? & why carnal? and assayeth, by reasons of his own, to wipe away those imputations. 1. was it not (saith he) a special honour for one among the Apostles, without that traveile and wandering whereunto the rest were subject, to be set over the Mother Church of Christendom; and to be the Apostle of that people etc. In the Apostleship of the circumcision Peter and john were joined with him, Gal. 2. 9 and herein if any had pre-eminence or precedence before the rest; it was Peter verse 7. But since by james his Apostleship of that people: the D. meaneth his supposed Bishopric at jerusalem, I stately deny, that this gave him, any precedence in honour before his fellow. Apostles. And I have often showed that the prerogatives of that Church and people, could not convey unto their Bishop, any such prehenminence, (sect. 7. and 18. near to the end of each) & that he assumeth more than he can prove, in affirming him to be wholly exempted from that traveile which the rest endured. See sect. 10. I now add, that his residence at jerusalem, gave him only some more ease; but not greater glory; nay the less, if Doctor Bilsons' third interpretation of the Apostles words, 1. Tim. 5. 17. be (as he saith they are) confonant 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 to visit and confirm the Churches, are in honour to be preferred before resident Pastors. I might ask the Doctor, whether it be the greater honour, to have the commission that the reverend judges have, which traveile from one shre to an other to execute their office; or without such traveile to be the Major of some one town or city? But since he urgeth the same reason for james, that Bellarmin doth for Peter; he shall have the same answer that Doctor whitaker's (de Pont. Rom. quest. 2. ca 9 sect. 10. pag. 255) yieldeth him. Imo Pauli videtur multo honorificentius fuisse munus. Latior enim Pauli provincia. Et Christi regnum erat brevi judaeis auferendum etc. By this time, I hope the Refuter, may have his discharge from wronging Clemens, in saying his speech was unsavoury. Yet is it much more unsavoury and absurd; if that reading be received, which many excellent divines, do approve. Non sibi vendicabat primatus gloriam, sed jacobum qui dicitur justus (episcopon apostoloon) apostolorum episcopum statuerunt. They challenge not to themselves the glory of the primacy; but chose james the Just, to be the Bishop of the Apostles. See Calvin and Marlor. in Act. 15. 13. Cent. 2. col. 193. Catalogue. test. verit. in fol. col. 89. And if D. Sutcliffe, a great friend of the prelacy be not deceived (de pontiff. 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 Vaticanis. Et cont extus Eusebij pro nobis facit. Eus●bio enim propositum erat, jacobi prerogativas dicere preterea primatus gloria ipsi tributa, maius quiddam quam unius urbis episcopatum subinsinuat. But although the Doct. give james a precedence in honour, and for order, above the rest of the Apostles; and that in respect of his Bishopric: yet he is loath (as it seemeth) to allow him this title; the Bishop of the Apostles. Perhaps he conceiveth, that it had been arrogancy to receive it, though offered unto him; and that it would have advanced him to an higher degree of ministery, which he truly denieth to agree with him; seeing there was none higher than the Apostleship. But I would feign know, how he can deny him, an higher degree of ministery, if that precedence in honour, which he ascribeth to him, above his fellow-Apostles, arose from an other function (that is his Bishopric) which he alone enjoyed? 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 the higher degree, and not from the lower? But perhaps, he dreameth that james his Bishprick at jerusalem (though a degree inferior to the Apostleship) set him notwithstanding in an higher place of honour above other Apostles; even as at Rome the title of a Cardinal presbyter or Deacon given to a Bishop (though in itself, it be a degree inferior to the episcopal function) doth yet advance him in dignity and honour above all other Bishops. But this dream sureth much better with Cardinal 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 near kinsmen according to the flesh, being at the least equal with others? and addeth, that it is certain, that james for his admirable piety was wonderfully honoured, etc. Of this admirable piety, who doubteth? But will that prove him, to be every way equal in all spiritual graces? The Apostle john hath this title given him in holy writ; The Disciple whom jesus loved, john 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 pre-eminence in true piety, or some other spiritual grace? It is common saying and a true, Invidia virtutis comes est. Envy is the companion of virtue. Wherefore, seeing the envy and malice both of Herod, and the rest of the jews seized upon that other james the brother of john, Act. 12. 2. 3. that he became the first Martyr among the Apostles (as Steven was among the Deacons, Acts. 6. and 7.) is it not probable, that some preheminent grace occasioned their malice to break forth into such extremity? S. Peter, (who was at the same time imprisoned, like as he was before, cap. 4. 3. 8.) hath many titles of pre-eminence given him by the Fathers, which our own 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.) do acknowledge to be in part, grounded upon an excellency above the rest in virtue and grace. For, Augustin (de Bapt. cont. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1.) saith, his primacy was conspicuous and preheminent with excellent grace. And Eusebius (lib. 2. cap. 13.) calleth him, reliquorum omnium Apostolorum, propter virtutis amplitudinem, facile principem. Wherefore, if the Doctor's meaning be, to equal james, every ways with his fellow-Apostles, in all spiritual grace, that adorneth the function of a Minister of Christ; he must be beholding to his Reader, to take it upon his own word, for it will be hard to make good proof of it. But if he limit the equality he speaketh of, to the power of the Apostolic function (which is all the equality that he can with reason maintain:) he shall show himself too absurd to avouch, that only for kindred sake unto 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 ecclesiastical honours. This is in deed carnal divinity, and such as argreeth not with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Mat. 12. 48. 50. jam. 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 jerusalem, it were necessary to prefer one of his kindred to the Bishopric thereof, before the rest, that were otherwise equal:) whether the like respect ought not to have place, in the choice 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 junia (Rom. 16. 7.) that they were his kinsmen, and fellow-prisoners; & (which giveth them a singular note of pre-eminence above many others, they were episemoi en tois apostolois, famous or of special note, among the Apostles, and before him, in Christ. Yet we never read that they were preferred to a Bishopric, 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 precedent, since he had no care to walk by the same rule? Again, may I ask M. Doctor, why james was not, aswell before his election to his Bishopric as after; for the same reason honoured by his fellow-Apostles, with that precedence, which they gave him, when they made him a Bishop? To conclude, if any such primacy of honour above the rest of the Apostles, accompanied james his ordination, to that supposed Bishopric; why should it not, by common 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, john, and james the brother of john, were by Christ preferred in honour, before his james (though for his piety surnamed the Just) was it not an injury (I say not to them, but) even to Christ their Mr, in controlling that order of pre-eminence, which he had set among his Apostles, to give one of their inferiors a place of dignity above them? Wherefore, as the Refuter wronged not Clemens or Egesippus, in charging the speech of the one to be unsavoury, and the respect alleged by the other to be carnal: so it is no injury to Eusebius (who buildeth upon their reports) to say, he was too credulous, in interteyning for truth upon their words, that which upon 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 unto their testimony. Which sottish imitation (as one Mr. Bell calleth it, epist. before his trial 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 showed in the error of the Chiliasts) I see no reason to the contrary, why it might not also be a cause of many errors, in matters of fact or history. Yet the Refuter did (and so do I still) so far tender their estimation, that we withdraw not any assent from their report; but when there is better warrant, (either of scripture or sound reason) leading another way.  
Now whereas the Refuter saith, that james neither was properly 
Sect. 6. add sect. 5.  Bishop of jerusalem, 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 suggestion, thrusting out the word properly (which the Refuter inserted. pag. 132. of his answ.) and charging him to say plainly, that james was not Bishop of jerusalem, not could be. It is plain, (and the Doctor acknowledgeth it) that the Refuter here denieth unto james, he doth it (not so much of himself as) from the mouth of some late writers of worthy account, D. whitaker's, D. Reynoldes, Bishop jewel and others. In charging him therefore to give his witnesses the lie; what else doth he, but through his sides, wound their credit; seeing the fault (if any) ligteth on their heads. But the truth is, neither he nor they do oppose the former denaill to the testimony of the fathers; but to their assertion, which from the name of a Bishop, given to james or Peter, in the writings of the Fathers, do infer that james or Peter, were properly Bishops. For the Refuter (in his words immediately before going) saith, that the Father's might will call james, by the name of a Bishop, which then was of greatest dignity; seeing it is certain he had, (though an higher, yet) the same place in jerusalem, that afterwards Bishops claimed and possessed in other Churches. And elsewhere (answer pag. 143.) he explaineth his judgement more plainly in the words of Doctor whitaker's (de pont. pag. 303.) who saith; that when the Fathers call james or Peter a Bishop, they take not the name of Bishop properly, but call them Bishops of those Churches, in which they abode somewhat long, etc. I now add the words of D. Reynolds (Conf. with heart Cap. 4. divis. 2.) because the Doctor to finding the place quoted, thought his name was used only for a show: concerning james, he saith, that he which maketh him a Bishop of one city, whom Christ made an Apostle to all the nations of the earth, bringeth him out of the hall (as they say,) into the kitchen. And in answer to Chrysostome, (alleged by Stapleton, and heart, (as he is by the D.) to confirm his supposed Bishopric) he addeth. It seemeth he spoke it upon the word of Clemens apud Euseb: lib. 2. cap. 1.) And when heart saith, he should not help him with such shifts against the Fathers, he replieth, neither shifts, nor against the fathers; but true defences in favour of them. For the Apostles being sent to preach the gospel to all nations, made their chief abode in greatest cities of most resort, as at jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome etc. now because this residence, in the mother cities, was afterwards supplied by the Bishops of them; therefore were the father's wont to call the Apostles, Bishops of those cities, wherein they abode most; which they might the rather for that the word episcope, in their speech, to wit Euseb. & (●emens) betokeneth in a general meaning, any charge or oversight of others etc. It is plain then, that the Doctor (in his former words) giveth his tongue and pen liberty to run out, beyond the bounds of truth. 1. In carrying unto his witnesses (& to impugn their testimony) that which was intended only to contradict his own position. 2. in construing that to be meant of an absolute denial of the name of a Bishop, which was spoken of the episcopal function, properly taken, for that which now beareth the name. The reader therefore is to be advertised, that although the Refuter endeavoured, (by some exceptions against the Doctor's witnesses) to show that their testimony is too weak, to bind the conscience to entertain their report, for an undoubted truth: yet he is so far from giving them all, the lie (as the Doctor not very christianly chargeth him), that treading in the steps of many other worthies) he salveth their credit, by distinguishing the special & proper signification of the word Bishop, from that which is more general 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 perpetual oversight, of one particular Church: and now (in common speech it is appropriated to the function of a Diocesan Prelate; but in a more general construction, as the Apostleship is called episcope a Bishoplike-charge: so the Apostles were by the Fathers termed Bishops. And some of them, (as james and Peter) were sAid to be Bishops of thosE Churches, wherein they were reported to have made their longest residence.  
And that the Fathers do use the word in this latter construction, the Refuter judgeth it most probable; becausE he is persuaded (not without good reason) that (in the former signification) james being an Apostle, neither was nor could be a Bishop. So then, if the Doctor (who holdeth james to be properly a Bishop, yea a diocesan Bishop in function like to ours) will justify his assertion by those fathers whom he allegeth, ought he not to have demonstrated (that which he wholly overpasseth, to wit) that the Fathers which entitle james the Bishop of jerusalem, mean thereby, that he had proper function of a diocesan Bishop? But he thinketh it sufficient, to remove the grounds which his Refut: laid to make good his denial, let us therefore come to it.  
The Refuter saith, that james neither was nor could be properly 
Sect. 7.  a Bishop, seeing 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 james was an Apostle; neither knew they any reason, which the Res: would seem to know, why his being an Apostle should hinder his being the Apostle or angel of that Church; for so were the Bps at the first called. Yet with his leave, some of them were so simple, that they thought this james (called by Paul the L. brother) was the son of joseph, 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. ubi dicitur Epiphanius idem sentire) which is in effect to deny him to be one of the 12. whom Christ selected to that office of Apostleship. For among them there were only two called by the name of james, the one the son of Zebedaeus and brother of john. Math. 10. 2. Mark. 3. 17. the other was the son of Alpheus. Mat. 10. 3. Mark. 3. 18. and brother to that judas, 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 james, (Comment. in Gal. 1. 19) ●ot only the son of joseph; but also one of those brethren of Christ, which continued in unbelief (joh. 7. 5.) after the 12 were daily attendants on they Master.  
2. Neither were they all unacquainted, with that difference between the functions of an Apostle & a Bishop (properly so called) which the Refuter maketh his reason for the denial of the later office to them that bore the former. Augustin, distinguisheth the Apostleship from a Bishopric, 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 alleged 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 Doctor's witnesses) is more plain for this purpose. For having said, that Peter and Paul were both Apostles and Bishops in Rome; he saith withal. (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 plain to show, that since the Office of an Apostle requireth traveile abroad into divers countries to preach Christ; and the office of a Bishop bindeth to attendance at home, on that one Church, whereof 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. heart, Conf. cap. 6. Divis. 3. ad finem (you may learn by the Fathers themselves, that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop, of this or that city, they meant it in a general sort and signification, because he attended that Church for a time, and supplied that room in preaching of the gospel, which Bishops afterwards did. And if this satisfy not the Doctor, let him go roundly to work; and prove by other parts of their writings who are his witnesses in this question of james his Bishopric; that james his continuance 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 pass on to the new writers which concur with the Refuter, not only in denying james, to be properly a Bishop; but also in that more general assertion; that an Apostle could not be a Bishop properly.   

Chapt. 7. Concerning the new writers that join with the Refuter in denying james to be a Bishop properly, and whatsoever else the D. hath for the upholding of james his supposed Bishopric.  
COncerning the new writers; the Doct. would never so lightly 
Sect. 1. add sect. 5. pag. 53. 54. & sect. 6. p. 55.  esteem their judgement, as he doth; were he not highly conceited of himself. For what protestant is there of any worth, that honoureth not the very name of Doct. whitaker's, Bishop jewel, and Doctor Reynolds? I might send him to many others, which in general deny any of the Apostles, to be properly Bishops & so judge also of james 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 own society, such as Doct. Sutlif. who (de pont. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 152.) affirmeth the same of james that he doth of Peter and john, scz. that he was not properly a Bishop. And (cap 6. pa. 114.) to Bellarmin and Turrecrem: urging the Fathers, to show that james was ordained Bishops of jerusalem 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 spoke of, was not a conferring of jurisdiction to him; seeing he had it by his Apostolical office. The which may serve to stop the Doct. mouth touching the Fathers which he challengeth to be wholly for him in this question. For till he hath proved that james was properly a Bishop; and that the Fathers ascribed to him, the proper function of a Diocesan Bishop, in calling him the Bishop of jerusalem, he shall but prove himself a trifler, to say as now he doth; that without any disparagement to these worthy writers; the affirmation of so many ancients in a matter of fact, agreeable also with the scriptures; and proved by the succession of the Bishops of jerusalem etc. may overweigh their denial. As for the scriptures, I have showed, they are rather against it, then with it; and in a like matter of fact (scz. Peter's Bishopric at Rome) the like evidence may be produced; neither doth the Doctor hold it any heinous crime in himself; by his denial, to overweigh their testimony. 2. Notwithstanding▪ it is not the opinjoin of Doctor whitaker's, or any other, which the Refuter commendeth 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 effectual to conclude, that james might not be Bishop of jerusalem; seeing they were both equal in the Apostleship. And what though it were so, as the Doctor saith, (sect. 6. pag. 55.) that 6. of those 8. arguments which Doctor whitaker's (de pont. quest. 3. ca 3. sect. 9) urgeth, be such as the Refuter with all his sophrist●ie cannot with any show of truth apply to S. james? If the other two be such; as the Doctor withal his sophistry cannot with any show of truth exempt S. james from their reach; is it not sufficient to give him the foil in the main controversy now in hand? Yet there are some things avouched for the removal of those 6. arguments, which are already sufficiently disproved; as that he saith, the story of the Acts doth testify S. james his standing residence at jerusalem, and that his precedence (in honour) before Peter and john, is noted, Gal. 2. 9 And somethings do rather make against him, then for him. For if he were the Apostle of the jews at large (as may be truly gathered from his epistle written to the 12. tribes that were scattered abroad, (jam. 1. 1.) and that compact made between paul and him, with Peter and john, Gal. 2, 9) how was he properly the Bp. of the Ch: at jerusalem? For as it was fit, that Peter should have professed the Gentiles to be his charge; if he had been their Bishop at Rome: so it had been no less fit, that james should have professed himself to have been the Apostle or Bishop of the jews in jerusalem: or at least in jury; if he had been by Peter and john, confined to that one Church or Province.  
Again, if he can for his advantage (I mean, to justify his denial of Peter's Bishopric 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 denial of james his Bishopric at jerusalem) take the like liberty in construing the Doctor's 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. witnesss the lie; shall the Doctor go free from the like blame of giving the lie to many ancient Fathers in denying the former? Let him therefore take home his own 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 partial, that it is true only in his mouth.  
But join we now in issue with him, in the trial of the 2. first reasons, whether they will not conclude with the Refuter that james 
Sect. 2. add sect. 7. pag 57  was not properly the Bishop of jerusalem. The reason is thus framed by the Doctor.  
