not And as for that other vntruth which M. Doctor is pleased to call an error where he saith they were called angels in respect of their generall calling of the Ministery it shall rest sub judice vndecided for a while till a fitter occasion calleth for the examination of it In the 5. next sections viz. 13-17 there are many words Sect. 12. ad sect 13. 14. 15. 16. Def. from page 47. to 52. D. spent to litle purpose the Doctors cheife drift is to cleare himself of some vntruthes which the Refuter chargeth vpon him in his affirmation that the wise and learned disciplinarians doe grant 1. that the Bishops which in his text are called Angels were Bishops of whole cities and the countreies adioyning that is to say Dioceses 2. That the Presbyters which were no Ministers were lay and annuall 3. That these angels were nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries 4. That their presidentship was onely for a week or a month and that by course as being comon to them in their turnes Now the Doctor to manifest the truth to be of his side in all these points appealeth to the writings of Calvin and Beza And touching the first the sheweth from their words that in the primitive Church Bishops had the oversight of Dioceses and therefore in some places where their circuit was very large they had vnder them such as were called Chorepiscopi countrey-Bishops he might have added Lectores Acoluthes c. that they had also above them Metropolitanes as we may see in the places whereunto he sendeth vs. Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. section 2. and 4. Beza de Minist grad cap. 24. pag. 167. c. But how doth this prove that which he was to prove that the The D. freeth not himself fro the untruthes charged upon him Bishops which in his text are called angels were Bishops of Dioceses or set over whole cities and the countryes adjoyning Doth it not prove as strongly that these angels had both country-Bishops diverse other inferior degrees of clergie-men vnder them and Metropolitans above them Which if the Doct. should affirme his best freinds would see very evidently that he abuseth these grave and The Doct. changeth the quest concealeth that which would covince him of 2. evils learned divines most grossely to make them the authors of those vntruthes which himself broached and will not recall His hope was it seemeth to blinde his readers eyes by a crafty changing of the question as almost every where he doth and concealing that which serveth to convince him both of mainteyning an vntruth and abusing their testimonies to mainteyne it For it is manifest that they both do speak neyther of these Angels nor of the Apostles times but of that forme of government which by humane ordinance tooke place after their daies wherein the ordinances of Christe and his Apostles which should have bin kept inviolable according to 1. Tim. 6. 14. began to be violated and so on to the time of the Papacie Let the D. read againe the title of that 4. cap. with the 1. 2. sections therof togither with that 24. chap. of M. Beza pag. 165. 166. c. and though he be a partie yet I will at this tyme make him judge how substancially he hath proved the first pointe Nether are the Testimonies alledged for the 2. point so direct or The D. testimonies prove not the point fit for his purpose as he would perswade for where he should prove that they teach that those ancient governinge Elders which they hold were parâ—s of the presbyterie in the Apostolike Churches are laie and annuall he sheweth out of Beza in his former book pag. 60. cap. 11. that at Geneva there are yearely either new chosen or the old confirmed And out of Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 3. sect 8. and Beza againe cap. 11. pa. 64. and de presb and excom pag. 105. that they are or must be chosen out of the laiety The reasons why they are there annuall doe clearely shew Beza dicto libro pag. 68. that it is a matter of conveniencie in regard of persons place time and sondry other circumstances so estemed and not a thing necessarie And though they account them not of the Ministery because they are not chosen and ordeyned to the Ministery of the word and sacraments yet is their office merely ecclesiasticall not civil because of the choise and ordination by the publike prayers of the Church And therefore if the word laiety or laie-persons be opposed to such as are persons ecclesiasticall they cannot properly be sayd to remaine laye during their office Neyther doth Calvin any where say that being chosen out of the laiâ—y they still remaine lay Nay his very phrase chosen from among the laitie sheweth that after the choise during the time of their office they are not of the laiety But the D. saith that being chosen they doe not become to be of the Clergie therefore Mr Calvin must needs meane they still continue to be of the laiety But when by the Clergie Mr Calvin meaneth as he saith vsitato nomine all such as exercised any publik Ministery in the Church all being so called from the Doctor to the dore-keeper what can he else meane but that they by that election being called to beare publick office of government with the pastors became thereby to be of the clergie that is as the generall definition of the word clergie sheweth ecclesiasticall persons In deed he calleth them â—ie because they be not of the Clergie in the stricter sense viz Ministers of the Sacra functio jurisdictionis word and sacraments but yet he calleth their function an ecclesiasticall order and sacred function As idly and evilly alleadged is Mr Bezaes testimoney for as litle Bezaes testimonie is both idly and evilly alleadged by the D. doth it speak to the purpose he may doâ— wel to look vpoÌ„ his book againe see whether it be Beza that calleth them annuall in the title of that chapter it may be the title itself will prove none of Bezaes but Saraviaes his adversaries who by that term in the title seeketh to disgrace that function which I the rather beleeve because where they are sayd in that title to be such as are ad docendum inâ—pti Beza disclaymeth it and saith they must in some sort and measure be ad docendum apti and that it is a fault if others be chosen and chargeth Saravia to do litle better then calumniate in so terming them And that however new may be chosen at the yeres end yet that temâ—re nec ipsi sâ—se deponunt nec deponuntur yea rather summo studio retinentur qui fidem suaÌ„ et diligentiam in suo praesbyteratu probarunt And that whereas by the order of the consistory a time is prescribed whether annum vel longius it is done in discretion for diverse causes set down by him not for that eyther they did not
And if one of our Bishops may in his visitation apply to alâ— the Ministers of his diocese those words of the Apostle Acts. 20. 28. that they should attende the whole flock c. as he saith lib. 2. pag. 105. then he must acknowledge all those Ministers to be properly Diocesan and not parishonall Pastors because the whole flock or Church in such a speach is properly a Diocese and not a parishe Moreover by the like consequence he must acknowledge that the Prophets Teachers mentioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. were for the extent of their authority equall with the Apostles that is all vniversall Ministers none affixed to any particular Church or Diocese because the Church wherein God is sayd to ordeyne them is the vniversal Church militant as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 227. lib 2. pag. 4. Also that Titus was properly a nationall Bishop and not Diocesan or provinciall because the Church of Crete whereof he was Bishop was properly a Nationall Church and not a province or diocese And that the Bishops of our owne Church whose function he will have to be of divine institution are properly nationall also and not diocesan or provinciall because the Church of England whereof they are Bishops is neyther diocese nor province but properly a nation or nationall Church Wherefore if the Doctor doth not willfully shut his eies against the light he may se that though he could prove those 7. Churches to be properly dioceses yet it will not followe as he supposeth that the Angels of those Churches were properly diocesan Bishops So that if he faile also of his hope to prove or â—ather boast in vaine of that proofe which he professeth lib. 2. pa 3. to have drawne from his text to shewe that the 7. Churches of Asia were properly dioceses then may he sit downe in silence with the losse of his cause till he hath found out a new text in case any other can be found to justify the functioÌ„ of our Diocesan Bishops His argument which as he saith sect 2. cap. 3. is grounded Section 3. Ref. pa. 53. D. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 43. sect 3. vpon the text was in his sermon pag. 17. 18. proposed to prove a more large Conclâ—sion viz. that in the Apostles times and in the age followinge the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels to wit all visibles Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes wherfore before we trie how wel he hath proved those 7. churches to be Dioceses let us first see how absurdly he dealeth in strayning his text to a larger extent I meane to justify that generall coÌ„clusion before mentioned The words which â—ay downe his argument are these For whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seven naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith Theâ— starres were the angels of those 7. churches it cannot be denied but that the Châ— whereof they were Bishops were great ample cities and not cities alone but also the Countries adioyning From the last wordes of which-sentence the refuter frameth this connexive Syllogisme If the Churches of Asia to which our Saviour Christ writâ— were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the Countries adioyning then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes But the Churches of Asia were such therefore they were Dioceses c. And addeth that the Assumption lieth pag. 18. and the conclusion pag. 17. whereby it appeareth that the last wordes of the proposition which is supplied viz. then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes must not be restreyned to the 7 Churches of Asia onely but rather understood of all the visible Churches which were in the world at that time and in the age following as the wordes of his conclusion before delivered doe shewe Notwithstanding because the reâ—uter rejecteth the consequence of the proposition and saith it is naught the Doctor finding himselfe vnable to make it good disgorgeth his stomach against his The D. vnable to make good his owne reasoÌ„ seeketh to make his Ref. logick naught Refuter and thinking to make his logick naught asketh pag. 43. sect 3. if he cannot frame a Syllogisme with hope to answere it vnlesse the proposition have a consequence which he may deny and as if he were a Puny that had not learned the groundes of logick intreateth him that the Proposition may be simple and afterwards charging him not to know what the hypothesis or thing supposed in a connexive syllogism is taketh vpon him Magistraliter to teach him how to know it and willeth him to dispose his connexive proposition into an Enthymem and giveth him to witt that what part is wanting to make vp a syllogism the same is presupposed as the hypothesis whereon the consequence is grounded and so goeth on along in instructing his Refuter in logicall pointes where I leave him And on the Refuters behalfe I answere 1. that though he is not perhapps so great a logician as Maister Doctor yet he is not ignorant how to reduce an Enthymem into a simple Syllogisme he hath often done it before the Doctor drewe him into his schoole as the reader may see in his answere pag. 9. 