himselfe and his family to the publike Ministerie of those whom he hath chosen to dispense the word and sacraments to him and to them he is a member of a true visible Church or if you will of one certaine parish that is to say of one particular congregation of Christians assembled togither in one place for the solemne and publique service of God 2. If the Doctor be of a contrary opinion then he reasoneth absurdly from his owne false imagination that the King is further then any Bishop from being a member of one onely parish to cōclude that they which deny the Bishop to be a member of a true Church may aswel or rather must needs be so conceited of the K. With much more probabilitie we may return this conclusion into The D. cōcludeth against himself and bringeth his slander upon his own head his owne bosome that seing he is perswaded the K. cannot be a member of any one parish because he is the governour of all the Churches within his dominiōs he must for the same cause deny him to be a member of any one Diocesan or provinciall I may adde Nationall Church within his dominions And hence it will followe that in his conceite the King is not a member of any one certeine visible Church for by one visible Church the D. meaneth the christian people of one diocese or province or at the moste of one nation For the christian people lyving vnder diverse lawes as the people of England and Scotland doe are diverse nations and so diverse visible Churches if we may beleeve his owne wordes lib. 3. p. 51. 52. Wherefore the vnpartiall reader may easily see that this odious crime of denying the King to be a member of a true visible Church falsly and spitefully ascribed to them against whom he dealeth doth truely and justly light vpon himself As for the question which he moveth whither they holde the King and his houshold to be a true Church That so he may be thought to be a member of a true Church though the Q. be needlesse and sufficiently answered already yet know he againe and againe that they hold the Kinge and his familye to be a true visible Church not onely a member of a true Church and the King in regard of his regall office a most noble member excelling all other though the Doct. seemeth to be otherwise perswaded not onely of the King as is before shewed but perhaps also of his familey because it is not as other parishes are a subordinate member of any one diocese nor constantly subjected to the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop His last reason why we may not with the like reason acknowledge the Bishop and his family to be an entire Church he should say but he saith familie by themselves I will answere when I finde him better disposed to receive it then he was when to the ende of his question he added It is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and judicious In the meane time lett him bethink himself what to answere to these questions 1. Whether every Bishop or any one of them doth alike subject himself as the King doth to the pastorall authority of any one or moe that doo ordinarily distribute the word and sacramentes to his whole familye 2. Whither any Bishop residinge with his familye in another diocese as the Arch Bishops alwaise doe and some others for the most parte doe he and his familey be as other parishes are subject to his jurisdiction in whose diocese they are 3. And if the Bishop be the pastor of his familey and his chapleines assistants to him for the pastorall oversight therof whether we may not affirme their families to be so many Presidents of parishes governed by a parish pres bytery In 3. sections following the Doctor bestirreth himself to recover Sect. 7. ad sect 9. Def. pag. 40. his credit with his Diocesan Bishops who by a reasō grounded on his owne words were proved by the Refuter page 6. to be absolute Popelings The reason was layd downe to him in this forme They who have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings All Diocesan Bishops have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall Therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings The Doct. scorning that this should be called his reason sayth That there is nothing in it his but the propositiō which also is stretched beyond not onely his meaning but his wordes His wordes are these serm pag. 4. least they might seeme to sett up an absolute popeling in every parish who should have not only supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall they adioyne unto him that is to their Pastor a consistorie of lay or governing elders Out of these words saith the Def pag. 40. I deny not but this proposition may be framed They who give to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall doe seeme to sett vp an absolute popeling And why not or better that proposition which his Refuter urgeth In deed if he had sayd They seeme to sett vp an absolute popelinge in giving to their parishe Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authority c his proposition had more naturally flowed frō his words then now it doth but since he saith an absolute popeling which should have both supreme sole authoritie c. he very clearely describeth in these last words of having such an authoritie as he speaketh of what he meant by an absolute popeling namely such a Pastor or Bishop as hath not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical Wherefore he may aswell deny it to be day-light at high-noone as deny that the Refuter rightly drewe his proposition from his wordes before expressed 2. Moreover put case a man should contradict the proposition which himself acknowledgeth to agree with his words and meaning must he not be inforced for the proofe thereof to assume some such assertion as that is which the Refuter propoundeth viz. that he is an absolute popeling who hath in any parish or diocese supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall 3. Yea doth he not elswhere in his sermon pag. 17. 51. with out any seeming affirme in plaine termes that the parish Bishop or Pastor of every parish must rule as a Pope vnlesse he be assisted with a presbyterie or subjected to the diocesan Bishops authority Yea that it is to sett vp a Pope in every parish if the Pastors doe rule alone neyther subject to the Bishop nor restreyned by Assistantes In like manner in this defence lib. 1. cap. 8. pa. 194. saith he not that their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme ecclesiasticall officers would be he saith not might seeme to be but would be absolute popelinges if presbyteries were not adjoyned vnto them because they shall have not onely supreme but also sole authority It is therefore a
not the persons as may be seene in these and the like Math. 2. 8. 20. 2. Luc. 15. 15. 16. 27. Act. 10. 5. and 17. 10. and 19. 22. and 20. 17. 2 Tim. 4. 12. But this difference is most clearly to be discerned where the persons and places are mentioned togither Luc. 1. 26. 27. the Angel Gabriel was sent from God eis polin vnto a citie of Galile called Nazareth pros parthenon to a virgin c. and 4. 26. vnto none of them sâ— the wydowes of Israel was Elias sent but onely eis Sarepta c. pros gunaika cheran to Sarapta c. to a widowe there See Act. 9. 2. and 15. 2. in which last place as some translators take eis for en as the Syrian interpreter Vatâ—blus and the vulgar so our english interpreters elder and later use a transposition of words thus to Ierusalem vnto the Apostles Elders which transposition though they use not neyther Apoc. 1. 11. nor Tit. 3. 12. where Paul saith make hast to come to me pros me eis Nicopolin to me vnto Nicopolis yet the meaning of the spirit of God in these later places is the same with the former namely after the mention of the persons to whom to add the places also vnto which repaire was to be made And as the D. discretion did see this in Pauls speach vnto Titus lib. 4. pag. 107. to wit that those words â—is nicopolin were necessarily added because else Titus should have ben vncertein both where Paule was to be found and whether he was to goe so doutlesse if prejudice had not blinded his eies his discretion would have led him to see also that those words â—is Epheson c. Apoc. 1. 11. were no lesse necessarie to give vnto Iohn sure direction unto what parts of Asia he was to sende and in what cities those Churches had their assemblies vnto which he was charged to send the things which were revealed to him Wherefore if his learning serve him to adjudge it a most absurd collection and a sensles perverting of the meaning of Gods spirit for any man to say that the scripture testifieth Paul to be Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. the Apostles and Elders to be Ierusalem Act. 15. 2. then may the indifferent reader very well wonder at the D. The reader may wonder at the D. oversighte oversight in affirming so confidently as he doth that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. that this is to be fouÌ„d Apoâ— 1. 11. But 3 to give the D. the utmost advantage he can desire from those words eis Epheson kai Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11 viz. that they are thus to be interpreted q. d. to the Church at Ephesus c. and consequently that the name of the citie is put by a metonymy for the Church in the citie how wil this warrant him to say that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. or rather as at the first he sayd that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities c. It is well known that Achaia was a large countrie and contained sundrie provinces see Aret in Act. 18. 27. and Hiper 1 Cor. 1. 1. and when the Apostle sayth 2. Cor. 9. 2. that Achaia war prepared a yeare agoe for their benevolence to the Saints it must be confessed that by Achaia he meaneth as he interpreteth himselfe cap. 1. 1. all the saints that were in all Achaia yet were it a strange speach and such as I suppose as the D. learned eares are vnacquaynted with to say that they whose harts the Apostle had prepared were a large country and contayned many provinces But to proceed the D. for a new supplie telleth us it is so vsuall with good Authors speaking of Byshops to say they were Byshops of such or such a citie that he might fill a volum with quotatioÌ„s to this purpose In deed The D. hath filled his great volume with quotations to prove what no man doubted of and leaveth the maine question without releefe he hath filled a great part of a great volume with quotations and testimonies that are to as little purpose as these which prove that no maÌ„ doubteth of left the mayn matter in questioÌ„ destitute of all releife for whereas he should have shewed that it is usuall with good authors speaking of the Ch in the Apostles tymes to say as he doth that they were great and ample cities not cities alone but also the countries adjoyning he wholly silenceth this point and telleth us that many good authors doe intitle the Byshops of succeeding ages Byshops of this or that citie but he had reason to doe so for the former is indeed so vncooth that he hath not any one good author to cleare him froÌ„ singularity in an absurd phrase of speaking but the later he found himselfe well able to confirme and therefore to send him home his owne words pag. 54. ful soberly he goeth about it telling us that he could fill a volume with quotations but a few testimonie shall suffice and very learnedly out of his reading he sheweth that Eusebius saith Evodius was the first and Ignatius the second Byshop of Antioch and th 〈◊〉 Ignatius writing to Policarpus stileth himselfe Byshop of Antioch As if the Church of Antioch must needs be a great citie because Antioch was so whereas the D. himselfe acknowledgeth that for 200. yeares and more it could scarcely be verefied of any citie or couÌ„try that they were all Christians All the rest of his testimonies are not onely after division of parishes as himselfe sayth but also after Constantines time when whole cities with their countries adjoyning were subjected to the fayth and therefore if they proved as they doe not that they had sayd the Churches were then great cities yet would it not have justifyed him in so affirming of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time To come at length from the words to the mater of his assumption whereas the Refuter told him that the 7. Churches Sect. 15. ad sect 8. pag. 54. and 55. and sect 12. pag. 62. could not conteine the people of those cities because some fewe onely were true christians the generality of them remeyning pagans the D. not daring to contradict him herein yet quarrelleth with his proofes and faine would maintaine if he could that the Church conteyned both citie countrey though the christians were never so few First therefore because he shewed out of Eusebius lib. 4. cap. 15 that Policarpus Bishop or pastor of the Church at Smyrna was martyred by the rage of the The D. scoffeth at at his Ref. and yet justifieth his assertion and condemneth his owne multitude and that in the sight of his owne people the D. having scoffed at his learning reading addeth that which doth not onely justifie his Refuter assertion but also confute his own Every body knoweth saith he that in all cities and countries for the space of almost 300. yeares the Christians
own testimonie of more worth in this case then all the rest in his sermon of the dignitie dutie of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. he telleth us and that with proofe from scripture that neither the name of Angels nor the whole title Angels of the Churches doe argue any preheminence in degree Wherefore to ende this point since I have made it cleare that the D. hath neither proved the number of Angels in his text to be limited to 7. nor removed that which his Refuter objected to shew that their nomber is not limitted the Refuter or his freind hath done enough to pull that vaile from his eies which was the occasion as it seemeth of his wandring so farre as he doth out of the right way of truth in his sermon and the defence thereof For vnlesse a man would freely yeeld vnto him what he assured to prove but neyther did nor can namely that the Angels in his text are 7. singular persons and no 〈◊〉 he hath no colour though never so light to inferre as he doth that they were Diocesan Byshops But howsoever he cannot by strong arguments overthrowe Sect. 〈◊〉 his Refuter as he wisheth yet by opposing him with a few questions and 2. syllogismes pretended to be drawn from his words he doth his best to weaken his cause In answering the questions I will begin with the last first and because his 2. syllogismes are grounded upon the 3. last questions I will take them in by the way First therefore whereas he asketh whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations seing his Refuter saith that in Ephâ—sus there were more angels I answere as his Refuter had told him before and he could not but heare that the Church of Ephesus was then one onely congregation And that many angels or Bishops in Ephesus cannot prove that there were in Ephesus many particular congregations For since the holy Ghost calleth the Christians at Ephesus one Church and one flocke Act. 20. 17. 28. neyther dare I nor the Refuter without better reason then the Doctor doth yet bring any forsake the grammaticall sense and expound him as speaking of more then one particular congregation To the next question whether the Refuter answer pag. 2. taught not that the angels mentioned Apoc. 1. 20. were such Bishops or Ministers as were Pastors onely of particular congregations I answere that the last time I talked with him he told me he tooke the word Angels to belong in coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word whether they be such as are properly called Pastors or such as are more properly named Doctors or Teachers And therefore when he saith that the Bishops signified by angels are Ministers Pastors onely of particular congregations that last clause is added to exclude not any such as have the office of Teachers in one congregatioÌ„ but the D. Bishops such as exercise a Prelacie over an whole Diocese in that regard have appropriated to themselves the name of Angels or Bishops or Pastors And here to put in an answere to his second syllogisme the Doctor may be pleased to knowe that his skill in reasoning much fayleth him as will soone be seene if his Refuter who is as he saith but a smatterer in logick doe but devide his one argument as it must be into two The first is this Where are many Pastors of particular congregations there are more particular congregations then one But at Ephesus there were many Pastors Therefore at Ephesus there were more particular congregations then one The Doct. syllogisme hath 4. termes Behold here 4. termes in stead of three wherefore the conclusion may be and is false though both the premisses be true If the Doctor wil amend his fault he must change his assumption say thus But at Ephesus there were many Pastors of particular congregations The which as it is evidently false so it is no lesse slaunderous to father such a saying on his Refuter whom he calleth his adversarie If The D. assumption false and slanderous he shall strive to make good the assumption thus changed by that secoÌ„d argument which is closely infolded in his reasoning he must argue in this manner Where were many Angels there were many Pastors of particular congregations At Ephesus were many angels Therefore there were at Ephesus many Pastors of particular congregations And then I must returne him his proposition as having no colour eyther of allowance from the refuters words or of confirmation in his owne defense In deed if he had said that many angels of particular congregations are many Pastors of severall coÌ„gregations his proposition might have passed without controlement the word Pastors being taken in a large construction for all Ministers which breake the bread of life to their people But then he should be as farre to seek for the proofe of that which he must assume viz. that at Ephesus there were many angels of particular congregations for it hath bene already sayd that the Refuter holdeth the Christians of Ephesus to be but one Church or Congregation though it had many angels or Bishops to oversee and feed the same Now by this that hath bene spoken the answere to his 3. question or 2. as he hath set it downe and of his first syllogisme will ask no great study or labour For whereas he demaundeth whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one I answere that the word Pastor being in a large sense put for every one that by his office is bound to oversee and feed the flock over which he is set may be given to many in one congregation aswell as the name of a Bishop is Actes 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. so teacheth D. Bilson Perpet Govern pag. 284. D. Whit de Pont. Rom. pag. 351. And in this sense the Refuter taketh the word as is before noted when he saith answ pag. 2. and 4. that to be ST ARRES of heaven and ANGELS in this kingdome is not proper to diâ—cesan Byshops but common to all true Pastors of particular congregation and that by Angels in the Doct. text are signified such Pastors For finding that the D. confoundeth these names serm pag. 2. of Angels Byshops and Pastors he was well content to forbeare all strife about words and thought it sufficient to seclude diocesan Byshops by restrayning the Angels mentioned in his text to the feeding and oversight of particular congregations Wherefore the D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by adouble construction of the word Pastor when he thus disputeth The Pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation is but one But each Angell of the Churches saith the Refuter did signifie a pastor The D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by the double construction of the word pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation Ergo each Angel did signifie but one For the proposition is false in the Refuters construction of the word at large viz. for every one that hath
an appearance of learning antiquity truth with it that not onely to himselfe through too much love of his owne but to diverse others also it seemeth not subject vnto any replie 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 groundes they are built on the hollowness of them will soone bewray it self For be it graunted that sound learning and good conscience is this mans praise and priviledge above the most of his fellow-champions though this defense doth so beare it selfe on the former that it giveth small proof of the later yet that doth not free him from dangerous deceit and errour especially in quaestions 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 Neyther can it be thought that impartiall desire and search of truth did so take up his minde in all this enterprize as that blinding praejudice had no place in it Let the wise consider give sentence whether he that was the sonne 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 Bishops favour whether such a man I say be likely to preach and write in these causes even to the overflowing of passion with a minde so cleare and free from prejudice It is the most charitable excuse that can probablie be affoarded to diverse of this guise that such beames as those are doe lie in their eyes which hinder their sight where the light is cleare Nay most of our climers doe look so strangely upon these questions as if their eyes stood cleane awry Platerus reporteth of a Germane soldjer that being shott in the face he had his eye so turned and his nose so peirsed that alwayes after his eye could see nothing but thorough the passages of his nose Iust such a shot have these men received frō the world all that they see is thorough their nose and except they can smell some profit or preferment by the way their eyes will not serve them to discerne of any thing I affirme not this of Doct. Downame though he among other alehouse jests which he rudely breakes upon his adversarie doth tell him of seeing to his nose end yet he hath also plainely bewrayed that he looked through a false glasse of his owne imagination when viewing the scriptures he spied such a Church Bishop in them as in his book he tels us of The Phylosophers wright of certain colours which they call intentionall because they are not such in deed as they seeme to be as when thorough a glasse that is red or greene the bodies adjoyning doe appear so also Such a glasse it was without doubt that made this man to think that he saw an intentionall Church and an intentionall Bishop that vvere diocesan and provinciall such as the Popish and English are intentionally as he saith though not really and truely 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 farre fecht and hardly gathered that it giveth suspition 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 therfore turn them upside-downe 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 turne by carying the intention to a contrary point To such strange shiftes they must needs be driven which will stretch the scriptures as shomakers do◠leather with their teeth that they may bring them to agree with humane inventions The vnlikelinesse of this devised intention will easily appeare to any but him which hath been so accustomed to cathedrall 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 goe at Rome Boz de jur nat div eccl pot l. 1. c. 18. that the extent of a Byshops jurisdiction is not any wayes limited but by the Popes appointment his power of it selfe indifferently reaching over all the world Our prelatists they would perswade us to the tune of Canterbury that neyther Church nor Byshop 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 mowld with the civill state Now the plaine Christian finding nothing but humane uncerteinties in eyther of these devises he contenteth himselfe with plaine song knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such societies as may assemble togither 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 Christs institution and leave him floating amōg mens presumptions Besides it must needs seeme strange to a serious well-meaning Christian when it shall be told him as these Cathedrall men will have it that his pastor whom he dependeth upon at home hath not the charge of his sowl committed unto him from Christ who appointed no Bishops nor Presbyters but Diocesan that the L. Bishop vvhom he never savv is properly his pastor the parish minister being but the Bishops curate or vice-gerent and therefore standing no further bound then as the Bishop appointeth so that by his permission he may be a non-resident or residing there he may onely read divine service so the crosse surplus be not neglected or howsoever he makes his agreement Will not this seeme uncouth to simple men who have alwaies been told of a straighter bond to tie their ministers unto dutie especially when they shall hear on the other side their ovvn dutie so strictly urged of keeping to their minister though he be but a reader of paying al tithes to him even by Gods appointment though he never appointed him to whom they are payd certainly if Apparitors and Sumners brought not more terrible argumentes from the carnall courts then D. Downame hath from holy scripture to prove perswade these paradoxes with there must a new generatiō arise that knew not the