Bishops have certain churches assigned to them. The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them. Ergo the Apostles were not Bishops. But because he hath somewhat abated the force of the argument, in both the premises, I will deliver them in D. whitaker's own words. Episcopus unum tantum gregem habet, quem paescat ut suum. At Apostoli nullam certam provinciam habuerunt; neque ullas certas ecclesias quibus alligat● sunt. The Bishop hath but one only flock, which he is to feed, as his own: The Apostles had no certain province, nor any certain Churches whereto they were tied, The medius terminus (wherein the strength of the argument lieth) is not simply to have a Church or Churches assigned; but to have one only flock, and to be bound unto it, to feed it as his own; the reason ergo is thus to be contrived. Every Bishop hath one only flock, whereunto be is bound to feed it as his own. But none of the Apostles had one only flock, whereunto he was bound to feed it as his own. 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 universum mundum; et illi memores legationis suae ita fecerunt. 2. Qut scirent sibi spiritus sancti ductum semper sequendum esse, quocunque●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; only to the assumption, which himself framed, he answereth by distinguishing the times. scz. that though none of the Apostles, had any provinces or parts of the world allotted to them by Christ, when he gave them their indefinite commission: yet the holy Ghost (for whose direction they were willed to stay at jerusalem directed them to go, 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 go, 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 own flock? I suppose the Doctor dareth not affirm it; he rather yieldeth the contrary, in saying, they ceased to traveile in their old days; 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 of Churches unto them? Not so neither; for he saith, james did not traveile at all as the rest, from one country to another. So then, howsoever he maketh a show of answering by a distinction of times; yet indeed, the very marrow and pith of his answer, is by a difference in the persons, to contradict the assumption: and to give Doctor whitaker's the lie (if I may use the Doctors own homely phrase) for in plain terms he saith, herein james differeth from the rest; for to him at the first before their dispersion, the Church of jerusalem, was assigned. And again, the assumption therefore, which is true of the rest of the Apostles, is not true in james; and were to be denied, If the syllogism, were thus framed. Bishops had certain Churches assigned to them. james had not a certain Church assigned to him. Ergo, he was not Bishop. This assumption (saith he) I have disproved. But the best is, his disproof of this assumption (though he hath proportioned it also to his own strength) is sufficiently declared to be nothing worth: For he neither hath nor can prove, that nay, much less many ancient Fathers, as he hath alleged, do affirm james to be a Bishop in that sense which he embraceth; sc. properly a Bishop, and ordained to that function, by his fellow-Apostles. But it shall not be amiss for the Reader to observe the Doctor's cunning in changing the Medius terminus of 
The Doct. cunningly changeth the medius terminus of the objs:  the objection, which he undertaketh to answer. And since he will have it specially fitted to james, I will do it, and so leave it to all indifferent judgement, whether it hold not in james aswell as in Peter. Every Bishop hath one only flock, to which he is affixed, to feed it as his own.  
But james had not any one only flock, to which he was affixed, to feed it as his own.  
Ergo, james 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 proof made of the contrary, sc. that james had one only flock assigned to him, and was affixed to it or bound to attend on the feeding thereof. But he is so far from having confirmed this, that he hath 
See how the Doctor hovereth up & down not certainly resting any where.  not yet been heard so much as once to affirm it. And if he mean (in his next) to make it good, first let him tell us, which was that one only flock that was assigned to him. Here he saith it was the Church of jerusalem; and his proofs from the Fathers, make mention of no other; yet elsewhere (pag. 56.) he saith, it is more than probable that the Church of jury, was peculiarly assigned to him; and (p. 52.) he coupleth both together, saying, that the Apostles would not all forsake jury and jerusalem; but assigned one of their own company to take charge thereof. And in the words immediately following, he saith, he was assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation; and therefore was in deed the Bishop thereof; which argueth the whole body of the people of the jews, aswell those that were scattered in other countries (to whom he wrote his epistle) as the Inhabitants of jury, to be his peculiar charge: unless he speak improperly, in taking the whole for a part only. If therefore the Doctor will say, that james had one only flock assigned to him; let us know whether the whole nation or the province of judea only, or rather the diocese, (for I know, he will not say, it was the parish Church) of jerusalem; I give him this choice, 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 john joined with him in the charge of the jewish nation, that I think he will be ashamed to stand forth in defence of it. And if he will maintain the second; he must proclaim to the world, some prerogatives more than 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 Doctor's persuasion) and by the combination of several Dioceses, in one Province, each of them became a provincial Church: this contrariwise, was, at her first establishing, and bringing into order a province; and upon the multiplying of Churches in judea; 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 provincial prelate, before there were any, either 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 Diocesans, & not actually Metropolitans; till other ci●ies in the province were converted, & subordinated to him as their Primate.  
Moreover, if the state of judea, (jerusalem excepted) be considered▪ what it was before the Apostles were dispersed abroad; it will be found to be a body of people void of Christianity; & therefore no flock for a Bishop to feed; but rather a charge fit for an Apostle, to work upon, in endeavouring their conversion. And since Peter bestowed great pains that way in divers parts of judea, for many years after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles; (as is before showed from Luke's story, cap. 5. sect. 11. 12.) it will be hard for the Doctor to prove, tha● the inhabitants of judea, were allotted to james as his peculiar flock to feed and attend upon. The last therefore, willbe the fittest (as it seemeth) every way for the Doctor's purpose; and if he will stick close unto it; let him recall those speeches of his; which make show of the other two, & gather his wits together for the confirmation of these particulars. 1. that james was confined, or restrained (for the execution of his ministry) unto so narrow a compass, as the Church of Diocese of jerusalem. 2. that he was affixed to that Church; or bound there to abide, and during life to attend on that flock: For unless he have some sound testimony or reason, to persuade his heart in these points; he shall show himself to be lead by self-conceit, rather than by sound judgement; in contradicting the assumption last proposed; for it naturally floweth from the assumption of D. whitaker's argument before delivered in this manner, None of the Apostles had one only flock, which he was bound to feed as his own peculiar charge. But james was an Apostle. Ergo, he had no one only flock, which he was bound 
Sect. 4.  to feed as his own peculiar charge. And now if he will deny the proposition of this argument, I must recall him to the fortifications before mentioned. The first concludeth the points necessarily & inevitablie in this manner;  
Whosoever were by Christ commanded, to go into all the world, to preach the gospel and to make disciples; and being mindful of their embassage did according to their charge; they had not, (any of them) one only flock unto which they were bound, to feed the same as their own.  
But all the Apostles, were by Christ commanded to go into all the world, to preach the gospel and to make disciples; and they all being mindful of their Embassage, did according to their charge.  
None of the Apostles therefore, had one only flock, to which they were bound, to feed it as their own.  
The proposition, is of itself clear enough. The assumption, for the first part of it; as it is grounded on the words of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 Mark. 16. 15. so it is acknowledged by the Doctor; and we do allow his interpretation of their commission (pag. 51. line penult. and 57 line 6.) viz. that Christ's meaning was not, that every one should traverse the whole world: yet their commission was indefinite and without any assignment of provinces or parts of the world to any. Now, if he make question of the latter part of the Assumption, I refer him to that which is observed, (cap. 5. sect. 10.) out of Mark, 16. 20; and I wish him to be well advised, lest he be found to give that Evangelist the lie; if he exempt james from that obedience to Christ's 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 general sense of the holy Ghost, in the one more than in the other? Either therefore, let james be exempted from partaking with his fellows in their Apostolical commission; or let him partake with them in the praise which is given them, for obeying the charge which they received. If he will needs exempt S. james from preaching every where as the rest did, (that is to say, here and there in divers provinces, or countries, without restraint to any one) because Eusebius and others say, that james had the charge of jerusalem, and governed the Church there: then let him also except S. john, together with Thomas and Andrew; because Eusebius saith, (lib. 3. cap. 1.) that (in the distribution of the world among the Apostles) Thomas obtained Parthia, Andrew, Scythia, and john, Asia. But though he confine james to jerusalem (or at least to jury) 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 knew they ought always to follow the direction of the holy Ghost, and to go forthwith whither soever he should call them, might have their seats fastened to one certain place or flock.  
But all the Apostles knew, that they ought always to follow the direction of the holy Ghost, and to go forthwith, whither soever he should call them.  
Therefore, none of the Apostles might have their seats fastened to one certain place or flock. And consequently, none of them had one only flock, on which he was bound continually to attend; For it were a wrong to them to think, that they or any of them would do, that which they knew was not lawful for them to do.  
Against the proposition, I suppose the Doctor will take no exception; and if he shall pick any quarrel against the assumption; he must say, either in general that none, or in particular that some, and namely james knew no such duty that they did owe to God, as to attend always on his call and direction for the employment of their ministerial pains. If the former; let him consider what is already said (cap. 5. sect. 11.) to show that the Apostles had not before their dispersion, each of them his several circuit, measured out to him once for all, by the direction of the holy Ghost as he supposeth. For since they were to wait for the holy Ghosts direction whither to go; (as the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 57) if they had not their whole line or compass laid out at once; must they not of necessity, remain always ready, to go, whither soever God by his spirit should call them? And if this be apparent 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 Apostolical function? And when the Doctor stretcheth in common unto all the Apostles, (pag. 52.) that which Paul speaketh of himself; and such as assisted him within his Apostolical line; doth he not assume it for an undoubted truth, that in the execution of their ministery, they all walked by one rule? It were absurd therefore here to except james from that continual attendance upon the holy Ghosts direction, whereunto his fellow-Apostles were bound. And consequently absurd to give him one only flock, and to affix him for his whole life, to the service thereof; when the rest were bound always to be ready to go, whither soever the holy Ghost should direct them.  
Thus much for the justifying of the first reason, against Peter's 
Sect. 5. add sect. 7. pag. 58.  Bishopric; the second reason against it, is thus applied by the D. (pag. 58) unto james, If james were Bishop; then by the same reason other of the Apostles were Bishops: But the other Apostles were not Bishops properly; Therefore not james. The Doctor should have added D. whitaker's conclusion, and applied it to james in this sort,  
If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certain place; then neither had james his seat fixed to jerusalem. But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certain place. Ergo, neither had james his seat fixed to jerusalem. The Doctor's answer is, that he hath showed sufficient reason, why he should not grant the consequence, in setting down the difference between james, and the rest of the Apostles. But are the differences such as he can and will maintain, that they necessarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop; and the rest nor? otherwise they neither are, nor can be a sufficient reason of his denial of the cosequence. Let us therefore peruse them. First, he saith, that james herein differeth from the rest; that to him at the first, the Church of jerusalem was assigned. I answer, that an assignment to the oversight of one Church; maketh not a Bishop, unless he be also confined unto it alone, and that for perpetuity. But the Doctor can never prove that james was so confined to the charge of the Church of jerusalem. Moreover we have better evidence for Paul's assignment, to the Church of Corinth; (Act. 18. 9 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9 2. & 2. Cor. 10. 13.) then can be alleged for james his assignment to jerusalem: And (if we may believe the D.) he telleth us (pag. 52.) that at what time james was assigned to jerusalem; the rest were assigned also, to their circuit, one to one part and an other to an other. This first difference therefore, is either 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 james did not traveile as the rest from one country to an other, being not confined to one province. But it is showed in the former section, that james was neither confined to jerusalem, nor debarred from traveil abroad; and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth, will confine some others to certain countries (as Thomas to Parthia, Andrew to Scythia, and john to Asia,) no less than james to jerusalem. And let me ask him, what proof he can make (worthy of credit) that Matthew, Mathias and james (that was martyred at jerusalem, Act. 12. 2.) spent their days in traveil from one country to an other? And if james be to reckoned a Bishop, because he rested at jerusalem, when others traveiled from place to place; why he should deny the rest to be also properly Bishops, when they took up some special place to rest in, as he saith, john did at Ephesus etc. specially seeing the fathers entitle them Bishops of those places where they rested. Thirdly, an other difference he noteth. scz. that whereas the other Apostles having planted Churches, when they saw their time, committed the same to certain Bishops yet james committed the Church of jerusalem 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 committed. For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches, which being planted by him, received no other Bishop to govern them; if this reason proveth james to be the Bishop of jerusalem? The consequence therefore of the argument abovesaid is nothing weakened by the differences, which the Doctor putteth between james and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth. Notwithstanding, that the reader may see, how grossly 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 maintainer of the episcopal government) hath pressed against Peter's supposed Bishopric 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 clearly? he hath given some Apostles & others Pastors and Teachers. (quosdam dedit Apostolos, alios autem Pastores et Doctores.) Wherefore (as he concludeth concerning Peter, so do I concerning james) if james were an Apostle, he could not be a Bishop & Pastor to speak properly; unless 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 privilege that they were called & sent by Chrst immediately, Mark. 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops, it is far otherwise; they were not called immediately of God, but by men. Paul prescribeth laws unto 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. Seeing therefore james was by Christ alone, & not by men, called chosen and ordained, whence could he have a Bishopric given him? As for those Fathers which say, that james was by his fellow-Apostles ordained Bishop of jerusalem, we have already (Cap. sect. 22.) heard Doctor Sutliffs' answer, this only now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop; seeing he saith, that james received the episcopal power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo, as is also before showed cap. 5. sect. 13. 14.  
3. The office of Bishops is far inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it; for the Apostles ordained Bishops & heard their causes etc. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonical scriptures, and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into all truth. john. 14. 26. & 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative; for there were none more grievous schisms raised in the Church, neither any more foul heresies sprang from any, then from Bishops. Wherefore seeing james was an Apostle, quid opus erat, ut quasi capite diminutus, ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem, velut Patritius ad plebem transiret? I might add his 4. and 9 arguments, but because they come near to things already urged, I pass them over, only that it may appear, he putteth no difference between Peter and james, in the limitation of their ministry as the D. doth; I will close up all with that which he hath elsewhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec johannem, nec jacobum Apostoluns' propri● dicimus fuisse Episcopum; rationenque 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 john, or james, was a Bishop properly & we have rendered this reason for it, that there were no bounds or limits of the Apostolical function; whereas Bishops had their certain dioceses and provinces. Which reason, seeing he saith Bellarmin winked at, as being unable to answer it, I hope the Doct. will not do him that favour, to oppose himself therein to D. Sutliffe, specially seeing he hath already yielded thus far (pag. 58.) that if any be not persuaded of this point, he will be content to suppose that james was not a Bishop of jerusalem.  
Notwithstanding, as if the whole cause in a manner wholly relied 
Sect. 7. add sect. 8. pag 58. & 59  upon this instance of james; he indeavoreth by it to confute the lear●eder sort of disciplinarians, who hold that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree, nor yet for terms of life; and therefore (if we may believe him) deny that james was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at jerusalem, or Precedent of the presbytery, otherwise then in his course; & not for any continuance. Of these conceits he maketh Mr. Beza the Author, and because the Refuter ●ould him, that he wronged Beza, seeing there is not a syllable, nor a letter at all of him, in the place he quoteth, he saith, all this ado ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margin, c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23; which (if it be not again miscarried by his printer) seemeth to be foisted in, I know not how. For in the same Chap. and pag. (Impress. Anno. 1592. by joh. le Preux there are no such words as he allegeth. But say that Beza in some later edition, (which I have not yet met with) hath such a saying (viz. that though james the brother of our Lord, was in order first, in the church of jerusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree, superior either to the Apostles, or else to his fellow Ministers) what hindereth but that the Refuters answer might stand, to wit, that by his Bishopric or presidency he was not superior to any degree, but in order only? for when he compareth together the differing functions of Apostles, Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors; he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise, an imparity and difference between them, not in order only, 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 words 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 than a calumniation, to charge him as the Doctor doth. And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza, that Bishops were in degree superior to other Ministers, why putteth he not his hand, to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza, to show the contrary? Quant● majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare; sive fundamentum illarum ponere; quam superstruere et structas regere: tanto magis istum gradum utgere 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. (Whereunto I will add the assumption and so infer the conclusion.) But among the Apostles there was no superiority in degree. 2. neither was it necessary for the preserving of unity and consent among them, that one should hold such a superiority above his fellow-Apostles, whiles they remained at jerusalem; 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 necessary (as some suppose even by the light of nature; that in every sacred society, 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 james, uz. that Bishops were superior in degree to other Ministers, and had a singular pre-eminence over them for term of life. Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appear? for he is much deceived, if he think to gain his cause, by such a sophism as this,  
james was superior to the presbyters of jerusalem in degree, and held a superiority over them during life. But james was a Bishop. Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles times, superior unto presbyters in degree, and that for term of life.  
For though we should grant the assumption, which is before disproved, the argument is no better than if a man should argue in this manner, 

james Montague (to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon) is superior in degree of ministery to all the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells.  
But james Montague is the Dean of the K. majesties Chapel.  
Ergo, the Deans of the K. majesties chapel are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministry.   I doubt not but the Doctor can well discern in this latter a double deceit, (because it inferreth a general conclusion, from premises that are but particular; & assigneth a false cause of that superiority 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 conclusion; there is an evident mistaking of the cause, both of that superiority in degree, which james had above the Presbyters of jerusalem; and of his continuance in and about jerusalem to his dying day. To begin with the former; whereas he should show that his Bishopric gave him a superiority in degree above the Presbyters of that Church; it is apparent, he hath no other Medius terminus to prove it then this, that he was an Apostle and his honour & degree by his Bishopric not impaired; so that, in effect he reasoneth thus, james being an Apostle and a Bishop, was superior in degree to the Presbyters of jerusalem. Ergo, all other Bishops, not being apostles as he was; have the same superiority above other Presbyters.  
The Doct. proof therefore, which he presupposeth to be plain and pregnant for his purpose, is a plain inconsequence, which with all his skill, he can never justify. Neither can he easily maintain that which he assumeth for a truth, (viz. that james his honour & degree by his Bishopric was not impaired) for as (is already showed cap. 6. sect. 1.) the authority of Clemens is too weak to uphold it: so it will soon appear, that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith, that if james his whole authority were confined to jerusalem, it had been in a sort to clip 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 than of the rest of the Apostles; when by mutual consent, every man's province as it were, or Circuit and charge was assigned to him. As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessened, to clip the wings of all the rest for company, & to testify one untruthby another. For as he cannot prove; so I have disproved (cap. 5. sect. 11.) his fancy of dividing to every Apostle his several Province or circuit by mutual consent. And if there had been any such partition of Provinces among them; why should he deny them to be properly Bishops, every one of them in his circuit? or how 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 Apostolical function, they had authority to preach, and to execute all ministerial duties, in every place and country wheresoever they should come? ye● of all the rest, james his share must needs be by far the least, if he were confined to the charge of one only Church. Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle, or at least a Titular Apostle only; 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 affirm of james, that he was but a titular Apostle; seeing th' authority of an Apostle (which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shallbe offered; and in planting Churches, where none were etc.) is denied unto james; if his whole authority be confined to the episcopal oversight of that Church of jerusalem, which was already founded to his hand. And if it were a punishment to Meletius, and others which returned from schism or heresy to the Church, to debar them from their episcopal authority; though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops; how should it be an enlargement of james his honour; to have his whole authority confined to one Church, (as other Bishops) although he retained the name and title of an Apostle?  
As for the next point (viz. james his continuance at jerusalem 
Sect. 9 add sect. 9 pag 62. Doct. & Refuter pag. 134.  for; o years, even till his dying day) to omit what is already said (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 only to govern 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 been otherwise performed) as the converting of multitudes, both of jews and of other nations that usually flocked thither, which was a work of the Apostolical function. Whereunto the Doctor replieth, that it is nothing to the purpose, to say the Church might have been otherwise governed; unless he could show that it was otherwise governed. But he is to be advertised, that if he grant it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there; then he shall show himself very void of reason, to make the government of that Church, either the only or the principal cause, of his so long remaining in that place. And unless he can assign some other cause of more weight, then that the Refuter mentioneth; it is but a wrangling part in him; to make a show of refuting his Refuters' assertion, in this case. Neither is it any thing to the purpose, to urge him to show that the church of jerusalem was otherwise governed; unless he had denied that the chief stroke of the government, rested in his hands for the time of his abode there, after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts.  
