it may bee demanded what is truly and properly a Church vpon earth Whereunto I answer by warrant of the word that euery company of men professing the true faith of Christ is both truly a Church and also a true Church So is the whole company of the faithfull vpon earth the true Church and spouse of Christ the piller and ground of truth So is the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any Nation or part of the world to bee termed by the name of a Church For euen as the whole people of Israel professing the true religion were one Church though containing verie many particular Congregations or Synagogues which also were so many Churches euen so the whole people of England professing through Gods mercy the true Catholike and Apostolicke faith is to bee called the Church of England For whereas some alleage that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high Priest who was a figure and therefore ceased it is euident that it was one Church because it was one people or commonwealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high Priest and after there were through corruption more then one Neither was the high Priest in respect of his preeminence and gouernment ouer the priests and people a type of Christ for then had he as well as Melchisedeck been a type of Christs gouernment and kingly office as well as of his priesthood and consequently Christ might haue bin a priest of the order of Aaron as well as of Melchisedeck but in respect of his sacrifice for the whole people and intercession for them and his entrance alone within the sanctuary bearing the names of the twelue Tribes for Christs gouernment appertaineth to his kingdome and not to his priesthood Likewise the Christian people of any Citie and Country adioyning whether that which wee call a prouince or diocesse though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardes Philadelphia c. Jn like manner the Christian people of one Towne or Village containing but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And to conclude the company of faithfull in one familie doe deserue the name of a Church as hath bin shewed Indeed that any particular Chruch of a whole Nation Citie and Country Towne Parish or family family I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but as an entire Church or parish by itselfe may bee accounted a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Church consisteth the ministery of the word and sacraments and eutaxy or some good order of gouernment Not that all gouernours are to be placed in euery society or Church but that the effect and benefit of the gouernment is to redound to euery particular For as well might an high Councell of State or Parliament such as was the synedrion of the Iewes which was but one for the whole Nation be required in euery Citie and a Maior and Aldermen such as be in London and other chiefe Cities in euery village as a Bishop and Presbytery in euery parish All which J haue the rather noted because some hauing first strongly conceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish nor lawfull church-officers but parishionall haue haled the places of Scripture where Ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit and thereupon as their chiefe foundation haue built their newfound parish discipline Whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleaged out of the Scriptures Indeed at the very first conuersion of Cities the whole number of the people conuerted being sometimes not much greater then the number of the Presbyters placed among them were able to make but a small congregation But those Churches were in constituting they were not fully constituted vntill their number being increased they had their Bishoppe or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons without which Ignatius saith there was no Church meaning no accomplished or fully constituted Church Neither was the Bishop and the Presbytery which at the first was placed in any Citie prouided onely for that set number which was already conuerted but they were there placed for the conuersion of the whole Citie and country thereto belonging their ministery being like to the leuen put into three pecks of meale which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe Neither was it meant that the whole number of Christians of each Citie and territory being much increased should continue but one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place but that vpon the multiplication of Christians diuision should be made of the whole Church into diuers particular congregations which after happened in all Churches accordingly But vpon this diuision there was not to euery seuerall congregation allotted a Bishop and a Presbytery but only seuerall Presbyters assigned singuli singulis some of the Presbyters continuing with the Bishop The Bishop himselfe remaining as it was first intended and as the Church of God euery where throughout the world expounded that intent by their practise the Pastor or Superintendent of the whole Citie and country adioyning Neither are all the Disciplinarians in the world able to shew that there were or ought to haue been after the diuision of parishes and assignement of seuerall Presbyters vnto them any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for a whole diocesse But of this more hereafter In the meane time hauing shewed that the vse of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures doth not sauour their conceit who imagine there is no true Church but a parish the word signifying according to the vsuall phrase of the holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small I am now to declare the vse of the word Ecclesia paroecia dioecesis which are commonly translated Church parish diocesse in antient Writers Where I am to note that setting aside the general significatiō of the word Ecclesia signifying either the whole Church in general or the two maine parts of it in heauen and earth in which sense paroecia and dioecesis are not vsed as also the largest signification of dioecesis containing the whole circuit of a patriarchall and archiepiscopall iurisdiction as the diocesse of the Patriarch of Alexandria contained all Egypt Libya and Pentapolis the diocesse of Antioch the East Countries c. In which sense the word paroecia is not vsed setting aside I say these large significations of ecclesia and dioecesis otherwise these three words ecclesia paroecia and dioecesis are for the most part vsed as words of the same signification For as in the singular number commonly each of them doth signifie a diocesse excepting wherein the distribution of the diocesse paroecia is opposed
place which God did choose in other cities whereof the one was ciuill the other ecclesiasticall consisting of the priests Leuits scribes or teachers also the seniors of the people But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem which was the highest court chief councel of state hauing power of life death authority to deale in causes both ciuill ecclesiasticall coÌ„sisted of the high priest other priests and Leuites together with the Princes Seniors of the people being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number Of which that in Deut 17.8.9 is to bee vnderstood These were called Sanedrin and did sit in Gazith In which number those which were priests were called Seniores SacerdotuÌ„ and those which were Princes were called Seniores populi as Sigondus saith And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people Iosephus saith that to euery coÌ„sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites The reason heereof was because the lawes wherby that church coÌ„mon-wealth were gouerned were the lawes of God wherein the Priests Leuites Scribes were most skilfull and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law And therfore another sort which should consist of Priests Leuits and elders of the people which should respoÌ„dere de iure as Beza imagineth this shuld was altogether needles But his proofs are as weake as his imagination was strong His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat is Leuit 10.10 where they were ordained saith he to shew the difference betweene holy profane betweene cleane vncleane to teach the law of God But no such thing can with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text where the Lord speaking to Aaron coÌ„mandeth him his sonnes the priests by a perpetual law that they should not drink wine nor strong drink wheÌ„ they were to enter into the sanctuary whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly soberlie either in iudging betweene holie profane between cleane and vncleane or in teaching the people which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary by the priests as well seuerally as ioyntly no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted or if there were it should according to Bertrams conceit consist wholy of the Priests to whom alone this speech is directed As for Elders of the people they were not to intermeddle with these things The high Priest indeed if it pleased him might consult with other Priests and vse their assistance as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26. But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God we doe not read and that it should consist in part of Lay-men there is not the least semblance of likelihood His proofes that there were two diuerse Synedria instituted are these First because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former I answere there is neither number set downe nor time of that which neuer was His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Synedria or counsells the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God ouer which the high Priest was chiefe the other ciuill for the causes of the King ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe But it is euident by the text that it was one and the same high counsell of state which afterwards was called Sanedrin or Synedrion Hierosolymitaâ—uÌ„ coÌ„sisting of the Leuites and Priests and of the heads of the chiefe families in Israel ordained for the iudgements of God and controuersies of men which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vnto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities were to iudge betweene blood and blood that is slaughter and slaughter betweene the law and the precept betweene statutes and iudgements hauing among them in the causes of God Amarias the high Priest and in the causes of the King Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda as chiefe and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law For whereas he would proue that Iosaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Ierusalem by these reasons because the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God the other of the King the one should determine de iure the other de facto the one had for the president the high Priest the other a Prince of Iuda none of these reasons doe proue that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that which before had beene appointed by God namely that the difficult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague and plague should be brought to the Synedâ—ion or counsell of the place which God shoulâ— choose the which is there noted to consist of the Priests Leuites and â—udge that is iudges saith Caluin as appeareth by the holy historie where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the Pâ—iâ—sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel for the godly King would decline nâ—uer a whit from the rule of Gods law To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as weâ—l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall as well de facto as de iure were to be brought from other ciuill courts as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8 and also 2 Chron. 19.20 Besides it is ridiculous to imagine that the ciuill senate should determine onely de facto and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall the rather because that counsell which was appointed by God Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficultie or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate it is absurd to imagine that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure As for the causes of God which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized verse 10. and Deut. 17.8 betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept c. we are to vnderstand them to be not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill so farre as either they were to be decided bâ— the lawes of God or concerned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law whereby that land was gouâ—rned in iudging whereof they also exercised Gods iudgement The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house or his eschequer And it is fond to imagine that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and morâ—ll lawes of God were not the causes