not parishes But though he cannot fortify his owne assertion yet will he assay Sect. 7. ad sect 5. pag 7. to throw downe their hold that oppugne it with this jolly Enthymem The word Eeclesia signifiâ—th according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit which iÌ„magine there is no true Church but a parish Wherein he doth neyther rightly The D. in one Enthymem saniteth 2. set downe their assertion nor assume a cleare truth to refute it The first appeareth by H. I his table pag 6. of his book whereto the Doctor pointeth in that besides a particular congregation of Christians meeting for religious exercises which the Doct. calleth a parish he acknowledgeth the name of Church to be given in the scriptures vnto some other societies viz. the Catholike militaÌ„t Church on earth the invisible society of Gods elect absolutely Catholike the people of a particular coÌ„gregation considered without and besides their Ministers and the company of a Christian familie The truth is he holdeth the onely true visible Church indowed by Christ with the spirituall power of order and government in it selfe to be none other then a particular congregation Neyther is the truth hereof infringed by that which the Doctor assumeth seing the name of a Church given at large to any company of Christians in regard of their profession of the true faith cannot prove the power of Ecclesiasticall government to belong vnto every such company of Christians or to any other society then one particular congregation 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth that The D. reasoneth ex non coÌ„cessis which he shall never be able to justify when he saith that the word ecclesia signifyeth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians great or small For he cannot shewe any one place of scripture where the word Church in the singular number is giveÌ„ to such a multitude of Christians in an whole Nation Province or Diocese as was distributed into many particular congregations Yea his own table page 4. sheweth that when the scripture speaketh of the Christians in an whole nation it calleth them Churches plurally and not by the name of a Church singularly as Churches of Galatia Asia Macedonia 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. t. Gal. 1. 2. And the like phrase of Churches is used for the Christians of one province Act. 9. 31. the Churches had rest throughout all Iudea Galile and Samaria Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches c. I will this once tender him this argument The word ecclesia in the singular number doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese nation or province Ergo the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine that the Christians of an whole Nation Province or Diocese though distributed into many congregations may not with standing by the warrant of the word be rightly termed one Church Yea it serveth rather to confute then to coÌ„firm the point now in questioÌ„ viz. that the 7. Churches meÌ„cioned in this text were properly Dioceses not Parishes As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words Eeclesia Paraecia Diaecesis coÌ„monly translated Church Parish Diocese how they are taken in the ancient writers I see not what advantage he can make by it to conclude the question The summe of all that he saith is this In ancient writers Ecclesia paroecia Dioecesis having refereÌ„ce to a Bishop his whole charge doe signify a Diocese and not a parish Which how true it is I cannot now enquire vnless I should digresse into a new controversy For the present it shall suffice to observe that though it were granted to be true yet it will not justify his assertion that the 7. Churches of Asia mencioned in his text were properly dioceses not parishes for in the consequence of his reasoning if he shall so argue he beggeth the question in two particulars which he should The Doct. beggeth the question in 2. particulars but cannot make evident by good demonstration viz. that in his text the word Ecelesia hath reference to one Bishop and his charge and that it carrieth the same signification for the singularity or plurality of particular congregations comprized within it which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth Leaving therefore this whole discourse and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as apperteyning to another question viz. how ancient that distribution of Dioceses and Parishes is which in later ages preveiled and passing by his whole 3. Chapter concerning the 7. Churches being handled in the former part lib. 3. I will now proceed to his 4. Chapter and the argument there concluding that the first Apostolike Churches were properlie Dioceses because the presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities countries that is to dioceses Chap. 2. conteyning an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolicall Churches were properly dioceses not parishes because the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses Sect. 1. ad sect 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64. We have already heard in the former part how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia to be great and ample citie togither with the countries adjoyning when he saith it cannot be denied but they were such because our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7 and nameth the principall some whereof were Mother cities He addeth imediately after For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation they first preached to the cheise cities thereof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had converted some their manner was to ordeyne Presbyters hoping by their Ministery to convert not onely the rest of the citie but also the countries adjoyning so many as did belong to God Which words the Refuter answ pag. carried as the 2. reason to conclude the point before questioned because finding the former argumeÌ„t to be so obscure and vnfitting as it is before shewed to be he judged it in effect all one to say It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great ample cities c. for it is evideÌ„t that the Apostles in the cheife cities of any nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine Presbyters by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie and country adjoyning and to transpose the sentences in this manner It is evident that the Apostles in the cheife cities of every nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine presbyters c. Ergo it cannot be denyed but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities
take an ell was his Refuters liberalitie nothing worth wheÌ„ he was content to annexe unto the citie the towns adjoyning that had any distinct Church in them Did the Doctor at first find himselfe able to confound the former Antecedent which spake onely of the Christians that were within the citie and to prove it not onely false but also unreasonable and incredible And is he nowe too weak to consute that assertion which for his advantage is tendred to him in stead of the former viz. that all the Churches in any great citie and such townes adjoyning as had not any distinct Church in them made but one particular congregatioÌ„ must he haue all the townes annexed to the citie and this also freely graÌ„ted that in some of those townes there were distinct Churches blame him not though he affect this well for he findeth himselfe man good enough to incounter with such an assertion as this if his Refuter would mainteyne it against him viz. that all the christians in a great citie and the townes adjoyning though there were distinct Churches in some of those townes made but one particular congregation Meane while to case his hart of that foreconceited feare which the sight of the parenthesis in his Refuters AntecedeÌ„t cast him into 1. he sporteth himself with some unsavorie jests which argueth that the ridiculum caput he speaketh of cleaveth close to his owne shoulders and at length full soberly he undertaketh to shewe that the inclosure before meÌ„tioned bewrayeth both weaknes in the consequence and falshood in the Antecedent First touching the consequence he judgeth it as weak as the Sect. 6. former because he seeth not to what purpose the townes are added because the parishes be excepted The former overmuch mirth of the Doctor hath as it seemeth marred his memorie for he sawe well enough before to what purpose the townes were added namely to strengthen the consequence of the first Enthymem framed by himself against one branch of his answere which affirmed the Presbyters to be divided aswell for the country as citie For the Refuter desirous to come as neere to the Doctor as the truth will give leave acknowledgeth that the Christians which inhabited the townes or country round about the citie made their repaire vnto the citie there to joyn with the inhabitants thereof in the publick worship of God till their number so increased that they might conveniently enjoy a distinct Church in some one or moe of those townes And as it was meet the Refuter should yeeld so farre to the Doctor so is it absurd and against coÌ„mon sense he should be denied to except those townes that had a distinct Church seated in them But will you see how strongly the Doctor impugneth the consequence as it now standeth with this inartificiall argument q. d I cannot see to what purpose that addition serveth Therefore this later consequence is altogither as weak as the former Had the Refut at any time argued so loosely to infringe any of the Doctors consequences he had been worthy to beare this censure that his facultie is better in denying consequences then in proving them But the Doctor not being yet returned to his right temper at this time is to be borne with not onely for this fault but also for a worse in charging the Antecedent of falshood when he hath nothing to alleadge that directly impugneth it yet let us give him the hearing By this inclusure saith he the Antecedent it bewrayed of falshood for The D. to charge his Refuter with falshood delivereth a double untruth and yet to no purpose if there were in the citie and countrey more distinct Churches or Parishes as here is supposed and these all subor dinate to one as I have manifestly proved then all these will make a Dincese Behold here a double untruth propounded to conclude a falshood in his Refuters Antecedent yet all wil not serve the turne when he hath done the most he can For first the parenthesis in the Antecedent doth not necessarily suppose that the townes round about every citie had distinct Churches in them onely it holdeth the matter in suspense touching some one or moe townes in some countries because as the Doctor remembreth Cenchreae neere unto Corinth was a distinct church and in such a case it excepteth such townes and annexeth to the citie church the rest Neyther is it true that he hath manifestly proved the subordination of many Churches unto one within the Apostles daynes no nor yet within the first 200. yeares after Christ But say there were a truth in both his untruthes and graunt him also that which he inferreth to wit that many Churches subordinate to one will make a Diocese how doth this convince the refuters Antecedent of falshood Did not his passions blinde his judgement when he imagined there is strength enough in this cosequence for thus he reasoneth Many Churches in citie and country subordinated all to one do make a Diocise Ergo all the Christians in a citie and the townes adioyning which have no distinct Church in them must needs make more then one particular congregation But perhaps he correcteth his owne errour in the words following when he faith I say therefore againe that though their Antecedent were true yet the consequence were to be denied The which what is it but to run from one errour to another For it is before observed that the conclusion which the Refuter slandeth here to mainteyn is no other in effect then this that the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned not to the overfight of many Churches but to one onely congregation Now if there be a truth in his Antecedent which affirmeth that at that time the Christians in any citie and townes around it such namely as had no distinct Churches in them made but one congregation the consequence of the argument cannot be infringed otherwise then by shewing that the presbyters received from the Apostles not onely the charge of that one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ but also the govermeÌ„t of some other churches established in some other eyther more populous or more remote townes Which to demonstrate it sufficeth not to assume this that many churches subordinate to one doe make a Diocese but good proofe must be added also that this subordination of many Churches in countrey townes to the Church of the citie tooke place in the time of the Apostles and was ratified by their allowance Having thus freed the Refuters Enthymem from the Doctors Sect 7. frivolous exceptions I will once againe produce it to his viewe but in another forme which shall not affright him as the former parenthesis did in a plaine syllogisme therefore which kinde of argument he best affectâ—th thus I reason All the Christians which in the Apostles tymes dwelt in and about any great citie and were called the Church of that citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place But all those Christians were
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
Ergo also the second To make good the consequence of the Proposition he said that it standeth upon the foundation which the Doctor himselfe layd in the first argument drawne from his text neyther was he therein deceived for in this defense cap. 2. sect 2. he confesseth that he presupposed all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government to be like to those 7 because it is not to be doubted but the primitive Churches indued with that power were of like nature and constitution But the Doctor burieth all this in silence and as if the Refuter had intreated that the consequence might passe without controulment he seemeth vnwilling to yeild him so much favour vnlesse it may be lawfull for him to use another which he saith is like viz. that if the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishonall Churches in the first 200 yeares he meaneth unto the full end of that terme then neyther were the Churches of other cities And then telleth us But they were not parishonall churches as for Rome he had proved and for Alexandria would prove therefore concludeth so of the rest Well let us reason a little with him is the consequence indeed the same so he saith but doth he speak as he is perswaded if not why setteth he such a face of truth upon a lie If yea why inwrappeth he his owne feet in the snare that he layeth for another for whether he disclaime or allow the consequence and the hypothesis whereon it is grounded will he nil he he must beare the blame of a foule contradiction To disclaime it is to overthrow as before is noted the foundation of his owne argument pa. 42. To allow it is to make way for the utter ruine of A foul cotradiction in the D. that assumption which he urgeth for a double advantage p. 69 122. lin 1. for if that may be verefied of all other Churches which he avoucheth here and pag. 124 for certeinty of Alexandria and elsewhere pag 50 and 122 denieth probable in some others then by the like consequence alike grounded on the same hypothesis we may conclude that all other Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were also divided into diverse parishes even in the Apostles times deserveth not the D. now to be beaten with his owne cudgell pag 73. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction that he should not care so he may gainsay his adversaries present affertion how shamefally he contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with the Doctor Notwithstanding I can easily free the Refuter from that disadvantage which the D. conclusion threatneth For we can and wil hold our owne consequence for a truth on both parts already assented to till we heare him directly contradict the hypothesis whereon it is grounded as himselfe acknowledgeth viz. that all churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were at the first of the same nature and constitution but the later shall hang in suspence till he hath proved that it is grounded on the same hypothesis For in our apprehension his consequence presupposeth that all Churches were alike not in that nature and constitution wherein they stood at the first but in this alteration wherein Alexandria Rome went before others namely to be distinguished into many parishes whereas all at their first planting were vndistinguished as himselfe confesseth To passe therefore forwards to the Assumption because the Sect. 2. ad sect 2. pag. 102. Refuter saith it appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars Mr. D. asketh whether his syllâ—gismes are so soone come to an end and perceiving that his cheefe proofs are that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one congregation he further asketh whether this was his Assumption whereto I answer that for brevity sake the Refuter omitted the contriving of his proofes into forme of syllogisticall reasoning presuming as the Doct. saith elswhere in his owne defense pag 79. that any man might from that which the Doct. observeth to be his cheife drift conclude his assumption thus The Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalem were each of them in the Apostle Pauls time no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore they were each of them at that time but one parish But the Doctor having wronged his Refuter before by stretching his assumption beyond the age of the Apostles to the full term of 200 yeares holdeth on and doubleth the wrong by reteyning the same addition of 200. yeares that he might have the more colour to cavill with the consequence of the argument to charge his Refuter with playing the Sophister in taking that for graunted which he did not so much as dreame of viz. that each of those Churches continued one congregation and so one parish for 200. yeares because they were but one congregation in the Apostles times Wherefore what he objecteth to infringe this consequence I overpasse as unworthy the answer seing he forged it for the nonce to cavill with True it is that the consequence of the Entoymem before set down presupposeth a truth in this assertioÌ„ scz that those Churches are parishes whose people are no more then such as ordinarily assemble in one place And the Refuter deemed it a vame of time and labour yea meere folly to call into question that which was of the Doctor assented unto serm p. 4 viz. that when we affirme and he denieth every visible Church to be properly a parish by a parish is meant a particular ordinary coÌ„gregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God Wherefore in denying nowe the consequence of the argument before delivered what else doth he but play the wrangler For he that meaneth truely to bring the matter controverted to the right issue will never offer to gainsay what is certaine and confessed And because he saith that the reasons of his deniall are set downe at large cap. 3. sect 5. 6. I must tell him that I finde nothing there that directly controuleth the hypothesis of our coÌ„sequence here to wit that every Church which maketh but one ordinarie congregation is a parish And whatsoever is there sayd touching the point then in hand it is sufficiently to use his owne words overthrown already Wherfore let us hear those 2. ReasoÌ„s which for a surplussage as he saith he now addeth The first is this If these Churches because they were each of them one congregation were parishes Sect. 3. ad pag. 103. before the division of parishes then they were such Churches as after the division parishes were But they were not such Churches I will adde the conclusion Ergo neyther were they parishes before the division of Parishes because they were each of them one congregation First I praye the Doctor to tell us what moveth him to tumble into the conclusion and consequent of the proposition this clause before the division of parishes Where
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
power of order in Bishops that they cannot communicate it to any others Wherefore though he should never so impudently stand forth to mainteine that he doth not ascribe a sole power of ordinatioÌ„ to them yet wil it be inevitably concluded froÌ„ his owne wordes For whosoever have the right or power of ordination appropriated to theÌ„ alone as a prerogative peculiar to their function and that by the power of their order yea so peculiar to their order that they cannot communicate it to men of another function they must needes have the sole power of ordination If therfore Bishops have the power of ordination so appropriated to them alone and to the power of their order as is before shewed from the D. owne wordes it followeth of necessâ—â—y that they have a sole power of ordination given vnto them This is also implied in those speaches so often repeated lib. 3. pag. 72. 86. 93. 97. that the power of ordeyninge was in the Bishops and not in the presbyters And that Bishops had the power or right of ordeyning which presbyters had not And of ordination and jurisdiction jointly as he constantly mainteineth them to be the principall and most essentiall parts of the episcopall authority lib. 3. pag. 68. lib. 4. pag. 78. so he flatly denyed the charge of these affaires to belonge vnto presbyters The Doct. must â—ay by his slander and graunte that he giveth sole power c. to Bishops or else he cotradictâ—â—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 coÌ„mon to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to Bishops So that we may safely conclude neither can the Doct. impugne it without apparant contradiction to himself that our Bishops are sole-ruling Bishops and that the singularity of preheminence or preheminent power which he ascribeth vnto Bishops as an essentiall part of their function is in deed a sole power of rule or monarchicall superiority The 5. Chapter Concerninge the sâ—ate of the Question and namely of the D. distinction of ius apostolicum divinum Thus have we done with the first come we now to the second point before proposed to be examined viz. in what sense the sole Sect. 1. ruling Bishops such as ours are is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The Doctor often acknowledgeth it to be a divine ordinance in respect of the first institution as having God the author thereof But he can by no means indure his Refuter to say that he holdeth their function to be divini juris orâ—de jure diâ—iâ—o and perpetually or generally necessary for all Churches yea his chollerâ—i so kindled thereat that he chargeth him with untruth calâ—mâ—â—tion wilful depraving of his assertion as we may see both in his answere to his Refuters preface pag. 2. and in this defense lib. 3. pag. 22. lib. 4. pag. 138. But it is already shewed in the defense of that preface that the Doctor abuseth the refuter depraveth his words and meaning in as much as he had an eye onely to the first institution of the episcopall function when he sayd that the Doctors sermon tended to prove that the sayd function is to be holden jure divino by Gods lawe and not as an humane ordinance And sithence was reserved to this place the more full handling of those nice conceits in the Doctor which were then overpassed touching the difference betwixt things that are divini juris and others that were apostolici and that absolute necessity which he placeth in those things that are divini juris we are now to enter vpon the coÌ„sideration of these particulars First therefore because he now seemeth in this defense lib. 3. pag. 26. 116. lib. 4. pag. 137. 139. to allowe in his owne judgement that distinction betwixt those things that are divini those that are apostolici juris which in his sermoÌ„ pa. 92. he proposed in the name of some other divines viz. that the former are generally The Doct. neyther doth nor can make good his distinctioÌ„ perpetually immutably necessary the later not so he might have done wel to have warraÌ„ted this distinctioÌ„ either froÌ„ the scripture or froÌ„ the testimony of some orthodoxal writers FroÌ„ the Scripture he cannot 1. because he hath already laid that ground out of Actes 15. 28. which will refute it as is already shewed in defence of the said preface 2. Moreover it is well observed of sundry Divines as Aquinas 2â— 2â— 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 apocopeÌ„ Where fore as he saith jus divinum est quod Deus jubet so we may say that jus apostolicum est quod apostolus jubet vel ab apostolis jubetur The true difference therefore if there be any betwene jus divinuÌ„ and apostolicum standeth onely in this that the former hath the expresse and immediate commandement of God to warrantize that which he prescribeth whereas the later proceedeth from the Apostles as the Interpreters of Gods will and his Ministers which by direction from him give rules vnto his Church to observe In which sense the Apostle Paul distinguisheth his commandement from the Lords 1. Cor. 7. 10 12. vnto the married I command ouk â—go alla ho kurios not I but the Lord. c. But to the remnant ego lego ouk hokurios l speâ—ke not the Lord c. Will the Docter now say of the former precept because it is jus divinum that it is generall perpetually and immutably necessarie and of the later that it is not so as being onely jus apostolicum I hope rather he will spare the Refuter or his friend the labor to prove that the later is no lesse generally perpetually and immutably necessary then the former Significat Apostolus preceptum illud vers 10. niti expresso verbi divini testimonio non autem ex revelatione singulari spiritus sancti profectum Piscat in 1. Cor 7. 10. Suum autem id esse dicit vers 12. de quo nihil desertè expresserit Dominus non quod ipse ex se temerè aut suo arbitrio esset coÌ„mentatus Id enim se fecisse negat infra vers 25. 40. Beza in 1. Cor. 7. 12. And therfore after many other precepts delivered by the Apostles in sundry cases not before determined by any direct and expresse verdict of Gods word as will appeare to him that wayeth what he teacheth 1. Cor. 8. 9. 13. 10. 25 -29 11. 4 -14 23 -25 he bindeth them all up under one generall charge 1. Cor. 14. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are tou kâ—riou entâ—lai the commandements of God Dei
apostolico Which distinction though in this place the Doctor admitteth not yet elsewhere lib. 3. pag. 26. he alloweth it to reconcile those speaches of Ierom ad Euagr and in Tit. cap. 1. where he denieth the superioritie of Bishops to be of divine disposition yet affirmeth it to be an apostolical tradition He may be vnderstood saith the D. as holding their superioutie to be not divini but apostolici juris But how soever he accord with Bellarmin in approving the distinction yet since he holdeth the episcopall superiority to be so farre forth a divine ordinance as it proceeded from God in asmuch as the Apostles were directed by the holy Ghost in ordeyning it he cannot without apparant contradiction to himself imbrace Bellarmins The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe which way soever he turneth him construction of Apostolici juris who taketh it for jus humanum or positivum Neither can he easily winde out of the briars of an evident contradiction when he denieth it to be divini iuris and yet graunteth it to be be a divine ordinance yea such an holy ordinance of God as ought at this day not onely so to be acknowledged but also to be obeyed and that of conscience serm pag. 94. 98. For if this be so how should it want what perpetuitie which agreeth vnto other things that are in deed divini juris by the lawe of God For out of what fountayne drew the D. this deep learning which Sect. 3. ad pag. 2. of the D. answere to the ref preface ad lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. nowe he setteth abroach answ to the ref preface pag 2. and lib. 4. pag. 138. 140. viz. that the things which are divini juris by the law of God are so generally iÌ„mutably and perpetually necessâ—rie that no true Church can be without them What will he say to the pure preaching of the word the right administration of the Sacraments and of the Church Censures and the orderly sending forth of Ministers lawfully chosen and ordeyned to theyr severall charges Are not these things divini juris by the lawe of God and divine or at least apostol The D. distinction erronious call ordinances generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie for who can take libertie in any of these to depart from the rule of Gods word and not be guiltie of sinn against God yea in that one Sacrament of the Lords Supper are not all the actions recorded in the first institution viz. in the Minister to take blesse break and deliver the bread and to take blesse and diliver the cup and in the Communicants to take and eate the one and to take and drinke the other are not all and every of these actions I saye generally perpetually and immutably necessary to be observed therfore to be esteemed to be divini juris else have our divines little reson to hold them for essentiall parts of the Lords supper and to urge for proof thereof Christs Commaundement doo this in remembrance of me see D. Bilson ag the Rhem Apologie parte quarta pag. 675. in quarto Bucanus Instiâ— loc 48. pag. 677. 678 NotwithstaÌ„ding I hope the D. will not deny the name of a true Church vnto every assembly of Christians which wanteth in any part the puritie of the doctrine or that syncere form of administratioÌ„ which the word of God pre cribeth for his Sacraments or Church-censures For he is not ignorant that among divine ordinances and things necessarie some yea the greatest somâ— doe concern rather the welbeing then the very being of the Church aâ—e onely needful or behooful for the wel-ordering of the Ch lib. 4. p. 103. 104 but not so gâ—nerally and immutably necessary as though no true Church could be wiâ—hout them Wherefore to draw this controversly to a direct issue though without any violoence offered vnto he phrase we might affirme every commaundement of God whether generall or speciall and temporall or perpetuall to be jus divinum because the word jus is derived of jussum as is before observed yet because the word is restrayned by the * Canonistes and by Ius divinum est quod in lege coÌ„tineÌ„tur et evangelio atque immutabile semper permanet lib. 1. Iuris canon Tit. 2. coÌ„mon use appropriated to such ordinances as are layd downe in the holy scripture for the perpetuall use of the Church I will here acknowledge a generall and perpetuall necessity in those things that are to be holden jure divino yet place I not so absolute a necessity as the D. dreameth of in those things that are divini juris as though no true Church could be without any of them It is sufficient if they be so immutably necessary that the Church hath no liberty as it hath in things indifferent to alter or abolish them but where they may be had they may not without sin be neglected much lâ—sse wittingly be refused or changed If the D. shall herein professe an agreement with vs and say that he therefore denieth the episcopall function to be divini juris because though it be lawfull to be reteyned as being ordeyned of God by his Apostles for the Churches which they planted yet it is not by any commandement or warrant from Gods word perpetually imposed on all Churches for so he seemeth to affirm lib. 4. pag. 145. lin 6. and 26 I praye leave to demaund why in the 2. page of his answ to the Refuters preface he contenteth not himself to disclaime at large that generall and immuâ—able necessity which is ascribed to thinges that are divini juris pag. 94. of his serm but rather addeth this clause so as no true Church can be without it If it be not to explaine that necessity which he spake of in his sermon to what purpose serveth it For he found no such clause nether in the words of the Refuters preface which he taxeth of vntruth nor yet in pag. 90. of his answere where he saith a true acknowledgment is to be founde in what sense he denieth the calling of the Bishops to be Divini juris But let us see whether the Doctor both in his sâ—rmon and in Sect. 4. some places of this defense thereof mainteineth not the epilcopal function to be generally and perpetually necessary and that in as ample manner as some other ordinances are that without all contradictioÌ„ are estemed to be divini juris 1. He appropriateth or at least attributeth kat hexochen vnto Bishops yea even to our diocesaÌ„ Bishops aswell as vnto the Bishops or Ministers of the 7. Churches in Asia and that in respect of their function the name of Angels sent of God starres held in the right hand of Christ serm pag. 55. 95. Yea he saith pag. 55. They are as cheif Stewards over Gods family and principall spirituall governours over Christs body And to them he restreineth pap 70 the name of hegoumenoi rulers or Leaders which the Apostle Heb. 13. 17. chargeth to be obeyed Moreover he