And where he saith, There is no doubt, but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles etc. either he doth but trifle; or (which is worse) dissembleth his own knowledge; for if by a Pastor, he mean a Diocesan Bishop, he knoweth very well, that it is not only doubted of; but flatly denied, 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 john 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle; or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinary calling of Presbyters, Act. 20. 28.) then he showeth himself a mere trifler; since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant, that james was (in this large construction 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. years, was the same, with the cause of the stay of Simon, and the rest of his successors till their death: he doth too apparently beg the question. For the cause which the Refuter propounded (and the Doctor contradicted not) ceased before Simons election to the Bishopric of jerusalem; for his election was not till jerusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth, lib. 3. ca 10. Wherefore, there was no such recourse, either of jews or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time, or his successors; as was all the days of james. And since the time of the jews rejection; for the generality of them, took place, after that desolation 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 conversion of the jews and others that usually frequented that place.  
There remaineth one speech of the Doctor, which (in the Refuters' 
Sect. 10. add sect. 8. pag 61.  apprehension) bloweth down this which he so carefully laboured to set up, as was showed by this argument; That charge (saith the Doctor, sermon pag. 68) which the Apostles had in common, whiles they iountly ruled the Church at jerusalem was afterwards committed to james 〈◊〉 particular. But that (saith the Refuter p. 134.) was not the charge of Bishops, but of Apostles. Ergo, neither was the charge which james had, the charge of a Bishop, but of an Apostle. Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defence? The proposition is his own, 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 jointly the Church of jerusalem, had the charge not of Apostles, but of Bishops, in the very function of Diocesan Bishops: such as he supposeth james and his successors to be? no; for than he should throttle his own answer to Doct. whitaker's first argument (pag. 57) where he flatly denieth any of the Apostles (james excepted) to be properly Bishops. And by his distinction of the times, (both here and page 52) he plainly signifieth that the indefinite commission of the Apostles to go 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 plain dealing will not help; an aequivocating answer must serve the turn. As though (saith he) the charge of the Apostles, is not by the Holy Ghost, called episcope (Act. 1. 20.) that is, Bishopric. And as though james, who before was an Apostle absolutely; did not by this designment become the Apostle of the jews. 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 universal and unlimited Bishopric, than the word episcope & episcopo●, is taken either in other parts of the apostolical writings (as 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1.) when it is applied to such as had the standing charge of one Church; or in the Doctor's understanding, when the name of Bishop, or Bishopric is given to james and his successors. And as though james did not receive a great change, in regard of his charge and function, when being at the first an Apostle absolutely, he was made the Bishop of one particular Church by his assignment to jerusalem. As though also the Doctor did not, at unawares, justify his refuters' assumption; in granting that james before his assignment to the particular charge of jerusalem, was an Apostle absolutely. For if he were absolutely an Apostle; whiles he ruled the Church of jerusalem in common 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, unless he will recall that which as yet he standeth forth to maintain (viz. that the charge which james had in particular, for the government of the Church at jerusalem was the same (and no other than) that the Apostles before had in common) he must bear the loss of all his labour in pleading for james his Bishopric; for it will follow necessarily upon the premises of the argument before set down; that james his charge at jerusalem, was the charge not of a diocesan Bishop, but of an Apostle. And thus much shall suffice concerning james; let us now hear what the D. can say for the Bishoprics of Tim: & Titus.   

Chap. 8. Answering the first 8. Sections of the Doctors 4. chap. lib. 4. and showing that Timothy and Titus were not ordained Bishops, as the Doctor supposeth.  
FRom jerusalem the Doctor traveileth to Ephesus and to Crect, 
Sect. 1, ad sect. 1. & pag. 74. of the Doct.  in hope to show the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained 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 apparent by the epistles of S. Paul to Timothy and Titus, that he had ordained Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete; the epistles themselves being the very patterns, and precedents of the episcopal function. For as the Apostles had committed unto them episcopal authority, both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction; which in the epistles is presupposed: so doth he by those epistles inform 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 jurisdiction, as 1. Tim. 1. 3. & 〈◊〉 19 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Titus 1. 10. 11. and 3. 9 These are his words and the very pith of his arguments. Where first, let the reader observe, that he bindeth himself to maintain this assertion, viz. that it is apparent by the epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit. that he had ordained the one Bishop of Ephesus, and the other Bishop of Crete. Which if he had as sound confirmed, as he did confidently undertake, actum esset de certamine; the controversy had soon been ended. But how should this be made apparent by S. Paul's 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 apparent by his epistles; for in his defence, to prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordained Bishops of Ephesus & Crect, he maketh this his first reason; (pag. 74.) because in his epistles written to them, it is presupposed that they were by him ordained 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 episcopal authority, both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction, to be exercised in those Churches. Whereas if he had stuck close to the words of his sermon; in dissolving (as now he will needs) 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 committed episcopal authority to them both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction etc. Ergo, it is apparent by those epistles, that he had ordained them Bishops. But (though he saw it) he was ashamed to be seen to 
The Doct. reasoneth loosely; changeth his terms and arguments: and then taxeth his Refuter for not answering his argument.  argue thus loosely, and as we have often done, so again must we give him leave, to change at his pleasure not only his terms or phrases, but also his very arguments. But when he taketh this liberty, he wrongeth his Refuter against all equity to tax 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 hear it? And who that considereth the tenor of his first sentence before set down, would have dreamt a twofold reason to be enfolded therein? Nay, who would not have judged (as the Refuter did) that the later clause, had been a confirmation of the former? But to take his arguments as he hath now tendered them, when he saith, It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul had ordained them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete; if his meaning be that their ordination to the episcopal charge of those Churches, is presupposed by the Apostle in his epistles written to them; I utterly reject his assertion, as a false presupposal (or rather forgery) of his own, which hath no warrant from any line or letter in those epistles. And to his proof thereof (viz. because it is presupposed in those epistles, that the Apostle had committed to them episcopal authority both in respect of ordination & jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches:) I answer, that he mingleth (and that deceitfully) truth and falsehood together. For thought it be true, that the epistles do presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction committed to them: yet is it false, (and he but beggeth the question, in assuming it for truth) that the authority of ordaining and censuring, is an authority episcopal, that is, proper to Bishops only; and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction, was given them, either 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 denial of these particulars (falsely presupposed by the Doctor) is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Paul's epistles; that they are by him, presupposed in them.  
His second argument (in his own Analysis) is the same which 
Sect. 2. add pag. 75. & sect. 2. p. 75 76. & 57  his Refuter took to be the first, and it standeth thus,  
If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patterns and precedents of the episcopal 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 weakness 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 inform Tim. & Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops, how to carry themselves in those matters. And if the Doct. had been as willing to apprehend his right meaning, as to pick occasion of quarrelling without any just cause given; he might have discerned that the supposition whereof he speaketh is not of the natural hypothesis of the proposition impugned, but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption, as is necessary to be supplied if he will have the proposition or consequence to pass uncontrolled. Wherefore, as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref: (Alas good man; you know not what the supposition of an hypothetical proposition 〈◊〉) so, had he weighed his own rules (lib. 2. cap. 3. sect. 3.) for the finding out of that hypothesis, which in a connexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogism; perhaps he mought have perceived the weakness of his consequence, which he would seem not to see. For the true hypothesis; which is implied in this connexive argument; and must be supplied to make it a perfect simple syllogism; can be none other than this; They must needs be Bishops and ordained to that function to whom such epistles are directed as are patterns and precedents of the episcopal function etc. Or more generally thus, Every person to whom an epistle or speech 
The Doct. discerning the weakness of his arguments exchangeth it.  is directed, which containeth the pattern or precedent of any function or directions how to exercise it; is undoubtedly invested in the same function. And why now, I pray you (good Mr. Doct.) may not this proposition be denied or doubted of? I will spa●e labour in refuting it; for I suppose, yourself perceived the weakness of it, and therefore gave us the exchange 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: neither will I argue against Doctor Whitgift, but afford him the like kindness. Only, whereas you ask the Refuter, how he could be so ignorant, or without judgement, as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop contained in those epistles, did mean only that description of a Bishop which is set down. 1. Tim. 3; to requite your kindness, I demand how you could be so ignorant, or void of judgement, as to think, that (when Doctor whitgift said, that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim: declareth him to be a Bishop; seeing therein is contained the office and duty of a Bishop; & divers precepts peculiar to that function) he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop, that Ministry which is common to all Ministers? for so you seem to interpret his words, when you affirm (pag. 76.) this to be his meaning, that directions were given to Timothy, throughout the epistles, for the discharge of his office, either in respect of the Ministry common to all Ministers, or of his episcopal function, chiefly in regard of ordination and jurisdiction. And herein you tender his credit lesS than you would seem when you make him to argue in this fashion. The epistles written to Timothy do give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function, Ergo they do declare, that he was a Bishop: for this were to make him guilty of your own fault, in begging of the question 
The Doct. beggeth the question.  as you do, when you add to your assumption or Antecedent, that supposition before examined; for if that be (as you say it is) the plain meaning of the assumption; then your second argument beggeth the question in pitiful manner, thus; The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim: and Tit: was to inform them as Bishops; how to exercise their episcopal function. Ergo, those epistles show that they were Bishops. No merveil therefore, if the Doctor were desirous, to cover the beggary of his reasoning with the 
Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. & 78. sect. 3.  shredds of a new shaped syllogism, which disputeth thus, 

Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus & Crect, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof, to be performed by them and their successors till the coming of Christ; doth plainly describe the office and authority, and prescribe the duty of Bishops: he presupposeth them to be Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete.  
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 Crect etc. doth plainly describe the office, and prescribe the duty of Bishops.  
Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crect.    
Into this new frame he casteth his argument (as he pretendeth) because the Refuter had confounded himself, with his own hypothetical proposition: but the reader is rather to judge, that a false supposal of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze, that he hath confounded himself in his own 
The D. confoundeth himself in his own reasoning.  reasoning. For where he should (according to his own project, sect. 1. of this chapter) have given us a second reason for his first conclusion; (scz. that Timothy and Titus were ordained Bishops by S. Paul) he now tendereth us a second prosyllogisme, to confirm the antecedent of his first argument. But to let him go free with this fault, I will answer this argument as it standeth; & first to the proposition which (although it never saw the Sun before his defence came abroad) he taketh for granted: because T: C: and his Refuter have assailed it in vain. So he flattereth himself in his own conceit, but all in vain. For a meaner Scholar then T. C. or his Refuter either, may easily discern the inconsequence of his proposition; although he may seem to have fortified the presupposal which he concludeth, with a double bulwark, both of describing the authority and of prescribing the duty of Bishops. For S. Paul in his speech to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts. 20. 18. etc. describing his own office and authority as he was the superintendant of that church & precedent of the presbytery there, plainly describeth the office and authority of all Superintendents or precedents in particular churches; & consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed, by all such as should succeed in the like office, till the coming of Christ. Notwithstanding it were absurd from hence to infer, that the Apostles speech there, presupposeth his ordination to the office of a superintendant or Precedent of the Presbytery, in that Church of Ephesus: wherefore neither 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 Crete, though it should be granted, that in describing their authority, as they were governors of those churches; and in prescribing their duty (such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christ's coming) he both described the office, and prescribed the duty of Bishops. But this which he assumeth for a truth, I reject as an assertion no less void of truth then the main conclusion now in question; for it is grounded upon this false supposition that none other than diocesan Bishops, had in those times or could have by succession, the government of particular Churches. Now let us hear what he can say in defence thereof.  
The Assumption I prove (saith he) by those particulars, wherein the episcopal 
Sect. 4. add sect. 3. pa. 78.  authority doth chief consist, both in respect of ordination. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of jurisdiction, they being the censures of other Minister's doctrine, 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. & 3. 9 & judges o● their person and conversation, 1. Tim. 5. 19 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofs he answereth nothing. Answered nothing! no merveile if he had no answer to these proofs as they are now fitted to the assumption of his new shapen argument: if this be his meaning, his best friends (I think) will scarce commend his honesty or discretion. But if his meaning be, that these proofs before laid down in his sermon received no answer at all; doth he not too much forget himself? since he taketh notice in the next page following, of this reason yielded for the denial of his assumption, viz. that those instructions (comprised in the places alleged) were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops; but particularly to them as Evangelists, and in general to the Presbyters, etc. But since this answer is in his eyes no answer at all; let us try whether it may not be said with more truth that his proofs whereof he boasteth, are no clear proofs, either of the principal points before denied; or of those which he now assumeth. He knoweth full well, that his refuter flatly denieth (that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assumption both before and now, to wit) that S. Paul had any intention to inform Timothy and Titus as Bishops; or any other Diocesan Bishops by them, how to demean themselves in those particulars of ordination & jurisdiction; hath he any argument to prove this? or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mentioned? At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumption, why are not the proofs thereof (if he have any) contrived into form of arguments? are his syllogisms 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 do my best, to give it the best coat I can, and that is this, 

Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus, their office and authority, as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christ's coming; doth describe their office, & prescribe their duties in those particulars; wherein episcopal authority chief 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 & authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christ's coming; describeth their office and prescribeth their duty, in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth. (For he describeth their office and prescribeth their duty in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, as the places before quoted do show. And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction episcopal authority chief consisteth.)  
Therefore S. Paul (in so describing the authority and prescribing the duty of Timothy and Titus) doth plainly 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 proof of his first argument. viz. that episcopal authority standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdiction: This was then taken for granted, and so enforced 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 authority committed to them. Here it is again produced to justify the same conclusion; because if episcopal authority consist in those particulars; them S. Paul's 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 etc. So to make a show of some variety of arguments; one assertion must come twice upon the stage, for one purpose; & that with an impudent 
The Doct. beggeth stoutly.  face to beg, rather than with ●ound reason from God's word to confirm, what is well known to be one of the main points controverted.  
For his adding the authority of Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostome, 
Sect. 5. add sect 4. pag 78. 79.  Oecumenius, and Gregory, 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 conclude from Saint Paul's own words, that which he undertook to make apparent by his epistles to Timothy & Titus.  
But because the Doctor will needs fit to this last assumption & the proof thereof, that answer which was given to another; I will first reduce it to the parts of his reasoning; & then peruse the forces which he bendeth against it. Whereas therefore he saith, that episcopal authority, chiefly consisteth in those particulars (of ordination & jurisdiction) which Timothy and Titus had in charge; if by episcopal authority he mean that; which Bishops have now gotten into their hands, and appropriated to themselves, than the proposition is false; and the falsehood thereof made plain by that supposed case (of a Democracie in time changed into an Aristocracy, and afterward into a Monarchy) laid down by the Doctor in his Refuters words. pag. 79. but if he understand by episcopal authority, that which in the Apostles times, and with their allowance, was seated in the function of diocesan Bishops; then the assumption and the proof thereof is contradicted by the Refuter; when he saith, that the directions given to Timothy and Titus (for ordination and jurisdiction) appertained not to diocesan Bishops; (for the Apostle dreamt of no such sovereignty) but in particular unto Timothy and Titus by an higher power, as Evangelists: & in general to all the presbyters, as having the charge of those affairs in their several congregations in the Churches right to administer them. To impugn this answer, first he laboureth by two arguments, 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 was to continue in the Church until the end. 2. because the power whereby Bishops do the things that Timothy and Titus had in commission, is so much of the Apostolical 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 ordaining and censuring considered simply (and in general 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 hindereth not, but that (as the Apostles, so) Timothy & Titus being Evangelists, did perform 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 virtue of an office that was to continue; and that the power of doing those works is derived to Bishops by apostolical allowance; what else doth he, but continue his old trade of begging? 2. In like manner he deceiveth himself and his Reader, when he fasteneth a contradiction on his Refuter in saying, the Apostles dreamt not of any such sovereignty, as now is in Bishops, above Presbyters; when he had before said, 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 falsehood in the refuters assertion (viz. that those instructions were given to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists) he saith, they were given them as they were particularly assigned governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete. For it was not repugnant (but very agreeable) to the office of Evangelists to be assigned unto 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, showing the charge of those affairs to belong properly to Diocesan Bishops; I would freely confess the Refuter had erred in denying it; and affirming the charge thereof to belong in general unto the presbyters; but though we have waited all this while, for the demonstration of this point from the Apostles writings: yet we hear no news of any argument, that clearly deduceth this conclusion from any word or phrase, which Paul useth in his epistles; only he saith, he hath sufficiently proved this point before, lib. 3. Wherefore that the reader may see how worthily he disputeth there in defence of his Diocesan Lords; I will pray leave to lay down in open view, 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. singularity of pre-eminence 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 proof thereof to that which was to follow, lib. 4. cap. 4. which we have now to examine. In the mean 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 Crete, as he proveth (if we may believe him) by most evident testimonies out of Paul's epistles Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 1. 3. & 4. 19-22. And unto his Refuters answer (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 judgement, till he come to the proofs on both sides, & if he shall not find my proofs (saith he) for their being Bishop's better than his to the contrary, let him believe me in nothing. Lo● here his words, and how confidently he relieth aforehand upon his proofs, which he meant to produce, for this assertion, that Timothy and Titus were Bishops. Notwithstanding when he cometh to make this apparent, & that by the scriptures (yea by S. Paul's epistles written unto them) the main issue of his whole reasoning, cometh at last to this effect.  
Episcopal authority consisteth chief, in the power of ordination and jurisdiction.  
But the authority which Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Crect principally consisted in the power of ordination and jurisdiction.  
Ergo, their authority was episcopal; And consequently they were Bishops.  
Here now if the proposition be doubted of or denied, we are sent back to this former disputation; where he begged that this conclusion might be taken for granted. Is there any likelihood (think you) that we shall ever find a good end put to this controversy, when 
Sect. 7. add sect. 5. & 6. p. 80. 81.  we must dance the round after the Doctor's pipe, in this fashion?  