of God as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others who by the causes of God vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes and by the causes of the king ciuill causes because it is preiudiciall to my defence but because it is repugnant to the truth for though their interpretation were admitted it would no more proue that there were two distinct Synâ—dria then that which I doe embrace For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell as Iosephus also doth witnesse For speaking of this act of Iosaphat he saith that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and Leuits and of the chiefe or principall men of the people requiring them to exercise iust iudgement but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats but the chiefe or presidents of them as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda and relating the law Deu. 17.8 he saith if the iudges in the cities be not able to determine any cause it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius and the senate assembling together pronounce what seemeth right Besides it is manifest that the counsell at Ierusalem after the captiuitie which consisted of priests and Leuits besides the Seniors of the people and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth hauing authoritie to assemble it c. Act. 5.21 Matt. 26.57.59 was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion or coÌ„sistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuil and in causes criminall and capitall Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation as Caluin witnesseth in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie as before so Ezekiell prophecieth that the Priests after the captiuitie should not onely teach the people and iudge betweene holy and prophane betweene cleane and vncleane but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies iudging according to Gods iudgement Iosephus also testifieth that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers of all iudges of controuersies and punishers of such as are by the law condemned And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures For the courts of iudgement which both Moses instituted and Iosaphat renewed though they had Leuites among them were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill and criminall causes The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three First because the Archisynagogi had as it is probable Seniors of the people ioyned with them Secondly because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them which could not be vnlesse they did consist of the laitie as wel as the clergie Thirdly because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates so the Ecclesiasticall in the Synagogues To the first I answere that a probabilitie if this were such as indeed it is not is no proofe to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name with whom he promised his presence and to whom he committed the power of the keyes to whom also the name Ecclesia which may be giuen to any company of Christians be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ doth fitly agree Thirdly he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses and renewed by Iosaphat sitting in Synagogues when there is not once mention in the old testament either of Ecclesiasticall consistories or yet of Synagogues And in the new such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues as punished by stripes Bertram also witnesseth that in the Synagogues of the cities iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges the greater and weightier causes as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell â—t Ierusalem And againe that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer to heare the law and the Prophets and to heare the iudgement of Moses law as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza Caluiâ— by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon which he conceiueth to haue beene an Ecclesiasticall senate to which belonged the censure of doctrine maners hauing the power oâ— excoÌ„munication c. What this Synedrion was Caluin himselfe shall tell vs It is certaine saith he that the Iewes when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment because they might not make a King did imitate this example of appointing 70. Elders Num. 11 in ordaining the Synedrion Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours in whom should be the chiefe power And this course continued vntill Herod c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state which was to iudge of causes not only Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminal yea capitall hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death stoning burning killing with the sword and strangling hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth that is the consistories of iudges in other cities to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe of a false Prophet of the high Priest c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libertie to liue according to their owne lawes permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment and sometimes by death Moreouer by the law of God he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell was not as our Sauiour Christ heere saith to be held as an heathen or Publican but he was to die the death Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God and that in the
in Ierusalem were not so many but that still they continued one parishionall assemblis meeting together in one place then the Christians of other Cities might be and did so in like sort But the antecedents is crue therefore the consequent Of the consequence hee saith no reasonableman can make any doubt and so taketh it for granted wanting reason to prooue it Me thinkes there is great reason why I should not onely doubt of it but plainely denie it for when he saith At Ierusalem they were not so many c. hee should haue said when and that still they continued c. hee should haue said how long that being compared with other Cities at the same time and of the like continuance the reason of his consequence might appeare There bee three reasons to be giuen why the Church at Ierusalem should not bee at the end of one hundred or two hundred yeeres so great as in other Cities First the persecution begunne with the martyrdome of Steuen and continued vntill the destruction of Ierusalem vpon the beginning of which persecution all the faithfull in Ierusalem except the Apostles were dispersed into other parts Secondly â—he reiection of the Iewes for the generality of them when the Gentiles were to be called 3. The destruction of Ierusalem by Titus about the yeare 72. and finall extirpation of the Iewes out of Ierusalem by Aelius Hadrianus about the yeare 137. who called it Aelia after his owne name prohibiting any â—ew to come any more within that City So that if it were true that the number of the Christians in Ierusalem within the first 200. yeares had neuer exceeded the proportion of a parishional assembly yet hereof it would not follow that the number of Christians in other Cities should for 200. yeares continue so smal No reasonable man therefore would looke to haue that consequence granted him The Assumption also is false The Church of Ierusalem whereof Iames was Bishop neuer was a Parish so far was it froÌ„ continuing so still But as the people both in the City and Country were vnder one high Priest so was it intended that all the Christians both in the City and countâ—y should be vnder the Bishop of Jerusalem and so continued vntill the destruction thereof Afterwardes because that City being destroied Caesarea was made by the Romans the Metropolis of Iewry it came to passe the church following the common-wealth that the Bishop of Caesarea was the Metropolitan The Bishop of Ierusalem hauing the Bishopricke of the City the places adioining Howbeit in processe of time the Christians honouring the place granted the prerogatiue of the 4. Patriarchship to the Bishop of Ierusalem or Aelia reseruing to Caesarea the Metropolis her owne dignity Nether is it probable that the Church at Ierusalem after they once came to the number of 5000 as quickly it did continued with great increase vntil the death of SteueÌ„ did ordinarily meete all in one place We reade of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Paules Crosse or at the Spittle but their ordinarie as it were parishionall meetings were by coÌ„panies in more priuate places Nay I say further that the meetings either of the 12. Apostles who neuer were intended to be members either all or any of them of one parish with the Disciples Act. 6.1 or of some of them with the Presbyters and whole assembly Act. 15.22.26 which places are by the refuter alleadged were not parishionall but rather Synodicall As for those other places in the Acts some of them are ignorantly some absurdly alleadged In the 2. of the Acts he quoteth three places viz. the two first verses 6. 44. In the first it is said that when the day of Pentecost was come they were all with one accord in the same place All that is all the Apostles whose mutuall society and conuersing together is noted So doe some old Manuscrpts reade saith Beza 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Apostles For to them alone had Christ promised that they should bee baptized after a few dayes with the holy Ghost and to that purpose hee commaunded them to stay at Ierusalem expecting the performance of this promise Luke also sheweth who they were verse 14. saying that Peter stood with the eleuen and the people who wondred at them seem to inâ—inuate saying are not all these men of Galilee Is it not strange then that the conuersing of the Apostles together in one house should be alleadged as an example yea patterne of a parishionall assembly Or if by all were ment the 120. Disciples assembled before the descending of the holy Ghost how doth it proue either that they were a parishionall assembly wherein the 12. Patriarches of Christendome were met or that they continued for an 100. or 200. yeares so small a company as a parishionall assembly seeing within a few dayes yea the very same day they grew to bee many thousands In the 6. verse it is said that when this voice or rumor was spread in the streetes concerning the Apostles speaking with variety of tongues great multitudes of people flocked together not of Christians to make a parishionall assembly but of all sorts to behold this wonder whereat when some had wondred and some had scoffed by Peters sermon 3000. of them were conuerted In the 44. verse Luke saith that all they which belieued were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and had all things common and sold their possessions c. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth either signifie they conuersed together in one place and kept company one with another and so speaketh not of their assemblies for vers 46. hee speaketh of their meeting in the temple where they could not meet alone wherein nationall rather then parishionall meetings vsed to bee assembled or else it signifieth they were in one that is they were ioined together in heart and affection as it is said Act. 4.32 which sense Caluin preferreth There remaineth Act. 21.22 where the Presbyters of Ierusalem who were with Iames their Bishop when Paul came to him tell Paul that it cannot be auoided but the multitude would come together hearing that he was come Vnderstanding by the multitude either the multitude of the people of Ierusalem as well those which belieued not as those which did for they direct him to goe into the temple there to shew himselfe to be an obseruer of the law or the company of beleeuers onely who when they would flocke together to see him should find him in the temple conforming himselfe to the law of Moses But to the absurditie of alleadging these places this is added that none of them reach any thing neare the time which we speake of For the 2. of the Acts speaketh of that which was done within a fortnight after Christs Ascension The 6. before the martyrdome of Steuen the 15. aboue 20. yeares the 21. about 15. years before the destruction