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ„ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâ—lea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bâ—â—e had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâ—ster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a â—everall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possâ—â—e that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌ„ding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ„ is not the denial of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ an evidence that the answerer is coÌ„founded is not coÌ„fusioÌ„ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâ—ctâ—d Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ— sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ„ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
in this case As touching the first saith he I have often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be But why doth he wonder where there is no cause of wonder Let him surcease his wondring The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter till he shewe both where his brethren have so argued and why such an argument will not hold And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause to wonder at his proceeding that wandreth from his purpose or rather justifyeth his Refut in that which he vndertook to disprove For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge that which now is closely implied sc that the ancient Churches remeyned for a time vndivided 3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words we may wonder what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided to those which at the first were not The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth pag. 69. The later appeareth by this that his best reason to prove that each Church had froÌ„ the beginning the circuite of the citie country adjoyned is the practise of succeeding ages p. 49. 55. which after division of parishes combined them in one body vnder one Bishop As for his questions following though I see not how they will serve his purpose yet will I breefly touch vpon them and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere 1. would they have saith he the Church of a City country belonging to it to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place I answere so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation I hold it best they continue vndivided as the first Apostolike Churches did but when the people of any City and Country are so increased that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place 2. Then tell me saith he whether we that doe and of necessity must consist of diverse congregations are to followe the example of any ancient Church as it was before it was divided or as it was after it was divided I affirme that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied the practise of the Apostles the ancient Apostolike Churches is to be imitated of us in giving to those new erected assemblies both the name and forme or constitution of Churches and the like power for government which those apostolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion in any one branch thereof 3. He addeth They will say perhaps that eche congregation after the division was as that one before nothing lesse let them prove that and I will yeeld in the whole cause We say it in deed and will not shrinke from affirminge that in the Apostles tymes wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country which at first made one Church were distributed into diverse there eche congregatioÌ„ was in forme or constitution like to that one before and if it be not so why doth he not disprove it Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent giving his reader just occasion to thinke that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe As for the ages following in Constantines time or there aboutes when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoyninge to it their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questioÌ„ of divine institution eyther for the constitution of Church-assemblies or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels c. before cited as he saith can convince or perswade the conscience of his opposites to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance But to what purpose doth he trifâ—le time in these By-questioÌ„s which make him forget what he promised to prove viz. that every of those 7. Churches was divided into severall ordinary assemblies Yet in one point more we must followe him sc when he indeavoreth to shew that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand if he had added this clause that they were Dioceses such as ours are but he foresawe that this addition would have quite marred his market notwithstanding attendance shal be given to that he hath delivered in defense of the point which he mainteyneth It wil be said saith he that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuite of the Church in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the division of parishes as after Here for the better apprehending of his meaning if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same I suppose he would send us to those words which he hath within a few line after viz. that the circuit of every Church even from the beginning aswelas after the multiplying of perishes included not onely the citie but thâ— countrye thereto belonging And if this be his meaning as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant then behold how he is The D. mustâ— gg still inforced principium petere when from hence he inferreth the coÌ„clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following 50. sc that though the 7. Churches had not bâ—ne divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses And because he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref I wil assay to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme and if he can beâ—ter the argument let him take his owne away Every Church whose circuite in the intention of the Apostle or first founder â—f it was the same as including not onely the citie but the country thereto belongiâ—g aswell befâ—re the division â—f Parishes as after every such Church I saw was a Diocese from the beginning though not divided then into several Câ—ngregations But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches in the intention of the Apostles or their first founders herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning though not yet divided into many severall congregations Now let
the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllogisme with the maine argument which himself contrived and is before set downe sect 5. and if they can finde any such materiall difference in the medius terminus and the premisâ—es as may give the D. a discharge froÌ„ begging the questioÌ„ let them shew it Meane while I doubt not but every unpartiall reader will perceive his povertie in this dispute especially seing he supporteth the Assumption of his principall argument with the same answere pag. â—4 For who that denieth any of the Apostolike Churches to comprehend the whole citie and country adjoyning as Dioceses in succeeding ages did will beleeve that the circuite of those Churches was the same when there were but fewe that it was when many yea all were Christians and who that denieth as the Refuter doth the circuite of a citie and country adjoyning to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese vnlesse it be divided into many congregations will not take him for a very trifler which to make good the contrary shall yeeld him none other argument then this that a Church not yet divided into severall assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese If the founder thereof did intend that her circuite should include citie and country as a divided Diocese doth Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and Both premisses of the Doctor argument are vnsound downeright answere to his argument last contrived I at once reject both the promisses as erroneous and unsound First touching the proposition since the Doctor placeth the very essence and life if I may so speak of a Diocesan Church in her circuite including both citie and countrye adjoyning so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable as it doth with the Refuter who accounteth such a circuite the materiall cause onely estemeth the very forme that giveth being vnto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies as meÌ„bers of one body a meane logician may see that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding he should have yeelded us some one or other Medius terminus which might have served to prove that such a circuite maketh a Diocesan body although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof But nowe in arguing as he doth that the ancient Churches though yet vndivided were Dioceses because their founders intended that their circuite should extend over citie and countrie as the later Diocesan Churches did the errour of his reasoning is no lesse grosse and absurd then if he had said Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally Therefore they were Dioceses properly or The D. reasoning is grosse and absurd actually For all men knowe that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese as he saith all the first Apostolicall Churches were the same is actually and in very deed a Diocese and therefore hath actually and in deed the circuit of a Diocese but if it have the circuit of a Diocâ—se onely in the intention of the founder and not actually it is impossible it should be a dioceâ—e actually or properly but intentionally onely especially in their opinion who place as the D. doth the very forme and being of a diocesan Church in the circuite of her jurisdiction conteyninge both City and Country adjoyning Let the D. here call to minde what he sayd pag. 18. of his sermon mainteineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the cheife Cities of any nation they intended the conversion of the whole nation and that when having by Gods blessing converted some they placed presbyters in any of those cheife Cities their intent and hope was by their ministery to converte aswell in the Countries adjoyning as in the City so many as did belong vnto God He addeth in his defence that they whose ministery was intended for the conversion of the City and Country he should have-sayd of the whole nation to their care or charge the people of that City and Country or nation belonged both for the first convertinge of them and for the government of them being converted Whence it is also that he saith lib. 4. pag. 131. that it was from the beginninge intended that the Bishop of the mother City should be the cheif in the Province notwithstanding he constantly holdeth lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 21. lib. 4. pag. 7. 31. that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over Mother Cities were at the first actually but Bishops of their owne Dioceses not actually Metropolitanes vntill diverse Churches being constituted and Bishops ordeyned in the severall Dioceses of the province there was a consociation and subordination of them vnto one cheefe primate Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intendinge the conversion of the whole nation and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops as the light of the Gospell should spread it self into the severall Dioceses if this intention I say cannot perswade the Doctor to take the firste Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches or Metropolitan Bishops Surely then he might think us very Idâ—otes if we should take his bare word wheÌ„ he disagreeth with himselfe for a fit proofe to perswade us that the like intention of erecting a Church in any citie or Diocese vnder an hope of subjecting the people thereof to the obedience of the gospel can make that Church actually or properly a Diocese till there be distribution of particular assemblies subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Church and ministery first erected in the citie Secondly to come to the Assumption if there be any truth in it his Refuter may make more advantage by it to conclude those Sect. 9. Churches not to be Dioceses properly or actually For No Church whose circuite includeth the citie wherein it is seated the Country adioyning onely in the intention of the first founder but not actually or in execution is a Diocese actually and properly if therefore the 7. Churches were Churches whose circuit included the cities wherein thâ—y were seated and tho countryes adioyning onely in the intention of the first founders but not actually or in execution Then it followeth that The 7. Churches were not Dioceses actually or properly The Proposition is grounded upon that difference which the Doctor himselfe putteth betwixt the actuall being of Metropolitane Bishops or Churches and the intention of those that first foâ—nded Churches in Mother-cities And the Assumption is in effect the Doctors owne assertion as he explaineth himselfe pag. 69. 73. 128 for in the last place quoted he saith expresly that the Counâ—ries subject to the civill jurisdiction of any citie were actually under the Bishops charge after theire conversion and intentionally before wherefore without contradiction to himselfe he cannot rejecte the conclusion So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches shall holde proportion with the groundes of his disputation he must The Doct. in his next must
the â—aith which were as his Refuter truely avoucheth neither can the Doctor deney it but a fewe like to the nomber of Christians which was in London and the townes about it in Q. Maries daies or which now is in Paris or some Cities in Fraunce Wherefore to say as he did that the Churches were great Cities c. might better serve his turne as the Refuter judged to dazell the eies of the simple that they might thinke the people of those Churches to be well neere if not altogither as many The Doct. useth cunning in his purgation but yet in raine as the cities conteyned Now the D. to purge himselfe from so foule an imputation thanketh God that he â—s free both from desire and intent of dazaling the eies of the simple but this notwithstanding let the reader observe the cunning which he useth in this purgation The intent of dazeling he disclaymeth but he contradicteth not that which his reâ— objecteth vz. that he would have his reader to think that those Churches contayned as many people as the cities did onely he quarrelleth with him pag. 54. for strayning his words to The D. quarrell is fond and causlesse this meaning as if he had sayd that all the people in the citie and country had bene aâ— that time Christians which is in deed a causles quarrell a fond cavill seing in the D logick divinity here is a great difference betwene these two speaches All the people of the citie country were Christians and the Church conteyned within her circuite all the people of city and countrey for though he reject the former as absurd yet he maintayneth the latter for a sound position Else why doth he not interprete himselfe to have spoken according to an vsuall metonymy of the christian people onely q. d. The 7. Churches were the christians which then inhabited the cities and countries adjoyning Why doth he rather choose pag. 53. to explaine his meaning thus The Churches were that is contayned not onely the cities but the countrie and to illustrate his interpretatioÌ„ by such an instance as this A man is not onely body but soul also that is man consisteth of body and soul or whole man conteineth these two parts for if every of the 7. Churches doth so contayne citie and countrie or consist of those two partes as a man conteineth or consisteth of soule and body then both the whole citie and the whole countrie adjoyning must necessarily concurre to the very essence or being of the Church consequently in his estimation and vnderstanding none of those Churches did consist of or containe onely a fewe of the people as a parte of citie and countrie but rather all in generall Wherefore if he will cleare himselfe of that foule imputation which he semeth so farr to abhorre let him deale plainely and disclaime his construction he now inforceth of conteyning both citie countrie and stick to the usuall metonymie of the christian people in citie and countrie So his arguments will stand in this forme Whatsoever Church in S. Iohns time was or contâ—yned the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning the same was properly a dioâ—ese yea such a diocese as ours are But every of the 7. Churches of Asia was or contayned in S. Iohns time the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning Therefore every of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese yea such a diocese as ours is If it please the D. in his next to give allowance vnto this forme his assumptioÌ„ will perhaps be allowed to passe with some connivence till there be some good cause of calling it into question but he will finde it a labour surpassing all his skill and strength to make good the propositioÌ„ Wherefore I have litle hope that he will make this exchange seing he indeavoureth his best to justify aswell the words as the matter of his first assumptioÌ„ agaâ—nst his refuâ— exceptions Concerning the words first is it saith the D. so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the citie should be given to the Sect. 14. ad sect 8 pag. 53. Church Let him looke back to Apoc. 1. 11. he shall find that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. I answere the Ref how vnlearned soever in the eies of the D. hath no need to learne at his hands that the name of a citie may be and with ecclesiasticall writers is put metonymicè for the Church which was in that citie yet will it not be very easy for the D. to shew us that the Apostles used this phrase of speach in their writings For when they speak not of the place or citie it selfe but of the Church seated in any citie they usually explaine theÌ„selves by some such words as these The Church which is in Ierusalem or Antioch c. Act. 8. 1. and 11. 22. and 13. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Apo. 2. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. The Church of the Thessalonians Smyrnians c. 1. Thess 1. 1. Apoc. 2. 8. and 3. 14. The Saints at Ierusalem Lidda c. Act. 8. 13 22. Ephes 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 2. As for the words of Apoc. 1. 11 wherevnto he sendeth his Refuter to learne that the 7. Churches were Ephâ—sus Smyrna c. let him know that he hath learning enough to see that the D. glosse hath no warrant froÌ„ the text The words are kâ—ipempson tais eâ—clesiais tais en Asia eis Ephâ—son The D. glosse is without warrant of the text kieis Smurnan c. And send to the 7. Churches which are in Asia at Ephesus and at Smyrna c for it is no strange thing to finde â—is put for en and our latin translators as the vulgar Vatablus Beza c. doe with one consent turne eis Epheson c. Ephesi vel Epheso Smyrna c. I wish the D. to see whether the Holy Ghost himselfe the best interpreter of himself doth not turne eis Epheson eis Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11. by en Epheso en Smyrna c. Apoc. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. 14. And as little skill as the Refuter hath in the tongues yet hath he observed thus much that when the Apostles in their writings doe note the persons to whom any letter or mesâ—age is sent they doe either use the dative case as here tais â—câ—lâ—siais so elsewhere humin apestale to you is the word of salvation sent Act. 13. 26. hon epempsa humin I have seÌ„t Timothe to you 1 Cor. 4. 17. see the like Phil. 2. 19. Math 20. 16. Apoc. 11. 10. or else they take the preposition pros as when Paul sent Tychicus to the Ephesians Colossians he saith hon epempsa pros humas Ephe. 6. 22. Colos 4. 8. see the like Luk. 7. 19. Ioh. 16. 3. Acts. 19. 31. and 23. 30. Tit. 3. 12. As for the proposition eis in embassages c. it doth alwayes note the place and
were persecuted by the Gentâ—les Every body therefore knoweth say I that the Churches in S. Iohns tyme must needs consiste of a very fewe in comparison of the rest and therefore neyther were the cities the Churches neyther did the Churches contein the people thereof 2. Againe whereas the Refuter added that the Church of Smyrna writing of the sayd martyrdâ—m of Policarpus intitleth herselfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna therfore asked whether a whol diocese or country of Christians diâ—â—â—habite Smyrna the D. sayth it is an obiâ—ctim scarce worth the answering but yet vouchsafeth it a frivolous answer vz. that the whole diâ—cese was seâ—ted cheefly in the citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is sayd to be in the head and that though by the Church at Smyrna we should vnderstand onely that part which did inhabite the citie yet the â—aming it the Church which is 〈◊〉 Smâ—rna excludeth not the Churches in the countrye from being of the same body or diocese with it Whereunto for reply first to the last what meaneth he to begg that which he should prove rather if he could to witt that there were The D. beggeth CHVRCHES in the Country which were parts of the same body with the Church in the citie for if this cannot be proved the former part of his answere is absurd where he compareth the Church in the city to the head of the body For it is a monstruous body that hath eyther no body at all or an head bigger then all the rest of the body Moreover to burie in silence his unseemly may I not say blasphemous comparison in comparing a Diocesan Ch seated in the citie to Gods sitting in heaven how absurd is he in The D. coÌ„parison is more then vnseemely absurd comparing the Diocese to the soule which is in the head and in all the body besides For what shall the body be trow ye if the whole Diocese be the soule The city he saith is the head the country parishes belike are the rest of the members the citie and country joyned togither do make the Diocese yet the Diocese is not the body but the soule of the body Herevnto I may adde that which is objected pag. 55. of the Refuters answ from the text of holy scripture The epistles were directed to the Angel of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephâ—sus the Church of Smyrna the Church c. as if the whole cities were the Churches The Doctors answere pag. 62 is that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntil it was wholly converted to Christianity yet the whole citie meaning â—â—bs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles c. neither is it material that the Church is sayd to have bene in Ephesus seing in urbe the Church was cheefely seated as was said before I suppose the Refuter is not ignorant of that difference which the learned hystorians put betweene urbs civitas Vrbs ut M. Varro lib. 1. linguae latinae tradit ab orbe urno quae pars est aratri deducitur circum dividebantur enim aratro loca extruendo oppido designata ut ait Servius sulco muri designabantur Civitas autem tameâ—si pro urbe oppidove frequenter usurpatur proprie tamen ipsa est civium koinonia et societas moribus legibusque institutis gubernata nam et hi qui passim tractu aliquo habitant ijsdem legibus et institutis usi Civitas dicuntur Caesari sic habet Ioach Vadianus in Epitome trium terrae partium pag. 34. 35. Impress Tiguri Anno 1534. But what use doth the Doctor make of this difference The whole citie meaning Civitas saith he was not the Church till it was wholly converted to Christianitie Well then it seemeth when he saith the Churches were cities he tooke not the word citie for civitas which cheefly noteth the people that live in a communion togither He then acknowledgeth he tooke the word citie for that which is called urbs the walls and howâ—es within which the citizens for the greater part were inclosed If so he sheweth himselfe too absurd to be confuted with any other argument then such as is framed in Bocardo If not we may then with good leave I hope conclude that seing the Church of Ephesus was neytheâ— urbs nor civitas therfore it cannot at all be truely sayd to be the citie much lesse both citie and country And to what use then serveth if I may be so bold to ask once againe that difference he yeeldeth betweene urbs civitas Forsooth the whole citie mâ—aning urbs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles Well and may not the same be sayd of the whole citie meaning civitas Else why doth he tell us that when the Apostles planted presbyters in every citie they intended the conversion of the whole citie and country by their Ministerie Thus wisely hath the Doctor distinguished betweene urbs Civitas that what he affirmeth or A distinction without any difference denieth of the one the same in his understanding must be affirmed or denied of the other As for that he addâ—th to shewe his understanding of the text sc that the Church was seated not wholly but cheefly in urbe eyther beggeth the maine question as before was noted if he think there were some other Churches in the Country The Doct. beggeth or else coÌ„senteh to his refut that were parts of the same Diocesan body or he dissenteth not from his Refuter if he think the Christians inhabiting some townes and hamletts in the country did ordinarily assemble with those of the citie for the publick works of Gods worshâ—p Thus have we heard all that the Doctor can say in defense of his Sect. 16. ad sect 8. 〈◊〉 54. assumption as he first delivered it when he sayd those Churches were great and ample cities c. As for the change which he hath now made choise of viz. that they conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning he hath nothing else in defense thereof then a naked repetition in a manner of that which was before delivered to help the consequence of his reasoning yet I will vouchsafe to meÌ„tion it least he should think better of it then it deserveth If any maÌ„ ask saith he how it may be said that the Church conteyned City and Countrye when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in eyther of both I answere as before that the circuite of the Church or Diocese was the same when there were fiwe and when there were many yea when all were Christians His former answere whereto he nowe referreth us affirmeth the circuite of the Churches to be the same aswell before the division of parishes as after not actually but onely in the intention of the Apostles or first founder Which limitation he remeÌ„breth again in that answere