29. 70. 73. 109. 139. 145. 154. 155. 156 and so hath proved The D. a false witnes him to be a false witnes in saying as he doth pag. 44. and 45. that he knoweth not what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposed in a connexive proposition and that he must unlearn that art if he will not be counted a Trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexive syllogisme that he may have a consequence to cavill with â— but doth not the D. himself frame many coÌ„nexive Syllogismes in this Defense See lib. 1. pag. 67. 84. 92. 101. 134. 165. 180. in the rest of his bookes many others may be found besides sundry Enthymemes which he leaveth void of that supply that should reduce to a perfect syllogism Wherefore if his Refuter be worthy so oft to be reproved as he is by the Doctor lib. 1. pag. 109. 146. and here et alibi passim for his connexive Syllogismes however another might doe it yet I may here tell the D. it becoÌ„meth not him to doe it Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum But had the Doctor made none yet the use of such Syllogismes is common both with Divineâ— and Logicians of good account Doth not Aristotle often use them See Prior. lib. 1. cap. 40. lib. 2. cap. 2. Are they not by good Logicians commended as most firme apt both for confirmatioÌ„ of truth coÌ„futatioÌ„ of errour To passe by Polanus Log. l. 1. p. 92 Let the D. read that worthy Sadeel Tit. de verbo Dei scripto c. cap. 2. and 3. Vseth he not in his reasoning there both kataskevasticos anaskevasticos ten connexives for one simple
And doth he not justify that his course of reasoning to be very proper and fit for Theologicall disputations that by the practise both of auncient writers and schoolemen I take him to be a man not much inferior to the Doct in the Art of reasoning but if he disdeyne the comparison I hope the Apostle Paul was no wayes inferiour to him let him see whether he confirmeth not this course 1. Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 18. c. Yea let the Reader remember how our blessed Saviour Christ the Prince of Logicians often vieth them Ioh. 5. 46. 8. 39. 40. 55. and 15. 19. 22. 24 Let the D. therefore saye what he will it is no disgrace to the Refuter with them that are wise and unpartiall to have used them 3. Moreover since the Doctor will needes read to his Refuter a logick lecture to â—each him how to reduce every Enthymem into a simple syllogisme how happeneth it that he giveth him no direction how to knowe vnto which of the premisses every thing presupposed in the consequence must be referred espetially when more assertions then one must be supplied as it is in the argument which himself hath framed sect 2. pag. 42. 4. But to stand no longer in answering him according to his foolishnes herein know he his Refuter whom he vndertaketh to teache hath learning enough to discerne as in many other parts of his defense so even in his mainteyning this argument that he scarce knoweth how to reduce some of his owne Enthymems or hypotheticall arguments into simple syllogismes For if he will drawe the words wherein his Argument lieth to conclude the question which here he proposeth to be debated his Enthymeme must be this The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not cities onely but also the countryes adâ—â—yning Therefore in the age followinge the visible Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes Now who seeth not the consequence of this Enthymem to be naught and that for the reasons which the Refuter yeeldeth 1. Because it presupposeth that which is not true to wit that all Churches in the world at that time were such as those 7. that is great and ample cities c. 2. because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. Of the later wee shall speake anone Let vs now see how he wipeth away the former The proposition or consequence saith he pag. 45. is so farr from Sect. 4. Ref. pag. D. pag. 45. lib. 2. presupposing all the Churches in the world to be great and ample cities that it doth not so much as presuppose those 7. in Asia to be such That is presupposed in the proposition but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption Here first let it be observed that the Doctor assumeth or affirmeth A flat contradiction in the D. in the assumption of his argument that those 7. churches in Asia were great and ample cities the falshood whereof is so apparant to his owne conscience that within a fewe lines after scz 16. or 17. he denieth it againe and saith it was spoken onely concerning 5. of those Churches But 2. to dispute the point in hand what will the Doctor answere to his refuter whom he maketh so ignorant in the groundes of logick if he should argue with him in this manner In every Enthymem what soever is not affirmed in the Antecedent yet is necessarily vnderstood to make good the conclusion the same is presupposed or taken for granted in the consequence of the argument But in the Doctors Enthymem before sâ—t downe to make good the Conclusion this assertion that all churches in the world were at that time such as those 7. to wit greate and ample Cities is necessarily vnderstoode but not affirmed in the An â—â—cedent â—herefore the same Assertion is presupposed or taken for granted in the consequence of the argument And if in the consequence of the argument then in the consequence of the propositioÌ„ which comprehendeth both the Antecedent conclusion of the Enthymem Till his answere be heard here vnto it shall not be amisse to peruse what he hath already answered to the objection which himself frameth viz. That what he saith of the 7. Churches he would have vnderstood of all other Churches and therefore presupposeth what his Refuter objecteth First he granteth it is presupposed in his argumentation but not in his proposition Then he addeth that as in other places he is not to be blamed for concluding from other Churches to these 7 so neyther here for concluding A silly shâ—â—â— an idle qâ—arel of the D. from thesâ— 7. to all others c. The former is a silly shift and the later an idle quarrell 1. True it is the Doct. hath added to the assumption in his argumentation as he hath framed it pag. 42. that which his refuter referred to the consequence of the proposition of his connexive Syllogisme but how will he justify his new presupposition viz. that his Refuter erred in referring to the consequence of his proposition that which the Doct. hath now added to the assumption of his new forged Syllogisme And 2. to what purpose doth he tell us he is not to be blamed for concluding from these 7. churches to all others since that which his Refuter blameth in him is not his so concluding but his presupposing an untruth for the inferring of his conclusion viz. that all the Churches in the world were at that time when Iohn wrote his revelation great and ample cities c. Neyther 3. can he salve The D. can not salve his credit his creditt by denying that he is herein blameworthy for 1. that he presupposeth thus much he cannot deny seing in his sermon he did affirme those 7. Churches to be great and ample cities and now he blusheth not to avouch that what is verified of these 7. the same may be truely affirmed of the rest And since in the wordes immediately following lin 24. pag. 45. he saith that all Churches had not within their circuit great and ample cities he must acknowledge his former presupposall to be a grosse untruth 4. What releefe then can he gaine by appealing as he doth to the testimony of his Refuter to prove that the forme and constitution of all the primitive Churches is one and the same for I yet hope that prejudice hath not so farr blinded him but he can see the falla â—y of his former reasoning ab accidente when he presupposeth all other Churches to be great and ample cities like as he said those 7. in The Doct. reason is â— fallacie of the accident Asia were because the forme and constitution of all Churches is one and the same Wherefore he rageth without reason in rejecting pag. 47. that reason which his Refuter yeelded for the denyall