But leaving the Doctor to the reader's sentence therein, let us proceed to that example or supposal before mentioned; the rather for that he most proudly insulteth over his Refuter as if he were a Brownist or Anabaptist or had broached sundry schismatical novelties; as I am not ashamed once again to lay down his words to the reader's view; so I doubt not but to clear 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 laws, 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 hands of the nobility, which continue the same laws still in the same cases? What if some one mightier than the rest, at the last make himself sole-governour, still observing those fundamental laws, which were at the first established is it to be said that those laws were the very patterns and precedents of the Aristocratical and Monarchical government, whereby the first maker of those laws would inform, in the one the nobility; in the other the Monarchy; and in them all other, how to exercise that function? The administration of Church matters touching ordination and jurisdiction, was first in the several Churches or congregations, which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church-busines, in process of time it came to be restrained to the Clergy only, the Bishop and his presbytery of Ministers only; at last as things grow wor●● and worse, the Bishop like a Monarch g●●t the reigns into his own hands. Now though the laws of ordi●a●im and jurisdiction, remeine the same, and the practice also in some sort: yet are they not patterns and precedents, either of the second or third kind of government; neither were they given to instruct, the Bishop alone, or the Bishop and his Clergy together. These are the Refuters words; now the Doct. having first solaced himself in an idle repetition of the particulars, (interlaced with scornful gibes) to show the unlearneder sort the trim Idea (as he pleaseth to speak) of that discipline, which the Refuter and his fellow challengers have forged; he cometh at his leisure very gravely to refute his supposed novelties, one after an other in this order.  
First, it is here presupposed (saith he) that every Church endued with power of ecclesiastical government, was a parish etc. 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 mere dotage? I will rather say, he might well have spared the mention of this controversy; seeing the Refuter doth not once mention the word parish or parishonall. The second supposed novelty he maketh this that the foruse of Church government at first, was democratical, or popular; the chief authority being in the people which by the Presbytery did ordain and censure all Church-officers. His Refuters words are these. The administration of Church-matters, was first in the several Churches or congregations, which by their Presbyters had the managing of all Church-busynes. And again, the right was in the Church, and the execution in the Presbytery. But doth the Doctor speak as he thinketh when he calleth this schismatical novelty; and for this esteemeth his Refuter a Brownist or Anabaptist? Knoweth he whom 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 propemodum 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 etc. The same words are recorded also in Catalogo. test. verit. lib. 2. Col. 108. but more directly to purpose speaketh D. Whitgist in his defence 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 itself, 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 enemy to all Brownists, and wholly devoted to the Prelate's service) be taxed of schismatical novelty, for teaching as he doth, that excommunication precisely and chiefly pertaineth to the Church, and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof, to some special persons fit for that purpose, and chosen for that end? this he saith, and this he proveth by Christ's words Math. 18. 17. 18. dic ecclesiae, tell the Church etc. that is to say (in his understanding) unto 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 affirm that the right and power of the keys and so of excommunication, belongeth unto the Church; and the Pastors & prelate's 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. count 5. quest. 4. part. 2.  
But Mr. Beza (if you will believe the Doct.) making mention of one Morellius, who pleaded in like manner for the popular government, giveth him this style. Democraticus quidem fanaticus. De Minist. gradibus cap. 23. pag. 155. But Mr Bezaes' words in that place do show, that he giveth that style 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 city 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 go before the people in the choice. 2. Notwithstanding the Doctor asketh if it be not a frenzy to urge the people's supremacy in Church government? and whether there be any show in scripture, or in reason that the sheep should rule their shepherd, or the flock their Pastor? Say as much should be granted as his questions imply; must he not first prove that his Refuter giveth supremacy of rule unto the sheep or people over their Pastor before he can conclude him to be led, by a fanatical 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-affairs, by her Presbyters, which are the principal 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 bore the person of the Church; when Christ said unto him, Tibi dabo claves etc. Mat. 16. (August. tract. 50. & 124. in johan. 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 unum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes, qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio, omnes enim idem sentiunt. But to pass by many others, the words of Ferus (in Act. 11) are worthy of the Doctor's observation. Peter the Apostle, & chief of the Apostles is constrained to give an account to the Church; neither doth he disdain it because he knew himself 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. Wherefore, the Church may not only exact an account of her Ministers; but also reject and depose them; if they be not fit. And in giving this pre-eminence to the Church above Peter, doth he speak against the scripture or against reason? Doth not S. Paul acknowledge the same, touching himself and his fellow Apostles? 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancy (if not frenzy) to urge as the Doctor doth, lib. 3. passim) the superiority 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 from his words, that the form of Church-government was at the first, or now aught to be wholly democratical or popular; the Doctor is not ignorant (as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. & 3.) that his Ref: pleadeth for the Aristocratical form of government, as that which in his opinion ought to be established in the several Churches. Neither doth he therein cross himself, or any of his fellows that favour the parish discipline, for they all (as I am persuaded) do hold the ecclesiastical government to be a mixed form compounded of all three states, as many worthy divines do confidently maintain. 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. pontiff. pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ, who is the head, not only of the whole Church in general, but also of every particular visible Church (Ephes. 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27) the Church may be truly reputed a Kingdom or Monarchy: so it hath some resemblance unto a Monarchy, in regard of that pre-eminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers. But because no one Pastor or Bishop, hath power to govern, or determine causes ecclesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure, but ex consilio compresbyterorum, by the Counsel of his fellow-Elders: the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy. And in as much as the people's consent is not to be neglected, in causes of greatest moment, it agreeth in part with a Democracie: notwithstanding a mere Democracie, wherein all matters are handled of all (aequato jure) by an equal right, we do no less detest, than that usurped Monarchy of Lordly Prelates, which other reformed Churches have abolished.  
Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry summer in a dripping 
Section 8.  year, when he supposeth in his third fancy, that we hold the laws of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. & Titus, to have been provided for such a popular state, wherein the people do rule their leaders. They were provided for a mixed state, wherein many presbyters under the guidance of one Pastor or precedent, do administer & execute all matters, with the people's 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 own warrant 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 common use, not only 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 enjoined him (Tit. 1. 5.) whence can we better derive that order, then from his own practice, and his fellow-Apostles who used aswell in ordination, as in other church-affairs, 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 own conceit, when he imagineth that the Apostles words unto Timothy and Titus, (Lay not hands rashly etc. And do thou avoid an Haeretick) did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their hands, that neither people nor presbyters, had or might have any stroke at all in those matters. As for his gibing objection. Belike the whole Island of Crete was a parish too; it deserveth no other answer then this; when he justifieth 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 few leaves after pag. 88) noteth this speech of his refuter, that Crect had many Churches; which argueth necessarily; that the whole Island could not be one only parish.  
The last fancy falsely feigned by the Doctor is this, that the popular 
Sect. 9  state of the several Churches, did first degenerate into an Aristocracy, and after into a Monarchy; he should have said, that the well tempered Democracie, did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracy, & after into an absolute Monarchy. But he endeavoureth to show that the several Churches were at the first governed Monarchically, to wit, by the Apostles, or Apostolical men severally. For Apostles he nameth james that ruled perpetually; and Peter and Paul etc. for a time. And of Apostolical men that were perpetual governors he hath good store, as Mark, Timothy, Titus, Evodius, Simon the son of Cleophas etc. But where are his proofs that all these or any of them, governed Monarchically; and by their sole authority. Concerning james it is already showed, that his government was far short of that sole authority, which our Bishops carry at this day, in the managing of Church-causes. And by that which hath been now said concerning Timothy & Titus, the same may be affirmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus & Crect. But he asketh whether Paul did not commit the ordination of Ministers unto Titus, without mentioning either of Presbytery or people? And we may ask him, what mention he findeth there, of prayers, or hands-imposition, which ought to concur with ordination? if he can include them (as being understood) in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5; we have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters, and the people's approbation in the words following, hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee: Quis enim credat Paulum etc. who may believe Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in use? Muscul. loc. con. de elect. Minist. Again, he asketh or rather argueth in this manner. Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed only to Titus for Crete, and to Timothy for Ephesus? and doth not this evidently show, that (howsoever they might use either the presence or consent of the people, or the counsel & advise of the presbyters in causes of greatest moment, as Princes also do in commonwealths, yet) the sway of ecclesiastical government was in them? If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason, them the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth; Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular terms unto Peter only both his whole speech concerning the keys of his kingdom, and the power thereof; Math. 16. and that precept of feeding his sheep and lambs, and of confirming his brethren. joh. 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 works; and the presence or consent of the people, in the administration of the keys; yet the chief power and sway of all was in him alone. Good news for Rome, if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument; but the truth is, such singular speeches directed to one only, do not argue in that one any such preheminent power, as the Romanists and Prelatists do 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 plain that he buildeth upon a vain and false presupposal, when he saith, it is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, that they had episcopal authority; and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops, in the exercise of their function.  
But for the proof of this, he hath another argument in store, thus framed,  
Those things which were written to inform not Timothy and Titus alone, 
Sect. 10. add sect. 7. pag 83.  as extraordinary persons, but them and their successors to the world's end; were written to inform diocesan Bishops.  
But those epistles were written to inform not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons; but them and their successors to the world's end.  
Therefore they were written to inform diocesan Bishops.  
Unto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinction thus; that it is true if understood 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 denieth and yet in the winding up of all, would persuade his reader, that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption. But he is to be advertised, that unless he make good what his Refuter denieth, he cannot conclude what he undertaketh. For whether we look to his former assertion, which he saith is here again proved, himself doth thus explain it. (sect. 3. in the beginning) that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus, S. Paul intended to inform them as Diocesan Bishops, and in them all other Diocesans: or whether we look to the nearest scope of his words 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 extraordinary persons, whose authority (he should have said office) should die with them) which cannot be removed unless he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinary function; wherein their successors should enjoy the same authority to the world's end. Neither is this to deny his conclusion, as he falsely affirmeth; but to contradict his assumption in that sense, which is necessary to make it good; because otherwise he argueth not ad idem. Let us therefore see how well his proofs are fitted to the assumption. I prove it, saith he, first by testimony both of Paul and of Ambrose; and after by reason. And first by S. Paul's testimony, that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the commandments and directions which he gave him, should be kept inviolable, until the appearing of our Lord jesus. 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 commandments 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 authority, but also the same office until the end of the world. The which is ●latly denied, and cannot be fortified by that which followeth (scz: that those commandments could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end) seeing the members of his disjunction are insufficient, when he taketh it for granted, that those commandments must be performed either in Timothees own person, or in such as succeeded him in the same function: for the Doctor cannot be ignorant, that the commandment which Christ gave to his Apostles (Math. 28. 19, 20.) for preaching and baptizing, was to be kept inviolable unto the coming of Christ: neither could it be performed by the Apostles always in their own persons, or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolic function. It is performed (as all the world knoweth) by successors in a different function, which have authority to do the same works; though neither in the same office, nor yet with that ample commission for the extent of their jurisdiction. In like manner the Refuter saith, that the commandments 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. add sect. 7. pag 83. 84.  scz. that the commandments given to Timothy, were to be performed by such as succeeded him in the same office. Mr Calvin, saith he, understandeth in the name of the commandment, those things whereof he had hitherto discoursed concerning the office of Timothy. And do not we also understand the things or works given in charge, under the name of the commandment? Neither deny we that those things belonged to the office or ministry of Timothy. Yet we refuse that succession in the same ministerial function, which the Doct. would wring (if he could tell how) out of Paul's charge to perform the things so commanded until Christ's second coming. 2. True it is, that T. C. and others finding among other precepts in Paul's epistles to Timothy this, that the governing Elders are to be honoured as well as the Teachers, do 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 from the rules that are laid down concerning their functions. 1. Tim. 3. the former being no less ordinary, and perpetually necessary, than the later. Yet the continuance of Timothy his office cannot be concluded upon the same ground, till it may appear that his function was also perpetual and not extraordinary. 3. As for the testimony of Ambrose, it nothing helpeth the Doctor, except it be to show, how grossly he playeth 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 well 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 neither can be governed, nor yet continued: the same is not peculiar 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 neither 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. Whereunto I answer as before; if he speak of succession at large in authority only; he wandereth from the question: If of succession in the same office; I disclaim the later branch of the proposition; for all men know by the perpetuity of Pastoral authority, by which the word and sacraments are still continued in the Church (whereas the dispensation of these holy things was first committed by Christ to the Apostles Math. 28. 19 20.) that the perpetual necessity of an authority to perform this or that ministerial 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 than the Doctor will contradict it, he will become non-suite in this point; and persuade his Reader, if he can, that succession in authority only (which was never denied) is sufficient for his purpose, the contrary whereof is before sufficiently made manifest.  
To follow him therefore in the defence of his proposition he saith, 
Sect. 12. add 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 inform their successors; were written to inform diocesan Bishops.  
But the successors of Timothy & Titus, were diocesan Bishops.  
Therefore those things that were written to inform their successors, were written to inform diocesan Bishops.  
Here the Doctor is again to be advertised, that the true hypothesis of the former proposition is this; that diocesan Bishops not only de facto were; but also de jure aught to have been successors unto Timothy & Titus, in the exercise of their authority; & therefore the consequence of the later proposition, which mentioneth their succession de facto only, is too weak; for unless it were certain that S. Paul intended that diocesan Bishops should succeed them; his writing of purpose to direct their successors; cannot argue that he meant by them to inform diocesan Bishops. It had been fit therefore, the Doctor had showed from some words of the Apostle in these epistles, or from some other Scriptures, that the Apostle aimed at the succession of such Bishops; but this was too hard a task for him; and therefore he persuadeth 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 disjunction. Either diocesan Bishops were their successors, or the presbyteries, or the whole congregation. But neither the presbyteries, nor the whole congregation Ergo diocesan Bishops.  
As for the last member of this disjunction, it is absurdly added by the Doctor, howsoever he would seem to have done it to please his Ref: for although he say that the right was in the church; yet he giveth the execution to the presbytery of each congregation: neither yet is he so to be understood, as if he denied a pre-eminence for order sake, unto some one to be the mouth of the rest, in executing that which was by the whole presbytery decreed. Which pre-eminence as it did by right belong to Timothy & Titus in regard 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 precedent of the presbyters; that is to say, in each congregation, to the Pastor; and in a Synod or assembly of the Pastors and presbyters of many Churches to that one which with the consent, & choice of his brethren moderated the action. If therefore he speak of successors unto Timothy & Titus, in that special presidency, which they held at Ephesus and in Crete; his disjunction is to be disclaimed as insufficient; because it wanteth the mention of such a precedent as we give to each presbytery and Synod. His second argument, followeth in this form;  
Those who succeeded Timothy and Titus in the government of the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, were their successors: But the Bishops of Ephesus and Crect 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 feign be thought to be rich, 
The Doct. is poor & proveth idem pe● idem.  when in deed he is poor. For is this argument any better than a beggarly proving of the point denied 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 authority? Perhaps he meaneth now to conclude (though before he said it was needless) that Diocesan Bishops were their successors in office: if so, then hath he somewhat more to do than he expecteth, he must prove his proposition which he beggeth. Mean while (till his meaning herein be known) I flatly deny his assumption, and am ready once again to listen to his proofs of this proposition, that diocesan Bishops succeeded Timothy and Titus in the like power of government over the Churches of Ephesus & Crete.  
First, touching Timothy's successors in Ephesus, whereas he allegeth, 
Sect. 13. add pag. 86. & 87.  that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, Apoc. 2. 1. was one of Timothy's next successors, he was answered, that he doth but tediously beg the question in assuming that the same Angel was a Diocesan Bishop; and now overpassing this point, (as 
The D. beggeth.  if he saw it not) he appealeth to his Refuters' conscience, whether that Angel was not the Bishop or governor of the Church of Ephesus, and succeeded Timothy in the government etc. Wherein if he should gratify him, with the grant of as much as he desireth, scz. that the Angel was one singular person & a Bishop, yea and a successor unto Timothy and one of those 27 Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Council of Chalcedon; yet (the Doctor isnever the near) it will not follow that he was a diocesan Bishop; for that other branch of the Refuters answer unto Leontius testimony standeth yet unremoved, viz. that howsoever the later of these 27 Bishops might be Diocesans; yet the former were not. The Doctor saith, It is certain that both the later and the former were not only Diocesan, but also Metropolitan Bishops; but I answer, he is much deceived, if he think we will take his bare affirmation; It is certain, for a sufficient confirmation of the matter in question. And if Timothy's immediate successors were (for certainty) Metropolitan Bishops, why is the Doctor so fearful, as he seemeth to be (lib. 2. pag. 114. & lib. 4. pag. 131.) to ascribe their original also to the Apostles institution? And why doth he by consequence contradict it, in saying, It is evident and cannot be denied, 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 affirm, that Timothy and Titus were bare Diocesans, if their immediate successors were Metropolitans.  
As touching Crect, 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 have that ample government, was Philip mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth, apud Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 21. & 23. Yet between him and Titus, there is an apparent difference; for Philip had the special charge of the Church of Gortyna; whereas Titus was equally trusted by the Apostle, with the oversight of all the Churches in the whole Island. He addeth, though there were no direct proof that Diocesan or Provincial Bishops, were the successors of Timothy and Titus, yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose form of government, Ephesus and Crect varied not. After having said, that Mark at Alexandria, Evodius at Antioch, & Linus at Rome had the same authority 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 said, Diocesan Bishops) to their successors in the Apostles times. Therefore 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, seeing the D. hath no better testimony, or reason to confirm it, than his own naked affirmation, It cannot be denied. Thus we have seen the Do. best defence: for that episcopal function, which he giveth to Timothy & Titus, his next labour is to remove the objections made against his assertion.   

Chap. 9 Concerning the first objection against the Bishoprics of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor, lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 9 and 10. pag. 89-92.  