which was last examined in the former section And if he doe here also vnderstand it why doth he conceale it Is it because in those places he had not directly to dealâ— with his assumption as now he hath and he would not so plainely discover to his reader how farâ— he goeth in this defence from the wordes of his assumption as he first layd it downe in his sermon For for this cause it seemeth he chose rather to reject that clause of great and ample Cities whiles he was yet in examining the consequeÌ„ce of his argument And it had bene too much to lay before the eies of his reader at once all three changes or alterations that one of The D. hath 3. alteratioÌ„s but cannot defend one of them turning were into conteined when in stead of this they were cities he saith they conteyned the cities c. is more then he can well defend But before I come to trie the strength of his defence I must a litle better â—ifte the chaungling he giveth vs in steed of the former assumption viz. that the circuite of every one of these 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and countrie adjoyning First therefore I demaund what he meaneth by citie and countrie whether those parts of the ancient diocese which he calleth paroikian kai choran serm pag. 25. and def pag. 13. and 36. that is the citie with the suburbs and the whole countrie subject to the citie If so then this whole circuite in his vnderstaÌ„ding was the circuite of every of those 7. Churches But then I demaund againe did those Churches containe in their circuite only the walles dwelling houses and feildes and not also the people inhabiting within that circuite if he should either exclude all the people or include all the state of those times being such that the generall multitude in all cities and countrey were Pagans as he confesseth pag. 54. he should contradict both himselfe the truth which he delivereth p. 3. 5. where he saith that ecclesia in all places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. is appropriated to the companie of the faithfull and signifieth a companie of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say a companie of Christians Wherefore as I will not doe him that wrong to think he meaneth by citie and countrey the houses and feildes onely so if question be made what people he incloseth within the circuite of those Churches or of the cities and countries which he saith they contayned vnlesse he will depart from the truth and that with contradiction to himself he must acknowledge that he meaneth none other then the Christian people of those cities the countries adjoyning And yet if he limit every Church to so narrow a compasse for the people which it conteined who will beleeve him or how will he perswade and prove that the whole citie meaning Vrbs to use his owne wordes and the whole countrie belonging to the citie was conteyned within the circuite of the Church for since the Church of any citie or place is nothinge else but the company of Christians there If it be absurde to say that a small companie of Christians not an handfull to a great heape in comparison of the heathen that filled citie countrie did containe in their circuite an whole citie with the whole countrie adjoyning then is it no lesse absurd to affirme the same of any Church which is intituled the Church of this or that citie yea take all the people of any citie or countrie who is so simple but he knoweth that the citie and countrie containeth them and not they the citie Wherefore though all the people had bene converted to Christianity yet had it bene a grosse error both in logick and philosiphie to say that the Church did contayne the citie and the countrie To leave then the naturall and proper signification of citie countrie and to carrie the words by an usuall metonymie vnto the people q. d. they coÌ„teined citie countrie that is the people of citie countrie I desire to be informed from his owne mouth whether he meane those people onely that had already receyved the fayth or those also that were in time to be converted The former doth beste agree with that foundation layd by him in this defence chap. 2. sect 2. and 3. where he restreyneth as before is observed both the name and nature of a Church vnto a company of Christian people but so small a companie as at that time imbraced Christianity will fall farr short of his purpose not onely of concluding the Churches to be properly dioceses but also of inclosing within that whol flock or Church over which the Presbyters were made Byshops Act. 20. 28. the whole number of such as belonged to God in citie and countrie even those that should afterwards imbrace the faith as well as those that made present profession therof for so he vnderstandeth that scripture serm pag. 18. def pag. 66. and therefore inferreth serm pag. 19. that the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed to whole cities and countries annexed that they might both convert them feed them being converted as a litle after he saith were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the Countries adjoyninge which were converted or to be converted Which words doe clearely shewe that by the Cities Countries which at first he said were the Churches now he saith were conteined in the circuite of the Churches he meaneth all the 11. A contradiction in the Doct. understanding of the worde Church a childish errour people in generall and not those fewe onely that were already converted But in this construction of his words besides an apparant contradiction with himself in a maine principle of Christian doctrine which restraineth the name of a Church to a companie of Christian people he falleth into a childish error farre vnbeseeming a Doctor in divinitie in breaking downe that partition wall which all sound divines have set betwene the visible Churches of Christe and the invisible company of the electe not yet brought home vnto the faith For howsoever such as God appointed vnto life and intendeth in time to call are in his account members of his The D. assumption sensles absurd his defense of it much more invisible Church yet it is against coÌ„mon sense as well as the grouÌ„ds of true divinitie to reckon them for parts of the visible Church which as yet have had no manner of entrance into Christianity In this sense therefore which his sermon and the defence thereof aymeth at I reject his assumption as an absurd and sensles positioÌ„ And the defense which he tendreth is much more absurd when Sect. 17. he saith that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were few when there were many yea when all were Christians For vntill countrie townes were converted and subjected to the over sight of the
Bishop of the City adjoyninge how could they and their people be reputed parts of the Citie-Church or inclosed within her circuite Wherefore since it is confessed serm pag. 24. that Country townes remeined heathenish for a time after the conversion of the Citie it must be confessed also that the Churches circuite at the first did not inclose the Countrie villagies as it did afterwardes Notwithstanding to justify his former assertion he alleadgeth that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a fewe the same Bishop of the City having jurisdiction over all the Christians both in the City and the Country aswell when all were Christians as when but a fewe He would have said that the Bishops which succeeded some ages after in the same City had the same jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country when they were all converted to the faith which the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe in the City Country adjoyning that first yeelded obedience to the Gospell For he acknowledgeth Def. pag. 54. that it could scarce be verified in any place till Constantines time which was above 200. yeares after the Apostle Iohns daies that all the people of City Country were Christians But with what bands can the D. tie togither these parts of his reasoning with what hands can the Doct. tie togither the parts of his reasoning The Bishops in Constantines time and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first Apostolike Bishops had over those fewe that first imbraced Christianity Therefore the circuite of the Church was at the first when they were but fewe the same that it was after when all became Christians Is there not much more probability in this coÌ„sequence The Bishops in Constantines daies and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe which at first imbraced Christianity Ergo the circuite of the Church and Bishops charge was farr lesse whiles there were but a fewe then it was when all the people of City and Country were converted vnto the Christian faith Which of these two hath more probability I leave to the indifferent reader to judge Wherefore till the D. can make good the consequence of his reasoninge all the proofes which he braggeth of for the demonstration of his antecedent the ancientest of them being after the first 300. yeares as appeareth Def. pag. 36. c. doe give just occasion of returning into his owne boosome that definitive sentence which he delivereth against his opposites viz. that the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome since the Apostles times ought without coÌ„parison to prevayle with all men in perswading theÌ„ to acknowledge that every Churches circuite was much inlarged by the generall conversion of all in Cities and Countrey townes above the authority of a fewe self-conceited persons such as the D. and his associates not so singular for learninge as they are singular in opinion when they would make the world beleeve if they could that every Churches circuite was the same at first when but a fewe imbraced the faith that it was after wheÌ„ all the people of City Country were made members of one diocesan Church If the D. shall flie as to a Sanctuary â—o his former evasion viz. that the Châ—câ—â—â—uite contâ—ined at the first both City câ—uÌ„tâ—y in the inteÌ„tioÌ„ of the Apost or first founders I haue enough already said to drive him out of this starting hole unless he caÌ„ provide some better forfication to releeve himselfe in this behalfe But he supposeth that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumptioÌ„ by repairing the breaches which his Refuter had made in the reason which his sermon tendred in defence thereof His words are these whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith the 7. starres were the Angles of the 7. Sect. 18. ad sect 9. pag â—5 56. Churches it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the couâ—tries adjoyning From hence his Refuter drewe this connexive syllogisme answere p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth â—ut 9. and some of them mother cities then they were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the countries adjoyning But our Saiviour c. Ergo Now the D. misliking the frame of this argument referreth him to his former manner of arguing sect 2. pag. 42. 43. where he shewâ—th how this lyllogisme is to be framed and there we find a double proof layd downe in defence of his assumption as he hath now shaped it vz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuite the cities and countries adjoyning the which he affirmeth to be proved first joyntly thus if the 7. Churches within their circuite comprized all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries But the first is true for our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches â—n Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and contayning within their circuite all the rest Concerning the Doct. joyntly let us severally observe first that he concealeth his conclusion secondly that he departeth from the words laid downe in his sermon and thirdly that he followeth not his owne directions giuen for the reducing of an Enthymeme or connexive argument into a simple syllogisme 3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting 1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion the reason is apparant he concludeth not his assumption which is in questioÌ„ For his propositioÌ„ being such as it is vz. that if the 7. Churches comprized within theire circuite all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries his conclusion must be this none other that the 7. Churches did comprize within their circuite all the Churches that were both in the cities and countries of Asia a point farr differing from that which himselfe proposed to prove to wit that the 7. Churches within their circuite conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning that is as himselfe explaineth his owne meaning pag. 52. the circuite of every one of those 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and country adjoyning for the consequence of his proposition as he hath proposed it runneth more currant then it would if he had sayd as he should thus If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuite all the Churches in Asia then every of those 7. Churches conteyned in her circuite the whole citie with the country adjoyning For here a man might very wel deny the coÌ„sequent although he sawe better proof then the D. hath brought for the justifying of the Antecedent 2. But when departeth he froÌ„ the words of his sermon both in the antecedent
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâ—d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ— instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ„ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌ„mendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌ„mended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌ„mendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌ„tioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ„ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to â—â—vill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌ„dly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâ—es of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy such as other reformed Churches have restored then with a Monarchy which our diocesans holde The D. argumeÌ„t therefore may be thus retorted against him The Presidents of the auncient Apostolâ—k Presbyteries were no diocesan Byshops such as ours The Angels of the 7. Churches were the presidents of such Presbyteries Therefore they were no diocesan Byshops such as ours Or thus Diocesan Byshops such as ours are not presidents of such presbyteries as â—he ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaeÌ„ts of such Presbyteries Therfore they were no diocesan Byshops The assumption of both is the same that the D. maketh use of for a contrary conclusion The proposition of the former if it be denied wil be thus confirmed Diocesan Byshops such as ours doe governe monarchically by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbyterie as the ancient aposâ—olike Churches enjoyed But the presidents of those ancient Presbyteries did not governe monarchically or by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of theire Presbytery Those presidents therefore were no diocesan Bps such as ours Both parts of this argument are acknowledged by the D. for the assumption appeareth by that which he affirmeth in particular of Iames his presidencie lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all Byshops in former ages sâ—rm pag. 15. and dâ—f lib. 1. pag. 191. where he saith that in Churches causes nothing almost was done without the advice of the Presbyters and that their was great necessitie that the Byshop should use their advice and counsell because otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a lawe c. And touching the proposition as he intimateth serm pag. 97. and def lib. 4. pag. 102. the government of our Byshops to be monarchicall so he confesseth that Byshops now have not that assistance of Presbyters which the ancient Byshops had lib. 1. pag. 190. And this confirmeth also the truth of that other proposition of the later argument For if diocesan Byshops such as ours have not any such Presbyterie associated to them for advice and assistance in government then they are not presidents of such Presbyteries as the ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the former is an apparant truth and confâ—ssed by him serm pag. 16. 17. def lib. 1. pag. 190. where he saith that the assistance of those Seniours that directed the ancient Byshops is long since growne out of use Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedrall Churches be a resemblaÌ„ce of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189. since they have another president then called Archi-presbyter now Deane how can the Byshops of our daâ—es be their presidents vnlesse he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads But let us see the D. owne defence of his proposition before contradicted If sayth he the Refuter wil be 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 wil be manifest vz. that the presidents of the Presbyters provided for whole dioceses whoÌ„ the Fathers call Byshops were diocesan Byshops The argument is thus digested by himselfe in a connexive sylogisme pag. 122. If the Presbyteries were aloâ—ted to whole diocesâ—s and not to severall parishes theÌ„ the Bps. who were presideÌ„ts of those Presbyteries were not parâ—â—â—onal but D. But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption whose proofe is laide downe viz. chap. 4. I reserve to be handled hereafter now I refuse his conclusions for the weaknes that I find in the proposition if he speak as he ought of diocesan Byshops such as ours for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesaÌ„ as he supposeth the Apostolick Presbyteries were viz. to worke out their conversion cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church therefore cannot argue their president to be properly a diocesan Byshop Nay rather if it may appeare that the flock already converted was but one onely congregation of christians howsoever the Presbytery might be set to indeavour the conversioÌ„ of the rest of the diocese yet to speak properly there was a parishonall Byshop and not a diocesaÌ„ because the flock or congregatioÌ„ already converted was more like to a parish then to a diocese Yea say he coulde prove that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses that is for many particular congregations in each diocesâ— why might not their president be a parishionall Byshop in regard of his particular Church which he fedde with the word and Sacraments although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes For it is cleare that Mr. Beza of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Byshops he boasteth lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127. doth hold it as necessary that the president of the pastors of a diocese should have as the rest his particular parish to attende vpon as it is esteemed fit that a provinciall Byshop should be more specially interessed in the oversight of one diocese De Minist grad cap. 20. pag. 123. and cap. 4. pag 168. And such were in deed the first diocesan Byshops after parishes were multiplyed and Presbyters assigned to them the pastorall charge of the mother-Church the cheife Presbyter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to theÌ„ Neyther might he remove his seate from it to any other Church though within his own Diocese Concil Carthag 5. can 5. 3. If the D. shall here tell us as he doth lib. 2. p. 117. that the cathedrall Churches which were the Bishops seas Mother churches to the whole Diocese were never Parishes nor the meetings there parishionall but panigyricall it wil be but a frivolous exception in this place for there will still remayne a difference of that moment betwixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries our diocesans that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops of that kind that ours are For besides the forenoted disagrement that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling as they were by the D. owne confession the truth therevnto inforcing him lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158. to preach the word to administer the â—acraments in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick By this time therefore I hope the reader may see that although we should graunt the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses yet that will not warrant him to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops such as ours and consequently though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries he cannot necessarily inferre that they were diocesan Byshops like
L. nor what he hath done for Israel before they would be embraced As for the scripture proofes which are gathered by him the foundation or principall corner-stone 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 severall knock A labour not necessary were it not that the insolent confidence wherevvith they are avouched hath I knovv not how amazed and scared some vveak and fearfull mindes but for the better bringing both of him them to themselves againe that course is taken then which there is no shorter or directer For when the question is vvhat Church Bishop is Apostolicall the next vvay is to search the scriptures hear vvhat they say of themselves before vve regard what fathers or councels doe make them say D. Dovvname therefore hath no reason to take it unkindely which yet I knovv he vvill at his adversaries hand that he hath for evidence divided the house causing holy scriptures to goe 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 humane suffrages are shuffled togither in one the simple hearer perceiving a sound which seemes 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 stratageme the beggerly ceremonies which we borrowed of Papists have been lately mainteyned as Apostolical The methode therefore which this writer hath followed is for the readers good His answers are such as wil speak for themselves Onely this I may forespeak in their behalf that if they seem as in the former part I feare they will in the logicall termes and formes of reasoning to be over troublesom for the coÌ„moÌ„ reader the greatest part of that blame must rest vpon the defense which they were bound to follow For the defendant taking it too much in scorne that his logick wherein of all other thinges he would be thought to excel was somewhat impeached by his Refuters analysis be did so vehemently strive to maintaine that part of his credite that his Refuter was forced to give him that triall which such logicians trust to The studious reader will beare with this necessity and seek out the truth though it lie among thornes THE SECOND PART THE FIRST BOOK Chap. 1. Concerning the word Church handled by the Doct. in his Def. lib. 2. cap. â— sect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of the 2. point of his fermon viz. that the Apostolicall Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes IN the Doct. first section I find nothing but a vaine Sect. 1. ad â—ect 1. 2. D. floorish and therefore will overpasse it without answer In his second section he telleth us that at first he intended onely a light skirmish and therefore finding that his adversary brought a maine baâ—tell into the feild against him he thought good to bring in a new supplie before he put a new life into his former arguments to make them returne upon his Refuter a fresh And for asmuch as he was to intreate of Churches Parishes Dioceses he resolveth first to begin with the names that are diversly taken and first with the word Ecclesia which he telleth us is in all places of the new Testament excepâ—â—ng Act. 19. appropriated to the companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darknes conteyning many particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Satan the other the kingdome of God this later is called Ecclesia signifiing a company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the grâ— word importeth And so concludeth with his definition of a Church thus Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say more briefely thâ— Church doth signify a company of Christians To all which I for my part most willingly subscribe and from thence doe inferre that in the Doctors vnderstanding for the present the 7. Churches of Asia meant by the 7. candlesticks in his text were none other then so many companies of Christians called out of the world divided from all the companies of Infidels or Idolaters which were Satans Synagogues in any of the cities or townes of Asia And therefore he contradicteth the truth wherevnto he now beareth The D. coÌ„tradicteth the truth himself witnes when he indeavoureth to perswade pag. 36. 42. 54. that every of those 7 Churches conteyned in their circuite the whol citie couÌ„try adjoyning although the ChristiaÌ„s at that time were but a very few in coÌ„parison of heathen And that the church or flock which in those and other cities was coÌ„mitted to the care of the presbyters there ordeyned was not onely the number of Christians already converted but the whole number also of such as were in time to be converted Whereof we may see serm pag. 66. 69. and 88. As for the Doctors table following in the next page wherein he presenteth to his Reader in one viewe the diverse significations of the word Ecclesia reduced by him unto certaine heades his reader The D. table of ecclesia is erronious in some particulars hath reason to think that he is deceived in some particulars namely 1. in carrying Act. 2. 47. and Colos 1. 24. unto the catholike company of Gods elect which is the invisible Church For 1. all that were there and then Act. 2. called by the Ministery of the Apostles were called to a visible coÌ„munion and when their number was much increased so many of them as dwelt at Ierusalem remayned members of that Church as himselfe by and by acknowledgeth in referring unto it Act. 5. 11. 2. And why should we not take that Church whereof Paul was made a Minister Col. 1. 24 25. for the same unto which the rest of the Apostles were ordeyned 1. Cor. 12. 28. that is the catholike militant church as himselfe understandeth the later place 3. And to let passe his referring Act. 8. 3. to the whole militant Church dispersed whereas it appeareth to be meant of that Church of Ierusalem which was not yet scatterd abroad as vers 1. 3. 4. compared doâ— shewe it is 4. more to be wondered at that he should also carrie to the catholike militant church that of 1. Tim. 3. 15. seing he holdeth Timothie to be the Bishop of Ephesus affixed to it to live and diâ— there And 5. not to tell him how those two agree not wel togither how 2. contradictions in the Doct. will he accord his understanding Mat. 16. 18. of the militant part of the Church