Bishops ouer other Ministers and so much is intended in this place To the reason if it had beene obscure hee should haue answered as Aristotle teacheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I vnderstand not For better were it to plead ignorance then to wrangle with that he doth not or will not vnderstand For I doe plainely note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians who are opposite vnto vs in this controuersie the one a new sect of disciplinarians lately risen amongst vs who haue coyned the new-found parish discipline which commeth nearer the practise of the Brownists then of any well ordered Church of whom I spake in the former point the other a sort of graue and learned diuines such as Caluin and Beza c. who stand for that discipline which is practised in Geneua and some other reformed Churches shewing that as they doe not consent with our newe disciplinarians in the former point so they dissent from vs in the latter touching the superioritie of Bishops The refuter vnderstandeth all as a grant made by them whereof some part hee acknowledgeth to be true the rest he reiecteth as false And though in neither he doe vnderstand what was intended yet hee is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech that with one breath I blowe out both truth and falshood Neither doubteth he though meerely ignorant of that which he auoucheth to charge me with foure vntruthes denying 1. that they grant Bishops which here are called Angels to haue beene set ouer Dioceses that is to say the whole citie and countrey adioyning 2 That they teach the onely gouerning Elders to be lay or annuall 3 That the Angels of the Churches were nothing else but presidents of the Presbyteries 4 That their presidentshippe was onely for a weeke or a moneth and that by course as being common to them in their turnes For the manifestation of the truth in all these points I shall not need to seeke further then to the writings of Caluin and Beza Sect. 14. As touching the first Caluin teacheth that in the primitiue Church when in the gouernement thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from Gods word each citie had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Doctors and that to euery citie was assigned a certaine region which should receiue their Presbyters meaning the pastors of seuerall parisnes from thence and should be accoumpied as part of that Church Euery Colledge was subiect to some one Bishop But if the countrey which was vnder his Bishopricke was larger then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop in certaine places throughout the countrey were appointed certaine Presbyters who in busines of lesse importance should be in his steed These were called Chorepiscopi because in the prouince they represented the Bishop Likewise Beza teacheth that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses was framed according to the diuision of the prouinces vnder the Romane Empier into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were precincts of gouernement which Plinie calleth conuentus iurisdictiones in the chiefe cities whereof the presidents kept their courts of iudgment of which sort Pliny reckneth 9. in Asia the lesse fiue whereof are mentioned in the Apocalypse viz. Laodicea Sardes Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Neither are we saith he to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a councill or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together then from the very instinct of nature and instigation of necessitie Now saith hee in the chiefe Towne of euery Diocesse the first Presbiter who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis was called a Bishoppe in the daily common iurisdiction Praeerat caeteris tum vrbanis tum alijs eius regionis com-Presbyteris id est totj Diocoesi was President ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and Countrey that is the whole Diocese And because sometimes the Countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as other small Cities and Townes did neede commune inspection or ouersight they also had their Chorepiscopi that is Countrey-Bishops or Vice-Bishops For the second that they acknowledge their onely gouerning Elders to be of the Laitie it is plaine For whereas Caluin diuideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks Clerum sc. plebem the Clergie and Laitie hee plainely saith that these Elders are chosen from among the Laitie And forasmuch as being chosen they doe not become to bee of the Clergie hee must needes meane that they still continue to be of the Laitie And that hee thought they should be annuall the order of the Church of Geneua by him set downe doth declare Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together In this Citie of Geneua saith hee those gouerning Elders which in the title of the chapter hee called annuall are chosen yearely not of the baser sort of the people but out of the very order of 25.60 and 200. men which be the councills of state in Geneua 2. being chosen out of the 25.4 out of the 60. and 6. out of 200. not without the knowledge and consent of the people I say euery yeare newe are chosen or the olde confirmed So euery where saith hee in other free Churches according to the condition of the place the like choice is obserued For of the Laitie some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearely in the Low-Countreyes they are chosen for 2. yeares the halfe of them being changed euery yeare Now it may not be doubted but that those which bee of the 25. or 60. or 200. in Geneua being all States-men as their gouerning-Elders bee are Lay-men Againe great consideration must bee had saith Beza that Princes and Noble men and such as haue authoritie and preheminence in the Church bee chosen to be of the Seignorie And surely saith he in another place prouing that there ought to bee such Elders of the Laitie ioyned to the Ministers vnlesse some chosen men out of the bodie of the whole congregation doe sit in that assemblie whereby the whole Church is gouerned Scarcely shall the vniuersall name of that Church agree to that assemblie wherewith notwithstanding Christ adorneth it Namely because they being chosen out of all the parts of the whole Church should represent the whole Church His reason therefore is that as the whole Church consisteth of the Clergie and Laytie So that Senate which is to represent the whole Church must consist not onely of the Clergie but of the Laitie also And in another place he prooueth by a necessary disiunction as he thinketh that if there must bee a Presbyterie at all a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laitie Whence doe they thinke they are to be chosen if not of them whom they call Lay-men c. Thirdly that they make the Angels of the Churches or ancient BB. in respect of their superioritie
discipline was corrupted amongst the Iewes in our Sauiour Christs time and therefore it is not likely that our Sauiour would send his Disciples to their Assemblies to haue their causes heard yet dubium non est it is not to be doubted but that forme of discipline which had beene vnder the Law was by Christ transmitted to vs and that the forme of discipline which was in vse in the Church of Christ succeeded in the roome thereof The summe is What manner of presbyters were among the Iewes the like Christ ordained in his church when hee said Tell the Church But among the Iews there was an Ecclesiasticall presbyterie which besides the priests and Leuites consisted of the Elders of the people Therefore such an Ecclesiasticall presbyterie Christ ordained in his Church The proposition hath no other proofe but their owne testimonie signified in those asseuerations dubium non est neque ambigimus for that which is added by Beza the author of the counterpoison that the wordes which Christ vsed Let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican to proue that he spake according to their custome doe in no sort prooue that hee translated their forme of gouernement into his church For if Christ did translate from the state of the Iewes any Consistories into his church then hee transmitted such as were either ordained of God or deuised by men If the former then such as God ordained for the gouernment of the people either in the Wildernes or in the Land of promise In the Wildernes by the aduise of Iethro and approbation of God there were Rulers set ouer thousands hundreds fifties and tens to iudge the people the deciding of more difficult causes beeing reserued to Moses But the multitude of these difficult causes increasing and Moses waxing weary of them the Lord ioyned to him a Senate of 70. Numb 11. Answereable to these the Lorde appointed Consistories or Senates for the gouernement of the people in the Land of promise To the former Deuteron 16.18 Iudges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities throughout all thy Tribes and they shall iudge the people with righteous iudgement To the latter Deut 17. If there arise a matter too harde for thee in Iudgement betweene blood blood betweene plea plea betweene plague and plague in the matters of controuersies within thy Gates then shalt thou arise and goe vp into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vnto the Priests and Leuites and the iudge that is Iudges saith Caluin that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shewe thee the sentence of iudgement This prescript the godly king Iosaphat followed exactly 2. Chron. 19. both in respect of the inferiour consistories in the cities placing iudges in the land throughout all the strong cities citie by citie and in Ierusalem did he set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord saying to them In euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in the cities betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept statutes and iudgements you shall admonish them c. Besides these the Lord ordained no consistories or senates But none of these did Christ translate into his Church for none of them was Ecclesiasticall Neither did he translate those which were deuised by men whether by the Iewes as their Synedrion or Sanedriâ—n which was their chiefe counsell of state which Caluin saith after their returne from Babylon they did institute or by P. Gainius the Proconsul of Syria who ordained foure more Synedria of the like nature which some suppose to haue beene the cause why our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall number Matt. 10.17 Mar. 13.9 But of the counsell renewed by Iosaphat and the Synedrion ordained of the Iewes I shall haue occasion to say more in answere to the assumption But how little credit is to be giuen to that proposition may appeare by this dilemma for by Church Christ doth signifie either the consistories and assemblies of the Iewes or assemblies in the Church of Christ. If the former then was the direction which Christ giueth peculiar to those times and pertaineth not to the Church of Christ as D. Bilson sheweth in the fourth chapter of his booke whereunto I doe referre you If the latter then had he not so much as respect or reference to the Consistories of the Iewes so farre was he from translating them into his Church as shall appeare by this most plaine explication of the text according to the latter sense Our Sauiour Christ intreating of scandales and offences first teacheth vs that we be carefull to auoid offences and that we doe not in that respect seeme to disregard any of his