of his consequence viz. that though it were granted that those 7. were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoyninge yet their might be diverse other as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16. which were small and bounded within the walleâ— of some small Towne See you not saith the D. how he secketh about for starting holes what if there were other small Churches what is that to this consequence If thâ—se Ch conteined each of them not onely the City but the Country adjoyning then they were not parishes properly but Dioceses his answere if it be well weighed is an exception against the conclusion c. I answere â— if he grant there were other small Churches he then justifyeth his Ref ceÌ„sure both in denying that to agree to all other Churches which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities c. and in rejecting the consequence of his first Enthymem which in concluding all Churches to be Dioceses because those 7. were great and ample cities did presuppose as himself acknowledgeth that what he affirmed of those 7. is verified of all the rest 2. And therefore he slaundereth his refuter in charging him to seek about for starting holes and his answere to be an exception The Doct. slaundreth his Refuter against the conclusion For his answere is a strong engine to bâ—tter the consequence of his argumentation and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himselfe crept into for safe harbor when he saith that what is verified of those 7. Churches the same may be truly affirmed of all others 3. Moreover he much forgetteth himselfe in affirming both here and pag. 44. that his argument concludeth nothing else then this that the 7. Churches were Dioceses For as the conclusion which he proposeth in his sermon pag. 17. to be proved was more generall of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following so he doth expresly affirme pag. 45. of this defense that in this argument now controverted he concludeth A flat contradiction in the D. from those 7. churches to all others As for his conclusion or closing up of this point wherin he calleth his Refuter a froward adversary because here he findeth fault that he concludeth what these Churches were and yet in other places accused him for not concluding what they or the angels of them were it argueth the D. himselfe to be a froward adversary and a false witnes His falshood appeareth in this that as he cannot alleadge one word to prove The Doct. not the Refuter is a froward ad versary a false witnes his accusation so he himselfe acquiteth him thereof when he saith pag. 45. that he is here blamed for concluding from these 7. Churches to all others And since he knoweth the fault which his Refuter findeth to be a naughty consequence which falsly presupposeth all Churches to be such as he saith those 7. were to wit great and ample â—ities c. what is it else but frowardnes in him that will rather justify a lye then acknowledge a truth which he knoweth But since he will nowe restreyne his argument to the 7. Churches Sect. 5. to conclude them Dioceses I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem before set downe sect 3. in fine and set it thus as followeth The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes yea Dioceses such as ours are For unlesse their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authoritie like to our Diocesans Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any directioÌ„ for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism I would advise him to remember that the Medius terminus which never entreth into the conclusion must needes be here the predicatum in the antecedent to wit great and ample cities c. and to make up the proposition which is wanting there must be joyned to it the predicatum of the consequent to witt Dioceses c. because it hath no place in the antecedent Wherefore the proposition to be supplyed must be this Great and ample cities togâ—ther with their countries adioyning are Dioceses properly and not parishes yea Dioceses like to ours Then follow the partes of his Enthymem in order as they lie But the 7. Churches whoâ—e Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities togither with their countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly c. In the assumption of A double vntruth in the D. assumption this Syllogisme or antecedent of the former Enthymem there is a double untruth which the Doctor in his second thoughts discerned for himselfe pag. 45. restreyneth the name of great and ample cities to 5. onely of those 7. and that which he graunteth of Ephesus pag. 62. must be acknowledged also of all the rest viz. that the whole citie was not the Church vntil it was wholly coÌ„verted to the profeâ—sion of Christianity Wherefore to free his argument from both these vntruthes first he quite shuâ—teth out this clâ—use great and ample cities secondly whereas before he had said that the 7. Churches whose Bishops are in his text called angels were not onely the cities but also the countries adioyning now he saith his meaning was that those Churches conteined in their circuite not onely the Cities but the Cuntries adjoyninge Wherfore he contriveth his argument in this forme pag. 42. 44. Churches whose circuite conteyned both Cities and countryes adjoyning were Dioceses The circuite of the 7. Churches conteyned the Cities and Countries adjoyninge Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses The assumption he hath made good as he supposeth with necessary proofe And the proposition which he tooke for granted will stand as he saith pag. 43. vnmoveable when the foundation of our discipline will be razed But the issue will shew I doubt not that the foundatioÌ„ of our discipline will abide firme when his proposition is shaken into shivers and that his assumption hath not so much as one probable argument to support it To make his meaninge a little more plaine in both the premisses as himself doth explaine his assumption thus that the Circuite of every one of those Churches conteyned both the City the Country adjoyninge so to holde proportion therewith his proposition must cary this sense that every Church whose circuite conteineth a City and the Country adjoyninge is a Diocese And because he must conclude as we have before observed that every one of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese such as are the dioceses subjected to our Bishops his proposition must affirme every Church conteyninge one City and the Country adjoyning to be such a diocese as these are which we beholde at this day in the Church of England But admit a truth
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ„ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâ—lea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bâ—â—e had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâ—ster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a â—everall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possâ—â—e that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌ„ding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ„ is not the denial of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ an evidence that the answerer is coÌ„founded is not coÌ„fusioÌ„ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâ—ctâ—d Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ— sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ„ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
in this case As touching the first saith he I have often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be But why doth he wonder where there is no cause of wonder Let him surcease his wondring The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter till he shewe both where his brethren have so argued and why such an argument will not hold And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause to wonder at his proceeding that wandreth from his purpose or rather justifyeth his Refut in that which he vndertook to disprove For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge that which now is closely implied sc that the ancient Churches remeyned for a time vndivided 3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words we may wonder what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided to those which at the first were not The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth pag. 69. The later appeareth by this that his best reason to prove that each Church had froÌ„ the beginning the circuite of the citie country adjoyned is the practise of succeeding ages p. 49. 55. which after division of parishes combined them in one body vnder one Bishop As for his questions following though I see not how they will serve his purpose yet will I breefly touch vpon them and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere 1. would they have saith he the Church of a City country belonging to it to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place I answere so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation I hold it best they continue vndivided as the first Apostolike Churches did but when the people of any City and Country are so increased that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place 2. Then tell me saith he whether we that doe and of necessity must consist of diverse congregations are to followe the example of any ancient Church as it was before it was divided or as it was after it was divided I affirme that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied the practise of the Apostles the ancient Apostolike Churches is to be imitated of us in giving to those new erected assemblies both the name and forme or constitution of Churches and the like power for government which those apostolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion in any one branch thereof 3. He addeth They will say perhaps that eche congregation after the division was as that one before nothing lesse let them prove that and I will yeeld in the whole cause We say it in deed and will not shrinke from affirminge that in the Apostles tymes wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country which at first made one Church were distributed into diverse there eche congregatioÌ„ was in forme or constitution like to that one before and if it be not so why doth he not disprove it Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent giving his reader just occasion to thinke that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe As for the ages following in Constantines time or there aboutes when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoyninge to it their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questioÌ„ of divine institution eyther for the constitution of Church-assemblies or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels c. before cited as he saith can convince or perswade the conscience of his opposites to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance But to what purpose doth he trifâ—le time in these By-questioÌ„s which make him forget what he promised to prove viz. that every of those 7. Churches was divided into severall ordinary assemblies Yet in one point more we must followe him sc when he indeavoreth to shew that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand if he had added this clause that they were Dioceses such as ours are but he foresawe that this addition would have quite marred his market notwithstanding attendance shal be given to that he hath delivered in defense of the point which he mainteyneth It wil be said saith he that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuite of the Church in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the division of parishes as after Here for the better apprehending of his meaning if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same I suppose he would send us to those words which he hath within a few line after viz. that the circuit of every Church even from the beginning aswelas after the multiplying of perishes included not onely the citie but thâ— countrye thereto belonging And if this be his meaning as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant then behold how he is The D. mustâ— gg still inforced principium petere when from hence he inferreth the coÌ„clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following 50. sc that though the 7. Churches had not bâ—ne divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses And because he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref I wil assay to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme and if he can beâ—ter the argument let him take his owne away Every Church whose circuite in the intention of the Apostle or first founder â—f it was the same as including not onely the citie but the country thereto belongiâ—g aswell befâ—re the division â—f Parishes as after every such Church I saw was a Diocese from the beginning though not divided then into several Câ—ngregations But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches in the intention of the Apostles or their first founders herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning though not yet divided into many severall congregations Now let