with his owne interpretation p. 106. of this book where he taketh it for that vniversall congregation of Gods elect which is spoken of Ephes 1. 22. and 5. 25. 6. As for those places which he saith doe definitely signify a Church congregated into a Synode or Congregation though by the line which is drawne in his table they seeme to belong to the Church of a nation yet I guesse they should have bene referred rather to the Church of a citie or country adjoyning And if so then although he leave it doubtfull whether it were a set or vncerteyne congregation yet he plainely acknowledgeth that by these places Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 14. 23. is meant the Church of a citie and country adjoyning gathered into one congregation and then he forgetteth himselfe in construing those words otherwise pag. 104. 105. following Yea though a contradiction in the Doct. he should now carrie those places as the line draweth them to the Churches of an whole nation yet can he not escape the blame of an apparant contradiction in his understanding of Act. 14. 27 both places of his book compared besides a grosse oversight in making the Church spoken of Act. 11. 26. 1. Cor. 11. 18. c. to be farre more large then the church mentioned 1. Cor. 1. 2. Act. 13. 1. And 7. touching the places which he taketh to signifie indefinitely any company of Christians c. it is strange he should not see as definite a limitation of the place and nation or province in Act. 9. 31. 15. 41. 1. Thes 2. 14. as there is in the places forealleaged for the Churches of a nation Rom. 16. 4. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. And no lesse strange that he which could discerne a church definitely deciphered Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 14. 19. 34. 2. Cor. 8. 23. 1. Tim. 5. 16. 3. Ioh. 6. should not discerne asmuch in Act. 15. 3. 4. 18. 22. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 1. Tim. 3. 5. 3. Ioh. 9. 10. And 8. lastly since he referreth the word Churches Apoc. 2. 7. to the same signification that he given unto it ca. 1 4 11 20. viz. definitely to the church of a citie and countrie adjoyning how is it that so soon after he understandeth the same the like Apoc. 2. 7. 17. 23 29. c. indefinitely of any company a contradiction in the Doct. of Christians not defining the place or societie whether of nation or citie c And yet as if he had a dispensation to define what the Holy Ghost hath not defined hereafter he will tell us pag. 57. that by Churches in the conclusion of each epistle Apoc. 2. 7. 17. c. we may very well understand the particular Churches which were under the charge of every angell to whom the epistles are directed Thus much to his significations of the word Church froÌ„ which Sect. 2. to the Doct. 3. sect pag 6. 6. being so manifold as he saith he proceedeth to shew what is truely properly a Church upon earth And first he saith that by warrant of the word every company of men professing the faith of Christ is both truely a church also a true church But it is more then he can prove as shall appeare in the examination of some particulars following He addeth that as the whole company of the faithfull upon earth is the true Church and spouse of Christ so also the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any nation or part of the world is to be termed by the name of a Church The former I may grant him but touching the later I must ask what he meaneth by this phrase is to be termed doth it imply a necessity or onely a liberty and conveniency If the first what reason hath he to debarre us from reteyning the phrase of speach which himselfe confesseth in the former page to be usuall in the new Testament namely to call the Christians of an whole nation Churches in the plurall number If the later whence hath he his warrant since he hath not in all his table any one place which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to the faithfull of an whole nation save onely that of Act. 7. 38. which is spoken of the Iewish people whiles they were one congregation not yet divided into severall Synagogues or Church-assemblies vnder the guidance of Moses and Aaron in the wildernes But he argueth a pâ—ri in this manner The whole people of the Iewes profissing the true religioÌ„ were one Church though conteyning very many particular coÌ„gregations or Synagogues which were also so many Churches Even so the whole people of The D. reasoneth inconsequeÌ„tly from the Church of the Lewes to the Churches of the gentiles England professing through Gods mercie the true Catholike and Apostolike faith is to be called the Church of England The consequence hereof might be denied for why should the forme and constitution of the Iewish Church vnder the law be a more fit patterne for us to follow then that form of Church-constitution which was established vnder the Gospell for the Christians of all nations both Iewes Grecians Is there not more strength in this coÌ„sequence The Christians of an whole nation are every where in the new Testament called Churches no where by the name of a Church in the singular number as Churches of Asia Macedonia Galatia Iudea Galile and Samaria 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Thes 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Ergo the Christians which at this day professe the faith of Christ in England are rather to be termed the Churches then the Church of England especially seing the number of Churches or congregations is farre greater in all likelihood then the number of families was in any one nation in the Apostles times Notwithstanding if the Doctor can as he assaieth paralell the people of England with the Iewish nation in that which properly made theÌ„ as some think one church he might take more libertie to include them al vnder the name of the church of England To effect this vnto that which some alleadge viz. that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high-Preist who was a figure and therefore ceased the Doctor frameth a double answer 1. It is evident saith he that it was one Church because it was one people or coÌ„mon wealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high-Preist and after there were through corruption more then one 2. Neyther was the high-Preist a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence and government over the Preists people but in respect of his sacrifice intercession for the whole people c. To the first I reply as followeth 1. It is evident that the Christian Iewes in Iudea were one people or coÌ„moÌ„ wealth ruled by the same lawes
justifie an untruth an high preist of Aarons line Zach. 6 11 13. yet it were grosse ignorance in the groundes of divinitie from hence to inferre that therefore Christ might have bene a Preist after the order of Iehoshua or Aaron aswell as of Melchisedeck It is apparant then that the Doctor hath proposed both a weak consequence and a false antecedent to justify the untruth of his frivolous exception Thus have we seen what successe the Doctor hath had in his indeavour Sect. 4. to prove that the name of a Church in the singular number is to be given vnto the people of an whole nation professing the faith though divided into many thowsand particular Churches He proceedeth to tell us that likewise the Christian people of any Citie or country adjoyning whether that which we call a province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregatioÌ„s is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardis Philadelphis c. I confesse that this latter hath a like right and title to the name of a Church with the former to wit by the custome of speach humane ordinance subjecting the particular Churches of an whole countrie or nation to one Diocesan or Provinciall Bishop or to one nationall Synode But I deny that the scripture doth give any more allowance vnto the one then to the other I doubt not but his proofes for the later will be found as weak as the former To drawe his wordes before set downe into an orderly forme of reasoning they must run in this fashion or the like Such a company of Christians as answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the Scriptures is rightly termed a Church But the Christian people of any Citie Country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the scripture Therefore the Christian people of any Citie and country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese is rightly termed a Church Here the assumption is a meere begging of the question for he is The Doct. beggeth the questioÌ„ not ignorant as appeareth in the beginning of his 4. sect that they against whom he contendeth doe hold that the visible Churches instituted in the new testamâ— were none other then parish asseÌ„blies coÌ„teyning one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ yet he assumeth for graÌ„ted as if they were bound to take his word for sufficient warrant that the Christians of an whole diocese or province distributed into many severall congregations or parish assembles doe carrie the same Church-constitution with the first Apostolike Churches as of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. The contrary whereof may be gathered from his owne positions in his sermoÌ„ the defense thereof For he affirmeth and mainteyneth serm pag. 18. and 22. def â—ib 2. pag. 69. and 121. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times And as here in the next section pag 6 he acknowledgeth that at the first conversion of Cities the whole number of people converted were able to make but a small congregation so he granteth afterwards cap. 6. pag. 104. that the most of the Churches during the time of S. Paul did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation Yet in Pauls time they were perfectly constituted seing in his opinion they had many of them their Bishop their Presbyterie and Deacons which as now he saith pag 7. doe make an accomplished or fully constituted Church Wherefore still there remayneth this difference betweene our diocesan and provinciall Churches and those Apostolike Churches mencioned in the scriptures as the Church at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like that congregations or parish assemblies were not multiplied in them as now they are in ours so that the name of a Church given in the scripture to the one doth not prove that it may be also rightly allotted to the other But proceede we on the Doctor at length discendeth lower and Sect. 5. ad pag. 6. saith That in like manner the Christian people of any one towne or village conteyning but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a Church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And further that the company of faithfull in one familie doth deserve the name of a Church as hath bin shewed to wit in his table pag. 4. where he citeth for that purpose Rom. 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19. Colos 4. 15. Philem. 2. Adding that to make any particular Church of a whole nation citie and country towne parish or familie familie I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but an entire church or parish by it selfe to be a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Christian consisteth the Ministerie of the word and sacraments and eutaxie or some good order of government not that all governours are to be placed in every societie or church but that the effect and benefit of the government is to redound to every particular What shall the reader say to all this Doth not the considerate beholder hereof evidently see an hoâ—ch potch of some self-conceited fancies mingled with some The D. maketh an hotch potch truthes soundly grounded Of the later sort are these viz. that the name of a Church is given in the scripture both to the Christian people of one towne or village conteyning but one congregation and to the company of faithfull in one family 2. that that which we call a parish is such a company of Christian people as make but one congregation 3. and that the Church at Cenchrea was such a parish For though he speake here doubtfully with a perhaps yet afterwards he saith certeinly it was a parish pag. 104. following 4. And there is required besides the profession of the true faith the Ministery of the word and sacraments and some good order of government to make the Christians of any citie towne or family a true visible Church Of the former sort are these supposals â—cz 1. that the people of an whole nation and citie with country adjoyning may make one visible Church aswell as the company of one towne or familie 2. and that all Church government are not to be placed in every visible Church His meaning is as afterwards he sheweth that a Bishop and his presbyterie may not be had in every parish it sufficeth if they be seated in the citie and that particular parishes in citie and country doe partake the effect and benefit of their government Which he speaketh not because he findeth in the scripture any such difference between Churches seated in cities and those that were in smaller villages but because he would perswade the simple that will take his words for payment that there ought to be the like difference for
Church-governmeÌ„t which is for civill policie betweene cities and other villages Notwithstanding I deny not but it were as absurd to desire a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish that is to say such a Lord Bishop as ours are and such a Presbytery as are the Deane and Prebends of our cathedrall Churches as to require for every village a Major and Aldermen of that state that they beare at this day in the citie of London For wee may well say with Musculus in Mat. 9. 35 Deus bone quis ferret sumptus tot equitum reliquorum de comitatu episcoporum si nostri episcopi quales eos habemus episeopatus suos circuire cogerentur c. Who goeth on and sheweth how base and unfitting a thing it is for the great pomp and state of Bishops at this day to visite poore villages and how unable such places are to beare the charge of their expences in their visitations No merveile therefore if it be too great a but then for every parish to mainteyn an whole colledg of cathedrall Clercks togither with the retinew of the Lo. Bishop 3. But herein the Doct. deceiveth his reader in conveying into his The D. deceiveth his reader by a false conceit hart this false conceit that the state of the ancient Bishops their presbyterie was no lesse unfitting in regard of their pomp and charge for a countrie towne then their condition is that pretend to be their successors at this day Thus have we heard to what particulars he stretcheth the name Sect. 6. ad â—ect 4. pag. 6. 7. of a Church as it is used in the scriptures attend we now to his coÌ„clusion All this saith he I have the rather noted because some having first strongly coÌ„ceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish have haled the places of scripture where ECCLESIA is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit c whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleadged out of the scriptures I hope the indifferent reader will discerne by the answere alreadie made that the Doctor deserveth to be censured in The D. deserveth to be censured in his own terms his owne termes viz. that having first strongly conceited all the differing formes of visible Churches which are now in use scz nationall provinciall diocesan and parishionall to be lawfull hath haled the places of scripture where ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of his conceit whereas in very truth he cannot alleadge any one testimony out of the scripture which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to such a multitude of Christians distributed into many particular assemblies as we esteeme a nationall or provinciall or diocesan Church And as for parish assemblies which conteyne one congregation though he caÌ„ scarcely affoard us any one testimony yet it is already shewed that besides the Church of Cenchreae which he acknowledgeth to be a parish he graunteth that the most of the Churches in the greatest cities during Pauls time did not exceed a populous congregation And in his own table page 4. for a Church congregated into one congregation he giveth us all these scriptures Act. 11 26. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself 14 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 22. 14. 5. 12. 19. 23. 28. 34. 35. 3. Ioh. 6. which are so many testimonies to justify the congregations which we call parishes But we need not to goe further then to his words â—mediately following for in graunting that at the first conversion of cities the whole number of the people converted being sometimes not much greater then the number of presbyters placed amongst them were able to make but a small congregation he doth acknowledge every of the ancient Churches to have been at the first such as wee call parishes That which he addeth viz. that those Churches were in constituting and not fully constituted till their number being increased they had their Bishop or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons is but a renewing of his old suite or begging of The D. renueth his old suite oâ— begging the question if he understand by the Pastor or Bishop such a diocesan Prelate as he pleadeth for And yet if by constitution he meane that forme of a Church which maketh it properly a Diocese and not a Parish he overturneth the foundation whereon he first builded his diocesan Churches in his serm pag. 18. where he affirmeth the apostolike Churches to be Dioceses properly because the Presbyters first ordeyned when as yet they had no Bishop were trusted not onely with the feeding of those few already converted but also with the care of indeavoring the conversion of the rest both in citie and country therefore he applyeth to their Ministerie that comparision of a little leaven which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe now used in the wordes following to shewe what was the office of the Bishop and Presbytery Which point how true or false it is and how fit or unfit for his purpose shall have fitter occasion to shew in the answere to his 4. chapter and to the 6. section of his third where also I shall meet with that which followeth touching the intent of the Apostles in planting Churches in cities to wit that when parishes were multiplied as was fit and necessarie upon the increase of Christians in the cities and countries adjoyning they should all remaine under the governmeÌ„t of one Bishop or superintendent seated in each citie Meane while the reader may see that the Doctor hath little cause to boast of his conquest before he hath put on his harnesse for the conflict Wherefore he but bloweth the trumpet of insolent vanitie when he faith avain blast of the D. that all the disciplinarians to the world shall never be able to shew that there were or ought to have bene after the division of parishes any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for an whole Diocese He should remember that he being the opponent in this controversie the burthen of proving lieth on his shoulders and therefore it had bene his part to have demonstrated from the scripture that which he affirmeth touching the intent of the Apostles in the first constituting of churches for one testimony from holy writ to shewe that they intended and ordeyned that the citie Church should spred her wings over the whole diocese and cover vnder the shadow thereof all the people after their conversion and distribution into many parishes writings to justify this assertion will easily draw us to acknowledg that diocesan Churches were instituted by the Apostles But til this be done though he write ten volumes more and each of them ten times greater then this yet he shall never be albe to convince the coÌ„science of his indifferent reader in the point which he vndertaketh to prove to wit that the Apostolicall Churches were properly and if not actually yet at least intentionally dioceses
conversion of the residue eyther in citie or countrey For howsoever we deny not but that it belonged to them both as Christians to use all opportunity of winning to the faith as Ministers to preach to the heaeÌ„ also if they were present in their coÌ„gregatioÌ„s yet it was their office to attend on the flock whereof the holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. And not like Apostles or Evangelists to imploy themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians By these fewe words saith the Doctor the deep wisdome of the parish disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a fewe converted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted c. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set was onely that number of Christians already converted c. 3. that their proper office was to attend them onely which were already converted and not to labour the conversion of the rest c. The last of these I confesse is plainly averred by the Refuter and the second by consequence implyed But the first hath no shadowe of any foundation in his words so that the Doctor his deep wisdome hath drawne it I suppose out of his owne drowsy imagination And yet if it be an erronious conceit why bendeth he not the stroak of some one reason or other against it Yea how will the D. free himself from error seing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer that doth more savour of that conceit then these words of the Doct. Def. pag. 54. that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were fewe and when there were many yea when all were Christians and those in his sermon pag 25. that vpon the division of parishes there happened no alteratioÌ„ to the state of the Bishop 2. Moreover if the second be an errour whose hand is deepest in it whether the Refuter who alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers or the Doctor who citeâ—h the same scripture serm pag. 18. to justify this speach that the Presbyters were to attend the flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments Very likely then he supposed it to be a truth A contradiction in the Doct. that the flock over which they were set was onely that number of Christians which were already converted And he had good reason so to judge because that flock onely was the visible Church which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus But now he seeth it is an error so to conceive because our Saviour calleâ—h the elect not converted his sheep Ioh. 10. 16. and the L. in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet converted As if men could give or take the charge of such a flock or people as they neyther know nor could be taught to discerne by any notes that come within their vnderstanding because the Lord who knoweth all that he hath chosen and appointed in time to call and to whose cies things to come are as manifest as things preseÌ„t doth entitle his elect though yet vnborn or at least vnconverted by the name of his sheep or his people 3. As touching the third point the Refuter hath plainely discovered his judgment how farre he granteth it and in what respect he denieth it to be the dutie of Presbyters to labour the conversioÌ„ of Infidels For besides the coÌ„mon dutie of Christians to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith they are as he faith to preach vnto them if they will come into their assemblies but to imploy their labour in traveiling to and fro in any countrie or diocese to preach vnto them where they find any concourse of people this he denyeth to be any part of the Presbyteriall function and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle or Evangelist Which plaine dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor by shewing how in what course holdeth it their dutie to labour the conversion of infidels whether by the like traveil and imployment that the Apostles Evangelists vndertooke in places where the gospell had not yet any entrance or whether in any other fashion that the Ref apprehended not But he I will not say craftily concealeth from his Reader the parts of his Refuters distinction and as if he had simply denyed them any way to labour the conversion of any that were allenated from the faith he resteth on this trifling replie as though saith he the Apostles intended by their Ministery the conversion and salvation of no more but those few that were at first converted And then for the better manifestation of their wisdome he should have sayd of his owne inhability to make good his assertion he opposeth them with a fewe questions which yet are more then needed but let us heare them they are these 1. Whether the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were not Ministers of the word 2. whether they were not many in some places more in some fiwer yea sometimes as many as those who were before converted Act. 19. 6. 3. whether they being many were onely to attend that smal number of converts 4. whether the Apostles in ordeyning many intended not the conversion of more then those few 5. whether it was not their office to labour their conversion 6. If not how they were to be converted 7. Nay if they did not labour how were they converted Of these 7. the. 3. 4. and 5. might have been spared seing they are already answered viz. that the conversion of citie countrie did not belong to their office as any proper work thereof and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordeyning them otherwise then is before expressed The rest also might have been overpassed since he knoweth his Refuters mind therein save that he would closely intimate vnto his Reader as it seemeth two arguments to justify his owne assertion for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner The Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were all Ministers of the word and were many in each Church yea in some places as many as those that were besides converted wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their Ministerie to convert the rest and that it was a duty proper to their office to labour their conversio How true it is which in the first place he avoucheth I will not here debate it belongeth to another treatise the later part of his Antecedent importeth that the Apostles ordeyned many Ministers for each Church though the number of converts were so small that in some places it scarce exceeded the number of Presbyters A matter so unlikely that if the consequent annexed must hang in