THe first objection he layeth down in these words. That Timothy 
Sect. 1. add sect. 9 p. ●9  and Titus may seem not to have been appointed Bishops of Ephesus and Crect, because they did not continue there, but were removed to other places. Wherein, although the Doctor hath omitted the main point, that should give strength to the consequence (viz. that they continued there by the band of their office, as being affixed to the perpetual charge of those Churches:) yet as if the Refuter had made choice of his own words, & contrived it for his best advantage; he telleth the reader, it is an objection of his own framing. But it is usual with him, when he would seem to remove our objections, to fit them to his own strength, that his answer may seem to carry the victory with it. Otherwise since himself 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 ought) to have framed to himself 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 & Crect; and therefore they were not by Paul ordained Bishops of those Churches. But then his distinction of perpetual and ordinary residence, would not have reached to impugn, either the antecedent or the consequence of the argument. For the consequence implieth this proposition, that, all whom the Apostles ordained Bishops of particular Churches, were affixed or bound to the perpetual charge of those Churches; This if the Doctor deny, it may easily be proved by the law of God and man, and by the testimony of the best writers in all ages; but I will spare this labour, seeing the D himself cannot impugn it (as I suppose) without contradiction to himself. For how can Bishops enjoy by the prerogative of their function, 〈◊〉 singularity of pre-eminence during life; if their assignment to the charge of the Church which they hold, bindeth them not to attend on the feeding and oversight thereof, as long as they live? I grant that Bishops may upon special and extraordinary occasion, not only traveile to other places; but also be removed unto other Churches: but in their absence they remain bound to the charge of the Church first committed to them; till by a lawful calling they be removed, to the settled oversight of an other church. Wherefore an ordinary residence in Ephesus and Crect, is not sufficient to prove that they were Bishops of those Churches; unless it may also appear that they were bound to the perpetual charge thereof; and that the same band recalled them back, when those extraordinary matters were dispatched, which called them away for a time. But this is more than he can prove, either by testimony of scripture, or any other evidence. If he will conclude such a band of continuance from the Apostles words: 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 redress what was 
Sect. 2.  wanting in Crete. 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, than there must be a truth in this proposition, that men are bound to make their ordinary residence, during life in those places, where they are either requested prosmeinai, or left epidiorthosai etc. But the Doctor is not able (with all his skill) to prove a continuance (or ordinary resiance) during life, much less any band or tie unto such continuance; in the words of the Apostle before mentioned. For it appeareth that a far shorter continuance (and that without any band of office or calling thereunto) is noted by the word prosmenein, Mat. 15. 32. Mark. 8. 2. and Act. 18. 18. And Grammarians do teach that the word hath sometimes the signification of expecto, to tarry or wait for an others coming; which construction, as it doth well accord with the Apostles words. 1. Tim. 4. 13. (till I come give attendance to exhortation etc.) so it was of ancient times received, as appeareth by the reading which Augustin (lib. 2. cont. Parmen.) followed, Rogavi te ut sustineres me; I requested thee to tarry for me at Ephesus. And certainly these words Till I come, compared with the former, I requested thee to abide or stay for me at Ephesus, do argue very strongly that Paul had no purpose to bind him unto perpetual residence there as a Bishop on his perpetual charge. Si Timotheus erat episcopus Ephesinus, fuit ne rogandus ut in sua paraecia maneret etc. Let Mr Doctor read Sadeel to Turrians sophisms. loc. 12. sect. 8.  
And as for the word epidiorthoos●, Tit. 1. 5. it is nothing else with Scapula (in his Lexicon) then insuper emendo velcorrigo, to add an amendment fault, or correct somewhat already done or spoken, for as there is prodiorthoosis, a ●ore amendment of an evil, by preventing it, before it break out; so is there also epidiorthoosis, an after amendment of a fault already committed. (see Aretius in Tit. 1. 5.) Wherefore a continuance in redressing is not necessarily implied in the Greek word, as the Doctor may further see (for his learning) not only 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 do retain. I left thee in in Creta, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting (or left undone.) True it is, that some writers of good note, (to express the force of the preposition epi) do prefer this or the like reading: I l●ft thee in Creta (ut pergas corrigere) that thou shouldest go forward (or continue) to redress etc. thereby to signify that Titus succeeded Paul, as one put in trust to continue the work begun, and to finish that which was left unperfect. But even they which do urge this signification of the word, do 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 Doctor's collection (which from the Apostles words inferreth that Titus was not left there for a brunt (to set things in order) & so to come away, but to continue redressing what should be amiss, and still to keep that Church in reparation) is a false gloss. Which as it hath no warrant from the word epidiorthoosai; so it crosseth the true meaning of those words, ta leiponta, things remaining, for they show that he was left there for the rectifying of those things, which by the Apostles departure thence, remained out of order: and not for the repairing of such future defects, as the Doctor conceiveth might arise, by reason of the death of Bishops and Presbyters, and many personal corruptions in doctrine, discipline and manners, whereunto the Church was subject; for that the Apostle aimed at any such defects, and their redressing, it is more than he will be able to prove in haste.  
But though he cannot make good his own collection from the 
Sect. 3. add sect. 10. p. ●2.  Apostles words: 1. Tim. 1. 3. & Tit. 1. 5; yet he can easily throw down 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 stayed 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 vain 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 main strength of those Inferences, which he mentioneth; for from those testimonies of Timothy and Titus their removing to divers places after their stay in Ephesus and Creta; he first collecteth, That the Apostles took 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 bold or unreasonable, as to imagine that Paulhad made the one Bishop of Ephesus; & the other Arch Bishop of Crect. The Doct. therefore might have seen (if he would) that his Refuter argueth to this purpose.  
They whom the Apostles implied 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 Crect:  
But Timothy and Titus were so employed after they had been left in Ephesus and in Crect. Therefore they were not made Bishops by the Apostle of Ephesus & Crect.  
The proposition; he deemed so plain, that he thought none would be so bold or unreasonable 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 etc. The assumption he proved by their removes before mentioned. To all which the Doctor maketh no other answer then a denial of the conclusion, in saying, It is intolerable boldness and arrogancy not to acknowledge that Paul had made them Bishops. Only he contradicteth him for saying, that Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second epistle was written to him: which though it may be maintained upon better probability than the Doct. hath to impugn it, yet) I willingly overpass, seeing for our purpose it is sufficient; that other places of scripture sufficiently witness, 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) do show▪ And from thence he was sent to the Philippians in Macedonia, as may well be conjectured by Paul's own words, Phil. 2. 19 23. And to the Hebrews he saith, (Cap. 13. 23.) know that our brother Timothy is delivered: with whom (if he come shortly) I will see you: which argueth that he had been a prisoner; & being elsewhere employed was by the Apostle expected, that he might again use him for a companion in his traveiles. It is apparent therefore, that (as the Refuter saith) the Apostle still employed him in his Evangelisticall function. And so he did Titus also seeing he was called to meet him at Nicopolis. (Tit. 3. 12.) and afterwards being at Rome, was sent from thence to Dalmatia. 2. Tim. 4. 10. which argueth plainly (as is before observed) that they were not by Paul ordained Bishops.  
As for that discourse which the Doctor runneth into (serm: pag. 
Sect. 4. add 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 perpetual 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 stay at Ephesus but for a short time, when Paul went into Macedonia Acts 20. is contrary to S. Paul's 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 mentioned Acts 20. 1. 3. Timothy accompanied him. Therefore the time of his stay at Ephesus after Paul's going thither recorded 1. Tim. 1. 3. cannot accord with any of those voyages, Act. 20. The Antecedent he laboureth to prove (in his sermon) as followeth. Not the first which followed the tumult appeased vers. 1. because immediately before the history of the tumult; it is said that he had sent Timothy into Macedonia, and himself followed (cap: 19 22. & 20. 1.) not the second, which was from Graecia, resolved upon to avoid the ambushment of the jews, ver. 2. & 3. because it is expressly said, that Timothy accompanied him; & from Philippi, went before him to Troas & to Assos', from whence he accompanied him to M●letum verse 4. 5. to 15. For answer 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 Doctor's vain imagination, refeled rather then confirmed by S. Luke's story. 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 stay: as 1. Cor. 16. 7. Act. 15. 33. & 18. 23. (see Aretius in Acts 15. 33. & Calvin on 1. Cor. 16. 7.) yea the words themselves epesche chronon, eye ten asian, subsistit ad tempus in Asiam, scz. profecturus. (ad verbum (ut habet Piscator) inhibuit, scz. susceptam prof●ctionem mentioned vers. 21.) (these very words I say) do show that he deferred his own foreintended journey into Macedonia, for a time of purpose to spend some time in Asia, in visiting & strengthening the Churches. And the Apostles own words (1. Cor. 16. 5. 7. 8. 9) do plainly import, that he resolved to return unto Ephesus, there to set forwards the lords work; because he saw both an effectual door opened unto him, to do much good; and a strong opposition of many adversaries, likely to do hurt, if he should have departed out of those quarters what hindereth then, but that Timothy might dispatch his journey and return thither again in this time of the Apostles stay at Ephesus and in Asia; which came between his sending them, and that Tumult; that is recorded afterwards? Wherefore, if this cannot be with better reason impugned then yet I see; it will follow inevitablie, that Timothy his abode at Ephesus was very short; seeing it is certain he was with Paul in Grecia. Acts. 20. 2. 3. 4. when he resolved to return from thence through Macedonia.  
Now to answer the second, that which he supposeth most certain is altogether untrue, viz. that Timothy (with the rest that are named Acts. 20. 4.) accompanied S. Paul into Macedonia, till he came to Philippi, and there parted from him, to go before unto Troas; The words of the Evangelist, are that Timothy & others accompanied him (achrites asia's) unto Asia; that is, till 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 in Graecia, (the better to avoid the ambushments of the jews) and so passing by the coasts of Asia (as they must to go 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 affairs in Macedonia. Wherefore the Doctor's misconceiving the tenor of S. Luke's story, is a greater error than their opinion, that refer the time, both of Timothy's stay at Ephesus (enjoined him 1. Tim. 1. 3.) to Paul's second voyage towards Macedonia recorded Act. 20. 3. And of S. Paul's writing his first epistle to Timothy; unto his being in Macedonia there mentioned vers. 6. For what hindereth but that Timothy parting from Paul in the coasts of Asia near to Ephesus might then be requested to stay at Ephesus; and be saluted also with letters from Philippi, or some other city in Macedonia? Surely if the Doctor had not been strangely misledd by his own conceit, he would never have deemed this a strange conceit in Mr Beza.  
So then, it being apparent that the Doctor hath nothing of any moment to object against Timothy's 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 dream (as the D. doth) of a new voyage thither after his deliverance from his bonds at Rome? Specially, seeing he hath no warrant, neither from God's word, nor from any sound historiographer, to maintain his strange conceit; but only a false supposal, that it cannot fitly be ascribed to any of his journeys mentioned in the Acts. For how can he prove that which he so confidently avoucheth, touchiug Paul's deliverance from his bands at Rome, and renewing of his former traveiles for 9 years after? And when this is proved, how will he demonstrate, either from Paul's epistles, or any other monuments of antiquity (from whence himself saith (serm. p. 78) the Acts of those 9 years must be gathered) that Paul made a new voyage into Macedonia, and in that traveile passing by Ephesus, left 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 Bishopric? For did not Paul himfelse tell the Elders of Ephesus (when he parted from them at Miletum. (Act. 20. 25.) that he knew that they all among whom he had gone preaching the kingdom of God; should see his face no more? And hath the Doctor forgotten that himself teacheth us (serm. pag. 70. & 88) and pag. 63. of this defence) that the Apostles did substitute Bishops in their rooms, 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 think that Paul would neglect to give them a Bishop; at or before so solemn a departing from them; specially seeing (as he knew he should see their face no more, so) he foresaw that after his departing, there should grievous 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 Bishopric of Ephesus, the same must be at one of those journeys, which he took into Macedonia, Acts 20. 1. 3.  
But he had no ordination to his Bishopric at any of those journeys.  
Therefore he had none at all.  
The consequence of the proposition is apparent by things last touched, viz. that at Paul's last parting from those coasts, he knew he should see them no more, and that no monuments of Antiquity do ascribe this work to any latter voyage. And in the first, whereof mention is made Acts 16. 10. 12; Timothy was his companion, as appeareth vers. 1. 3. etc. neither was the Church at Ephesus then planted, much less fit to receive and maintain a Bishop, as may be gathered from Acts 18. 19 25. 26. & 19 1. 7. etc. As for the assumption, though the Doctor acknowledgeth the truth of it; yet we rely not on his conceits, but on far surer grounds. For it is also showed, that he was not affixed, to the permanent charge of that Church; neither did he long stay there; but followed the Apostles call, aswell after as before. To all which I add this one reason, more peculiarly fitting the time, mentioned in the assumption.  
If Timothy had not as yet received the episcopal charge of the Ephesian Church, when Paul took his leave of their Elders. Act. 20. 25. 28. then was he not ordained in any of his journeys into Macedonia, mentioned 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 whom the charge of feeding and governing the whole flock did appertain in common, by special charge given them by St. Paul; and that without any intimation of any superior set over them, to whose direction they should yield obedience: at that time, Timothy had not yet received such an episcopal charge as giveth him a singularity of pre-eminence above all other ministers in that Church.  
But at the time of Paul's 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 appertain in common etc.  
Therefore at that time Timothy had not received such an episcopal charge etc.  
The assumption is manifest by the words of the Apostle Acts 20. 28. and the proposition is most apparent by the manifest opposition, betwixt the singular regiment of one Bishop, and the joint charge of many. Moreover, it is levied by the Doctor's 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 common-advice of the Presbyters, as jerom affirmeth. In this time spoke Paul to the Presbyters at Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. Neither let the Doctor think here to stop our mouths, with the shifting answer which he elsewhere useth, viz, that these Presbyters governed only in private, & as under the Apostle; who kept in his own hands the episcopal authority; for this is to contradict the Apostle himself, who plainly 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 clear truth therefore, that Timothy not having then any sole pre-eminence in the government of that Church, was not their Bishop; and consequently, he was not at all ordained their Bishop, as is before showed.  
His allegations follow, from divers authors, which report of 
Sect. 6. add sect. 10. p. 91.  Timothy and Titus that they lived and died, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crect. 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 episcopal 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 again I tell him, that unless he will fit the objection to his own strength; and so contend with his own shadow, he must prove more than an ordinary residence; even a band of continuance there, as their proper charge. For till this be effected, his proofs are to as little purpose as those that many papists allege for Peter's Bishopric at Rome; because towards his later time, he there lived for his ordinary residence, and at length there died. I add this, to provoke the Doctor to a better examination of his own witnesses; that they do not prove such an ordinary 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 allegeth is much abused. For he reporteth thus of Timothy in Synopsi; Evangelium jesu Christi Ephesi exorsus Illyricum usque, et in universa Hellade praedicavit, ubi & mortuus et honorifice s●pultus est. That beginning at Ephesus he preached the gospel of jesus Christ, to Illyricum and through all Greece, where he did and was honourably buried; doth not this directly contradict that, which the Doctor allegeth him for; and plainly argue that he was an Evangelist as we affirm? Come we now to the second objection.   

Chapt. 10. Concerning the second objection 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. add sect. 11. pag ●3.  Ergo, they were not ordained Bishops of Ephesus and Crete. This consequence the Doctor denied, because their being Evangelists did not hinder, but that when they were assigned to certain Churches, and furnished with episcopal power, they became Bishops. And to remove this answer, the Refuter proveth first, that their being Evangelists did hinder their assigning to certain churches without which they could not be Bishops. 2. That when they were left at Ephesus and in Crete, they received no such new authority, as he calleth episcopal, neither 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 manner,  
What could not be done, without either 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 neither would nor could do.  
But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops, when they were Evangelists, could not be done, without either 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 neither could nor would do.  
The assumption is very scornfully rejected by the Doctor, because in his imagination, the parts thereof are nice points, which none of the fathers did ever understand; but his triumph is vain and unseasonable, whiles we are in examining by the verdict of the scriptures, or by reason grounded thereon, what to determine of this controversy. Wherefore, to pass by this answerless answer, I will endeavour to draw the reader to the consideration of that I have to allege in defence of our assumption as followeth,  
To conjoin 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 certain 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, either conjoining both offices in one person, or taking their first office from them, when the later is given to them.  
Ergo, neither can it be done, without either 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 thereof, first therefore for the former thus I argue. It is apparent, by the very text, Ephes. 4. 11. and by other scriptures, that the several functions of Ministry there mentioned, were by Christ distributed to several persons, & not committed two or more of them to one man at once. Ergo, to conjoin 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 only, and some to be Evangelistes and Pastors: or that some were Apostles only; and some Apostles and Evangelists, but (as before) he gave some to be Apostles, and some to be Evangelists etc. thereby signifying that such as had the calling of Apostles, had not also the office of Evangelists. Neither did the Evangelists hold therewithal the office of Pastors. 2. This is further confirmed by the similitude which the Apostle useth (1. Cor. 12. 14,▪ 28. of many members in one body, which have (not all one and the same, but each of them, his several office. The eye is not an ear; neither doth it serve the body in the office of hearing, or smelling &c. in like manner all are not Apostles, nor all Prophets, etc. but God hath ordained, some to one office, and some to another, as first Apostles, secondly Prophets, etc.  
3. And of this distinction we have examples. For touching the extraordinary Ministers (of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists) we find them distributed to several persons. Luk. 16. 13. Act. 1. 26. and cap. 11. 27. 28. and 21. 8. And for ordinary functions, there were at jerusalem Deacons and Elders. Act. 6. 3. 6. & 11. 31. at Philippi, Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. but of two or more offices combined in one person at once, there cannot be yielded any one clear 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 Matthew & 
Sect. 2.  john; so Evangelists might be Bishops, as we see in Mark. (pag. 95) For the name of Evangelist by ancient or later writers given to Matthew and john, because they wrote those histories, which are kat hexochen, called Evangelia, Gospels; proveth not, that they had that function 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, understand such as have the name given them in other parts of the new testament, as Acts. 21. 8. and 2. Tim. 4. 5. And as for Mark, we know him to be an Evangelist; not only because he wrote one of the 4. Gospels; but rather because he was (as Timothy) a companion and fellow helper to the Apostles: but his Bishopric we disclaim no less than 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 confesseth (as the truth in deed is) that the word Evangelist specially taken, signifieth the extraordinary function, of those in the primitive Church, which went up & down preaching the Gospel, not being affixed to any certain 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 certain place. 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 conjoined in one person, without confounding the functions 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 certain place, the other is ordinary & tied to one certain place.)  
Ergo the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors, cannot be conjoined at once in one person, without confounding the functions, which in their first institution were distinguished.  
And by this it may be seen that the Doctor's comparison halteth, when he would persuade that Timothy and Titus might be Bishops, although they were Evangelists like as the Apostles Matthew and john, were also Evangelists; for that Evangelistship given to Matthew & john by that name of Evangelists is far differing from the Evangelisticall function of Timothy and Titus, neither is there such an opposition between their Evangelistship, and the Apostleship; as there is between that Evangelistical function, which he giveth to Timothy & Titus; & their episcopal office. For Matthew and john ceased not to be Apostles, when they became Evangelists: but concerning Timothy and Titus he plainly affirmeth, that they laid aside their former office when they undertook the later. For he saith (pag. 95.) that after they were placed Bishops, they traveiled not up and down, as in former times, but ordinarily remained with their flocks.  