the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllogisme with the maine argument which himself contrived and is before set downe sect 5. and if they can finde any such materiall difference in the medius terminus and the premisâ—es as may give the D. a discharge froÌ„ begging the questioÌ„ let them shew it Meane while I doubt not but every unpartiall reader will perceive his povertie in this dispute especially seing he supporteth the Assumption of his principall argument with the same answere pag. â—4 For who that denieth any of the Apostolike Churches to comprehend the whole citie and country adjoyning as Dioceses in succeeding ages did will beleeve that the circuite of those Churches was the same when there were but fewe that it was when many yea all were Christians and who that denieth as the Refuter doth the circuite of a citie and country adjoyning to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese vnlesse it be divided into many congregations will not take him for a very trifler which to make good the contrary shall yeeld him none other argument then this that a Church not yet divided into severall assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese If the founder thereof did intend that her circuite should include citie and country as a divided Diocese doth Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and Both premisses of the Doctor argument are vnsound downeright answere to his argument last contrived I at once reject both the promisses as erroneous and unsound First touching the proposition since the Doctor placeth the very essence and life if I may so speak of a Diocesan Church in her circuite including both citie and countrye adjoyning so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable as it doth with the Refuter who accounteth such a circuite the materiall cause onely estemeth the very forme that giveth being vnto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies as meÌ„bers of one body a meane logician may see that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding he should have yeelded us some one or other Medius terminus which might have served to prove that such a circuite maketh a Diocesan body although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof But nowe in arguing as he doth that the ancient Churches though yet vndivided were Dioceses because their founders intended that their circuite should extend over citie and countrie as the later Diocesan Churches did the errour of his reasoning is no lesse grosse and absurd then if he had said Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally Therefore they were Dioceses properly or The D. reasoning is grosse and absurd actually For all men knowe that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese as he saith all the first Apostolicall Churches were the same is actually and in very deed a Diocese and therefore hath actually and in deed the circuit of a Diocese but if it have the circuit of a Diocâ—se onely in the intention of the founder and not actually it is impossible it should be a dioceâ—e actually or properly but intentionally onely especially in their opinion who place as the D. doth the very forme and being of a diocesan Church in the circuite of her jurisdiction conteyninge both City and Country adjoyning Let the D. here call to minde what he sayd pag. 18. of his sermon mainteineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the cheife Cities of any nation they intended the conversion of the whole nation and that when having by Gods blessing converted some they placed presbyters in any of those cheife Cities their intent and hope was by their ministery to converte aswell in the Countries adjoyning as in the City so many as did belong vnto God He addeth in his defence that they whose ministery was intended for the conversion of the City and Country he should have-sayd of the whole nation to their care or charge the people of that City and Country or nation belonged both for the first convertinge of them and for the government of them being converted Whence it is also that he saith lib. 4. pag. 131. that it was from the beginninge intended that the Bishop of the mother City should be the cheif in the Province notwithstanding he constantly holdeth lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 21. lib. 4. pag. 7. 31. that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over Mother Cities were at the first actually but Bishops of their owne Dioceses not actually Metropolitanes vntill diverse Churches being constituted and Bishops ordeyned in the severall Dioceses of the province there was a consociation and subordination of them vnto one cheefe primate Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intendinge the conversion of the whole nation and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops as the light of the Gospell should spread it self into the severall Dioceses if this intention I say cannot perswade the Doctor to take the firste Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches or Metropolitan Bishops Surely then he might think us very Idâ—otes if we should take his bare word wheÌ„ he disagreeth with himselfe for a fit proofe to perswade us that the like intention of erecting a Church in any citie or Diocese vnder an hope of subjecting the people thereof to the obedience of the gospel can make that Church actually or properly a Diocese till there be distribution of particular assemblies subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Church and ministery first erected in the citie Secondly to come to the Assumption if there be any truth in it his Refuter may make more advantage by it to conclude those Sect. 9. Churches not to be Dioceses properly or actually For No Church whose circuite includeth the citie wherein it is seated the Country adioyning onely in the intention of the first founder but not actually or in execution is a Diocese actually and properly if therefore the 7. Churches were Churches whose circuit included the cities wherein thâ—y were seated and tho countryes adioyning onely in the intention of the first founders but not actually or in execution Then it followeth that The 7. Churches were not Dioceses actually or properly The Proposition is grounded upon that difference which the Doctor himselfe putteth betwixt the actuall being of Metropolitane Bishops or Churches and the intention of those that first foâ—nded Churches in Mother-cities And the Assumption is in effect the Doctors owne assertion as he explaineth himselfe pag. 69. 73. 128 for in the last place quoted he saith expresly that the Counâ—ries subject to the civill jurisdiction of any citie were actually under the Bishops charge after theire conversion and intentionally before wherefore without contradiction to himselfe he cannot rejecte the conclusion So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches shall holde proportion with the groundes of his disputation he must The Doct. in his next must
writinge but by tradition It is strange a matter of such consequence for the well-orderinge of all Churches to the worlds ende should be committed to such an happ-hazzard 2. And how hath the Church informed the Doctor of their vnderstandinge hath he received it also by tradition or from the writinges of the The D. first reasoÌ„ confuted by himself Lords worthies in all ages Why doth he not either quote us their bookes wherein they affirme it or give us the catalogue of such as have from hand to hand conveied it to him Till he hath given satisfaction in these particulars let him not thinke but his reader will deeme his first reason to be a speach voyde of reason yea a moÌ„strous vntruth confuted by himself as shall well appeare in the examination of his reasons followinge His second reason he laieth downe thus saying Secondly because that division of Churches which was 300. or 400. yeares after Christe with their limits and circuites was ordinarily the same which had bene from the beginning as before hath bene testified by divers auncient Councels Ordinarily and from the beginning So he saith in deed But 1. doth any Councell that he hath alleadged pag. 22. 