little ones 2. Hee directeth vs what course wee are to take when wee are offended If thy brother that is one professing the same religion shall sinne against thee that is priuately either by injurie doing thee wrong or if ye will also by euill exaÌ„ple scandalizing or giuing thee offence by his sin committed in thy knowledge laying as it were a stuÌ„bling blocke in thy way thou must as the Lorde hath commaunded not suffer sinne to rest vpon him but in a desire to reclaim him thou must 1. vse priuate admonition brotherly reproofe goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ—gue and redargue conuince reproue him between thee him alone If he harken to thee acknowledging his fault and testifying his repentance then hast thou wonne or gained thy brother and saued a soule from death But if he heare thee not suffer not sinne so to rest vpoÌ„ him but take with thee yet 1. or 2. witnesses set vpoÌ„ him iointly that either by the preseÌ„ce authority of so many together hee may be reclamed or at least a way be prepared to publicke triall that howsoeuer thy testimonie alone would bee reiected yet in the mouth of 2. or 3. witnesses the matter may be sufficiently testified And if hee will not heare them but remaine obstinate then tell the Church that is the assembly of them who in the church haue spirituall authoritie to censure offenders whether it be the Consistorie of one Citie or particular church or the Synode of a Prouince or Nation or an vniuersall Counsell according to the nature of the offence and the qualitie degree of the offender And if he will not heare the assembly but remaining obstinat draw vpon him their censure of excoÌ„munication wherby they shall bind the offender after a sort deliuer him to Satan then shalt thou hold him no more as a brother or thinke thy selfe bound to exercise the duties appertaining to the coÌ„munion of Saints but withdraw thy selfe from him abandon him and haue no more to doe with him then a Iew of this time would haue to doe with an heathen or
Bishoppe by the consent of the antient Bishoppe who holdeth the mother or cathedrall Church shall only retain that people vnto which he was ordained Finally in another Councell of Africke it was decreed that such people as neuer had B. of their own should in no wise obtaine a B. vnlesse it be by the decree of the whole synod of euery prouince and of the primate and also by the consent of him vnder whose diocesse the said Church is placed Out of which canons we may obserue these things First that the Country churches belonged to the iurisdiction of the Bishop in the Citie Secondly that euer from the beginning they haue belonged to the Bishop of the Citie Thirdly that those parts of dioceses which then had no Bishop of their owne neuer had Fourthly that the number of Bishopricks was not wont to be diminished or the circuits of them inlarged but contrariwise if there were cause the number was increased and the circuits or dioceses lessened Fifthly that when a new Bishopricke was to be erected it was erected in some Bishops diocesse but not without his leaue and liking and also approbation of the Primate and Prouinciall synod Sixthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected that part wherein it was erected was taken as before I noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all the parts iointly possessed and as it were from the body of the rest Seuenthly that hee which was preferred to such a Bishopricke was not a parish Bishoppe For besides his owne Church hee had a diocesse Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to euery parish but to such populous parts of dioceses as might seeme worthy of a Bishop Eighthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected the Presbyter who obtained this honour was anew ordained thereto as Bishoppe and so placed in a superiour degree of the Ministerie then that which hee had when he was the Pastor or Presbyâ—er onely of a parish To these canons wee might adde the decrees of Clemens and Anacletus ordaining that Bishoppes should not bee ordained in Villages or Townes or small Cities lest the names of Bishoppes should grow vile but in such places Presbyters were seuerally to bee placed in each of them But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfet and yet it is to bee confessed that the Epistle of Clemens was aboue one thousand two hundred yeeres agoe translated by Ruffinus and that which in this point either of them decreed agreeth with the generall and perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles time to our age But to let them passe the Epistle of Leo the Great is without suspicion which he wrote to the Bishops of Africke requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be obserued that not in any places or townes Bishops should be consecrated nor where heretofore they haue not been seeing where the lesse people or smaller companies are the care of Presbyters may suffice But episcopall gouernment is onely to be set ouer greater people and more frequent or populous Cities lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God haue forbidden the height of priesthood should be giuen to villages and parishes or obscure and solitary townes and the episcopall honour whereto more excellent things ought to bee committed it selfe should grow vile or contemptible by the multitude thereof The canons whereof he speaketh that I may also come to them were the Canons of the councels held at Sardica and Laodicea The councell held at Sardica not long after the councell at Nice assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith among whom some of the chiefe had bene present at the councill of Nice as Hosius and Athanasius c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the councel of Nice at that time much oppugned by the Arians â—this councell I say determined that it is simply vnlawfull to constitute a Bishop in a village or small City vnto which euen one onely Presbyter doth suffice For it is not needfull that Bishops should bee placed there lest the name authority of a Bishop grow into contempt But the Bishops of the prouince being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan must ordaine Bishops in such Cities as where before had beene Bishops But if there shall any Citty bee found so abounding with multitude of people that it may seeme vvorthie of a Bishopricke let it haue a Bishop For that of Laodicea though it were but a prouinciall Synode yet the decrees thereof were receiued into the ancient Code of canons and were confirmed by the generall councell held in Trullo In that councill therefore it was decreed that Bishops ought not to bee placed in villages and countrey townes but visitors and that those which before that time had beene ordained might doe nothing without the consent of the Bishop who is in the Citty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same hath Photius Ne sit omnino in parua ciuitate vel vice Episcopus To these we may ad the decree of the councell of Toledo which though it were of latter times then the councels before mentioned yet was held aboue 9. hundred yeares agoe beeing ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King which I doe the rather mention because whereas the Bishop of Merida by the commandement of their late King Bamba had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small towne the said councell finding it to be a nouellous attempt contrary to the canons of the councels and practise of the Church decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopall See neither should any Bishop afterwards bee placed there As for him that was ordained not by his owne ambition but by the Kings compulsion they grant to him this fauour to bee remooued to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing And in the end they make this generall decree If any man shall cause a Bishop to bee made in those places where a Bishop neuer was let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty and moreouer let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order because hee hath presumed to ouerthrow not onely the decrees of the ancient Fathers but also the Apostolicall ordinances This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the countrey That which was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councils and decrees of godly Bishops was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised But the placing of Bishops in countrie parishes was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councels and decrees of godly Bishops as I haue shewed Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised It may be that my aduersary who is ready to catch at euerie syllable will from the canon of the councill held at Laodicea before cited obiect that
question which wee haue in hand concerning parish Bishops For surely if there were any parishionall Bishops in the Countrey then the Countrey Bishops were such but they were not such for they were set ouer diuers parishes Againe if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie then much more the Presbyters of parishes who were inferiour and in some things subiect to the Chorepiscopi as the Bishops substitutes were subiect to the Bishop and their parishes being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops were but a part of the diocesse So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops or their parishes from being entire Churches endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouernement But the former is true as hath beene proued therefore the latter That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them it is apparant because not onely they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes but for a time had episcopall ordination and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and to place Readers in parishes as also they might send Formatas or Canonicall Epistles which the Presbyters might not doe Likewise when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City yet they were gratified with the name and authoritie of Chorepiscopi In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium pronounced void and censured the ordainers As for the partie ordained because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus but so as that hee should not ordaine nor exercise any other episcopall function but only confirme Nouices and consecrate Virgins and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop and as superiour to a Presbyter And this was my second argument whereby I haue prooued that Countrey parishes had no Bishops Neither had each of them a Presbyterie but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of Sardica and by the iudgement of Leo Yea not Presbyters only did seuerallie gouerne parishes as with vs but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges You heard before diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes as namely that of the Councel of Carthage Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Eliberis which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice If any Deacon ruling a people shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any c. Againe if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery then was it either of the Ministery or of the Laitie But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities and Cathedrall Churches and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country no not to assist the Chorepiscopi much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parishes and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Presbyteries Moreouer Churches endued with power ecclesiasticall sufficient for the gouernment of themselues hauing also a Bishop and Presbyterie had the power of ordination as themselues also teach But Countrey parishes had not the power of ordination Therefore Countrey parishes were not indued with power ecclesiasticall neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their owne For the Assumption let the Refuter consider with mee what course was taken in Countrey parishes when their Minister was departed Among themselues they had ordinarily none or if by chance they had they could not ordaine him but were