To come then to the latter branch of the Refuters argument, 
Sect. 3. add 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 ministry superior to all ordinary Pastors or Bishops, which is so generally acknowledged for a truth, that the Reader may well admire at the Doctor's boldness, that shameth not to set an Evangelist in equal rank with presbyters, and so (in his apprehension) in a degree below his Bishops. For herein he swarveth not only from the common Tenent of the best, in other reformed churches, (see Calvin in Ephes. 4. 11. Beza. de 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 james to remain an Apostle, though he were Bishop of jerusalem: so will Bishop Bilson have Timothy and Titus to be both Evangelists and Bishops, perpet. gover. pag. 233. 234. But to leave the mention of men, however famous for learning and esteemed in the Church; can we have any better line, whereby to measure out the pre-eminence of each ministerial function, than 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 ministry comprised under 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. showeth. But the function of Bishops which the Doct. ascribeth to Timothy and Titus, is an ordinary function of ministry & such as himself compriseth under the name of Pastors pag. 95. Ergo, it is also inferior in degree to the extraordinary function of Evangelists aswell as to Apostles & Prophets.  
Now to reduce to this argument, the Doctor's discourse (pag. 94. and 95) the sum is this. First he maketh. 4. sorts of Evangelists. viz, such as taught the Gospel by writing, as the 4. Evangelists, Math. Mark, Luke and john. 2. any one that doth Evangelize or preach the Gospel. 3. the. 72. disciples immediately 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 Ministry; and of this sort were Timothy and Titus, whiles they accompanied Paul in his traveiles and were not assigned to any certain place. Secondly to apply this distribution unto the Apostles meaning, Ephes 4. 11.; he acknowledgeth no other there comprised 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 pre-eminence above his diocesan Bishops because the Fathers say of them (as he observeth pag. 94.) that they also had but the degree of the presbytery. And therefore I guess, he will award the stroke of the former argument, by this distinction thus, viz. that the ordinary functions of ministry comprised under the name of Pastors and Teachers, are not inferior in degree to the later sort of Evangelists, which attended on the Apostles, but only to the 4. Evangelists, and perhaps to the. 72. because these only, and not the other, are meant by the name of Evangelists in that place.  
And to join issue with the Doctor, I affirm the contrary, viz. 
Section 〈◊〉  that by Evangelists in Ephes. 4. 11. we are to understand all those, and those only, which in an extraordinary function (distinct from the Apostles and Prophets) traveiled too and fro, preaching the Gospel; whether they were immediately 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 denieth, (viz. that the later sort of Evangelists are comprised under that name in Ephes. 4. 11. aswell as the former) for brevity sake in stead of larger syllogisms, I tender to him and to the judicious Reader these several arguments nakedly propounded. 1. the D. confesseth that under the name of Evangelists specially taken, the later sort, (in which number Timothy and Titus were) are no less comprised, than the former, because this was common to them all, that they went up and down preaching the Gospel, not being affixed to any certain 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. unless he could yield (as he cannot) some sufficient reason for the difference he putteth between them. 2. Again, he confesseth that the later sort were in an extraordinary function. Either therefore he must deny all extraordinary functions of ministery to be comprised Ephes. 4. 11. or he must refer one sort of Evangelists to an other name, as of Apostles, Prophets or Pastors etc. 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, seeing that work of penning the evangelical history, maketh them not to stand in a differing function of ministery from all others. For the ministries there mentioned are all distinct functions of preachers; And if the writing of Christ's history made a different function; why should not the writing of the Apostles Acts make a second, and the writing of the evangelical, or Canonical epistles, a third: and the receiving and penning of the revelation a 4. And as for the. 72. or rather 70. (For Luke mentioneth 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 hastily subscribe to him therein; much less can we grant that which he affirmeth of Philip, that he laid aside the evangelisticall function, to take a temporary Deaconship Act. 6. and so returned to it again: 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 hands ordained Bishops. Behold here quot axiomata, totidem paradoxa, as many paradoxes as axioms. For how will he prove, 1. that they were before but presbyters, 
The D. beggeth 3. times together, and contradicteth himself in one sentence. etc.  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 rag to cover their shame; the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth before acknowledged by himself pag. 94. where he compriseth Timothy and Titus, no less than Philip and some others, under the name of Evangelists, specially taken for the extraordinary function of those that went up and down, preaching the gospel, being not affixed to any certain place. And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertion of a palpable falsehood. For how could they be but presbyters, seeing 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 verified. But doth he no● abuse the fathers, in making them the authors of his own paradox? For, do they match the 72 disciples, or any other Evangelists, with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise, than they do the Apostles, with the degree or place of Bishops? Neither is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops, or to lift up Bishops above Prophets, but to countenance that superiority, which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters; by a comparison of the like difference, which they apprehended between the Apostles, & the 70. disciples. We have therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion. viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superior to all ordinary presbyters; for (besides that already gathered from Ephes. 4. 11.) it is apparent 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 fellowhelpers 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 again, that to make them Pastors or Bishops; when they were Evangelists, is (not to advance them but rather) to throw them down from a higher degree of ministery to a lower.  
In the second place, (whereas the Doctor had said that Timothy and Titus were furnished with episcopal power, at the time of 
Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 pag. 9●.  their stay in Ephesus and Crect, by S. Paul's appointment; and the Refuter denied that they received any new authority, which before they had not &c.) the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner; If they received no new authority, why did Timothy receive a new ordination, by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh (1. Tim. 4. 14. & 2. Tim. 1. 6.) and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop. I grant that Paul mentioneth hands-imposition on Timothy & that some of the fathers do thereby understand his ordination to be Bishop. Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove either from those words, or any of the father's writings, that the imposition of hands mentioned by Paul was a second ordination to a new office, or a furnishing of him, with any new Ministerial authority which before he wanted. What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop, may be construed (as is before noted (concerning james) their speeches are, which say that james was ordained Bishop of jerusalem) of a new or differing employment in the work of the ministery, for the temporary charge he received, which argueth no new authority or office imposed on him. 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary means of imposing hands? his own 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 ordained Ministers of the gospel by imposition of hands; which I would fain know how he can prove, by any testimony divine or human; unless he carry those words of Paul (1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6.) to his first ministerial function.  
3. Again, he asketh, may we think that any but the Apostles (being not assigned as Bishops to several Churches) had that authority wheresoever they became, which Timothy had at Ephesus & Titus in Crect? And he addeth, verily Philip the Evangelist had not authority to impose hands for the furnishing of men with graces for the ministery; but the Apostles Peter and john were sent to Samaria for that purpose. Act. 8. 5. 17. If it be his drift thus to argue; Philip the Evangelist had no authority, to give graces fit for the Ministry by imposition of hands: Therefore besides the Apostles none but Bishops, had that authority wheresoever they came, which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Crect; I answer his reasoning is many ways faulty. For he cannot prove, either that Bishops have, or that Timothy and Titus had, that authority by imposition of hands to give such graces. Neither is it true (which his words import) that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and john (Act 8. 17.) were graces fitting the persons that received them, to the work of the ministery. Wherefore although it should be granted, that the Evangelist Philip had no authority to give those peculiar graces; yet he might have as great authority, wheresoever he came, as Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Crect; so that his assertion implied in his question (viz. that besides the Apostles, only Bishops had the like authority 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 govern the Churches now one, than an other. For how should Churches be governed by them, if they had not the like power and authority for government that Timothy and Titus had?  
From the Doctors reasoning, in defence of his own assertion, 
Sect. 7. add pag. 96.  let us pass to the answer yielded 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 been at Ephesus to do the work of an Evangelist) Ergo they received no new authority at their placing there, which they had not before; neither laid they aside but retained still their Evangelisticall function. The Doctor denieth the Antecedent, and contradicteth the proof thereof. Whereas Paul willeth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist, what is thee, saith he, but evaggelizesthai, to preach the Gospel diligently. etc. the word Evangelist being there taken in the general sense? Here we are put to prove that the name of an Evangelist is here taken, not in a general sense; but in a more special for the function of an Evangelist; which may appear by these circumstances. 1. First the very phrase itself, to do the work of an Evangelist, cannot in reason be construed otherwise, then q. d. to do the work which an Evangelist is bound unto, by his particular function; like as in the like phrase, the work of an Apostle, the signs of an Apostle, the commandment 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 honourable mention of his office, to provoke him to use the greater diligence therein, thereby to gain the greater reverence among those, that should behold his zeal and faithfulness in his calling. But the special function of an Evangelist, serveth better, than the general name of a preacher of the Gospel, both to animate him unto watchfulness, and to procure him authority amongst those, with whom he conversed. 3. Moreover since it is known 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 honourable office, (as the Doctor supposeth) in all likelihood, the Apostle would have given him some other title, lest others should be led into an error by this name.  
4. Lastly, if we look to the use of the word evaggelistes in other places we shall find it no where carried in the Apostolical writings to a general signification as the Doctor fancieth; but rather is appropriated to that extraordinary function of Evangelists, which then was known by that name as Act. 21. 8. & Eph. 4. 11. Wherefore since it is a firm & undoubted axiom in divinity, that we are to receive that interpretation of any word or phrase, which best accordeth with the scope of the place, itself, and the use of the like in other places, I will hold it for a truth not to be gainsaid, that the word Evangelist ought here to be taken (not in the general sense but) for the special function of an Evangelist known by that name.  
We now come to Zuinglius his testimony, alleged by the D. 
Sect. 8. add pag. 97.  to prove that their being Evangelists, did not hinder them from being Bishops. His case is very desperate (it seemeth) since he is driven to crave relief of one so well known to be a professed enemy to to the Lordly jurisdiction of Diocesan and Provincial Prelates. But what Zuinglius? forsooth, that Philip the Evangelist who had been one of the Deacons, was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea, and james the Apostle was Bishop of jerusalem, and diverse of the Apostles, when they ceased from their peregrinations, became Bishops of certain Churches. Which saith the D, may be much more verified of the Evangelists; In deed if this last gloze, had been Zuinglius his words, his evidence had been far sitter for his purpose than it is, and yet would it have 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 loath (I suppose) to subscribe unto. For he is so far 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 words (De ecclesiastica sive ratione et officio concionandi. fol. 48.) Quo in loco illud nobis primo notandum est, Philippum hunc Caesariensis ecclesiae Evangelistam, episcopum vel pastorem fuisse etc. 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 etc. whereby it appeareth, as also by the words afeerwards remembered by the Doctor (constat juxta Pauli sententiam idem esse episcopi, et Evangelistae officium) and by many other speeches 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 answer. 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 james or any other Apostle (as Doct. Whitak. hath rightly observed 
The Doct. reasoneth from that which is no cause etc. deceitfully.  de pontiff. rom. pag. 303,) the Doctor replieth. 〈◊〉. that if Zuinglius spoke according to the phrase of histories etc. then and (therefore) he spoke according to the truth: from whence I infer that if Zuinglius have spoken the truth in this matter, than the Doctor is in an error and reasoneth deceitfully a non causa pro causa. For whereas he would persuade that james was properly a Bishop, because the Fathers so intititle him. Zuinglius saith expressly of james Hunc Hieron: et omnes simul vetusti patres, Hierosol: episcopum nominant non aliam ab causam, quam quod in ea urbe sedem fixam posuisset. jerom and with him all the ancient farhers, call him Bishop of jerusalem, for no other cause, but for that he had made his fixed abode in that city.  
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 been particularly assigned to the Ch: of Ephesus & Crect, where also they lived & died? I answer, hath he not by as good proofs showed james his assignment to the Church of jerusalem and his living and dying there? If then (all this notwithstanding) it be true that james was not properly a Bishop, doth he not reason loosely, when from such assignment of Timothy and Titus, he concludeth them to be properly Bishops? The refuters second answer is, that it is manifest by Zuinglius his writings, he neither thought they were, nor any other might be a diocesan Bishop. Whereto the Doctor replieth, belike he spoke 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 own witness from their meaning; for there is nothing more evident to them that peruse Zuinglius his writings than this; that with him every preacher of the gospel 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 spoken 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 etc. this place evidently showeth, that a Bishop is no other than a Minister of the Church, whom we use to call parochum a parish priest or Minister. But that the Reader may see, how much Zuinglius misliked the large jurisdiction & singular pre-eminence 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 defence of the monarchical (or rather in his judgement Tyrannical) government of diocesan Bishops, I pray 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. Containing an answer to another of the the D. Arguments concerning the Bishoprics of Timothy and Titus handled sect. 13-16 from pag. 98. to 104.  
FRom these two objections (in the pursuit whereof, the Doctor 
Sect. 1. add sect. 13. pag. 98.  fed himself with a vain hope, to gain 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 end with their persons, and admitted no succession: as being both extraordinary & temporary. But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certain Church's viz. of Ephesus and of Crect (consisting specially in the power of ordination & jurisdiction) was not to end 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 Crect; was not extraordinary and Evangelisticall.  
This argument (laid down, serm. pag. 79.) his Refuter took to be opposed against the Antecedent of that objection which affirmeth Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists; and who would not have so judged, seeing the conclusion denieth their function & authority to be Evangelisticall. But he saith that the introduction premised before this argument (hereof we may conclude thus) showeth 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 & Crect. Which difference I refer wholly to the judgement of the indifferent reader, not doubting but he will discharge the Refuter from all blame either of wilful, or of negligent mistaking. And whereas he flatly denieth that he doth deny they were Evangelists; that he may not hide himself under a cloud, I desire him plainly to answer us, whither they remained Evangelists after that calling, which he supposeth they had to be Bishops? If yea, why doth he insinuate the contrary (pag. 95. lin. 24. etc.) 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 Crect, they traveiled not up and down as in former times, when they accompanied the Apostles, but ordinarily remained with their flocks. If no, why maketh he his Reader believe, that in the conclusion of his argument above mentioned, he neither doth nor did intend to deny that they were Evangelists. But (as often before so here again) we must and will follow him in his own 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 Crect, was either extraordinary and Evangelisticall, as the disciplinarians teach: or else ordinary, and episcopal as the prelatists affirm: But it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall. Therefore ordinary and episcopal.  
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, between us and him with his Associates in the cause he pleadeth. Wherefore we must take leave to lay down our own opinion more clearly, which is this in few words. First we distinguish function from authority; both which the Doct. confoundeth; for though we affirm, their function there exercised to be Evangelisticall and therefore extraordinary; yet we do not so avouch of their whole authority nor yet of that authority or power of ordination & jurisdiction, whereof he speaketh in the assumption of his former argument; as the Doct. may perceive by the Refuters words, whereof he took notice pag. 84. Again, we distinguish betwixt authority (simply considered and in general) to perform the works of preaching, and ordaining etc. And that particular or personal 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 itself in abstracto & simply considered) to be ordinarily and perpetually necessary: yet we affirm their personal authority to be Evangelisticall, because all the authority they had did flow from their Evangelisticall function. For like as the Apostles preached and baptised by the authority of their Apostleship; so did Timothy & Titus both Preach and impose hands etc. by virtue 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 Crect, we affirm it to be extraordinary and Evangelisticall; and therefore in that respect utterly reject his Assumption. 2. touching their authority (consisting as he saith specially in ordination and jurisdiction) if he take it personally for that which was invested in them, by the ministerial function which they there exercised: then I reject the assumption also in that behalf: but if it be taken simply and at large for any authority to exercise the like works; either in the same Churches or in any other; then I disclaim his proposition. For we are so far from affirming this authority, to be proper unto Evangelists; that we hold it rather common to every Pastor, in his own 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 pre-eminence above other Ministers, and the continuance thereof, in the precedents of Synods.  
Now to come to his Argument first set down, (and to pass by that fault, of mentioning function only in the proposition; whereas 
Sect. 2. add pag. 98. 99  authority is also joined with it in the assumption and conclusion) the Assumption which was denied by the Refuter, must (for the clearing of his true meaning) be divided into two members, the one serving properly for the plain & natural assumption. viz. that the function and authority which they exercised in Ephesus and Crete, was not to end with their persons; but to be continued in their successors: the other serving either for the Medius terminus of a prosyllogism to confirm the former; or at least for an explication of his meaning therein. viz. that the function & authority 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 brevity sake omitting, to distinguish these two differing propositions enfolded in one) fitted his answer to the later, affirming (as the truth is) that therein he doth but beg the question; in as much as he assumeth for 
The Doct. beggeth.  truth these two points before convinced of falsehood. viz. 1. that they were assigned to the perpetual charge of those Churches. 2. And that their authority was such a preheminent power in ordination and jurisdiction, as he ascribeth elsewhere 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 conference with him, to find out his true meaning, and then he might have spared that outrageous calumniation He roves and raves as men use to do, which being at a nonplus would feign seem to answer somewhat. But to answer his Assumption, as he hath now nakedly propounded it, (viz. that the function and authority which they exercised in Ephesus and Crete, was not to end with their persons, but to be continued in their successors.) I answer, with the distinction before used, to wit that their personal authority, perished with their function; and therefore in that respect the assumption is false; howsoever there remained unto perpetual succession an authority to perform the same ministerial works, which they exercised by virtue of their temporary function. So that, if he will prove the assumption in that sense wherein it is denied: then must he prove the perpetuity (not only of their authority in general, and for the works sake which they performed, but also) of their particular function, and of that personal authority, which they there exercised; so as neither the one nor the other did end with their persons, but was continued in their successors; the proof therefore of his assumption must thus run,  
That function and authority which is ordinary and perpetually necessary, not only for the well-being, 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 authority which they exercised in Ephesus & Crect, is ordinary and perpetually necessary, not only for the well-being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches.  
Therefore the function and authority 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 necessity, that there should be in every Church an Evangelist (that is to say, one endowed with that peculiar function & personal authority which Timothy and Titus had) for the good ordering and executing of that power. The Doctor saith, he did not affirm that which is denied, scz. that there must be an Evangelist in every Church: neither is he willing to see, that his assumption doth both in effect affirm as much; & plainly avouch, what he dareth not to justify, to wit, that the very function which Timothy and Titus exercised, is perpetually necessary, not only for the well-being; but also for the very being of the visible Churches.  