37. or elswhere testify the circuites of the Churches to have bene from the beginning of their planting by the Apostles the same that they were in their owne times Is not all the question in those Councells of Country parishes or such partes of any Country as neither desyred to have a Bishop or were challenged of diverse Bishops The beginning therefore whereof they speake must be taken for the time of erecting Churches in Country villages and subordinating them to the Bishop of the City adjoyninge Neyther yet doe they ascribe this to any ordinance or intention of the Apostles or first founders of the Church in the Citie but to ancient custome as the words of the Ephesin Councell shew which he hath set downe Can. 2. pag. 37. ratified by ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons falsly called Canons of the Apostles 2. But why saith he the circuites were ordinarily the same Meaneth he it was no coÌ„mon use to alter them Or that it was against order and vnlawfull It cannot be the later since he confesseth pag. 23. that if there were cause sc for the greatnes of the Charge and nomber of people c. the circuites of Dioceses were lessened newe Bishoprickes erected Beholde then howe worthily the D. reasoneth The division of Churches with their circuites remayned till 400. yeares after Christe the same which it had bene from the beginning of erecting Churches in the remote parts of any Diocese and subordinatinge them to the Bishops of the Cities adjoyninge vnlesse the greatnes of the charge required the circuite to be lessened a new Bishoprick to be established Ergo it was the intention of the Apostles that the Churches which they planted should have the same Circuite before the division of parishes that they had after May not the contrary with much more probability be thus argued When the charge of an whole diocese after the distribution of parishes grewe over greate for one Bishop the nomber of people in some partes desyred to have a newe Bishop the Circuites of Churches or Dioceses were altered Ergo it was never intended by the Apostles or at least the Fathers of those times were ignorant of any such intention that the Circuite of every Church should alwayes continue the same aswell when all in City and Country were converted as when there were but a fewe But let us heare his third reason Thirdly saith he because it is confessed by Beza and testified by D. Reynoldes and others that the distribution of the Church did usuâ—llâ— fellowe the division of the CoÌ„mon wealth in so much that those Countries that were subjected to the Civill jurisdiction â—xercised in any City were also subject ordinarily to the ecâ—lesiasticall c. Is not the Doctors plenty think ye turned into mere penury when the testimony of ancient Fathers and Councells faylinge him he is gladd to seeke releife at their handes whose judgement otherwyse ordinarily and usually he rejecteth And yet alas for pity they whome he meaneth cannot yeeld him any comfort For what say they Forsooth that in the distribution of dioceses provinces and patriarchall preheminences the state ecclesiasticall followed the civill And when did the Church take up this Course Doe they say that the Apostles began it or intended any such matter No it was thought a convenient course by the Byshops after the Apostles daies for the better managing of Church-causes in their Synods and Meetings that as for civill justice so also for ecclesiasticall affaires recourse should be had to the Cityes and Shire-townes Neyther was this order vniversall or perpetuall as the Doctor himself acknowledgeth in Pergamus and Thyatira pag. 63. yea he affirmeth that by ancient custome the whole nation of Scythians having many Cities townes and Castles made but one Diocese and that the Churches throughout a large Province were but part of one Paraecia or diocese as may be sene pag. 10. 40. of this his defense Wherefore this reason of his doth also coÌ„fure and not confirme his fantasticall conceite of the Apostles intention And it argueth he spake directly against the light of his conscience when he sayd that the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood as he doth the intention of the Apostles and the first founders of the apostolike Churches Wherefore since he hath no better ground for his bolde affirmation that the circuite of each Church in the intention of the Apostles or first founders was the same before the division of parishes that it was after we may well take his conclusion which he inferreth thereupon to be layd in the sand of his owne vaine immagination viz. that though those Churches had not bin divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene dioceses But now to returne to the point froÌ„ which he hath longe wandred Sect. 11. ad sect 6. page 50. at his pleasure to little purpose he addeth that at the time of writing the Revelation it is more then probable that they conteyned diverse congregations If it be more then probable then I hope his argumentes whereon he buildeth are more then probabilities even firme and invincible demonstrations But if there be not so much as a shadowe of probabilitie in any thinge he hath alleadged no man can justly blame his Refuter if he say It is more then probable the Doctor is deceived and seeketh to deceive with his vaine braggs of proving what he avoucheth Let vs therefore examine his best probabilities The first is That when Paul had continued but two yeares at Ephesus the holy Ghost testifieth Act. 19. 10. that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare the word of the Lord. And having both placed many Presbyters amongst them and continued with theÌ„ for the space
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌ„try had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌ„s and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâ—iculars which he hearâ— assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâ—mens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâ—le before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌ„meth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â—2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ— And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ— I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ„ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌ„try then such as were already brought to
which was last examined in the former section And if he doe here also vnderstand it why doth he conceale it Is it because in those places he had not directly to dealâ— with his assumption as now he hath and he would not so plainely discover to his reader how farâ— he goeth in this defence from the wordes of his assumption as he first layd it downe in his sermon For for this cause it seemeth he chose rather to reject that clause of great and ample Cities whiles he was yet in examining the consequeÌ„ce of his argument And it had bene too much to lay before the eies of his reader at once all three changes or alterations that one of The D. hath 3. alteratioÌ„s but cannot defend one of them turning were into conteined when in stead of this they were cities he saith they conteyned the cities c. is more then he can well defend But before I come to trie the strength of his defence I must a litle better â—ifte the chaungling he giveth vs in steed of the former assumption viz. that the circuite of every one of these 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and countrie adjoyning First therefore I demaund what he meaneth by citie and countrie whether those parts of the ancient diocese which he calleth paroikian kai choran serm pag. 25. and def pag. 13. and 36. that is the citie with the suburbs and the whole countrie subject to the citie If so then this whole circuite in his vnderstaÌ„ding was the circuite of every of those 7. Churches But then I demaund againe did those Churches containe in their circuite only the walles dwelling houses and feildes and not also the people inhabiting within that circuite if he should either exclude all the people or include all the state of those times being such that the generall multitude in all cities and countrey were Pagans as he confesseth pag. 54. he should contradict both himselfe the truth which he delivereth p. 3. 5. where he saith that ecclesia in all places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. is appropriated to the companie of the faithfull and signifieth a companie of men called out of the world vnto salvation by Christ that is to say a companie of Christians Wherefore as I will not doe him that wrong to think he meaneth by citie and countrey the houses and feildes onely so if question be made what people he incloseth within the circuite of those Churches or of the cities and countries which he saith they contayned vnlesse he will depart from the truth and that with contradiction to himself he must acknowledge that he meaneth none other then the Christian people of those cities the countries adjoyning And yet if he limit every Church to so narrow a compasse for the people which it conteined who will beleeve him or how will he perswade and prove that the whole citie meaning Vrbs to use his owne wordes and the whole countrie belonging to the citie was conteyned within the circuite of the Church for since the Church of any citie or place is nothinge else but the company of Christians there If it be absurde to say that a small companie of Christians not an handfull to a great heape in comparison of the heathen that filled citie countrie did containe in their circuite an whole citie with the whole countrie adjoyning then is it no lesse absurd to affirme the same of any Church which is intituled the Church of this or that citie yea take all the people of any citie or countrie who is so simple but he knoweth that the citie and countrie containeth them and not they the citie Wherefore though all the people had bene converted to Christianity yet had it bene a grosse error both in logick and philosiphie to say that the Church did contayne the citie and the countrie To leave then the naturall and proper signification of citie countrie and to carrie the words by an usuall metonymie vnto the people q. d. they coÌ„teined citie countrie that is the people of citie countrie I desire to be informed from his owne mouth whether he meane those people onely that had already receyved the fayth or those also that were in time to be converted The former doth beste agree with that foundation layd by him in this defence chap. 2. sect 2. and 3. where he restreyneth as before is observed both the name and nature of a Church vnto a company of Christian people but so small a companie as at that time imbraced Christianity will fall farr short of his purpose not onely of concluding the Churches to be properly dioceses but also of inclosing within that whol flock or Church over which the Presbyters were made Byshops Act. 20. 28. the whole number of such as belonged to God in citie and countrie even those that should afterwards imbrace the faith as well as those that made present profession therof for so he vnderstandeth that scripture serm pag. 18. def pag. 66. and therefore inferreth serm pag. 19. that the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed to whole cities and countries annexed that they might both convert them feed them being converted as a litle after he saith were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the Countries adjoyninge which were converted or to be converted Which words doe clearely shewe that by the Cities Countries which at first he said were the Churches now he saith were conteined in the circuite of the Churches he meaneth all the 11. A contradiction in the Doct. understanding of the worde Church a childish errour people in generall and not those fewe onely that were already converted But in this construction of his words besides an apparant contradiction with himself in a maine principle of Christian doctrine which restraineth the name of a Church to a companie of Christian people he falleth into a childish error farre vnbeseeming a Doctor in divinitie in breaking downe that partition wall which all sound divines have set betwene the visible Churches of Christe and the invisible company of the electe not yet brought home vnto the faith For howsoever such as God appointed vnto life and intendeth in time to call are in his account members of his The D. assumption sensles absurd his defense of it much more invisible Church yet it is against coÌ„mon sense as well as the grouÌ„ds of true divinitie to reckon them for parts of the visible Church which as yet have had no manner of entrance into Christianity In this sense therefore which his sermon and the defence thereof aymeth at I reject his assumption as an absurd and sensles positioÌ„ And the defense which he tendreth is much more absurd when Sect. 17. he saith that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were few when there were many yea when all were Christians For vntill countrie townes were converted and subjected to the over sight of the