as sometimes it happened in Cities to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained Vniuersities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied vnlesse first it did appeare that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort who out of the Clergie belonging to the Cathedrall Church wherein as the Nurserie of the diocesse diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie did supply their want assigning some one of his Clergie vnto them But if there were none fit as sometimes their store was drawne drie by supplying the wants of many they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse whom they called another Bishops Clerke without his leaue and dimissorie letters for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong and such ordinations were to be disanulled If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse with the consent of his neighbour Bishop he sent to the Metropolitan who either out of his owne Clergie or some other in the Prouince was to supplie them And this as it is euident to them who haue read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches so is it confessed by Caluin Each City saith he had a College of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers for both did they all discharge the office of teaching c. to the people and also that they might leaue seede behinde them they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie To euery Citie a certaine region was attributed which should receiue their Ministers from thence and be accounted of the body of that Church It is therefore euident that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities For it was neuer almost heard of that there were at any time more Bishops so properly called then one in a City where notwithstanding were many Presbyters when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third against the one only lawfull Bishop excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first And when there haue beene more then one by schisme or heresie yet neither the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop was a parishionall Bishop but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them in the Citie and Countrey adioining there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onely more parishes then one not onely of the true Christians but also of the heretikes and schismatickes as before was noted concerning Antioch I shall haue occasion to speake more of this point when I shall intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which
the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gentiles Well Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres afterwards sendeth Timothy to be their Bishoppe who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time hee maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Saint Peter likewise had preached and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia to whom among others hee directeth his first Epistle After the death of Peter and Paul because those Churches were as Paul had foretold much annoled with heretikes Saint Iohn by the direction of the holy Ghost went into those parts preached the Gospell for many yeeres ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was To the ministery of the Apostles adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them and disciples which they had instructed by whose ministerie not onely many particular Christians but some Churches were brought to the faith As that of Colossae which was in the confines of Phrygia bordering on this Asia in Pauls time planted by the ministerie of Epaphraâ— as their founder watered by the ministerie of Archippus as their Bishoppe Now I appeale to the conscience of euery indifferent Reader whether it bee not vnlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres And so much for the first of his assertions the other two I will ioyne together For if there were but one Bishoppe for the Church both of the citie and country as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches and but one Presbytery if the Churches both of the citie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bishoppe nor Presbytery but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishoppe of the citie and not onely they but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authoritie all which I haue by most euident arguments and testimonies proued already then did the seuerall congregations and parishes which J haue also prooued were all but members of one body depend vpon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia cathedra episcopi or the cathedrall Church neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake as I haue also proued before I come to the assumption wherewith hee cauilleth egregiously because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes were not onely the cities but the countries adioyning that is as I expressed my meaning in the syllogisme before that the circuit of euery one of these Churches contained both the citie and country which assumption I haue made good by necessary proofe But saith hee Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing and the Church another But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple c. As touching this foule imputation that I may beginne with it J thanke God I am free both from desire and intent of dazâ—ling the eyes of the simple But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon so I haue endeuoured with plaine euidence to vphold and maintaine the truth against the nouelty of your inuentions and the subtilties of your sophistications wherewith you haue too long both dazeled and seduced the simple So much of that by the way If hee discerned the speech which I vsed to bee improper had hee not so much neither Art I meane either Rhetoricke or Logicke nor grace I meane charity as either to conceiue me to haue spoken by a trope or to explane my speech by such an enunciation as the nature of the arguments doth require When it is said in my text the seuen starres are the Angels will he say who euer heard that starres were Angels Or when Christ saith This cup is my bloud that is shâ—d or the new Testament in my bloud will he say who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testament When I said the Churches are the cities and the country could he neither vnderstand me as speaking after that most vsuall metonymy of the Christian people in the citie and country nor yet explane my words as the nature of the argumeÌ„ts contained in the speech doth lead him If I should say a man is not onely body but soule also or the body is not one member alone but many you would vnderstand me thus Man consisteth of body and soule the body consisteth not of one member alone but of many Or thus Whole man containeth these two parts the bodie containeth not one member alone but many Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is that is containeth not only the City but the Country But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11 and hee shall finde that the seuen Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose These few testimonies may suffice Eusebius saith that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch c. The Councell of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria maketh mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius calleth Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the great Citie Rome and Dionysius the B. of Alexandria The first Councell of Constantinople mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo Nectarius is said to haue beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople Dionysius the Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the great Citie of Alexandria Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vnto Councels as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba Alexander Bishop of Alexandria c. to the Councell of Sardica Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia and in like maner all the rest stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops or vnto Bishops Ignatius stileth himselfe thus Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Antioch Leo in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome sometimes Vrbis Romae of the Citie of Rome Basil writeth to Eusebius
at the first was conuerted Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters when few others were conuerted intend the conuersion of more then those fewe and was it not their office theâ— to labour their conuersion Jf they were not to labour their conuersion how were they to bee conuerted Nay if they did not labour it how were they conuerted Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flocke or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishoppe the rest beeing his assistants as the Presbytery When therefore more were conuerted then could well assemble together in one ordinarie congregation were not the congregations diuided Vpon this diuision was there a Bishoppe and presbyterie assigned to euerie seuerall congregation or onely a Presbyter the Bishoppe assisted with his Presbyterie hauing a generall superintendencie ouer all not onelie to attend those who were already conuerted but also to procure the conuersion of the rest and still as people in diuers places were conuerted to furnish them with a Presbyter and to guide and gouerne both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to bee a seuerall Church and his institution to bee their Minister To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the diuision of parishes and after that as either before there was ouer one congregation a Bishoppe and presbyterie so there should after to euery particular congregation be assigned a Bishoppe and presbyterie or after as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their seuerall charges was to attend them so before the Bishoppe and presbytery should haue beene prouided properly for that number alone which was conuerted and they should not haue thought it to belong to their charge to seeke or to labour the conuersion of the residue I say to thinke this argueth the parish-disciplinarians to bee of shallow iudgement and the parish-discipline to consist of vndâ—sgested fancies Vpon the proposition therfore and the assumption before propounded this conclusion notwithstanding al his cauills doth follow Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Serm. sect 3. page 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c. to page 19. l. 5 The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proued may thus be framed When the Churches were not diuided into seueral parishes nor Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures but werein coÌ„moÌ„ to atteÌ„d the whole flock feding them that were already conuerted and labouring the conuersion of the rest so farre as they were able both in citie and country then were not the Presbyteries appointed to parishes but to dioceses In the Apostles times the churches were not diuided into seuerall parishes c. Therefore in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and euident truth for when there were no parishes distinguished how could the Presbyters be assigned to seuerall parishes And if they were appointed to labour the conuersion of all which belonged to God both in citie and countrey how were they not appointed to dioceses For can hee thinke that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country and which after also were conuerted belonged to one parish Is it not euident that after their conuersion they were diuided into many both in citie and countrey And what though at the very first all the Christians in the citie and countrey if they had beene assembled together would haue made but a small congregation were they therefore of one parish before there was any parish at all Was not the circuit of the Church as before hath beene prooued and of the Bishop and Presbyteries charge the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were conuerted The assumption also is that which the Refuter himselfe holdeth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostles times Howbeit I except the Church of Alexandria as after you shall heare But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both yet he wrangleth with both and as a man confounded yet resolued to contradict though against the light of his conscience he denieth the conclusion and contradicteth himselfe The proposition after his perpetuall manner hee propoundeth connexiuely If the parishes were not distinguished c. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes c. The force of the connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses he suppresseth leauing out the words of greatest force viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God so farre as they should be able both in the citie and in the countries adioining And as it inferreth that they were not appointed to parishes he answereth not only he maketh a flourish with the shew of regestion which kinde of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus Howsoeuer the world goeth the consequence must be denied that is resolued vpon though he haue nothing to oppose against it Yes he hath two things to oppose the first a question What if euery one of the Churches then were but one parish As if hee should say What if the maine question betweene vs bee true in that part which wee hold viz. that the Churches were parishes and not dioceses Where are you then Why but I prooue they were not parishes because the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses And come you now with this question What if they were Yea but I will prooue they were You will neede your proofes in a fitter place Yea but in the meane time I disprooue your consequence You will say something perhaps to bleare the eies of the simple but you doe not indeede denie and much lesse doe you disprooue the consequence The deniall of the consequence were this Though it bee supposed that parishes were not distinguished and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conuersion of all both in Citie and Countrey yet it doth not follow that they were appointed to dioceses and not to seuerall parishes and not this nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish This is to denie the maine conclusion which is already prooued Yea but the proofe of this deniall disprooueth your consequence The consequent perhaps which is the conclusion but the consequence it cannot without supposing as it doth not those things which are supposed in the proposition thus Though there were no parishes yet they were assigned to parishes though they were appointed both for Citie and Country yet they were not appointed for dioceses You deny therefore as a man amazed the maine conclusion the consequence of the proposition you touch not But let vs see how he disproueth the conclusion though his argument come out of time and be here vsed only for a poore shift It may thus be framed
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
common to attend the whole flocke conuerted For that which is added of labouring the conuersion of the residue c. is the errour forsooth which before he noted How proueth he these points to be false Thus whome can M.D. perswade that the Apostles would either appoint or allow of such confused assemblies wherein the teachers and hearers should euery day so disorderly be changed And then putteth the like case of a schoole himselfe being worthy to be put into a cloake-bagge For in which of these points doth this orderly vnconfounded man note such disorder and confusion or was not the confused conceite he speaketh of in his own braine Let him call to mind what euen now hee said in oppugning the proposition that euery one of the churches then was but one parish which by reason of the multitude of the people had many teachers Do we not see the like saith he in the French Duch churches here in England concludeth that such Parishes there were in the Apostles times and none but such Tell me then is the French or Duch Church in London distinguished either of them into seuerall parishes which is the first point If they be how are they but one Parish Are their ministers supposing them to be as he saith many as there were many Presbyters in the Apostles times in each Church before the diuision of the parishes are they assigned to seueral titles that is parishes or cures If their Church be not diuided into diuers parishes how can their Presbyters be assigned to diuers which is the 2. point Thirdly doe not their ministers communi consilio mutuo auxilio by common counsel and mutuall helpe attend their whole flocke none of them being appointed to a seuerall charge And yet all this I hope without disorder or confusion That therefore which hee bableth in the greatest part of the page concerning disorder and confusion is wholy to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion Yea but M.D. telleth vs that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flocke So saith S. Luke Act. 20.28 What of that if they were to attend the whole flocke in cōmon then were they not assigned to seuerall parishes which were but parts of the flocke to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted Doth either of them say that a flocke was any more then one ordinarie assembly and might not that be a Parish as well as a Diocesse Either of whome hee had mētioned none but S. Luke onely But let that passe For to what purpose doth he aske whether Luke said that a flocke was any more then one assembly If the flocke were but one assēbly that which I proposed is the more confirmed For if they were to attend al one assembly thē were they not assigned to seueral parishes But yet I would haue him know that the word flock the word ecclesia or church which there the word people which in other places is vsed as a word of the same signification is of a larger extēt then to signifie onely one assembly The flocke is that for which Christ the good shepheard did giue his life vnto which appertained the sheep which his father gaue him not only amōg the Iewes but the Gentiles also And this flock is that Church which God meaning Christ who is God in that place of the Acts is said to haue redeemed with his bloud that people of his which he saueth frō their sins And as this is spoken of the Church in generall so the company of them that belong to Christ in any Nation Prouince Diocesse City or Parish may bee called the Flocke the Church the people of God Neither doe I doubt for the reasons before alleadged but that the flock in which those Presbyters Act. 20. were set as ouerseers was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus and the Country adioyning where he saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily vsed of beasts and fowles that heard and flocke together I confesse it is beyond the compasse of my reading who neuer read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to fowles but haue found the word vsed properly for a flocke of sheepe and metaphorically for the flocke of Christs sheepe but that flocke is not one onely particular congregation For Luke 12.32 Iohn 10.16 as touching the word Ecclesia which he denieth to signifie any other outward company of men then a particular congregation only I haue already said more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But heare his conclusion if my that is if the word Ecclesia doth not signifie any other then a particular congregation what truth is there in his assumption that denieth parishes to bee distinguished he would haue said to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue been assigned to their seuerall titles or cures This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance vntill as you haue seene him deny it before so you shall see him againe and againe to deny it Jn the meane time I beseech you how is it inferred If the word Church signifie onely a particular congregation and such a one was that flock in which the Presbyters were set Act. 20.28 therefore there is no truth in the assumption which denieth the parishes to haue beene distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures Who seeth not that the contrary is to bee inferred Jf the word Church did signifie one congregation and was in euery City but one and if such was the flocke which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common then it followeth that the flocke was not diuided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to seuerall cure◠And so the assumption by his owne inference is proued to be true This and thus weakly saith the refuter hath M.D. proued the point of so great importance And thus and thus stongly say I hath our refuter disproued it Now let the iudicious Reader iudge whether my weakenesse hath not been of sufficient force to ouerthrow his strength CHAP. V. Answering their obiection who say that in the first two hundred yeeres all the Christians in each great Citie were but one particular congregation assembling in one place NOw wee are to examine their proofes And first that which I obiected for them and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himselfe Serm. sect 4. page 19. Against this which hath been said they doe obiect that in the first two hundred yeeres c. 16 lines Here the refuter chargeth me that I making shew of taking away what euer can bee said against my assertion doe propound but one onely bare obiection whereas diuers testimonies and reasons both from scriptures and fathers haue been alleaged by others c. Thus makes he no conscience either of belying me who onely intended to answere that which I tooke to be their chiefe obiection and had of
other greater Cities but chiefly which was omitted by the Refuter betweene the short time of a few weekes and the continuance of 200. yeeres Jf at Ierusalem within a few weekes the Christians were become many thousands how may wee thinke they were increased before the end of 200. yeeres in Rome Alexandria Ephesus Antioch and such like Cities So that I doubt not but the consequence is strong enough containing an argument from the lesse to the greater though I prooue none of those foure things which hee would haue prooued as first that all which were conuerted in Ierusalem at that time remained members of that Church Which maketh not against the consequence but rather for it seeing those which remained not in Ierusalem were by persecution dispersed to other Cities to helpe forward the plough of Christ there Secondly that all the great Cities had the like meanes to that of Ierusalem which needeth not to be proued seeing the meanes which had beene vsed and the miracles which had beene wrought at Ierusalem were also effectuall in other places and are at this day besides the like meanes of their owne Thirdlie though the meanes were alike that yet the effects were answerable which also needeth not to be prooued seeing wee know by the report of the best Writers how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time Fourthly that there was neuer any apostasie in any of those Churches with which Paul in his conceit doth seeme to charge them of Asia 2. Tim. 1.15 Which exception also is friuolous seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities Rome Alexandria and Antioch but euen these seuen of Asia were famous in those times for the profession of the faith Thus you see how he seeketh all the corners of his wit to finde if it were possible some starting hole whereby to escape the force of this consequence But these points are not worth the standing on Only whereas now hee chargeth the second time all them of Asia with apostasie from the faith because S. Paul saith that all who are in Asia had forsaken him hee must be admonished to reforme his iudgement For first Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia but onely of all those Asians of note who had beene in Rome since his imprisonment of which number saith hee are Phygellus and Hermogenes Neither doth hee speake of an apostasie from the faith but of their forsaking him in his affliction as the Disciples had shrunke from our Sauiour Christ for else when hee saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle In my first Apologie no man stood with me but all â—id forsake me wee might in like manner collect that all were Apostares from the faith But what kinde of desertion Paul meaneth