us to acknowledge that all the people which in an whole citie countrie belonged to God as being ordeyned to life and in time to be converted were to be reckoned one parish For it is flatly denyed that they did before their conversion belong vnto any parish or visible Church at all And it is a blind fancie in the Doctor to think that because they belonged to God in his election therefore they belonged to the Citie-church for how should they be members of any visible Church or congregation which yet were drowned in atheisme and insidelitie yet as if he had sufficiently fortified the proposition or consequence of his owne argument he leaveth it indeavoreth to take from his Refuter the ground where on he standeth in contradicting his conclusion for he seemeth to grant that at the first all the Christians in the Citie and Countrie being assembled togither could make but a small congregation but he demandeth how they could be of one parish before there was any parish at all doe you not see the Doctor is wise enough to make his bargaine well for his own advantage when he hath a foole in hand that will give him all that he asketh for in effect he saith grant me The Doct. beggeth but thus much that there was not any parish at all in the Apostles times and then I can justify my deniall of your consequence when you thus reason that all the Christians in one citie the countrie adjoyning at the first were but as one parish because they were but a small congregation when they were all gathered togither His last refuge is to tell us he hath before proved that the circuite of the Church and of the Bishop or Presbyteries charge was the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were converted but this discovereth the nakednes of his cause that inforceth him to lay hold on so bare a covering as I have shewed this to be in the answer to his third Chapter and 6. section We have seen how weak his staies are whereon his proposition Sect. 3. leaneth but for his assuption he provideth much more weakely It is that saith he which the Refuter himselfe boldeth But this defense say I is such as the Doctor himselfe contradicteth pag 74. The Doct. coÌ„tradicteth himself and proveth to be a soule vntruth delivered not of ignorance but against the light of his owne conscience For there he acknowledgeth that in his assumptioÌ„ the Refuter findeth one error repeated which was before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination chargeth also the maine points in it to be altogither void of truth But let us heare what it is which he saith his Refuter holdeth Forsooth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostlestimes Wel but can he froÌ„ hence conclude that his Refuter joyneth with him in his whole assumption Nay rather we may see a threefold trick A 3. folde tricke of cunning in the D. of cunning in the Doctor namely in changing the first braunch of his assumption in justifying it by his Refuters allowance and in concealing the other parts of his assumption 1. he changeth the first braunch because he could neyther challenge any allowance of it from his Refuter nor yet yeild any sufficient reasoÌ„ to justify it against him in that sense that he taketh parishes in this controversy For he knoweth that his Opposites define a parish to be a particular ordinarie or set congregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God see pag. 4. of his sermoÌ„ And that his Refuter holdeth the ancient Churches to be parishes because although their multitude were great in some places yet each of them was one distinct assemblie guided in ecclesiasticall matters by their owne Presbyters see answer pag. 58. and this Defense lib. 2. p. 74. Wherefore to say that there were no such parishes distinguished in the Apostles times is all one as to deny that in their times there were any distinct congregations or assemblies which ordinarilie if they were not by sufficient causes hindred for this exception himself taketh notice of Def. pag. 83. assembled togither in one place to the solemne service of God c. he thought it wisdome therefore to let goe this point and to tender another in stead thereof which might passe without controlment viz. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into severall parishes But this argueth against rather then for the D forseing Churches which are not divided into severall parishes or titles and cures for these are one and the same in the Doctors phrase of speaking doe make but one ordinary congregation of Christians they must needs be parishes to the Refuters vnderstanding yea to the Doct. also as he delivereth the state of the questioÌ„ serm pag. 4. 2. But why doth he relie for the proofe of his owne assertion upon his Refuters approbation Is it not because in his owne judgment there is no generall truth in it which may appeare by his own exception for in excepting the church of AlexaÌ„dria he much weakeneth not onely his assuptioÌ„ but his whole argument For if his study for this defense hath brought him to know what he knew not when he made the sermon as he acknowledgeth pa. 93. to wit that parishes were distinguished in Alexandria long before Euaristus his dayes whom he supposed to have been the first author of that ordinance why may not his traveile for the next bring him to find out some better evidence then he hath yet atteined to for the like distribution made in some other Churches yea he hath already told us pag 50. that it is more then probable that the 7. Churches of Asia at the time of writing the Revelation conteyned diverse congregations see for this point also sect 14. And among other reasons to make good that probability he observeth that besides the Churches and Presbyters that Paul Petâ—r had setled in Asia S. Iohn also preached the gospell in those parts for many yeares ordeyned Bishops and Presbyters where need was But if there be any truth in that which his argument presupposeth to wit that in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appoiÌ„red to parishes because there was not in any church many parishesin their daies why then should there not be some probability sufficient atleast to weaken the consequence of his argument in the contrary assertion viz. that some Presbyteries might be appointed unto Parishes seing some Churches as that of Alexandria for certaintie and those 7 in Asia in very great probabilitie were even in the Apostles times distinguished into several parishes 3. As for the rest of the branches of his Assumption when he should make proofe of them he wholly silenceth them not of ignorance or forgetfulnes but of purpose because he found it easier to wrangle with his Refuter
about some parts of his answer then to propose any sound argument for the justifying of the points impugned which is in deed the perpetuall course of this great disputer for the most part But let us see whether he hath so just cause as he suppofeth to Sect. 4. insult over his Refuter when he saith to let passe his scoffs more fit for a vice in a play then a Doctor of divinitie in re tam seria as this is that his Refuter wrangleth as a man confounded yet resolved to coÌ„ntradict though against the light of his conscience denieth the conclusion coÌ„tradicteth himselfe The contradiction objected will come to be examined in his defense of the Assumption All that is sayd to weaken the consequence or proposition he taketh to be but a bare deniall of the conclusion And first he so conceiveth of his quaestion what if every one of the Churches then were but one parish c. because he cannot see how it impugneth the consequence in any respect But had he had so much charitie towards his Refuter as he would have yeelded to himselfe he might have supplied that which the state of the question and the scope of his answer requireth to be necessarily understood q. d. what if though that were granted which he supposeth every one of the Churches then were but one parish which by reasoÌ„ of the multitude of people had many Teachers so he might have seen that he impugneth his consequence so farre as it inferreth that the Presbyteries were not appointed unto parishes and that therfore he both wrongeth him to say that in that respect he giveth it no answer at all and sporteth himselfe in vaine with the hope of a victorie that turneth to his ruine For his quaestion rightly conceived as before is shewed doth in plaine phrase of speaking import thus much q. d. Be it granted that parishes in the Apostles times were not distinguished in any citie and the country nere adjoyning nor presbyters assigned to their severall cures this nothing hindreth but that every one of the Churches which by their ordination injoyed a presbyterie or companie of teachers might be one parish that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place And that which is added touching the French Dutch Churches serveth not to prove the maine conclusion as the Doctor supposeth therein mistaking his Refuters Analysis but to justify the deniall of the consequence by a paralel comparing those outlandish churches here in England with the ancient Apostolike Churches in this manner It is well knowne that the French and Dutch Churches here in England have first a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them 2. no parishes distinguished in any citie for them 3. nor presbyters so assigned to their several cures as our parish Ministers are Be it also graunted that the Apostolike Churches in cities had the like yet the French and Dutch Churches are neyther doth the want of distinct parishes and presbyters assigned to their severall cures hinder their being each of them one parishionall not a diocesan assembly that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place Why then might not those Apostolike Churches be yea how should the want of distinct parishes c. hinder their like being If the Doctor will needs have the comparison brought into a syllogism it may be thus framed What hindreth not the French Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly that cannot binder the Apostolicke Churches which in Cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly The want of distinct parishes and presbyters so assigned to their severall Cures as our parish-Ministers are doth not hinder the French or Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly Therefore the like want cannot hinder the Apostolike Churches which in cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly As for his cavils agianst his owne Argument framed I will not Sect. 5. say for the nonce to cavill withall but vpon a mistake of his Refuters meaning though I might passe by them as not directly touching any part of the argument before contrived yet because they contradict some pointers implied in the comparison I will remove them out of the way least any one should stomble at them First therefore whereas he hunteth after some differences between the Apostolike Churches and the French or Dutch Churches here in England thereby to shew that they are not of like condition as the Refuters comparison importeth I answer 1. the Doctor cannot be ignorant that comparisons are not to be racked beyond the purpose of the Author that produceth them neyther is he so simple but that he may see his Refuter principally intended herein to compare the Apostolike Churches with the FreÌ„ch and Dutch Churches that as the later have so also the former had by reason of the multitude of people many teachers to attend theÌ„ and yet remayned one Church assembly not distributed into severall congregations vnder severall Ministers Herein therefore if the comparison holde as himselfe confefseth and argueth for his advantage pag. 74. 75. all the differences that he alledgeth were they as many moe as they are cannot contradict or infringe the truth of the Refuters speach when he saith doe you not see the like in the French and Dutch churches here in England 2. But what are the dissagreements which he hath found out For the most part such as are now questioned concerning the Apostolike Churches for he saith Their Presbyterie consisteth for the most part of Lay-men placed among us not with purpose to convert either the Ciâ—â—â— or countâ—â—â— to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrary wise the Churches in the Apostles times had a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leaven is put into the lump with purpose to convert the reâ—â— both in Ciâ—â—â— and Countrie As if he would argue that they agree not in the points assumed by the Refuter for his purpose because they answere not his expectation in the particulars which his imagination ascribeth though his arguments cannot conveigh them to the Apostolike Churches As for that other difference viz. that the French Church in London is but one among many prosessing the same religion whereas the Apostolike Churches were not so before the division oâ— parishâ—â— but planted among heathen peo-ple though he make it a chiefe one yet is it srivolous and of no value The Doct. pulleth downe with the one hand what he fetteth up with the other especially seing himselfe pag. 72. compareth the French Churches here with those ancient Christians who dwelt in Cities replenished with men of another saith
distinct parishes in the Apostles times doe argue that there were no dioceses doth it necessarily argue also that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to dioceses But the Doctor we see is a man of that courage that though he foresâ—e he cannot long escape his adversaries The D. â—â—â—eth from one starting hole to another till he be shut out of all hands yet he will fly from one starting hole to another till he be shut out of all For he telleth us his consequence is this If there were no parishes then the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but he knoweth I need not tell him that that is not all he should have added but â—o dioceses And for us it sufficeth if one part of his consequence be overthrowne for the other will fall of it selfe afterwardes Againe I must tell him that howsoever his consequeÌ„ce as he hath now with his detraction proposed it may seeme in vincible yet himselfe such is his happ hath shewed us a way how to crush it For if the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times will argue as is afore shewed that the presbyteries were not appointed to dioceses then it will also argue that they were appointed to parishes for he must confess vnless he will confess himselfe to be ignorant in logick as he saith lib. 1. pag. 60. that in this controversy this diâ—â—unction is implyed 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 proofe of our parishes The which the Doctor as it seemeth foreseeing falleth vpon the examination of the argument which runneth thus If there were no parishes distinguished in the Apostles times then Sect. 1. there were no dioceses such as ours for every such diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes But in the Apostles times there were no parishes distinguished Therefore neither were there any dioceses in their daies such as ours are How necessary this clause dioceses such as ours is I have shewed heretofore because Bishops such as ours cannot be had without dioceses such as ours And here it maketh the consequence of the argument as cleare as the Sun in a cleare summers day Yet the Doct. denieth it because he imagineth that the diocese was the same and the circuit of the spirituall jurisdiction intended the same before parishes were divided with that it was after they were divided that is answerable to the civil but that is coleworts more then thrice sodden the falshood and vanity of which evasion is already sufficiently discovered in the answere to his 3. cap. sect 6. 8. It shall here suffice in one word to remember him of this that his owne wordes doe convince that the want of parishes distinguished argueth there were no dioceses such as ours which in execution and not intention onely comprize all the inhabitants of City and Country I might put him in minde of another difference betwixt our and the ancient dioceses which in circuite as he saith answered to the civill seing ours doe not so for some of them conteyn many shires within their circuite and sundry shires are dismembred by the spirituall jurisdiction which draweth them to severall dioceses But let us see how he removeth the piller that vpholdeth the consequence of the argument viz. that every diocese such as ours consistech of distinct parishes It is true saith he after the distinction of parishes but not before But is not this answere miserune An absurb evasion kersphogeton an absurd evasion and no better then a very denyall of the conclusion For to borrow the Doctors comparisions before applied to the question of dioceses and their circuit pag. 53. when he saith that every man consisteth of soul and body and the body consisteth of many members if one should answere him It is true that a man consisteth of those parts after the conjunction but not before and the body hath many members after the distinction of the members but not before would he not censure him for an absurd caviller and his answere for a poore evasion of one that is at a non-plus yet such and none other is the Doctors answer And. 2. that it may appeare to what purpose his answer serveth I will here frame the argument that fortifieth the consequence before denied and leave it to the readers judgment to give sentence betwixt the Doctor and the Refuter in this cafe Whatsoever consisteth of distinct parishes that cannot have his being or subsistence before parishes were distinguished But every Diocese such as ours consisteth of distinct Parishes No Diocese therefore such as ours can have any being or subsistence before there be a distinction of Parishes Now to answer as he doth that the assumption is true after parishes were distinguished but not before is it not all one in effect as if he had sayde that there may be and were dioceses before there there were any parishes so that vnder a pretence of contradicting the assumption with a frivolous distinction he doth in deed as a man amazed or rather confounded deny the conclusion As for the comparisions borrowed by him to justify his answer Sect. 9. they fall farre short of his purpose First he saith a batch of bread consisteth of many loaves after the distinction which before it conteyned undistinguished in the lumpe But he must remember that a Diocese doth so consist of many parishes as a Province doth of many dioceses and a Patriatchship of many provinces Wherefore as he confesseth that Metropolitan Bishops and Patriarcks and consequently provinciall and patriarchall Churches grewe followed th' one upon the combination of Dioceses and the other vpon the consociation of Provinces lib. 4. pag. 7 so his Refuter holdeth that these Diocesan Churches and Bishops had their originall from the conjunction of many particular congregations subjected to one Diocesan consistorie And it is evident so to be in asmuch as the first Churches planted in cities by the Apostles were for a while as the Doctor himselfe confesseth pag. 6. and 103. but a small congregation and when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinarie congregation the congregations were divided still as people in divers places were converted the Churches as he also acknowledgeth pag. 67. were multiplied so that the many parishes which grewe up in a diocese were not all distinguished at once as the loaves of one Bach are after the seasoning of the whole lump And therefore neither were they all coÌ„teyned within the bowels of the citie-citie-church undistiguished as the loaves are in the lumpe before their division but rather as the first constituted Churches consisted of diverse families but by the combyning of many christian families in one ecclesiasticall assembly so also they became in process of time diocesan and provinciall Churches not by reteyning all the Christians of an whole diocese or province in one confused lump till
Dioceses But however the D. may at his pleasure wholly leave out the age following or wander for his proofes beyond that coÌ„passe to Constantines daies and the ages following his time yet his Refuter must be bound to the stake precisely to conclude that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times but also in the age following Parishes properly not Diocesâ—s Yea even then when he discerneth pag. 100 that two rancks of Instances are produced to prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth the former taken out of the scriptures the later out of the fathers he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200 years A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude then by direct answer to infringe that which is objected But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall of multiplying of parishes in cities of combyning many congregations in one diocesan body I will therefore with the Doct. leave first take a view of that which is objected answered touching the state of the Churches which were of greatest note in the Apostles times To begin then with the objection which himself propoundeth Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem pag 79. his purpose was to contradict not the maine question though he so affirmed but the conclusion of his 2. last argumeÌ„ts which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64. And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question to make it more strong for his advantage I will apply it to the point whereat he aymeth with a supply onely of those words which are by him suppressed yet necessarie to be added The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles togither with the presideÌ„ts of the Presbyteries were assigned each of them but to one particular ordiâ—â—try congregation assembling togither in one place Therefore they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese To the consequent I add these words but for a parish to make the contradiction the more full because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses And for the same cause I also add to the Anâ—ecedent these words ordâ—yned by the Apostles The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place is a parish and not a diocese Therefore what is provided but for one such congregation the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese This latter connexion cannot be impugned The consequent or conclusion is the proposition which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthymem The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their assertion against whom he disputeth serm pag. 4. and in affirming here def pag. 79. that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof Onely he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition when he saith that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations For saith he iâ— proposition have no better hypotheses to support it I may deny it seing I have proved before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes But I answere that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth I need not seek any new propp to uphold it it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter sect 9. where he may if he shut not his eyes see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning that the Apostolike Churches before the division of parishes in the city Country annexed could not any otherwise be properly dioceses then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man before his body have the distinct members so that to returne him his owne phrase the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned viz. that the presbyteries and their presidents ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned each of them but to one particular ordinarie congregation assebling togither in one place the Doctor hath no cause to blame us though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument which he framed for us for I suppose none of our side were so foolish as to deliver for the proof thereof that assertion which he tendreth to us to wit that in the first 200. yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one such congregation Wherefore till he produce his Authour from whom he received this argument I will pray leave to think he forged it for his owne advantage that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much to wit that all the members of those Churches wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place Against which proposition rightly vnderstood of the time when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination I find no just exception taken eyther in his sermoÌ„ or this defense seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes to the age following whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his mayne conclusion Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was at the time of giving presbyteries to them if we say they exceeded not one congregation is it not a frivolous cavill to answere that they farre exceeded the proportion of one congregation in the next age following and the later part thereof It is apparant therefore that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares in the age following the Apostles were inserted into this question by the Doctor both here and afterwards pa. 100 onely to give him some colour of a just exception against his Refuters reasoning and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times to the ages following But let us see how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect 4. 2d 79. 80. selfe in this Enthymem In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled
in one place Therefore both the presbyterie and the president thereof were assigned but to one congregation First he denieth the consequence vpon this ground that the Presbyters were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the countries adjoyning and in both aswell to labour the conversion of the rest as to take charge of them that were already converted Which being nothing but a repetition of that he before affirmed nakedly and without any proofe his refuter thought it enough to tell him that in asmuch as he hath before shewed his answere to be false the consequence will remain good notwithstanding And since he now boasteth that he hath proved his Refuters affertioÌ„ opposed against his answere viz. that it was no part of the presbyters proper dutie to labour the conversion of the unconverted throughout the citie and country adjoyning to be an indigested fancie of shallow if not giddâ—â— beades thaâ— see no further then their nose-end if the reader please to look back to that alreadie layd downe cap. 2. of this reply sect 7. 8. c. he â—lay perceive that the Doctor is very nose wise and his Phan tasia being bewitched with the sweet smell of the prelacie hath fathered on the Apostles such an intent in the placing of Presbyters in cities as never was discovered eyther to his care by any ancient tradition or to his eye in any monuments of antiquitie Wherfore his censure passed against his Refuter more properly belongeth to himselfe viz. that he slubbereth over the proofe of his owne arguments as having a better faculty in denying consequences then in proving any of the premisses whereon his cause relieth yet as if his dreames were Oracles he saith and indeed onely saith it for proofe he can yeild none that the ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles instent as he expoundeth it He addeth when all both in citie and countrie were converted to the profession of the faith which could scarcesly be verified of any citie country for 300 yeares after the Apostles began to place Presbyters in Cities I meane till constantines daies as the Doctor observeth pag 54 they acknowledged the generally care and inspection over them all to belong to that one Bishop of the citie and themselves to be part of that Church and therefore concludeth that the consequence of the former Enthymem will never be made good But the Reader may see how the D. is deceived in imagining that the former consequence is beaten downe by the strength of this last if he will take notice of that which he now assumeth contrived for his best advantage to conclude his purpose in forme of argument to this effect All that acknowledged themselves after their conversion to be part of the City Church and so belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that citie they all I say were a part of that Church from the beginning orat least a part of the charge of the Bishop and Presbytery first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that city But all the Inhabitants of the City Country after their coÌ„versioÌ„ to the faith acknowledged themselves to be part of the City Church and to belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that City Ergo all the Inhabitants of citie and countrie were a part of that Church from the beginning or at least a part of the charge of the bishop and Presbyterie first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that citie And consequently though it should be granted that in the first 200 yeares all the ChristiaÌ„s of any one great citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place yet it followeth not that the Presbyterie president thereof were assigned but to one congregation If he can make any better use of his assumption for any other conclusion that may be more for his advantage good leave have he to follow his owne way meane while I deny the proposition wherein as we take it the strength of his reasoning lieth wish him to behold the weaknes thereof in this argument following All that acknowledged themselwes after their conversion to be partes of any citie Church c. were from the beginning partes of that Church c. But all the people which inhabited the severall dioceses of any province as soon as they were converted to the faith notwithstaÌ„ding they enjoyed their own Bishops to governe them yet they acknowledged themselves to be parts of the metropolitane Church seated in that cheife citie the Bishop therof to be their primate or head All the people therefore which inhabited the severall dioceses of any Province were from the beginning parts of the Metropolitane Church or at least parts of the charge of the Bishop and Presbyterie seated in the mother citie And consequently the Churches and Bishops of Mother cities were in their first foundation properly provinciall and not diocesan onely The assumption of this Syllogisme is the same with that which the D. avoucheth lib. 2. p. 113. lin 25. 29. But the conclusion with the coÌ„sequent annexed crosseth that which he affirmeth pag. 20. 1. 3. and 21. 1. 1 which contradiction if he will avoid he must disclaime the proposition so acknowledge that he trusted to a broken reed when he perswaded his owne heart that the subjection which the inhabitants of an whole diocese yeilded in the 4. age after Christ to the citie-Church and the Bishop thereof could argue invinciblie that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 300 yeares before were provided aswell for the vncoÌ„verted as for those already brought to the faith As for the Antecedent of the former Enthymem which he rejecteth Sect. 5. ad pag. 81. with much disdeine but with little shew of reason to him that weigheth the matter because it belongeth to another question as is before noted I referre the handling of it to another place for the present it shall suffice to discharge the Refuter from those calumniations which the D. throweth on him for exchanging it with this Assertion All the Christians in any great citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place I mislike not saith the Doctor his addition of the townes about so he wil be pleased not to forget to take them into the defense of his Antecedent If he wil be pleased say I to take the Antecedent so and in such sense as it is tendred to him let him never think his Refuter will shrink from the defense thereof But the Doctor is timorous and feareth to be circumvented with the inclosure of that parenthesis unlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes and therefore he would faine have it to be removed or rather the word although to be set in stead of unlesse where we may see the old proverb verefied in him give him an inche and he will