justifie an untruth an high preist of Aarons line Zach. 6 11 13. yet it were grosse ignorance in the groundes of divinitie from hence to inferre that therefore Christ might have bene a Preist after the order of Iehoshua or Aaron aswell as of Melchisedeck It is apparant then that the Doctor hath proposed both a weak consequence and a false antecedent to justify the untruth of his frivolous exception Thus have we seen what successe the Doctor hath had in his indeavour Sect. 4. to prove that the name of a Church in the singular number is to be given vnto the people of an whole nation professing the faith though divided into many thowsand particular Churches He proceedeth to tell us that likewise the Christian people of any Citie or country adjoyning whether that which we call a province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregatioÌ„s is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardis Philadelphis c. I confesse that this latter hath a like right and title to the name of a Church with the former to wit by the custome of speach humane ordinance subjecting the particular Churches of an whole countrie or nation to one Diocesan or Provinciall Bishop or to one nationall Synode But I deny that the scripture doth give any more allowance vnto the one then to the other I doubt not but his proofes for the later will be found as weak as the former To drawe his wordes before set downe into an orderly forme of reasoning they must run in this fashion or the like Such a company of Christians as answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the Scriptures is rightly termed a Church But the Christian people of any Citie Country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese answereth in Church-constitution to the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. mencioned in the scripture Therefore the Christian people of any Citie and country adjoyning though consisting of many particular congregations whether in a province or diocese is rightly termed a Church Here the assumption is a meere begging of the question for he is The Doct. beggeth the questioÌ„ not ignorant as appeareth in the beginning of his 4. sect that they against whom he contendeth doe hold that the visible Churches instituted in the new testamâ— were none other then parish asseÌ„blies coÌ„teyning one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ yet he assumeth for graÌ„ted as if they were bound to take his word for sufficient warrant that the Christians of an whole diocese or province distributed into many severall congregations or parish assembles doe carrie the same Church-constitution with the first Apostolike Churches as of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus c. The contrary whereof may be gathered from his owne positions in his sermoÌ„ the defense thereof For he affirmeth and mainteyneth serm pag. 18. and 22. def â—ib 2. pag. 69. and 121. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times And as here in the next section pag 6 he acknowledgeth that at the first conversion of Cities the whole number of people converted were able to make but a small congregation so he granteth afterwards cap. 6. pag. 104. that the most of the Churches during the time of S. Paul did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation Yet in Pauls time they were perfectly constituted seing in his opinion they had many of them their Bishop their Presbyterie and Deacons which as now he saith pag 7. doe make an accomplished or fully constituted Church Wherefore still there remayneth this difference betweene our diocesan and provinciall Churches and those Apostolike Churches mencioned in the scriptures as the Church at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like that congregations or parish assemblies were not multiplied in them as now they are in ours so that the name of a Church given in the scripture to the one doth not prove that it may be also rightly allotted to the other But proceede we on the Doctor at length discendeth lower and Sect. 5. ad pag. 6. saith That in like manner the Christian people of any one towne or village conteyning but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a Church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And further that the company of faithfull in one familie doth deserve the name of a Church as hath bin shewed to wit in his table pag. 4. where he citeth for that purpose Rom. 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19. Colos 4. 15. Philem. 2. Adding that to make any particular Church of a whole nation citie and country towne parish or familie familie I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but an entire church or parish by it selfe to be a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Christian consisteth the Ministerie of the word and sacraments and eutaxie or some good order of government not that all governours are to be placed in every societie or church but that the effect and benefit of the government is to redound to every particular What shall the reader say to all this Doth not the considerate beholder hereof evidently see an hoâ—ch potch of some self-conceited fancies mingled with some The D. maketh an hotch potch truthes soundly grounded Of the later sort are these viz. that the name of a Church is given in the scripture both to the Christian people of one towne or village conteyning but one congregation and to the company of faithfull in one family 2. that that which we call a parish is such a company of Christian people as make but one congregation 3. and that the Church at Cenchrea was such a parish For though he speake here doubtfully with a perhaps yet afterwards he saith certeinly it was a parish pag. 104. following 4. And there is required besides the profession of the true faith the Ministery of the word and sacraments and some good order of government to make the Christians of any citie towne or family a true visible Church Of the former sort are these supposals â—cz 1. that the people of an whole nation and citie with country adjoyning may make one visible Church aswell as the company of one towne or familie 2. and that all Church government are not to be placed in every visible Church His meaning is as afterwards he sheweth that a Bishop and his presbyterie may not be had in every parish it sufficeth if they be seated in the citie and that particular parishes in citie and country doe partake the effect and benefit of their government Which he speaketh not because he findeth in the scripture any such difference between Churches seated in cities and those that were in smaller villages but because he would perswade the simple that will take his words for payment that there ought to be the like difference for
fremeth pag. 58. of the answer If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. To visible Churches indued with power of ecclesissticall government the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed Loe here the D. reasoning now what if the adding of this assumption utterly marreth the fashion of his argument hath he not then spent his labour well to discover his owne heedlesse oversight to say no worse for had he well perused the parts he might have found 5. termes in his syllogisme viz. 1. The D. hath 5. germes in one syllogisme Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 2. appointed to Dioceses not to parishes 3. appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government 4. the Churches themselves indued with such power 5. Dioceses and not Parishes To redresse this grosse fault if so simple a Scholler as the Refuter might presume to give any direction to so great a Clerk as Mr. D. me thinks he should have done well to have exchanged the Antecedent of his Enthymeme with some Proposition in sense equivalent that might have yeilded the same predicatum which his conclusiō carrieth as thus The Churches to which the Presbyteries ordeined by the Apostles were appointed were properly dioceses such as ours and not parishes Or thus Dioceses such as ours and not parishes were the whole and onely charge of the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles The assumption then to be added must be one of these viz. The Churches which in the Apostles times were indued with the power of ecclesiasticall government were those vnto which the Presbyteries ordeyned by them were appointed Or thus The Churches which the Apostles indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were the whole onely charge of those presbyteries which they ordeyned So the conclusion would naturally flow from these premisses to wit Therefore the Churches which the Apostles indued or were indued in their times with the power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly such as ours not parishes which of these soever he shall choose the proposition is to be refused as utterly false Against the Assūption whether former or later I have nothing to except This onely I say if the Doctor shall dislike the later as too narrowly limited by those wordes whole onely charge I must then tell him his syllogisme is also herein deceitfull and faultie that his proposition speaketh of an appointment differing from that which he intendeth in his Assumption the feeding and governing of the visible Churches being but a part yea the least part of the charge of those Presbyteries in asmuch as he supposeth they were appointed also to an other more principall work viz. to labour the conversion of such as were yet enemies to the faith and not members of the Churches But if he will acknowledge the visible Churches to be the whole and onely charge of the Prebyteries ordeyned by the Apostles then the premisses of his syllogisme doe make warre the one against the other For the assumption so understood directly