whereinto those of Asia did fall it appeareth by the contrary practise of Onesiphorus whom he commendeth in the same place who often refreshed Paul and was not ashamed of his chaine but when he was at Rome hee was so farre from shrinking from Paul that hee most diligently sought him out and found him The others of Asia of whom hee complaineth when they were in Rome shrunke from him as being ashamed or afraid of his chaine Thus Chrysostome expoundeth it that Paul when hee was apprehended was forsaken of his friends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is likely there were many then in Rome from the parts of Asia but none saith hee stood to mee no man would know me all were estranged from me Theophylact likewise When Paul was apprehended of Nero hee was forsaken of all the faithfull in Asia who from Asia had gone to Rome with him Oâ—cumenius in like manner When Paul was apprehended of Nero his friends of Asia did forsake him for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul or otherwise faithfull men but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 withdrew themselues and as we say drew their neckes out of the collar after Nero had laid hold on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those in Asia that is those of Asia It is likely saith Theodoret that some of those which in Asia had beleeued were at Rome but auoided the companie of Paul for feare of Nero. As for the assumption viz. that the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes was great it maketh nothing saith he for him or against vs. Which is a strange speech seeing it is one of the premisses whereupon the conclusion is inferred and which being granted their assertion cannot be true But heere againe hee telleth vs of the great parishes about London saying that they of Ierusalem did all meet together as well as they Which is spoken against reason and against sense for first it was not intended that they of Ierusalem should meet as those of London which be of one parish after their multitude was increased Secondly neither might they being vnder persecution meet in great multitudes as those of London which through Gods goodnes enioy peace and liberty Thirdly neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes But where I said it was not intended when their multitude should bee great that they of Ierusalem should assemble together as they who are of one parish about London that needeth some explanation The parishes about London and euery where from the beginning are each of them one among many seuered from the rest with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinarie set congregation hauing one Presbyter and not a presbyterie much lesse a Bishop assigned to them whereas contrariwise the Church of Ierusalem whereunto Iames was appointed Bishop assisted with a presbyterie of Ministers was neuer intended to be one parish among many but to bee a mother Church which should by Gods blessing beget others to bee seuered from it in particular assemblies and yet to remaine subordinate and subiect vnto it as children to the mother It was neuer meant neither in Ierusalem nor in any other Citie that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set ouer no more but one particular congregation or that as more congregations should bee constituted euerie one should haue a Bishop and a presbyterie But they were prouided for the people of God that either then were in the Citie and Countrey or after should bee which as it increased was to be diuided into seuerall Congregations whereunto Presbyters seuerally were to bee assigned all being members of one bodie subiected to the Bishop and Presbyterie of the mother Church which was as it were the head of that bodie The Refuter not contented thus to haue cauilled with my argument doth also threaten as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands to turne the poem of it such is his crueltie to the very heart of my cause But his minaces are but words and his words but winde for this is all he can say or doe If the Christians
word all to bee taken collectiuè or distributiuè if in the former sense then his meaning should be that all Christians in the world whether they dwelt in cities or countreys did on the Lords day meet in one place which is absurd If the latter then he meaneth all them distributiuely who whether they liued in the cities or countries belonged to one congregation As if one of vs speaking of the custome of our times should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Sunday so called there is a comming together of all into one place who doe dwell in the cities or the countries that is all in euery place that belong to the same congregations And that it is so to be vnderstood it appeareth by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities propounded in the plurall nuÌ„ber For his meaning neuer was that the people of diuers cities did meet ordinarily together the note of disiuÌ„ction â— or added to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cuntry doth signifie that those of the country did not al meet with theÌ„ of the City for then he would haue said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that al did meet in their seuerall congregations whether they liued in the cities or couÌ„tries His other testimony is of Platina affirming that Dionysius about 160. yeares after Euaristus did first diuide and set out parishes and therefore hee referreth him Damasus to Onuphrius to be reconciled But well may this refuter with shame enough hide his head who shameth not so oft to falsifie the authors which hee quoteth This is that which Platina reporteth of Dionysius that he being made B. straightwaies diuided the Churches and coemiteries which were the places of christian meetings in the city of Rome to the presbyters but he saith not that he first did it neither was it his mening for he had said the same before of Euaristus Abroad also saith he in the country he distributed parishes dioceses so couÌ„try parishes are called to the end that euery one should be content with his bounds limits Agreeable hereunto is the report of Dionysius himself if it be himself in his epistle to Seueruâ— the B. of Corduba For wheras Seuerus had asked his directioÌ„ what course was to be takeÌ„ coÌ„cerning parish churches throghout the prouince of Corduba he wisheth him to follow that which he had lately done in the church of Rome ecclesias vero singulas singulis presbyteris dedimus seueral Churches we assigned to seueral presbyters diuided to theÌ„ the churches coemiteries ordained that euery one shold haue his proper right in such sort as that none may inuade the lands bounds or right of another parish but that euery one should be content with his owne boundes and so keepe his church and people committed to him that before the tribunall of the eternall Iudge he may giue an account of all committed to him and may receiue glorie and not iudgement for his deeds Now these reports are easily reconciled with the afore cited testimony of Damasus For as Onuphrius also hath obserued Euaristus first diuided the parishes to the presbyters the nuÌ„ber wherof by Hyginus not loÌ„g after was augmeÌ„ted an 138 After whoÌ„ nothing was altered vntill the time of Dionysius an 260. who increased the nuÌ„ber of the parishes which afterwards were multiplied by Marcellus about the yeare 305 c. Besides thogh Euaristus first diuided the parishes in Rome yet Dionysius might be the first that set out the couÌ„try parishes Which distinction if it wil salue their credits who haue said that Dionysius first diuided parishes I wil not be against it His 2. answere is that if Euaristus did any such thing he diuided the titles to only gouerning elders c. A likely matter For the titles were the sacrae aedes the places of metings vnto Gods worship in which the Presbyters or as Dionysius calleth theÌ„ sacerdotes the Priests were ordained to feed the people coÌ„mitted to them with the ministery of the word sacraments and goe before them in the worship of God But of lay elders I haue sufficiently spoken before if any thing wil suffice to perswade men that there neuer were any such in the church of God My 3. proof is the testimony of Cornelius the B. of Rome who as he saith there were 46. Presbyters at that time in the Church of Rome 108 others of the clergy 1500. poor people maintained al of them by the contributioÌ„ of christians so he calleth the Christian people in Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great innumerable people Did the B. and 154. clergy men attend one parishionall assembly only was there 1500. poor christians besides 154 of the clergy together with the B. maintained of one parishional congregatioÌ„ was an innumerable people the people of one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place This testimony saith our refuter is quite besides the purpose a fift part meaning 50. yeres beyond the time we speak of The limitatioÌ„ of the time wherto they haue coÌ„fined the primitiue church was deuised for a poor shift because they knew there was not the like euidence for the 2. century as for the 3. Otherwise what reasoÌ„ can be reÌ„dred why there should be diuers parishes vnder one B. in the year 250. if it were not so in the year 200 especially seing they which of purpose haue written of these things do professe that there was no differeÌ„ce in the nuÌ„ber of the parishes in that time 10. years after What reson can be giueÌ„ why the christian people which was innumerable in the yeare 250. should haue been in the yeere 200. the people of one particular parish especially seeing good authors before the year 200 doe acknowledge as much as if they had said that then they were innumerable To which purpose in the 4 place I quoted Tertullian whom J needed not if we wil beleeue the refuter to haue cited seeing saith he he speaketh vnlimitedly of the christiaÌ„s in the Romane Empire saith nothing herein that wâ—e deny nor ought for M.D. profit By his good leaue therefore I will recite the words For after that hee had professed that christians then contrary to the iudgement and practise of the Papists now thought it vnlawfull for them to auenge themselues on their persecutors he saith For if we should shew our selues to be open enemies not secret auengers should we want either number or strength we are aliants froÌ„ you et vestra omnia implenimus and we haue filled al places that are yours cities Islands Castles towns assemblies c. only your temples we leaue vnto you If we should but depart away from you the losse of so many citizens would amaze you Without doubt you would be astonished ad solitudineÌ„ nostraÌ„ at the solitarines which our abseÌ„ce would make you would seek the reliques of a dead city wherein you might rule more enemies then citizens wold remain