he mainteyneth touching Timothy their Bishop in his account serm pag. 79. and 80. and Def. lib. 4. pag. 90. viz. that he was not ordeyned Bishop till after Pauls deliverance from his imprisonment at Rome And if the rest of the churches which were then in Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. stood in any subordination to Ephesus as the Mother-Church of the whole nation why should not Ephesus have some note of principality given vnto it above the rest of the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. and 2 But himselfe reckoneth them all alike principall lib. 2. pag. 43. lin 2. at the least equalleth 4. other with Ephesus in the dignity of Mother-cities pâ— 63. following Thirdly concerning the Church at Antioch rather then the D. will acknowledge that the people therof assembled togither in one Sect. 7. 2d pag. 105. place which the Refuter gathereth from Acts. 14. 27. he indeavoureth to elude the testimony by a frivolous evasion that hath no appearance of truth It is apparant saith he that not all the Church consisting of busbandes and wyues their children and servants but some of the cheese and principall perhaps not many perhaps not any besides those of the clergie were called to that meeting Thus he saith but why doth he not acquaint us with the reasons that made this apparant to his senses doth he think still to win credit by his bare word when Paul and Barnabas were by imposition of hands commended to the grace of God for that work which they had now fulfilled will he say that the laity for the greater part or at least wives children and servants were excluded from the Leiturgie fasting and prayers which were then performed Act. 13. 2. 3 doth not himselfe acknowledge the Leiturgie to be the publique service of God in the congregation serm of the dig and duty of the Ministers pag. 25. lin penult Is it not the judgment of the sound divines leitourgein significat saith Aretius upon that place talieta ergazein publica obire muniâ— Collectaerat eccliaÌ„ saith Zanchius de oper redempt pag. 714. quta Lucas ait lcitourgoâ—ntoon autoon If theÌ„ the whole body of that Church without exception of age sex or outward estate joyned in prayer and fasting when they were separated to the work shall we think they disdeyned to assemble the whole or made speciall choise of few when they gathered the Church togither to relate vnto them what God had wrought by their Ministery Is it not safest most consonant to the rules of sound interpreting the text to vnderstaÌ„d by the church here the multitude and not the cleâ—gie onely or some few principall men seing in another case not long after it is expressely sayd that they which were sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioche from the Synode at Ireusalcm sunagago ntes to pâ—thos having gathered togither the multitude delivered the â—pistle y 2 the D. himselfe quoteth both this text Acts. 14. 27. and those before handled touching the Corinthian Church 1. Cor. 11. 18. 23 as signifying the Church of a citie and countrie adjoyning coÌ„gregated into a congregation pag 4. of this book Wherefore it is apparant that in coâ—tradicting his Refuters proofes from the scriptures he doth but labour to obscure the light which himselfe discerneth well enough but is loth that others should apprehend His other testimonies are out of Eusebius Ignatius and some Sect. 8. 2d pag. 105. sect 4. of our owne writers as the D. saith of all which this is his grave censure in generall That they are soarce worth the mencioning yet he doth his best to wrest them out of his Refuters hands let us see how well he doth it First out of Eusebius it is observed that he ealleth the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch paroikias that is parishes And because the D. had inserted serm pag. 4. and 26. something to perswade that Eusebius and others take the word in a larger sense to wit for the whole diocese or at least for citie and suburbs though conteyning many particular parishes to make it appeare that Eusebius taketh the word as we doe for one particular congregation of Christians he urgeth that phrase which he asketh concerning Timothees Bishoprick which he saith was of the parish in Ephesus Now it were saith the Refuter a strange kinde of spÌ„ach â—r Eusebius to terme the Diocese or the whole citie and suburbs of Ephesus the parish of Ephesus for who would say the parish in London for the Diosese of the Bishop of London seing the whole citie is not the tenth part of the Diocise And addeth that as Eusebius calleth the Church of Ephesus one parish in Ephesus so when he speaketh of the Christians in a Province he calleth their seuerall companies assembling togither in one place Parishes or Churches as of Creete Pontus c. lib. 3. ca. 4. lib. 4. cap. 22. To all which the Doctor maketh a slight answere first referring us to that which he hath before spoken touching the ancient use of the word paroikia cap. 1. pag. 11. where there is not one word that eyther taketh notice of the maine objection touching the parith in Ephesus or giveth any colour of answer to it therefore he addeth that Eusebius as he used the proposition en so sometimes kata to the same purpose the which is false and hath nothing to cover the naked falshood of it Vnto Ignatius who witnesseth that the Church of Ephesus in his time came togither ipi to auto into one place he giveth the like answere to that which is refuted before touching the words 1. Cor. 11. 18. 20. viz. that the faubsull in London may be in like manner exhorted though they be diuided into many congregations to come ofc togither into one place But he that should so write would be thought to speak very iproperly obscurely seing it is impossible they should all meet togither in one place for the publique 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 froÌ„ the Doctor for popupletheia is nothing else but polu plethos a great multitude and therefore argueth not many congregations but rather one great assembly But goe we forwardes whereas Ignatius calleth the Church at Antioch sunagogen a Synagogue which properly noteth one congregation as ritch as he is he hath no other answer to give us but that it is used in the same signification with ecclesia which argueth his povertie in asmuch as he doth therin againe but begge the question Yea but he hath another shift wherein he much glorieth viz. that Ignatius entitleth himself the Bishop of Syria epist ad Magnes Rom. as if he had strook it dead willeth his adversarie to tell him what manner of parish Syrsa was and desireth that may heare also what he can object against the two epistles and so giveth
all the grace he can to them closing all up saying that he leaueth that most pregnunt authentique euidence of Ignatius to his aduersary to muse upon See you not how bragge he would seeme to be as if he had gotten a great conquest yet what is this to the present question will he thus argue The Christians throughout Syria in the time of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Sy-ria made many Churches or congregations Ergo the Church of Antioch where of he had more properly the charge was more then one congregation Can there come a worse inconsequence from one that is but a smatterer in schoole disputations Thus are wee come to the testimonyes of the new writers viz. Tindall Bale Fulk Perkins Our great Church-Bible and D. Bilson Sect. 9. ad pag. 106. 107. All which the Doctor saith excepting two testimonies of Tindall the Refuter most childishly alleadgeth But what if his exceptions be more childish then his Refuters allegations let us compare them and leave the censure of both to the indifferent reader It is objected that the ancient translators of the new testament into the english tongue doe turoe the word ecclesia congregation when they speak of the Church of Ephesus and the rest in the Revelation and to the same purpose are the rest but Doct. Bilson alleadged And that translation is justified not onely by Mr Tindall Thomas More but by Iohn Bale sometimes a Bishop in his exposition of the word Churches and Candlesticks by D. Fulk against the Rhemists aunot in Ephel 5. and by Mr Perkins in his exposition of Apoc. 2. 3. affirming that the 7. Churches were particular congregations And D. Bilson against the Seminaries affirmeth that the word is never taken in the new testament for the Preists alone but for the congregation of the faithfull and namely that it is so taken Act. 20 28. FroÌ„ 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 coÌ„gregation and did not consist of many Now is not this inference grounded on good probabilitie for can it be imagined that these learned worthy men would have so interpreted the word ecclesie by congregation if they had not been perswaded that most naturally it expressed the meaning thereof And if so must not each particular Church be in their judgement one particular congregation If the Papists could prove any one of the 7. Churches of Asia to haue consisted of many distinct congregations were it not a more just exception then any they haue alleadged to weaken their interpretation seing a multitude distinguished into many congregations cannot properly be called one congregation But let us heare the Doctors exceptions First he telleth us that the ancient english Bibles doe use the word congregation not onely where mention is made of particular Churches but of the universall Church also as Mat. 16 18. Ephes 1. 22. 5. 25. even so and we know it well and esteeme the reason to be alike for as particular Churches are each of them one visible congregation and not many so is the Church universall one invisible congregation the former gathered togither into one assembly open to the eyes of men at one time and in one place the other gathered togither into one mysticall body which though hidden from men in this world yet is â—no nituitu manifest unto God and at the last day shal be actually congregated into one assembly in the viewe of men and angels Secondly the Doctor layeth downe the reasons mouing the first translators of the Bible into English to avoyd the name Church and in stead thereof to use the word congregation 1. Because CHURCH more properly signifieth the place of meeting then the congregation it self which is meant by ecclesia 2. Because the Papists had abused it to signify eyther generally the romish Church or particularly to import the romish Clergie And I wish the reader to consider whether this first reason doth not justify the refuters affirmation viz. that in the judgement of those Translators ECCLESIA doth properly note such a congregation as is gathered togither in one place whither the second doth any way infringe it Thirdly concerning the testimony of D. Fulk the Doctor saith Sect. 10. ad pag. 107. the allegation thereof sheweth extreame want eyther of indgement or beneftie but I perswade my selfe the want eyther of the one or other will more justly fall upon the Accuser then the Refut when things are indifferently weighed on both sides For wherein hath he fayled Is it not true which he saith that D. Fulkinstifieth the translation of ecelesia by congregation as better expressing the Greek then the word Church doth not this argue plainely that he heild the Church of Ephesus and all other Churches in cities to consist but of one particular congregation In deed if his defense of our Bibles translating ecclesia by congregation had been limited onely to that text Ephes 5. 23. as Mr Doctor indeavoureth to perswade the Refuter had shewed litle discretion in the choise of that restimony to argue that which he inferreth but as the Rhemists in their annot on that text taxe our first english Bibles with corruption not for mistranslating the word in that place onely but generally for not using so much at once in all the Bible the name of Church but in stead thereof congregation so D. Fulks answer is sitted in generall to justify the Translators in so doing They rather used saith he the word Congregation then Church to avoyd ambiguity because this word Church is coÌ„monly taken for the howse of the assembly of Christians and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering togither of all the members into one body which in the name of church doth not appeare Is it not plaine that in his understanding the word eccksia signifieth properly such an assembly of Christians as is gathered togither into one body in one house or place such as comonly we call a Church See I pray how he interpreteth himselfe in his answere to Gregory Martin Pref. sect 51. pag. 92. and cap. 5. sect 5. pag 148. Wherefore though he speak never a word of the Church of Ephesus in speciall yet his defense of the translations in generall doth not onely justify them in calling the Church in Ephesus the Congregation in Ephesus but also argue by consequence that the Church there consisted at that time not of many severall congregations but of one particular Church-assembly onely Wherefore the Doctor mought with more judgement honesty have set a lesse face upon it then to charge his Refut with want of eyther for alleadging his testimony Fourthly as touching the testimony of Mr. Perkins the same inference also clearely ariseth from his assertion viz. that the 7. churches were particular congregations For he would never have so said vnlesse he thought each of them
to be one particular congregation seing it were absurd to entitle any Church a particular coÌ„gregation which is knowne to consift of many particulars And for the same cause who can with reason judge otherwise then that D. Bilson also took the Church of Ephesus to be one congregatioÌ„ when he alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the Church in the new Testament is put for the congregation of the faithfull not for the Preists alone Wherefore whereas the D. in the conclusion renueth his challenge that our new writers are childishly alleadged what else doth he but shew himselfe to be set to outface all The which the more appeareth by that his taxe layd upon his Refuter for alleadging Mr Tindall which as he saith was not a childish mistakeing but a wilfull misalleadging of him in both places there being in the former no such thing and in the later a falsifying of the testimony and to aggrevate the offence chargeth it upon him as coÌ„mitted againe lib. 4. cap. 7. sect 9. But if any fault be here coÌ„mitted save the mistaking of pag. 135. for 133. it is in the Doctor who mought also have amended that mistaking seing he could not but see it when he patched up his owne allegation out of both those pages but it seemeth he had rather make two faults then mend one And that it may appeare how he falsely accuseth his Retuter let the reader consider that as the words set downe by him are not Mr Tindals words at large but a breife of them so they are a true breife of them For proofe whereof it is cleare 1. that he maketh Bishops Preists and Elders all one pag. 53. 54. 251. 345. 2. He saith that by their office they were alwayes abiding in one place to governe the Congregation there pag. 251. And 3. however the Doctor saith he maketh the word CONGREGATION as large as the word ECCLEST A CHURCH yet he maketh the word Church or Congregation whereof a Bishop Preist or Elder had the charge no larger then one particular coÌ„pany assembling in one place as appeareth both by his exposition of Math. 18. 17. pag. 345. and by his words at large which the D. could not but though he would not see when he overskipped them pag. 133. where speaking of the 2. officers ordeyned by the Apostles for the governing of the Church he saith The Apostles disguished no man but chose men annoyâ—ted with the same spirit viz. wherewith Christ annointed them one to preach the word whom We call after the Greek tongue a Bishop or Prust that is in English an overseer or an Elder how he was annointed thou readest 1. Tim. 3. c. This Overseer becanse he was taken from his own business labour to preach Gods word to the parish bath right by the autboritie of his office to challendge an honest living of the parish c. Likewise in every congregation chose they another after the same ensample as is to be seene Act. 6. whom after the grword we call Deason that is in English servant or Minister whose office was to help and assist the Preist to gather up his duty and to gather for the poore c. But of Mr Tindalls judgement and words we shall heare more at large when we come to that place where he saith his Refuter falsifyeth his testimony againe in the meane time let the reader judge with what face the Doctor so charged his Refuter Thus much shall suffice to shewe how the Doctor sought but startingholes in all his exceptions against the refuters testimonies For when he hath done wrangling with all his proofes he returneth to his deniall of the consequence pag. 111. viz. that though it were graunted that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of one ordinarie congregation yet it would not prove them to haue been parishes As if he could deny them to be each of them one parish that is one coÌ„-gregation yet graunt theÌ„ to be one onely ordinary congregatioÌ„ Having done with those 3. Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch Sect. 11. ad cap. 5. sect 8. pa. 89. we are to proceed to that which the D. answereth coÌ„cerning the Church of Ierusalem viz. to the assumption of that syllogisma which affirmeth Cap. 5. sect 8. pag. 89. the Christians of lerusalem to have coÌ„tinued one assembly meeting togither in one place during S. Lukes storie Act. 2. 1. 2. 6. 44. and 6. 2. and 15. 22. 25. and 21. 22. This saith the D is false because the Church of Ierusalem never was a parish so farre was it from continuing so still c. and the D. dwelleth wholly in a maner upoÌ„ this answer but the Reader is to be advertised that he doth but trifle quarrell with words rather then impugne the maine point of the argument for when the Refuter affirmeth that the Christians at lerusalem continued one parishonall assembly meeting togither in one place the later clase is the explication or rather confirmation of the former q. d. they continued one parish-assembly in asmuch as they met togither in one place Wherefore the principall question here for Ietusalem like as before for the 3. above named Churches is whether the Christians there might did meet togither in one place to this purpose those places out of the Acts are quoted and if the D. can make the contrary appeare his labour is well spent otherwise he doth but beat the aier It is not probable saith he that the Church of Ierusate afeer they came to the number of 5000. did ordinarily meet all in one place Belike he holdeth it probable that before they arose to that number they did ordinarily meet togither in one place so that when he striveth to wrest from his Refuter the places alleadged out of Act. 2. he doth here as before is observed sect 5. rather quarrell with his proofes then contradict the thing thence collected But let us take the particulars of the thing as they lye in order Wee read saith he of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Pauls crosse and at the Spâ—tle but their ordinary and as it were parishonall meetings were by companies in more private places It is true wee read of diverse meetings some in more private houses as Act. 2. 1. 2. 46. and 4. 31. 5. 42. and some in more publique places as the Temple Act. 2. 46. 5. 12. 42. but that one were Panegyricall and the other Parishonall whether simply or as it were I for my part never read authour that hath gone before the Doctor in this distinction neither doth he yeeld us any shredd of probabilitie to grace his apprehension The maine point now stood for viz. that the Christians at Ierusalem were but one ordinarie assembly gathered into one place is apparant enough by the scriptures before quoted though in the Doctors eyes they seeme to be
eyther ignorantly or absurdly alleadged For however the two first verses of Act. 2. are by some learned Interpreters restreyned to the 12. Apostles because they think the promise of the holy Ghost belonged to them alone cap. 1. 4. 5. yet are there others also of good account that holde it no absurditie to think that the rest of the disciples which accompanied the Apostles cap 1. 14. 15. were pareakers with them of the holy Ghost because it suiteth well with Ioels prophesye urged by Peter cap. 2. 17. 18. and with that riches of Gods grace manifested in many others afterwards cap. 8. 17. 10. 45. 46. 19 6. And D. Saravia whose judgement should not be lightly rejected of Mr Doctor and his associates holdeth it lib. de minist grad cap. 5. for so certaine a truth that the whole number of 120 received the holy Ghost that he distributeth them into these â— ranks 12. Apostles 72. Evangelists and 36. prophets which put togither make the just number of 120. But I will not contend for this matter onely I wish that moderation which is in Piscator in Acts 2. 4 who though he appropriateth the gifts of the holy Ghost then given to the 12. Apostles yet denieth not but many others were then assembled with them in the same place But hereat the D. â—â—ombleth and cannot see though it should be granted that the 120. were all assembled togither how it should be a parishenall assemblie wherein the 12. patriarshes of Christendome were met togither why was not Iacobs houshold at the first one family though the 12. Patriarches of the Iewish nation were there combined in one society Yea was not Noahs coÌ„pany in the ark one family though they were the roote of all nations and people that filled all kingdomes countries in the world Or did the comming of Paul Barnabas because they were Apostles into the Synagogue at Antioche Act. 13. 14. alter the nature of the assembly and make it no longer a parishonall Synagogue As for the 6. and 44. verses of Act. 2. they were jointly cited to Sect. 12. 2d pag. 91. shew that those 3000. converts mencioned vers 41. had recourse to one place both before and after their conversion for they are included within the mention of that multitude which came togither vers 6. of those beleeveres which are sayd to be all epi to auto in one place vers 44. But the D. telleth us that Calvin preferreth another sense viz. that they were in one that is joyned togither in heart and affection as is sayd Cap. 4. 32. and the Doctor knoweth that others preferre the sense the Refuter giveth yea acknowledgeth also that it may be true and may signify they coversed togither in one place which is to grant asmuch as the Refuter asketh For if the words may be so construed then it must also be confessed that as yet they made but one assembly gathered in one place Not so saith the Doct. he speaketh not of their assemblies for ver 46. he speaketh of their meetings in the temple Belike his meaning is that their Church assembly is mencioned vers 46 not vers 44. if so there is some kindnes in him that will give his adversary another text as sit for his purpose as the former for if they all met togither for holy exercises in any one place temple or any other the Refuters assertion standeth firme Yea but the D. will not have his Refuter to be so much beholding to him for he addeth that in the temple they could not meet alone that there nationall râ—ther then parishonall meetings used to be assembled As if the comuning in of straÌ„gers into one of our parish-parish-Churches at the time of Lectures and sermons made the assembly to be no parishonall assembly but somewhat else perhaps we shall know of him hereafter what but how doth this concourse of others weaken the Refuters purpose will the D. say the Christians at Ierusalem were too many for one congregation because when they all met in the temple some others were intermingled with them doth not the contrary rather follow very strongly viz. that they all were not more then such as might and did assemble in one place seing they were all with one accord in the temple although they could not there meet alone Concerning the meetings of the 12. Apostles and multitude of Sect. 13. the Disciples Acts. 6. 2. and of the whole Church with the Apostles and Elders Acts. 15. 22. 25. the D. answer is they were not parishonall but rather Synodicall pag. 90. The later indeed is comoÌ„ly taken for a Synodicall assemblie because the Synode selebrated in succeeding ages followed the patterne there given by the Apostles in determining the like questions but if we looke to the persons there assembled it carried no great resemblance of a Synode for none were called thither from any other Church or Churches in the Countries adjoyning onely some were sent from Antioch to conferre with the Apostles and Elders which then abode at Ierusalem and they gathered the whole Church of the Citie togither for the hearing and determining of the matter then controverted which course was imitated in the next age before Synods grew into coÌ„mon use when one Church by letters and messengers sent and craved the help and direction of some other Church their Ministers in any question of weight that began to breed disturbance But for the Refuters purpose it sufficeth that the whole Church was then assembled in one place as vers 22 25 shew as the same is clearely collected also from Acts. 6. 2 so there is lesse reason to make it a Synodicall not a parishonall assembly There remaineth Act. 21. 22. where it is told Paul that the whole â—ultitude would come togither when they should beare that he was some which words are in all reason to be refered to those many thousands of beleeving Iewes mentioned vers 20 for of them it is sayd that they were informed of him that he taught to for sake Moses and for their satisfaction he was directed to goe into the temple and to shew himselfe an observer of the law vers 21. 24 and however the Doctor after his manner wrangleth with the allegatioÌ„ in saying the word multitude may be otherwise understood to wit of the people of lerusalem in generall aswell unbeleevers as beleevers yet he denieth not but it may be meant of the beleevers onely which is a plaine confession that the beleevers in that Church were at that time no more then such as might well asseÌ„ole into one place Neither doth the mention of many ten thowsands in those words posas muriadas c. vers 20. make the number such as by no meanes could meet togither in the publique worship of God seing it is apparant Luk. 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ did partake his doctrine were also many muriades And albeit he began at the