crosseth the assumption and the fortifications thereof which are pag. 65. fitted to confirme the Proposition or Antecedene of his maine argument and consequently through their sides it pearceth the hart of the proposition itself For if the visible churches indued with power of ecclesiastical govermēt were the whole onely charge of the presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles then were they not appointed for the conversiō of the rest of the citie countrie neither was that work the end or motive that swayed the Apostles to ordeyn them So that his proposition which affirmeth that those presbyteries were appointed for whole Dioceses hath nothing to support it Moreover if he shall dislike the limitation which I have added to his proposition restreyning it to such Dioceses as ours are or at least to such Dioceses as were also Churches he is to know that his consequence is naught and such as of which he hath no graunt from his refuter to boast of For unlesse it be presupposed that the Dioceses to which he saith the Presbyteries were appointed were Churches and like to our diocesan Churches his argument wil be deceitfull also in a second respect to wit because his antecedent and the conclusion speak not of one kind of Dioceses but of such as differ toto genere if the one be churches and the other not so or at least in specie if they be Diocesan Churches unlike to ours For as is heretofore noted Diocesan Bishops like to ours doe require the Churches where of they are Bishops to be dioceses or diocesan Churches like to ours This memorandum therefore being premised that by Dioceses in his proposition we are to vnderstand Diocesan Churches like to ours we are come to examine the first of his two arguments which himself frameth to prove the proposition before denyed in manner forme following They who were appointed to whole cities and countries to labour so farre at Sect. 4. they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God were appointed to Dioceses and not to Parishes But the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities and countries thereto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 3 44 PM 5 7 2011 were appointed not unto Parishes but unto Dioceses that is to Diocesan Churches like to ours This Proposition saith he I omitted as taking it for granted Be it so yet since he saw that his Refuter esteemed the consequence weake of that argum he framed to a conclusion somewhat differing he mought wel have bene jealous of his rejecting this proposition also For since the Presbyters of which he speaketh were planted in the cheife cities of such a nation as the Apostles desired to cōvers what hindreth but the countreyes annexed might be Provinces or rather whole Nations and not Dioceses properly Moreover how can they be sayd to be appointed to Diocesan Churches such as ours for to speak of other Dioceses that are estranged from Christianity is to rove farre wide from the question who are appointed unto cities and countries not to feed and govern them as all Churches are by their Pastors but to labour their conversion that yet remayned Pagans and Infidels To provoke him therefore in his next defence to undertake the proofe of this proposition which he now taketh for graunted I first contradict it thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countries for the working out of the conversion were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours Then I take his owne assumption with the help thereof to conclude the contradictorie of his former proposition in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to whole cities and countries for the working out of their conversion Therefore the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not set over Diocesan Churches such as ours This our proposition opposed against his may
congregation were not the congregation divided 3. vpon this division was there a Bishop and Presbyterie assigned to every congregation or onely one Presbyter c. Because these questions are fitted as also the former were not so much to be informed what we hold as to shewe what himselfe would have to be imbraced let us first consider to what issue he driveth the matter which is discovered in the words following pag 68 where he saith That the parish disciplinarisns doe shew themselves to be of shallow judgement their parish discipline to consist of undisgested favcies in that they imagin the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the division of parishes and after that now every congregation shall have her Bishop and Presbyterie like as that one Church had before Parishes were divided in the Diocese and that as now Ministers are appointed to atted their severall Charges so also then it was the proper office of the Bishop and his Presbyterie to attend the flock already converted No merveile if the Doctors stomach which afficteth nothing but that which favoureth the Diocesa discipline cannot digest these points yet will it be hard for him froÌ„ the resolution of his questions to gather any well digested argument to prove them vndigested sancies In the two former he presumeth as it seemeth vpon an agreement with his Refuter in these two points viz. that of those many presbyters which the Apostles ordeyned in any one Citie one onely was properly the Pastor or Bishop and the rest his Assistants And 2. that when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinary congregation the congregations were divided But in the fâ—â—st of these he grossely forgetteth himselfe For how could one of those presbyters be a Bishop if that be true which he peremptorily holdeth serm pag. 69. def lib. 4. pag. 63. viz. that the presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles to labour the conversion of the people had not any Bishop among them Moreover in denying the presbyters which assisted the Bishop to be properly Pastors of that flock which they fedd in coÌ„mon doth he not at vnawares weaken one of his best arguments framed by him against Lay-Elders lib. 1. pag. III. for the governing Elders in the church of Geneva are Pastors improperly as Beza sheweth de grad Minist cap. 9. If therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus consequently the presbyters mencioned 1. Tim. 5. 17 being the same with those of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. as he professeth lib. 1. pag. 108 If I say these Presbyters were none otherwise Pastors then improperly why might they not be Lay-Elders or how could they be properly Ministers of the word as he mainteyneth if they were not properly Pastors In the answer which himselfe maketh to the last of his questions lieth the weight of all that yeildeth him any advantage And since it inquireth altogither de sacto what was done and not de jure what in right ought to be done vnlesse he had kept himselfe within the times of the Apostles and grounded his assumptioÌ„ upon such records as may assure us of their approbation he argueth overweakely to conclude as he doth 1. that our parish assemblies at this day ought to have one onely Presbyter and not a Presbyterie to assist their Pastor because such an order was taken for those Churches which were multiplied upon an increase of converts in cities and villages adjoyning 2. that the first Presbyters were not as Ministers now are set over the flock converted onely but over the whole citie and countrie to labour their coÌ„version because upon the divisioÌ„ of coÌ„gregations in the diocese when each congregation had her Presbyter to attend it the Bishop of the citie and his Presbyterie had a generall superintendencie over all not onely to govern them and their Presbyters but also to labour the conversion of the rest And doth not himselfe weaken the consequence of his owne reasoning when he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 1. sect 9. that the Churches of former times before Constantines daies were not in all things established and setled according to their desires for in time of persecution their government was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto But how proveth he that which he assumeth for a truth not to be contradicted viz. 1. that upon the first division of congregations the ancient Mother-Church onely had her presbyterie to assist the Bishop the rest of the Churches having each of them one onely Presbyter and 2. that the Bishops Presbyterie in office and charge differed from the rest of the Presbyters in this that the presbyters were restreyned to the feeding of their particular Churches the Presbytery assisted the Bishop in procuring the conversioÌ„ of such as yet remained in infidelity It is a knowne truth confessed by the Doctor that when churches Sect. 11. were multiplied in Asia after S. Paul had preached placed Presbyters at Ephesus and that with an intent as he conceiveth to work out the conversion os all Asia by the labour of those Presbyters each Church was made equall with the Mother-Church of Ephesus in this that as she so they had not one onely presbyter but a presbyterie togither with a Bishop or President to governe them For he teacheth out of his text Apoc. 1. 20. that the 7 churches of Asia had each of them her Presbyterie and a Bishop entitled by the name of an Angell moreover he acknowledgeth Def. chap. 7. pag. 23. that Timothy and Titus who were as he faith Bishops the one of all Asia the other of all the Churches in Creete were to ordeyne Presbyters in the severall cities and that by Pauls direction aswell by letter as example and addeth that he no where readeth that they assigned severall Presbyters to their severall Cures eÌ„yther in citie or countrie So then it is cleare by the Doctors own confessioÌ„ that how many Churches so ever were multiplied within the episcopall charge of Timothy Titus they all had by Pauls direction ought to haue a presbyterie and not a single presbyter in any place to attend them Wherefore for the better manifestation I say not of the Doctors wiâ—dome but of the truth or falshood of his 2. assertions mentioned in the end of the former sectioÌ„ though I presume not to oppose him yet I crave his resolution in these sewe quaestions Were not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to informe all Bishops even Diocesan Bishops if there were any such ordeyned by the Apostles and their successors unto the worlds end how to exercise their function aswell in respect of ordination as of jurisdiction see this mainteyned lib. 4. Def. pag. 75. 83. 85 if then these epistles gave theÌ„ no direction for the placing of a singular Presbyter but rather for the ordeyning of a Presbyterie or company of Presbyters for those Churches that were or should be multiplied in their charge doth it not