To avoid this gross absurdity, he will needs now divide their 
Sect. 3. add sect. 14. pag 100 101.  function from their authority; which hitherto he hath conjoined. For thus he explaineth his Assumption. The function which Timothy and Titus exercised was ordinary; and their authority perpetually necessary etc. of which two points he saith, his Refuter granteth 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 general, which the Refuter granteth to be perpetually necessary; and that peculiar authority, 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 grossly, 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 & episcopal; because it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall: And now to prove that their function was continued in their successors, and therefore not extraordinary and Evangelisticall, he telleth us, that it is an ordinary 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 multiplieth his default, by heaping up many assertions, whereof some are apparently false, and the rest no less doubtful, than 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 extraordinary, but their not limitation to any certain churches; & so is that which he addeth to prove it, viz. that their calling to the Ministry was ordinary, and their gifts attained by ordinary means, for himself interpreteth the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 14. (neglect not the gift that is in thee & was given the by prophesy etc. of his calling to the Ministry, not by human suffrage; but by divine revelation, & by the commandment or oracle of the Holy Ghost (lib. 4. p. 141.) his calling therefore to the Ministry (by his own confession) must be extraordinary. 2. Neither can it be denied to be extraordinary in Titus, that the Apostle committed to his Church, the finishing of his own 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 unfurnished with Presbyters to teach them, had 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 equal charge extended over all the Churches in the whole Island, was more than ordinary: seeing the ordinary Bishops and Elders were restrained, to the oversight of one only 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 find none, that had the like extent of jurisdiction, till the next age after the Apostles; and yet there is an apparent difference, between him that the Doct. mentioneth, and Titus as is before observed cap. 8. sect. 13. next before this. 4. Moreover it was extraordinary that Timothy & Titus were authorized to command and to speak with commanding authority. 1. Tim. 1. 3, & 4. 11. & 5. 7. Tit. 2. 15. for the ancient Bishops knew, that this was rather Apostolic, then suiting with the function of Bishops: (Ignatius in ep: ad Rom. knowing his own measure would not command as an Apostle but exhort etc.) 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 from them, and to yield 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 attaining them, D. Downames Betters do acknowledge this extraordinary pre-eminence; that they were endowed with extraordinary 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 extraordinary pre-eminences, than shined most clearly when they were assigned, to the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, it followeth inevitably that their function was even at that time extraordinary, and therefore not episcopal, 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 certain Churches as the Pastors thereof. 2. ordained thereto by imposition of hands. 3. and by that ordination, furnished with the power of ordination and jurisdiction; what else doth he then endeavour to justify the point controverted, by others, no less doubtful, if not apparently false.  
To return now to that assumption, which at the first affirmed jointly, that the very function of Timothy & Titus, aswell as their authority 
Sect. 4.  was both ordinary and perpetually necessary etc. it is most plain, by the reason added in his sermon (pag. 79. before he bringeth in his conclusion) that he then intended (as his words signified) to justify the perpetuity of their function for the words 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 episcopal power; then much more after their decease, have the Churches need of such governors. To this connexive proposition himself addeth the assumption, and conclusion pag. 104. following. But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus & Crect, and all other Apostolical Churches. Therefore the latter may not be denied. With what face now, can the Doctor deny, that this argument aimeth at the perpetual necessity (for all Churches) not only of that authority or power, which he calleth episcopal; but also of the very office or function of Bishops, such as he affirmeth Timothy & Titus to have been? His complaint therefore is very injurious, (as we have elsewhere showed 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 himself in another place, when he acknowledgeth that where the episcopal government may not be had, an other may be admitted.  
But albeit the Doctor be loath to confess himself guilty; yet is it a sign of remorse that he refuseth; to maintain that necessity of the episcopal function, which his argument at first directly concluded. Howbeit he proceedeth in false accusation against his Refuter in saying, he doth but elude his reason with a malapert speech, because he wished him, not to wave & crave, but to prove the question, for doth he not crave rather than prove, that which he assumeth for an 
The D. waveth and craveth & danceth the round.  evident truth; when he giveth us no other argument, than his own naked affirmance (that it is evident etc.) 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 episcopal power, & therein like to Timothy & Titus? And doth he not wave to and fro, or rather go back again to the first point controverted in this whole Chapter; when he avoucheth in the same Assumption; that Timothy & Titus were furnished with episcopal power; when the Apostle Paul substituted them in the churches of Ephesus and Crect? 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 been Bishops of Ephesus and Crect) the issue of all his reasoning is no better than a plain dancing the round, in this fashion. Their function and authority was episcopal, 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 ordinary and perpetually necessary etc. for if it were necessary to have men furnished with episcopal power, whiles the Apostles lived: it was much more necessary, after their deaths. Now that it was necessary whiles they lived, it is evident by the Apostles practise in furnishing Timothy and Titus, with episcopal power, at Ephesus and in Crect. Who seethe not (by all this his discourse) that we are now just where we began? All this waving therefore from one argument to another in show; is but to dazzle the eyes of his reader, that he might not discern his gross begging. For in effect, this is all he can say, They were furnished with episcopal power: & therefore their authority was episcopal: or, S. Paul made them Bishops, and therefore they were Bishops of his ordaining.  
As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. & 16. (viz whether it be perpetually necessary, that the sway of the ecclesiastical authority should be in one? and what form of Church-government is to be preferred as the best? I forbear 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 episcopal power, are much more necessary after the Apostles death, then in their life time. But his resolution to the later, is grounded on such a reason, as will put life again into the same; if there were an undoubted truth in it. For could he prove the Monarchical government of Bps, to be of divine institution (as he affirmeth) it would follow, not only that it is the best form of Church-government; but also necessarily to be continued. And as I nothing fear to grant him that consequence; so I know he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopal function. He hath sought for it, first in the Angels of the 7. chueches; then in Paul's approbation of Archippus, & Epaphroditus; he proceeded to james his presidence at jerusalem; & now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordaining Timothy & Titus to the function of Bishops. In all which disputations of his, I have clearly showed 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 believe him) with a general consent bear witness to his assertion; that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus & Titus of Crect.   

Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquity alleged by the Doctor, to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crect.  
FIrst he allegeth the subscriptions, annexed to the end of the 
Sect. 1. add sect. 17. pa. 105.  epistle to Titus, & of the second to Timothy; wherein the one is said to have been ordained 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 infer that their evidence can never justify his main purpose, which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops, is of divine institution. But he saith, It is certain they are of great antiquity, and of better credit than the Refuter; & other disciplinarians would make them. If it be certain, their antiquity is great, & their credit very good, why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certainty? First, for their antiquity, they deserve not that pre-eminence, which he giveth them, to be heard before Eusebius & the rest of the fathers, which he allegeth for the authors of the most ancient Syriac; and the old latin translations found no mention of an episcopal ordination bestowed on Timothy & Titus in the greek copies which they followed. And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter embraced, do fully accord in the subscription of all the former epistles, with those latter copies, into which that clause of that Bishopric was foisted in. If therefore their credit have not some better support, than their antiquity, their evidence is little worth. The Doct. greatest labour in defence of their credit, is, to remove out of the way his Refuters' objection, who saith, The subscription set under the epistle to Titus (affirming it to be written from Nicopolis) is contrary to Paul's own words. Titus. 3. 12. because of Paul had been at Nicopolis, when he wrote, after this charge given unto Titus (Endeavour to come to me to Nicopolis) he would not have said ●kei gar kek●●ka etc. 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 partial the Doctor is, who yet would seem to hate partiality: 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 control 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 hear 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 man would in the like case. Come to me to Nicopolis, for I mean to winter there. whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him, Titus might have said, where Paul? as being uncertain where Paul was & whither himself was to go. It seemeth the Doctor either did not consider, or would not take notice. 1. that it was needless for Titus to be informed, where Paul was at the writing of this epistle; seeing he was not to go presently to him, but to make himself 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 contrary 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 coming thither. But because the Doct. would seem to build upon the common judgement of such as are discreet; I very willingly submit the trial of this difference to the discreet reader (which observeth in the writings and speeches of them that are discreet, the different use of these adverbs; hic & illic here & there) whether it stand with discretion. 1. for the K. Almoner which followeth the court, when he is at Greenwich, to send for one of his followers, with the like words. When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee, then come thou unto me to Greenwich for there I mean to winter, or rather thus, for here I mean to winter: 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters, if he say, there I mean to winter, to conclude for certainty, that his Mr. was at Greenwich, when he wrote. 3. And if he say, here I mean 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 imagined 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 heedless receiving of that which some one or more of the Ancients have embraced, hath been the cause of many errors. But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him, than the authors of the Centuries; he might well have spared the citing of them, for they leave it doubtful whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis.  
In the next place, he urgeth the general consent of the ancient 
Sect. 2. add sect. 18. pag 107. etc.  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 properly for the function of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop; but improperly & in a more general signification; like as they call some of the Apostles, Bishops, for the work and pre-eminence sake, wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them. This answer is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare denial of that which they affirm: wherefore it shall suffice to urge him unto the proof of the point denied (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 told, their consent was not so general as he would make us believe; the truth of which answer is evident by this, that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence; we hear not the names of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, or any other that lived in the first 300. years. For that counterfeit that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita, is demonstrated by many worthy divines, (D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis. 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis. Areopag. Perkins problem pag. 9 Scult. Medulla: de Dyonis. script. pag. 484.) to be such a novice that he was unknown to Eusebius and Hierom or any other of the ancients, before Gregory the great. Wherefore, it will give the Doct. little relief to grant him, that in his time, it was generally received, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; especially seeing the Papists may also from his testimony likewise conclude, that in his time the Monks were of great credit in the Church, & many of their ceremonies (as anointings, cross, Incense, consecrations etc. were in use; and that in his time it was generally confessed that Bishops only were allowed, divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere. Hierarch: eccles. Cap. 4. & 5.  
And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius (that he was so far 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 ministered to Paul as a Deacon, afterwards was ordained a Presbyter, & lastly a Bishop; he explaineth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning, whose purpose is nothing else, but to show what service Deacons do owe to Bishops, by comparison of that service; which holy Steven did to blessed james, & Timotheus & Linus unto Paul etc. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the Deacon, and not with the Bishop (as T. C. rightly observeth) yet as he giveth not to Paul the function of a Bishop; so neither 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 fancy which the Doct. broacheth, of Timothy's 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 ordained a presbyter and that he was a Bishop, because he had no other presbyters before him: yet affirmeth he withal, that there is but una ordinatio episcopi & presbyteri, that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter, uterque enim Cacerdos est (Com. in 1. Tim. 3.) Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh, confuteth that thrice ordination, whereof the Doctor dreameth. And if Ignatius had been acquainted with Timothy's ordination to the Bishopric of Ephesus; doubtless, in writing to the Ephesians, he would not have associated him with the Apostle Paul, as a joint Teacher or Mr, by whom they were instructed in the faith. (Vos ergo t●les estote, a ●alibus magistris eruditi, Paulo Christifere & Timothe● fidelissimo). He would rather have distinguished their functions, like as he doth the Pastoral charge of Evodius, from the Apostolical function of Peter and Paul, who first planted the gospel at Antioch: as his words (alleged by the Doctor (serm. pag. 82. ad Antioch:) show. In vain therefore braggeth he of a general consent of the ancient fathers, when, of all that lived in the first 300. years, there cannot any one be alleged, that giveth to Timothy and Titus, the name of a Bishop; much less the function of a diocesan Bishop.  
Here perhaps the Doctor will again put us in mind of Eusebius, 
Sect. 3.  who reporteth out of former histories, that Timothy first had the Bishopric of the Church of Ephesus, & Titus of the Churches in Crect. And because this his report is the main 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 grounded on the holy scriptures; but as a doubtful report derived from other stories; from whence no sure proof can be drawn in divinity, as before hath been observed. But (not to insist on this exception) why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument? Timothy obtained first (episcopen) the oversight (tes paroikias) of the Church in Ephesus, like as Titus had of all the Churches in Crect. 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 compass for a Diocese; & Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta (an Island 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 authority to show that any one Bishop in the Apostles days, enjoyed the like superintendency over all the Churches of any kingdom or country; we have reason to think that Titus his commission was extraordinary. In deed Theodoret on 1. Tim. 3. and Chrysostom. Hom. 10. on 2. Tim. do give as large jurisdiction to Timothy as to Titus, yea far more large, esteeming him to have the charge of all in Asia, as Titus had in Creta. But Chrysostome plainly signifieth, that this was extraordinary; for of Titus he showeth, that how soever Paul committed so great a charge to him, because he was one of his companions, a man of whose fidelity he had good proof, & in whom he put much confidence (Hom. 1. in epist. ad Tit.) yet it was never his meaning that his burden should lie by continual succession on the shoulders of any one man. Hom. 2. in Tit. 1. 5. Per civitates inquit: neque enim voluit Insulam totam uni viro permitti, sed unicuique propriam curam ac solicitudinem indici etc. If then Titus his commission to Creta was but Temporary; when Eusebius giveth to Timothy at Ephesus, the selfsame Overseer-ship (or Bishopric 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 do 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, seeing it is evident by Eusebius his own words (lib. 3. cap. 31. & 32.) that he acknowledgeth the first and nearest successors of the Apostles (among whom he reckoneth Timothy and Titus) to be for the most part Evangelists, and plainly distinguisheth them from others, which were more properly Pastors or Bishops. And we have before observed out of Dorotheus, that Timothy had no settled 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) alotteth to him the peregrination of an Evangelist, in saying (if the Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers in his first tome, be his) that he preached the gospel aswell in the islands lying round about, as in Creta itself; and that the Apostle did therefore call him away from Creta, quia eum haberet necessarium in evangelij ministerium; because he was necessary for him for the ministry of the gospel. Hieron. in Tit. 3.  
The Refuters third answer therefore, (viz. that the scripture calleth 
Sect. 4. add pag. 120.  Timothy an Evangelist, even after he was sent to Ephesus 2. Tim. 4. 5.) is so far 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 episcopal function, he speaketh but the truth; neither can the Doctor for shame, directly contradict him, in so saying; yet rather than he will fail to make a show of impugning this answer, he perverteth it to an other purpose than 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 been so. I hope the objection is sufficiently maintained against the D. answer.  
As for the new writers whom he allegeth (pag. 110.) for a new supply to concur with the Fathers, for the justifying of that Bishopric, which he ascribeth to Timothy and Titus; his friends may wonder at his impudence, that can do this without blushing. Mr Calvin, he saith, & the authors of the Centuries do 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 mean a Diocesan Bp, such as ours. But the contrary is manifest, first, by the cold allowance which the authors of the Centuries give to Timothyes Bishopric. (Cent. 1. lib. 2. col. 614.) when they say, they can find no certainty, in any approved writer, quomodo aut quamdiu, after what manner and how long, Ephesianae ecclesiae Doctor & gubernator prefuerit; he was teacher and governor 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 special function mentioned Ephes. 4. 11. between the Apostles and Pastors, that were the second helpers to the Apostles. 2. that the Evangelists excelled the Pastors in degree and dignity of office. 3. that it is most probable Timothy was one of them, and not of the Pastors, 4. that Paul in the honourable mention of that his office, respected both his encouragement, and the commendation of his authority to others. As for that presidency which D. Fulk giveth (on Tit. 1. 5.) to Timothy and Titus, I most freely subscribe unto it; and yet reject that episcopal superiority, 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 precedent 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; seeing he cannot be ignorant that Beza every where disclaimeth, that sole and singular pre-eminence, which the Doctor with the Romanists ascribe to Timothy and Titus. Yea he flatly impugneth Timothy's Bishopric, and that in most plain terms, in his Annot. on 1. Tim. 3. voluit eum Paulus, ferente necessitate, Ephesi subsistere, non ut illi ecclesiae, tanquam episcopus addictus esset; sed ut ecclesia constituta, pseudapostolis occurrere●; unde etiam postea revocatus est romam, ab ipso Apostolo. neque constat an Timotheus postea sit Ephesum reversus, ut qui fuerit Evangelista etc. 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 afterwards called to Rome by the same Apostle: neither is it certain whether Timothy afterwards returned to Ephesus, as he that was an Evangelist etc. Thus having discovered the Doct. deceitful and dishonest dealing with his own witnesses, and his weak handling of the whole controversy; I hope I may be bold with the Readers consent to conclude; that the Doctor's assumption touching Tim: and Titus (viz. that they were ordained to the function of diocesan Bishops by S. Paul, the one at Ephesus, the other in Creta) hath as yet received no firm support, no not from human evidence; much less from the holy scriptures.   

Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius, Linus, Mark, Simeon & others, whom the D. saith the Apostles ordained Bishops.  
THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient 
Sect. 1. add sect. 20. pa. 112.  records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom, the Apostles ordained Bishops, which if we should wholly overpass in silence, we should neither wrong him nor the cause; seeing the records of men subject to error, (& drinking in many errors through oversight or want of judgement) cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand, as hath been often observed: But because he glorieth (though without cause as shall appear in answer to his next page) that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence; we will enter into a nearer search after the truth, & make no doubt, but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader, both the falsehood of some of his records, and his false or deceitful handling of the rest: And first he beginneth with Antioch, which (as he saith serm pag. 81.) had the first Bishop after jerusalem ordained by the Apostles Peter and Paul, about the year of the Lord. 45. witness Eusebius Chron. anno. 45 and Hist. lib. 3. ca 22. and Iguat. ad Antioch: I answer, there are many parts of S. Luke's sacred ●●ory, that with hold us from acknowledging any such episcopal superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him: for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch; which fell out after the 45. year of Christ; and yet there is no mention of Evodius, much less of his Bishopric. After the death of Herod, which was in the end of the. 3. year of Claudius (Euseb: lib. 2. ca 9 ex josepho) and. 45. of Christ (as Euseb: accounteth in Chron. an. 45.) Paul and Barnabas returned from jerusalem to Antioch. Acts. 12. 23. 25; at which time, there were certain Prophets and Teachers there; by whose imposition of hands, Paul & Barnabas were separated to the work; whereunto the Holy Ghost called them. Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had been the Bishop of that Church at this time, would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence, when he reckoneth up the principal 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. Again when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch, they gathered the Church together; and rehearsed all that God had done by them, & there abode a long time with the disciples. cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there, grew that dissension about circumcision, which occasioned that meeting at jerusalem to end the question. Cap. 15. 1. 2. etc. where was Evodius all this while? was he a nonresident from his charge? had he been the Bishop of Antioch; and there resident, how is it, that we hear nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their return, and of their relating to him, (as Paul did afterwards to james at jerusalem. (Cap. 21. 18. 19) the success of their traveiles? why hear we nothing of his partaking in the controversy, either with or against Paul and Barnabas? & why nothing of his going up to the Synod at jerusalem? for who more fit to be employed in such a business, than their Bishop? for which part soever he took, it was necessary, for the Church's instruction, in all succeeding ages, that (as the Angels 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 go forwards as the the story leadeth; after the the Synod was ended. judas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas unto Antioch, a●d letters were written (not to the Bishop, but) to the brethren of the Gentiles; and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled, who rejoiced for the consolation. Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. judas and Silas stayed there for a time, so did Paul & Barnabas till they were so stirred, that they parted companies. vers. 32. 35. 39 40; but before Paul and Barnabas were divided, Peter coming thither, was withstood by Paul to his face, for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellowship of the Gentiles, as Paul himself relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In all these events what did Evodius, worthy the name or place of a Bishop, endowed with such a singularity of power, and honour above all other Teachers, though of an higher degree than Presbyters, as long as they are within his Diocese? If we may believe the Doctor, (pag. 136. lib. 3.) ought not he to have interposed his episcopal authority in commanding his people to keep the decrees ordained by the Apostles; and in appeasing those contentions, which arose between Paul and Peter, and between Barnabas and Paul, while they conversed within his jurisdiction? Surely what ever, the D. conceiveth of these matters; who can persuade themselves that S. Luke. and S. Paul would have buried in silence, the name, office, and endeavours of Evodius, if he had been so long before ordained by Peter and Paul, to the Bishopric of Antioch?  