vnto you but now you haue the fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of Christians penè 〈◊〉 ciâ—ium being almost all citizens penè omnes ciues Christianos habendo by hauing almost al your Citizens Christians Let the Reader judge what the number of Christians were in those times whether Tertullian doth not speake chiefly of the city of Rome let him consider whether almost all the citizens of Rome of whom ordinarily there were diuers huÌ„dred thousands besides christian strangers seruants and the female sex were like to be the people of one parish The same author speaking to the same purpose in another place saith it may be sufficiently manifest vnto you that we deale according to the doctrine of diuine patience Seing we being so great a multitude of men euen the greatest part almost of euery city do cary our selues in silence modestie And so much concerning the multitude of the people Serm sect 7. p. 21. Ad to the multitude of the people the consideration of the times raging for the most part with persecution c. to the end of the 2. point As touching the times the refuter answereth that how furiously soeuer the times raged with persecution yet the christian people did vsually assemble together Whereof I doubt not But the question is whether in diuers congregations as I say as it is most euideÌ„t or altogether in one place which is altogether vncredible As for the places wherin the christians in the first 200. yeares vsed to assemble especially in time of persecution whereas I say they were priuate houses vaults and secret places not capable of such multitudes as haue bin spoken of for refuge he flieth to the vâ—lts holes as he calleth theÌ„ which he supposeth were capable of great multitudes but omitteth priuate houses and other small roomes turned to this vse And whereas J say they were not capable of such multitudes as were thâ— whole companies of Christians in the greatest cities proued before to haue bin in a manner innumerable hee onely saith great multitudes But what we are to coÌ„ceiue of this point let vs enquire of Hospinian a Protestant writer who hath trauelled in this argument He therefore saith in the time of the Apostles and some while after the places of meetings which Christians had were simple houses neither were they permitted by the cruelty of tyrants and rage of the people to build I say not magnificent but not meane Temples The places therefore of publike meetings in those times were base more like dens and secret corners then magnificall Temples as Eusebiusâ—estifieth â—estifieth And Tertullian plainly affirmeth that in his time the Christians had no other temples but simple houses Polydor Virgil testifieth that the Christians were so far from hauing any temple built in these times that all was secret their places of meeting were chapels and those hidden and for the most part vnder the ground rather then in open and publike places Bullinger likewise saith that the antient Christians vnder Constantine the Great were wont vnder the quire of the temples to build cryptaâ— vaults in memory of the persecutions whereby the Christians vnder the Emperors before Constantine were not suffered sometimes to come abroad and therfore they were forced to hold their assemblies and performe the sacred exercises in secret sometimes in dens and other priuy places But saith the Refuter Let them bee as little as he would make them yet it doth not follow hereof that the Churches in the Cities alone contained many particular congregations or parishes To which purpose againe he alleageth his chapels of ease for a meere euasion seeing himselfe is perswaded there was none such in those times And where he saith that although there were diuers places of meeting in those times yet all appertained to one congregation I confesse it to be true for euen after the distinction of parishes both in citie and country all of them belonged to one Church as meÌ„bers of the same body Yea but saith he if there were many particular congregations in euery city how chanceth it he told vs before that the parishes were not distinguished Distinguish the times and the answere is easie In the first hundred yeeres though Christians met in diuers places as they could yet neither were there in the most cities certaine set places of meeting nor certaine Presbyters assigned to them as to their perpetuall and peculiar charge But at the end of the first hundred yeeres Euaristus diuided to seuerall Presbyters in Rome titles that is the set places of meetings which we call parish Churches whereof they were entituled and called the Presbyters of such and such a title or parish And thus haue J maintained my arguments and answers against his cauils Now am I to defend my assertion against his proofes CHAP. VI. Answering the Refuters arguments ANd first because you shall know what he meaneth to conclude he propoundeth the question which is saith he whether in the Apostles times and the age following that is the first two hundred yeeres the visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were parishes or no. In which question seeing he his consorts restraine the times of the primitiue Church to the first two hundred yeeres the Reader will I hope expect that he should conclude that foâ— this whole terme at the least the churches were each of them but a parish and that in all this time there were no dioceses His argumentation containeth two ranckes of instances the former taken out of the scriptures the latter out of the Fathers The former he concludeth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch being visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish vnderstand for the whole terme of 200. yeeres then the other visible Churches 〈◊〉 with the like power were also each of them during the same terme but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch being visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were each of them but one parish for the first 200. yeeres Therefore the other visible Churches endued with the like power were also for the like terme each of them but one parish The proposition I will be content to yeeld to my aduersarie so it may be lawfull for me to vse the like for then I would conclude thus If the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishionall Churches in the first 200. yeeres neither were the Churches of other Cities But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The consequence is the same with his and grounded on the same hypothesis viz. that all Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were at the first of the same nature and constitution The former part of the assumption concerning Alexandria I will manifestly prooue when I come to the third point concerning Diocesans viz. that it was not one parish but contained diuers parishes euen
said in the councill of Carthage lifting vp their necks against their Bishoppes haue inflamed their desires but these attempts were esteemed vnlawfull and therefore as in councels they were prohibited so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed But hereof also I haue spokeÌ„ before Yea but saith hee this canon was not vniuersally obserued as may appeare by the oft renewing of it in other councils and the practise of the Churches to the contrary afterward Here J aske him first when this was done for will he prooue that the irregular and vnlawfull practises of vaineglorious people and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ were the lawfull and ordinary practises of the purest churches in the first two hundred yeeres Secondly whether it were lawfully done or not if yea then doth hee contradict the iudgement of approued councils the authority of orthodoxall Fathers the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ hauing nothing to oppose therto but vain surmises vnlikely likelihoods If not why are they alledged shal irregular vnlawful practises be commended as paterns for imitatioÌ„ But let vs heare his instances which T. C. with great labor and long study gathered The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop of a small village called Coman If I say no how will hee proue it Eusebius is alledged lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approued men BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla one of Montanus his truls mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoticus of or from the village Comana whose mouth Themiso stopped noting the place not wherof he was Bishop but whence he came or where he was borne for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia saith Caesar Baronius ex vicâ— Comana in Armenia oriâ—ndus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia borne at the village Comana in Armenia Jn the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius Apollonius reporteth the same story which Nicephorus also reciting vseth these words Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus wheÌ„ Maximilla begaÌ„ to prophecy at Pepuza a place which Montanus called Ierusalem indeuored to coÌ„uince her euil spirit but was hindred of those which were her fauourits meaning Themiso Indeed Apollinarius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupoÌ„ Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter but thogh Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Peter cals himself being more then a Presbyter as BB. vsually cal one another Consacerdotes yet afterwards he expresselie calleth him a Bishoppe And thus the village the little village Coman hath lost her Bishoppe For little the Refuter added of his owne to make his instance the greater The second Was not Mares he should haue said Maris Bishoppe of Solica Of Solica Truelie I cannot but smile that so great a clerke hath learned his letters no better for though the first letter be not vnlike an S. yet is it the D. vsed in that print as hee might haue learned of a Deacon in the same page But this sheweth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand not consulting with the author Theodoret saith that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha which hee saith was but a small towne vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I will speake of when I come to Nazianzum which also is termed so For saith Theodoret Eusebius beeing desirous to install Maris a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of vertues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Episcopall throne he came to Dolicha by which phrase it appeareth he did not ordaine him the Presbyter of a parish but such a Bishop as others were at least of that time being the fourth century after Christ So farre hath our refuter also ouershotte his marke For though Dolicha were but a small city or towne as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be yet that hindreth not but that it might haue a diocesse belonging thereto as wel as ours haue though perhaps not so great The third Asclepius of a small towne in Africke For this T. C. quoteth Ierome tom 1. catalog Gennadij vir illustr Gennadius indeed saith that he was vici non grandis episcopus But Ioannes de Trittenhem in his booke de scriptorib ecclesiast saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus so that although his seat was no great town yet his diocesse was that whole territory But when was this about the yeare 440. so farre doth my aduersary who complaineth of my ouershooting my marke when J alledged the councill of Sardica ouershoot me for when he wil scarse suffer me to shoot tenscore he as if he were shooting for the flight shoots 22 euen tweluescore beyond the marke I say vnto him it was not so froÌ„ the beginning But by councels of Africk held towards the end of the fourth century permitted namely that in part of the diocesse belonging to the B. of a city new Bishoprickes might be erected if the people of those partes being populous desiring so much and the Bishoppe of the city consenting thereto it were agreed vpon by the prouinciall Synode But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way in granting popular requests against the canons of other receiued councels and ancient practise of the Church that Leo the great Bishop of Rome was faine to write vnto the Bishops of Africke to stay that excesse The fourth What was Nazianzum but a small towne where that famous Gregory the Diuine was B For which T. C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City what if Gregory the Diuine were not B. of Nazianzum Nazianzum though Socrates make mention of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meane city yet he calleth it a citie and though somwhere it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a little city or towne yet was it such a city that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitane BB. not that I thinke it had any other cities or Bishopricks subiect vnto it I will not stand to argue that question whether Gregory the Diuine were Bishop of Nazianzum For although diuers good Authors affirme it yet I beleeue Gregory himselfe who saith he was not B. but onely coadiutor to his Father there He was by his dear friend Basil the great made Bishop of Saâ—â—â—â— partly against his wil and afâ—er was made Bishop of Constantinople but leauing both the former being seized vpon by Anthimuâ— the Bishop of Tyana who placed another there the latter resigning it into the hands of the councill of Constantinople which preferred Nectarius to bee his successor hee returned vnto Nazianzum where finding the See void obtained of Helladius who was the Bishoppe of Caesarea after Basil that Eulalius might bee ordained Bishoppe there But I will not dispute this