first to speak to his disciples vers 2 yet afterwards he spake to all the people assembled vers 13. 15. 54. Besides it is to be observed that a great number of these beleevers were strangers which were not inhabitants of Ierusalem but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost and some of them it may be not actuall members of any Church but such as are spoken of Ioh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore seing it is evident by the wordes of S. Lokes storie that all the beleevers which belonged to the Church at Ierusalem in that time were assembled togither in one place from time to time as occasion served it is sufficiently proved all the Doctors cavils not with standing that they did not for their number exceed the proportion of one ordinary congregation and consequently as the rest of the Churches before spoken of so this was rather a parish assembly then a diocesan church like to one of ours As for the Doctors exceptions sect 6. pag. 87. viz. that the Sect. 14. ad sect 6. pag. 87. Church of Ierusalem was never intended to be one parish among many but a mother Church to beget others which were to be severed from it and yet to remaine subject to it and that it was intended that all the Christians both in citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem like as the people of citie and country were all under one high-preist me thinkes that reader is strāgely and strongly conceited of the Doctor that will enterteyne these points upon his owne meere conjecture and bare word For however it is cleare that many Churches drew their originall from Ierusalem and received the faith by their Ministerie which had bene for a time members of that Church Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. 9. 19. 22. yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection that any of those daughter churches yeelded to Ierusalem or the presbyterie there established And therefore the intention which he dreameth of concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of Ierusalem like as all the Iewes were anciently under the high preist hath neyther foundation in the holy scriptures nor can he gather it from the practise of succeding ages seing their advancing of the Church of Cesarea to the honour of a Metropolitance Church superiour in jurisdiction to Ierusalem argueth that they were altogither ignorant of it For among the many and great thoughts of the Doctors heart can this enter into it that they would wittingly depart from that order which was instituted or intended by the Apostles to follow the which was instituted or intended the Apostles to follow the course of that preheminence which the Romane Emperors that were enemies to Christ and his truth should establish in their politicall government But what need many wordes in a plaine matter This is enough for resuting so frivolous a fancie as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it Thus have we seene how well the Doctor hath proved that the Churches founded by the Apostles were Dioceses properly like to ours and not parishes It now followeth in the second book that we examine his proofes for his Diocesan Bishops THE SECOND PART THE SECOND BOOK Chapter 1. Shewing that in the 4. point of the Doctors sermon and third book of the defense thereof there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopall function IN the fourth point of the Doct. sermon he handleth Section 1. ex professo the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and in the 3. book of his defense he indeavoureth the justifying of the same And first he intreateth in generall of their superiority in degree but though he boast serm pag. 29. that all antiquity favoureth his opiniō yet he passeth by the Apostolicall writings as too ancient for his purpose Notwithstanding when he commeth to declare the particulars wherein the superiority of Bishops consisteth he referreth us serm pag. 32. to the epistle of Paul to Titus cap. 1. 5. there to behold that threefold superiority given by him to Bishops to wit their singularity of preheminence during life and their power of ordination and of jurisdiction not confined to a parish but extended to the whole Iland of Creete and to all the cities thereof A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop or of a nationall Primate rather then the calling of a Diocesan Prelare if he could make good the parts of his reasoning viz. that Titus not onely had such a threefold superiority but also was by his calling a Bishop as he supposeth But this later wherein the controversy cheefly standeth hath no foundation in his text onely he telleth us pag. 50. of this third book that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon by the cōmon consent of the ancient most approved writers of the Church The which what is it but a secret confession that the text of holy scripture will not serve his turne to prove that Titus was a Bishop In like manner when to justify the singularity of preheminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese he saith serm pag. 33. that there was one Timothy at Ephesus one Titus in Creete one Epaphroditus in Philippi and one Archippus at Coloss◠what else doth he but presuppose not prove that every of them was a Diocesan Bishop As if the whole Iland of Creet with all the cities thereof made but one Diocese and as if we were more bound to beleeve Mr. Doctors word then the Apostles testimoney who saith that there were other Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus Phil. 1. 1. giveth vs to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa and nothing inferiour to Archippus Colos 1. 7. 4. 12. Afterwards when the Cōmission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus and to Titus in Creete is urged to prove the power of Bishops first in ordination and then in jurisdiction to make us a mends for his often begging he promiseth serm pag. 49. to prove afterwards that they were 〈◊〉 the which how he performeth we have heard before frō his own mouth for his proofes touching Timothy Titus are of the same nature as shall more fully appear hereafter Now more thē this here noted he hath not in his whole discourse I meane either his sermon or the defense thereof touchinge the superioritie of Bishops to prove by the scriptures that they have any such preheminence allowed then by God Wherefore if the Doctor hath found any cleare text to prove the episcopall function and superiority in question to be a divine ordinance it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermō and in the fourth book of his defense where this questiō is at large debated and his Assertion proved as he saith serm pag. 55. and def lib. 4. pag. 4. first by consequence and then directly whither
single out an other if the cheife care of that whole Church and the oversight of all Bishops or Ministers that there laboured in the Gospell were the standing right and singular prerogative of Epaphroditus And till the Doctor hath yeilded some stronger probabilities for his assertion then are yet seene I nothing doubt but the indifferent reader will see and acknowledge that from the text it selfe we have more reason to denie then he hath to give to Epaphroditus the singular superiority of a diocesan Bishop in the Church of Philippi Secondly concerning those brethren that were sent with Titus to the Corinthians since the principall ende of their Embassage was to stirre up those of Corinthe to make ready their benevolence for the poore Saintes at lerusalem 2. Cor. 8. 6. 24. 9. 3. 5. it is not likely that the Apostle Paul would be the author or approver of applying in this service any that were affixed as Bishops to the selted charge of particular Churches especially seing there was at that time store of others that accompanied the Apostle in his traveiles and might better be spared as having no setled imployment in any one place Moreover it may be probablie if not necessarily gathered from the Apostles description of those men that they were Evangelistes rather then Bishops Of the one he saith 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. his praise is in the gospell throughout all the Churches and not that onely but he was chosen also of the Churches to be suntcdemos bemoon our fellow-traveiler or companion in our journey c. And of the other vers 22. We have oftentimes proved him to be diligent or carefull in many thinges c. But there is not one word that intimateth any bande whereby they were tied to the selted charge of any particular Church or Churches much less can it be gathered from the Scriptures that they had the singular preheminence of diocesan Bishops Wherefore leaving the Doctor to his meditation upon these considerations let us proceed to some other particulars urged by him to justifye the title of his 3. chapter viz. that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops Chapt. 5. Shewing that the supposed Bishopprick of the Apostle Iames is not supported but contradicted by the scriptures which the Doct. alleadgeth And mainteyning the Refuters reasons produced to prove that he receyved not the episcopall power or function by any ordinatiō from his fellows Apostles bandled by the D. serm pag. 62. c. Def. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. and the Res pag. 131. 132 c. THe Doct. 3. argument is thus propounded pag. 65. of his sermon Sect. 1. ad cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 48. 49. The Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops and committed the Churoches vnto them Therefore the opiscopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution First touching the consequence because the Refuter sayd it was too nere a neighbour to the proving of idem per idim venlesse by ordination we understand the deputing of persons to that Church and by institution the appointing of the calling it self the Doct. thinketh he did him wrong to think he would commit so grosse a fault as to prove the same by the same seing he could not but discerne that he argueth from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function But had not the Refuter trow ye reason to doubt of the Doctors meaning doth he not serm pag. 92. take both these assertions for one and the same viz. that the episcopall function is of divine institution and that Bishops were ordeyned of God For if they be not one in the D. apprehension how shall the direct proofe of the latter be a direct proof of the former But since he now testifieth that he argueth from the ordination to the institution I will so vnderstand him In that which followeth I cannot but commend his honest and plaine dealing for beholding an oversight in the Ref when in this sense he acknowledgeth the consequence to be good he himself vndertaketh to lay open the weaknes of it and confesseth freely that a just exception may be taken against it viz. that though the Apostles ordeyned the persōs yet Chirst instituted the function for that is the judgment of many of the Fathers and among the rest of Cyprian who Lib. 3. ep 9. saith that our L. himself ordeyned Apostles that is to say Bishops Whereto I say that we are beholding to the Doct. that teacheth us to impugne his owne argument and now since by his owne confession the consequence is not good he must be beholding to us if we permit it to passe without check for in deed it is a cleare case that the ordination of persons cannot prove the function it self to be instituted of them that give the persons their ordination And here by the way the reader may see how lightly the D. esteemeth the judgment of the Fathers in this very question wherin he relieth most upō their testimonie For if al those Fathers which affirm the Bps to be the Apostles successors that the two degrees of Bps or Presbyters doe answer to the degrees of the Apostles 72 disciples c. doe hold the episcopall functiō to be Christs owne ordinance as here he confesseth and if they that thus teach be so many so ancient vnsuspected and approved that it cannot be denied but the calling and superiority of Bishops togither with the inferiour degree of Presbyters is of Christs owne institution as he concludeth lib. 3. p. 32. how cōmeth it to passe that the Doctor hath the forehead eo deny it and mainteyne so stifly as he doth that The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the episcopall function was instituted by the Apostles Thinketh he to salve this difference by saying as he he doth that of this matter he will not contend when as yet he contendeth very earnestly to make good his assertion yea he boasteth lib. 3. pag. 24. that he hath with such evidence demōstrated the calling of Bishops described in his sermon to be of Apostolicall institution as he is wel assured his Refuter with all his partakers will never be able soundly substācially to confute Perhaps his best evidēce is yet behind for hitherto we have seene nothing that carrieth any such weight with it that the Refuter should neede to call for any help of his partakers to remove it let us therefore attend on the proofe of his Antecedent which he vndertaketh to effect by shewing the time when the places where and the persons whome the Apostles ord yned Bishops Concerning the time the Doctor putteth a difference between Sect. 2. ad sect 2. p3 49. 50. the Church at Ierusalem and the rest For there because shortly after Christs passion a great nomber were converted to the faith and because it was the mother-Mother-Church vnto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini ordeyned Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the mother-Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith īmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their mother-Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childrē to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
too weak to upholde it so it will soone appeare that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings so an abasement and not a preferment to him For what is it It is not saith he a clipping of his wings more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutuall consent every mans province as it were or Circuite and charge was assigned to him As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned to clipp the wings of all the rest for company to testify one vntruthby another For as he cannot prove so I have disproved cap. 5. sect 11. his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his severall Province or circuite by mutuall consent And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them why should he deny them to be properly Bishops every one of them in his circuit or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their authority and so a clipping of their wings to be confined within one province or to one nation when as by their Apostolicall function they had authority to preach and to execute all ministeriall duties in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come ye◠of all the rest Iames his share must needs be by farr the least if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle or at least a Titular Apostle onely for as he saith of titular Bishops lib. 3. pag. 130. that they were such as had the bare name but not the authority of a Bishop so he must also affirme of Iames that he was but a titular Apostle seing th' authority of an Apostle which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shal be offred and in planting Churches where none were c. is denied unto Iames if his whole authoritie be confined to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem which was already founded to his hand And if it were a punishment to Meletius and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour to haue his whole authority confined to one Church as other Bishops although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle As for the next point viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect 9. pag 62. Doct. Refuter pag. 134. for o yeares even till his dying day to omit what is already sayd cap. 5. sect 10. 25. for the contrary we are now to examine whether the cause of his stay there was as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church in the function of a Bishop The reason of his continuance there saith the refuter was not so much the ruling of the Christians that were converted which might have bene otherwise performed as the converting of multitudes both of Iewes and of other nations that vsually flocked thither which was a work of the Apostolicall function Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth that it is nothing to the purpose to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed But he is to be advertised that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there then he shall shew himself verie voide of reason to make the government of that Church eyther the onely or the principall cause of his so long remayning in that place And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight then that the Refuter mencioneth it is but a wrangling part in him to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion in this case Neyther is it any thing to the purpose to urge him to shew that the church of Ierusalem was otherwise governed vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts And where he sayth There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles c. eyther he doth but trifle or which is worse dissembleth his owne knowledge for if by a Pastor he meane a Diocesan Bishop he knoweth very well that it is not onely doubted of but flatly denyed that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles But if he take the word at large for every or any one that feedeth whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinarie calling of Presbyters Act. 20. 28. then he sheweth himselfe a meer trifler since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant that Iames was in this large constructiō of the word their Pastor by a temporary assignment and that besides him they had other Pastors even so many as there were presbyters in that Church But when he saith there is no doubt to be made but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth of his staying there 30. yeares was the same with the cause of the stay of Simon and the rest of his successors till their death he doth too apparantly begg the question For the cause which the Refuter propounded and the Doctor contradicted not ceased before Simons election to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem for his election was not till Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore there was no such recourse eyther of Iewes or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time or his successors as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection for the generality of them took place after that desolation 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 cōversion of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place There remaineth one speach of the Doctor which in the Refuters Sect. 10. ad sect 8. pag 61. apprehension bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up as was shewed by this argumēt That charge saith the Doctor sermon pag. 68 which the Apostles had in cōmon whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames 〈◊〉 particular But that saith the Refuter p. 134. was not the charge of Bishops but of Apostles Ergo neyther was the charge which Iames had the charge of a Bishop but of an Apostle Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense The proposition is his owne he loveth his credit and he will not recall it what then Doth he contradict the assumption and say that the Apostles whiles they governed joyntly the Church of Ierusalem had the charge not of Apostles but of Bishops in the very function of Diocesan Bishops such as
of his consequence viz. that though it were granted that those 7. were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoyninge yet their might be diverse other as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16. which were small and bounded within the walleâ— of some small Towne See you not saith the D. how he secketh about for starting holes what if there were other small Churches what is that to this consequence If thâ—se Ch conteined each of them not onely the City but the Country adjoyning then they were not parishes properly but Dioceses his answere if it be well weighed is an exception against the conclusion c. I answere â— if he grant there were other small Churches he then justifyeth his Ref ceÌ„sure both in denying that to agree to all other Churches which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities c. and in rejecting the consequence of his first Enthymem which in concluding all Churches to be Dioceses because those 7. were great and ample cities did presuppose as himself acknowledgeth that what he affirmed of those 7. is verified of all the rest 2. And therefore he slaundereth his refuter in charging him to seek about for starting holes and his answere to be an exception The Doct. slaundreth his Refuter against the conclusion For his answere is a strong engine to bâ—tter the consequence of his argumentation and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himselfe crept into for safe harbor when he saith that what is verified of those 7. Churches the same may be truly affirmed of all others 3. Moreover he much forgetteth himselfe in affirming both here and pag. 44. that his argument concludeth nothing else then this that the 7. Churches were Dioceses For as the conclusion which he proposeth in his sermon pag. 17. to be proved was more generall of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following so he doth expresly affirme pag. 45. of this defense that in this argument now controverted he concludeth A flat contradiction in the D. from those 7. churches to all others As for his conclusion or closing up of this point wherin he calleth his Refuter a froward adversary because here he findeth fault that he concludeth what these Churches were and yet in other places accused him for not concluding what they or the angels of them were it argueth the D. himselfe to be a froward adversary and a false witnes His falshood appeareth in this that as he cannot alleadge one word to prove The Doct. not the Refuter is a froward ad versary a false witnes his accusation so he himselfe acquiteth him thereof when he saith pag. 45. that he is here blamed for concluding from these 7. Churches to all others And since he knoweth the fault which his Refuter findeth to be a naughty consequence which falsly presupposeth all Churches to be such as he saith those 7. were to wit great and ample â—ities c. what is it else but frowardnes in him that will rather justify a lye then acknowledge a truth which he knoweth But since he will nowe restreyne his argument to the 7. Churches Sect. 5. to conclude them Dioceses I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem before set downe sect 3. in fine and set it thus as followeth The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes yea Dioceses such as ours are For unlesse their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authoritie like to our Diocesans Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any directioÌ„ for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism I would advise him to remember that the Medius terminus which never entreth into the conclusion must needes be here the predicatum in the antecedent to wit great and ample cities c. and to make up the proposition which is wanting there must be joyned to it the predicatum of the consequent to witt Dioceses c. because it hath no place in the antecedent Wherefore the proposition to be supplyed must be this Great and ample cities togâ—ther with their countries adioyning are Dioceses properly and not parishes yea Dioceses like to ours Then follow the partes of his Enthymem in order as they lie But the 7. Churches whoâ—e Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities togither with their countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly c. In the assumption of A double vntruth in the D. assumption this Syllogisme or antecedent of the former Enthymem there is a double untruth which the Doctor in his second thoughts discerned for himselfe pag. 45. restreyneth the name of great and ample cities to 5. onely of those 7. and that which he graunteth of Ephesus pag. 62. must be acknowledged also of all the rest viz. that the whole citie was not the Church vntil it was wholly coÌ„verted to the profeâ—sion of Christianity Wherefore to free his argument from both these vntruthes first he quite shuâ—teth out this clâ—use great and ample cities secondly whereas before he had said that the 7. Churches whose Bishops are in his text called angels were not onely the cities but also the countries adioyning now he saith his meaning was that those Churches conteined in their circuite not onely the Cities but the Cuntries adjoyninge Wherfore he contriveth his argument in this forme pag. 42. 44. Churches whose circuite conteyned both Cities and countryes adjoyning were Dioceses The circuite of the 7. Churches conteyned the Cities and Countries adjoyninge Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses The assumption he hath made good as he supposeth with necessary proofe And the proposition which he tooke for granted will stand as he saith pag. 43. vnmoveable when the foundation of our discipline will be razed But the issue will shew I doubt not that the foundatioÌ„ of our discipline will abide firme when his proposition is shaken into shivers and that his assumption hath not so much as one probable argument to support it To make his meaninge a little more plaine in both the premisses as himself doth explaine his assumption thus that the Circuite of every one of those Churches conteyned both the City the Country adjoyninge so to holde proportion therewith his proposition must cary this sense that every Church whose circuite conteineth a City and the Country adjoyninge is a Diocese And because he must conclude as we have before observed that every one of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese such as are the dioceses subjected to our Bishops his proposition must affirme every Church conteyninge one City and the Country adjoyning to be such a diocese as these are which we beholde at this day in the Church of England But admit a truth
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌ„try had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌ„s and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâ—iculars which he hearâ— assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâ—mens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâ—le before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌ„meth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â—2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ— And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ— I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ„ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌ„try then such as were already brought to