As for Eusebius his Chronicle, it doth too much discredit itself, 
Sect. 2.  to be credited of us in this case, for it saith, that Peter in the last year of Tiberius (which was the. 39 of Christ) placed his chai●e at Antioch, and there sat 25. years; and that in the 2. year of Claudius, he removed to Rome, and there sat also. 25. years. Because both these computations cannot stand together, the first 25. years is generally esteemed an error; and reduced to. 7. years. but yet these absurdities remain 1. that Peter's abode 7. years at Antioch, and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius, cannot accord with S. Luke's story, for his continuance in judea, 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 Peter's removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. year of Claudius, contradicteth the D. assertion; scz. that Evodius was ordained Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the year of our Lord 45; which was the. 3. year of Claudius, by Eusebius his own account. Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point, avouched 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 congregation 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 denied and worthily; seeing it is before showed (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 Liws, concerning 
Sect. 3.  whom, the Doctor telleth us, (serm. pag. 82.) that Peter and Paul being at Rome, and there continuing somewhat above two years, about the year of our Lord 56. ordained him, Bishop of Rome, who continued Bishop there ●0. years before the death of Paul, & 12. years ●fter; and for proof 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. year of Nero; to oppugn Simon Magus; and Paul shortly after; from whence after 2. years they both departed. To begin with this last, can the Doctor be ignorant, that Eusebius, and Hierom (two of his best witnesses for the antiquity of the episcopal function) do refer Peter's oppugning Simon Magus at Rome, to the 2. year of Claudius? or can it be unknown to him that many of our divines (of great reading and sound judgement) do contradict both branches of his assertion; and show from the sacred scriptures, that Peter was not at Rome; neither at the time of Paul's first coming thither; nor yet in the time of his two years imprisonment there? I forbear to lay down the particulars which are urged to this purpose, the Doct. may peruse at his leisure, what is written by D. Reynoldes in his Conf. with heart, 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 alleged) 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 mention of Peter: Now if Peter were not at Rome in those two years of Paul's remaining prisoner there, how could he join with Paul at that time in ordaining Linus to the Bishopric of the Church of Rome? Add hereunto those persuasions, which induce us to think that he had no such function at that time, with Paul's allowance. For why should he forget his pains, or deny him that honour (which he affoardeth to others, that were his felow-workmen in the Ministry of the Gospel) to make mention of his name and labours, at least in some one of those many epistles, that he wrote from Rome in the time of his abode there? yea, had he been the Bishop of Rome, when the Apostle Paul sent so many epistles from thence to other Churches; would not he rather have made choice of him to join hands with him, in the Inscriptions of the epistles to the Philip: and Colossians; then of Timothy, who in the D. opinion; was either yet standing in the degree of a presbyter, or if a Bishop, the Bishop of Ephesus in another country? In deed his name is remembered among other that sent salutations to Timothy: (2. Tim. 4. 21.) but since it is without any note of pre-eminence either in office or labours; it argueth strongly that Paul was ignorant of any such episcopal charge or superiority, as the D. alloweth him. 10. years before Paul's death.  
As for the ancient Fathers and Historiographers, Eusebius (the 
Sect. 4.  D. best witness for computation of times) expressly saith. lib. 3. ca 2.) Linus obtained the Bishopric of the Church of Rome after the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul; which cutteth off the first ten years, which the Doctor giveth him, in the government of that Church. But Damasus, whose report the D. embraceth 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 than one year before the death of Peter and Paul, as D. whitaker's showeth de pont: Rom: pag. 343. Whereunto junius also assenteth. (Animadvers. in Bellar. count 3. lib. 2. ca 5. not 15 and 18. I forbear 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 conjoining Linus and Cletus together in the episcopal 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 affirm; that their testimony can yield no certain proof of any one (whether Linus, Clemens, or any other) that by the Apostles appointmt, had the singular and settled pre-eminence of a 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, Gregory, Eusebius, Hierom and Dorotheus. In deed Nicephorus is worthy to be the foreman of the Doctor's jury in this question, for who fit to cast a cloak of truth upon a fable, than one known to be the author-of many fables? Of S. Mark many things are repeated in the scriptures, that will hardly be brought to accord, with his supposed Bishopric at Alexandria, or with that which the Doctor affirmeth of him, to wit, that he was Peter's disciple, and his perpetual follower. For, to overpass 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 workfellows unto God's kingdom: (Coloss. 4. 10. 11. Philem. vers. 24.) and departed thence to visit the Saints at Colosse, and in other Churches adjoining (Col. 4. 10.) and he was with Timothy or near to him, when Paul wrote his last ep: to him. (2. Tim. 4. 11.) But to overthrow his Bishopric the very name of an Evangelist, which the Doctor's best witnesses, with one consent, allow him, is sufficient; seeing we have before proved, that an Evangelist could not assume the office of a Diocesan Bishop. Neither 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; seeing 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 jerom do report of his writing his gospel at Rome, according to that which Peter had there preached, and of his carrying it into Egypt, and preaching it in Alexandria, (see Euseb, lib. 2. cap. 14. & 15. Hieron. cattle. 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, jerom and Dorotheus, viz. that Anianus succeeded Mark in the government of the Church at Alexandria, in the 8. year of Nero, as being then and there Martyred. For the Doct. himself (serm. pag. 82.) referreth the Martyrdom of Peter & Paul to the very later end of Nero his reign which was 4. or 5. years after. Again, howsoever some do give him the name of a Bishop; yet nothing is said 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 only the name, but also the right function of an Evangelist; not only in accompanying the Apostles; but also in travailing from place to place, to plant and establish Churches. And among the rest Nicephorus, most fully justifieth him to be a right Evangelist. For (lib. 2. cap. 43.) he reporteth that Mark published the gospel not only in Egypt, but also in Libya, and in all Barbaria, also to them of Pentapolis, and Cykue, and that he there constituted Churches and gave them Bishops etc. But the Doctor's oversight is most to be admired in his bringing of Eusebius to witness 
The D. own witness is against him.  his Bishoprik, at Alexandria. For the contrary appeareth by the order which he observeth, in setting down 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 full and plain, to show 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 public administration of the Church at Alexandria, after Mark the Apostle and Evangelist) If prejudice had not stood in his light, and others in whose steps he treadeth: they might have seen their gross 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 obtained Bishopric after him: then let Peter be acknowledged the first Bishop, also at Rome; because at Antioch Ignatius was the second Bishop by succession after Peter (Euseb. lib 3 ca 30.) And at Rome, Clemens after Peter governed that church jeron. lib. 1. cont. jovin. Yea let not james any longer be reckoned the first Bishop of jerusalem; because he undertook the charge thereof after the Apostles, or rather immediately after Christ's passion. But if the Doctor can discern 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 their word for a certain evidence, that Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria; in saying, that Anianus did first obtain the government after Mark.  
In the fourth place, Simeon the son of Cleophas, is by the 
Sect. 7. add p. 112. 113.  Doctor produced, as ordained by the Apostles Bishop of jerusalem after james, as Eusebius testifieth. lib. 3. cap. 10. But it is little for the credit of the episcopal function, that it is enforced to crave aid of such fabulous reports 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 necessary, that each Church should be governed by a diocesan Bishop, would they have suffered jerusalem to have wanted one for 10. years together after james his death? For james lived not above 30. years after Christ's passion (as the Doctor acknowledgeth. serm. pag. 69.) but the destruction of jerusalem, which happened before Simeons' choice as Eusebius saith) fell out in the 40. year after Christ's death; Cent. lib. 2. col. 664. was there now, immediately after the city's destruction, more need of a Bishop there, then before? and was the choice of their Bishop a matter of that moment, that all the Apostles and Disciples of Christ remaining alive, must needs meet together to make the election? and must he needs be one of Christ's kindred? yet let it be granted (since the Doctor will have it so) that Simeon was the next unto james in the government of the Church of jerusalem, as Eusebius affirmeth, and be it granted also that john ordained Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna; and that he constituted Bishops in divers other places, and that the Apostles in every place committed the Church to Bishops, and left them their successors, 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 wisdom passeth by this point, as if he had not seen it in his Refuters answer, and falsely chargeth him to take exception against the assertion of the Fathers, which affirm Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles. Whereas it is evident, that he denieth only the Doctor's inference, that from the Father's affirmation concludeth diocesan Bishops, such as ours, to be of Apostolical institution. This ariseth (saith he) from the mistaking of the word Bishop, which in the first times signified no more than an ordinary Pastor. Wherefore since the Doctor doth nothing else, but in an idle flourish repeat that, which he had in effect before delivered (viz. that the Apostles derived their authority, aswell for government as for doctrine unto Bishops) we should but waste words and time in vain, if we should vouchsafe him any other answer, then that already given and remaineth yet untouched.   

Chap. 14. Answering the D. 6. chapter, and showeth that he hath not any one argument, or testimony, to prove directly, (as he pretendeth) that the episcopal function is of divine institution.  
HAving answered all that the Doctor bringeth to prove by consequence the episcopal function to be a divine ordinance, because 
Sect. 1. add sect. 2. cap. 6. pag. 138. 140.  it was of apostolical institution; we are now to go● on and examine, what he can allege 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 question  this for the conclusion, which he intendeth to prove, viz. that Bishops were ordained of God; which change we can be content to allow; so that he will acknowledge his error in conceyving these latter proofs to be more direct than the former: for he fetcheth a far more large compass, by consequence to conclude his main doctrine; seeing there is much more difference, between the institution of a function, and the ordination of the persons thereunto, then can be imagined between an Apostolical and divine insitution. Wherefore, (not to spend time about words, but) to come directly to the pith of his reasoning, he is content his argument shall pass as his Refuter framed it, thus;  
If God ordained Timothy Archippus, and the Angels of the 7. Church's Bishops, than were Bishops ordained of God.  
But God ordained them Bishops: Ergo, Bishops were ordained of God.  
To this argument he received this answer (which the Doctor concealeth from the reader in his defence) viz. that the assumption being understood of diocesan Bishops (of which his conclusion speaketh) is utterly false. We are therefore once again to see how the particulars of his assumption are proved.  
First touching Timothy, his argument must run in this form,  
He that was ordained a diocesan Bishop; by prophecy (that is by divine revelation) he was ordained a diocesan Bishop by God.  
But Timothy was ordained a diocesan Bishop by prophecy. 1. Tim. 4. 14.  
Ergo, Timothy was ordained a diocesan Bishop by God.  
Here again, (as he was told) the assumption faileth. Timothy was no Bishop at all properly; In deed he received his Ministry by prophecy, but it was the ministery of an Evangelist, not of a diocesan Bishop. In which answer the discreet reader may see, that one branch of his assumption is granted, to wit, that Timothy received his Ministry by prophecy: and the other was and is denied, scz. that his Ministry was not (as the Doctor saith) the function of a diocesan Bishop. Now what is Mr. Doctor's defence? Forsooth, first he repeateth his proofs out of the fathers, which show that which was before granted, viz. that by prophecy (1. Ti. 4. 14.) is meant divine revelation; or the holy Ghosts oracle: but in stead of proving the point denied (scz. that the ministry which Timothy received by prophecy, was a diocesan Bishopric) he falsifieth 
The Doct. falsfyeth his Refut. answer in stead of proving.  his refut: answer, persuading his reader that he only denied Tim: to be a Bp. And to contradict 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 fashion. If he were a Pastor, it is not to be doubted, but he was a Bishop. For we have before showed, 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 question.  
To close up this part, that the Doctor may see to how good purpose, he hath bestowed his pains in proving Timothy his ordination 
Sect. 2.  to proceed from extraordinary revelation; I will retort his own argument, against the conclusion which he should have maintained, in this manner;  
Whosoever received his Ministry originally (not firm human election, but) by prophecy, or divine revelation: he held the flection and degree (not of an ordinary Bishop, much less of a diocesan Bishop, but) of an extraordinary Teacher. But Timothy received his Ministry, originally (not from human election, but) by prophecy or divine 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 own argument. The truth of the proposition may be cleared by the view of those particulars, whose calling we find in the Scriptures, to be originally derived from divine assignment: as (to let pass the Prophets of the old Testament) john Baptist and Christ himself, his 12. Apostles, and Mathias chosen into the room of judas, Paul and Barnabas added to the college of the Apostles, also Philip among the Evangelistes, and Agabus among the Prophets. For among other notes whereby we know, they had an extraordinary ministery, this is not the least, that their authority to preach the Gospel, was given them from Heaven, or from God, and not from men. Math. 21. 25. Luk. 1. 17. & 3. 2. 4. john. 1. 6. Math. 10. 1. 5. & 28. 18. 19 Acts. 1. 24. 26. Gal. 1. 1. 15. and that God ratified their Ministry, either by his own voice. Math. 17. 5. Acts. 9 4. & 13. 2. or by miracles, joh. 3. 2. Acts. 2. 22. & 4. 16. 31. & 8. 5. 6. or by some other clear 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 find that they had the original of their calling from human election Acts. 6. 3. 5, & 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. 7. and upon true trial of their fitness before taken. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 10. & 5. 22.) If the Doctor can yield us any one Instance from the Scriptures to the contrary, we will gladly give him the hearing. Mean while, it maketh much both against his assertion, that holdeth him to have the ordinary function of a diocesan Bishop: and for ours, which affirm 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 episcopal Ministry, he understandeth the function of a diocesan Bishop; wherefore his argument, so explained runneth thus,  
He that received 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 ordained 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 words of Saint Paul, Colos. 4. 17; in the Lord, must needs be interpreted, as the Doctor conceyveth by the Lord's ordinance? he should have said ordination, because he thence inferreth, that the person so receyving his Ministry, is ordained of God thereunto. For although we can willingly grant, that the Doctor hath received his Ministry in the Lord, and according to, God's ordinance; yet, me thinks he should not easily assume to himself this honour, 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 ordained of God) had been to prove, that the persons in whom he Instanceth, received their calling to the ministery, originally from God's nomination; and so were ordained of God, by his special, and more than ordinary direction? Notwithstanding if he will needs have his conclusion thus construed, that Bishops were ordained 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 overthrow of his conclusion, to supplant the Assumption.  
And hereunto the less labour will serve, seeing we have already showed, 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 faithful Minister of Christ for them. Coloss. 1. 7. & 4. 12. And Archippus is subjected unto the Church's admonition and censure, (in the very words whereunto the Doctor sendeth us.) Coloss. 4. 17. which is palaion in deed, but nimis apostolicum, too apostolical for our times, as Musculus upon those words saith.) But let us see what relief, the Doctor (foreseeing that his assumption would be denied) yielded to support it. For proof hereof, saith he, it sufficeth me, that Archippus was (as Ambrose noteth in Colos. 4. 17. Bishop of Colosse, which was a city; seeing I have manifestly proved before, that the Bishops of cities, were diocesan Bishops. And must this proof needs suffice others, because it sufficieth him? knoweth he not, that we expect he should yield ●s some clear proof from the holy scripture? why made he show at the first, as though he would prove, Archippus his Bishopric from Colos. 4. 17. and now falleth from those words of Paul, to the testimony of Ambrose, who lived well nigh 400. years 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 prevail little in so arguing, with those which hold Timothy to have been an Evangelist, and not a Bishop. And surely, it availeth his cause as little, to send us to S. Ambrose, seeing he hath not one word, that can argue a diocesan Bishopric in Archippus, he calleth him, praepositum illorum et rectorem, qui post Epaphram accepit regendam eorum ecclesiam. Which may argue I grant an episcopal ministry 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 illorum, et affectu unanimitatis charissimus etc. 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 relief, neither from the 
Sect. 4.  Apostle Paul, nor yet from S. Ambrose; relieth wholly upon this poor argument, borrowed from some other parts of his defence.  
The Bishops of cities were diocesan Bishops: Archippus was Bishop of Colosse which was a city. Ergo, he was a dioecsan Bishop. I answer first to the proposition, 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 city; could not be properly dioceses, as we have sufficiently showed in our answer to all his proofs produced to the contrary.  
Secondly to his assumpion, I answer, that as it is a known untruth to affirm the city of Colosse, to have been under the government of Archippus: so neither is it true; that he had that sole or singular pre-eminence, over the Church of Colosse, which appertaineth to Bishops such as the Do. contendeth for. If therefore he will hereafter endeavour, to make good the assertion, that Archippus was a diocesan Bishop, & so ordained of God; he must seek out some more pregnant proofs, than his study for his sermon, & the defence thereof hath as yet afforded him.  
Lastly as touching the Angels of the 7. Churches, whereas he should conclude the same, which he had affirmed of Timothy and Archippus, viz. that they were ordained of God, he altereth the conclusion to this, that they had divine institution and approbation, for their function. 
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 syllogism;  
Those who were called by the Holy Ghost Angels of the Church, (he should have said) of the 7. Church's) and were signified by the 7. stars that were in Christ's right hand; had divine both institution & approbation. But the diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches; were called by the Holy Ghost, the Angels of the 7. Churches, and were signified by the●. stars that were in Christ's hand. Ergo they had divine both institution & approbation.  
The assumption which he knew would not without good proof 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 proof 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 Canonical scripture, to show 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. years after Christ, handled by him. serm. pag. 56. 60. & defence lib. 4. cap. 1. where all his human testimonies come to be handled, but because this second part is already large enough, I will here break of; and refer the examination thereof, together with that first point of his five, which concerneth governing Elders, to the third part.