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith īmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childrē to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
certe But of these fortifications the Doct. taketh no notice onely to the assumption which himselfe framed he answereth by distinguishing the times scz that though none of the Apostles had any provinces or partes of the world allotted to them by Christ when he gave them their indefinite coÌ„mission yet the holy Ghost for whose direction they were willed to stay at Ierusalem directed them to goe not confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world and some to an other This is that which he delivered before sect 4. pag. 52. and is already answered sect 11. of chap. 5. but what is it to purpose here For when they were directed to goe some into one part and some to an other had they then every one his peculiar Church assigned to them and were they bound to feed the same as every Bishop is to attend his owne flock I suppose the Doctor dareth not affirme it he rather yeeldeth the contrarie in saying they ceased to traveile in their old dayes and then were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested Well did they all traveile till they were old and is that the time whereunto his distinction of times referreth us for the assigning of Churches vnto them Not so neyther for he saith Iames did not traveile at all as the rest from one country to another So then howsoever he maketh a shew of answering by a distinction of times yet indeed the very marrow and pith of his answere is by a difference in the persons to contradict the assumption and to give Doctor Whitakers the lie if I may use the Doctors owne homely phrase for in plaine termes he saith herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned And againe the assumption therefore which is true of the rest of the Apostles is not true in Iames and were to be denied If the syllogisme were thus framed Bishops had certeine Churches â—ssigned to them Iames had not a certeine Church assigned to him Ergo he was not Bishop This assumption saith he I have disproved But the best is his disproofe of this assumption though he hath proportioned it also to his owne strength is sufficiently declared to be nothing worth For he neyther hath nor can prove that nay much less many ancient Fathers as he hath alleadged doe affirme Iames to be a Bishop in that sense which he imbraceth sc properlie a Bishop and ordeyned to that function by his fellow-Apostles But it shall not be amisse for the Reader to observe the Doctors cunning in changing the Medius terminus of The Doct. cunÌ„ingly changeth the medius terminus of the obj the objection which he undertaketh to answere And since he will have it specially fitted to Iames I will do it and so leave it to all indifferent judgment whether it hold not in Iames aswell as in Peter Every Bishop hath one onely flock to which he is affixed to feed it as his owne But Iames had not any one onely flock to which he was affixed to feede it as his owne Ergo Iames was no Bishop I hope the Doctor will not say he hath disproved this assumption Section 3. as it now standeth for this cannot be disproved without proofe made of the contrary sc that Iames had one onely flock assigned to him and was affixed to it or bound to attend on the feeding thereof But he is so farr from having confirmed this that he hath See how the Doctor hovereth up down not certeinly resting any where not yet bin heard so much as once to affirme it And if he meane in his next to make it good first let him tell us which was that one onely flock that was assigned to him Here he saith it was the Church of Ierusalem and his proofes from the Fathers make mencioÌ„ of no other yet elswhere pag. 56. he saith it is more then probable that the Church of Iurie was peculiarly assigned to him and p. 52. he coupleth both togither saying that the Apostles would not all forsake Iurie and Ierusalem but assigned one of their owne companie to take charge therof And in the words iÌ„mediately following he saith he was assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation and therefore was in deed the Bishop therof which argueth the whol body of the people of the Iewes aswell those that were scattered in other countryes to whome he wrote his epistle as the Inhabitantes of Iurie to be his peculiar charge vnless he speak improperly in taking the whol for a part onely If therefore the Doctor will say that Iames had one onely flock assigned to him let us know whether the whol nation or the province of Iudea onely or rather the diocese for I know he will not say it was the parish Church of Ierusalem I give him this choise so be that he will be constant in that he chooseth and not hover up and down as he doth not knowing as it seemeth where to rest The first is so repugnant to the testimony of Saint Paul who testifieth Gal. 2. 9. that Peter and Iohn joyned with him in the charge of the Iewish nation that I think he will be ashamed to stand forth in defense of it And if he will mainteyne the second he must proclaime to the world some prerogatives more theÌ„ ever were knwon in former ages which this Church had above all other Churches For whereas the Churches planted in other Mother cities were at the first but Dioceses in the Doctors perswasion and by the coÌ„bination of severall Dioceses in one Province each of them became a provinciall Church this contrarywise was at her first establishing and bringing into order a province and upon the multiplying of Churches in Iudea it was distributed into sundry Dioceses And whereas other Churches had presbyters before they had any Bishop this had a Bishop who was actually a provinciall prelate before there were any eyther presbyters inthe Diocese or Diocesan Bps in the Province which later is contrary to his Tenent in this defence often avouched lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 20. lib. 4. pag. 7. viz. that the Bishops of Mother cities were originally but DiocesaÌ„s not actually MetropolitaÌ„s till other ciâ—ies in the proviÌ„ce were coÌ„verted subordinated to him as their Primate Moreover if the state of Iudea Ierusalem excepted be considered what it was before the Apostles were dispersed abroad it will be found to be a body of people voyd of Christianitie therfore no flock for a Bishop to feed but rather a charge fitt for an Apostle to work upon in indeavouring their conversion And since Peter bestowed great paynes that waye in diverse parts of Iudea for many yeares after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles as is before shewed from Lukes storie cap. 5. sect 11. 12. it vvill be hard for the Doctor to prove thaâ— the inhabitants of Iudea wer allotted to Iames as his peculiar flock
de iâ—â—re whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops as they hold or must be governed by Presbyteries as we affirme The first question he saith his handled in the former part of his sermon to which he reduceth his 4. first points And the second in the later which is the last of his five And thus in deed I graunt that every of his 5. points may be pertinent to his purpose yet still I affirme that if they be referred to the proof of his two assertions which he ought by his promise serm pag. 2. to prove the first and last might well have bene spared and the other three not to repeat againe how one of them at the least is needlesse doe neyther directly nor necessarily conclude that first assertion which he saith is proved by them Wherefore had he meant to frame his analysis to such a distribution as best agreeth with his Genesis we should never have heard from him that which so often he repeateth in this defence to wit that his five points enumerated pag. 6. 7. are the direct proofes of his 2. assertions proposed pag. 2 he would rather have divided that part of his preface which himselfe sect 1. of this chapter calleth the proposition into these two members 1. a proposition of certeine questions to be debated for the explication of his text pag. 2. 3. 5. which he promiseth to cleare but doth not 2. a digression from his text wherein he proposeh 1. the opinions of the disciplinarians whom he intendeth to confute pag. 4. 5. 6. and 2. those 5. pointes which he opposeth to their opinions pag. 6. 7. and pomiseth in his sermon to prove against them This had bene both true plaine dealing but he was not willing the world should see that his text affoardeth him so litle help as it doth to conclude the doctrine which he pretendeth to arise froÌ„ the explication thereof And therefore how oft so ever his refuter calleth vpon him to make good his promise by proving that we are by the angels in his text to vnderstand such Bâ—shops for the substance of their calling as ours are yet by no meanes will he once heare on that side and be recalled to this question but shâ—fteth it off by this calumniation that his Refuter by a forced analysis for I let passe his odious termes withdraweth him from the principall queston Wherefore to cut off all such quarrels and to damme vp some other lurking holes whereinto he flyeth as occasion serveth before we proceed to the examinatioÌ„ of any of the large discourses made by him in defece of his 5. conclusions It shal be good to take a better view of the state of the question debated in his sâ—rmon that the reader may throughly see what it is both that the Refuter denieth the Doctor is to prove first by the explication of his text and after that by such arguments as he taketh most pregnant for his purpose Chap 4. Concerning the state of the question handled by the Doctor in his third chapt sect 1. which is altogither chaunged by him The question discussed in the sermon as the Doctor telleth us Sect. 1. ad Cap. 1. sect 1. pag. 60. 61. Cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 60. is twofold The first de facto whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops as we sâ—y saith he or by the Presbyteries of such elders as they speake of The second de â—ure whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Diocesan Bps as we hold or must needes be governed by their presbyteries as they affirme The first is handled in the former part of the sermon to which he referreth the first 4. pointes the second â—n the later whereto the 5. or last appert yneth Here the reader must remember as is already observed in the former chap. that the principall question in the entrance of his sermon pag. 2. propounded to be discussed is wholly overpasseâ— the question I meane de vero genuino textus sensu whether by the angels there mentioned we are to vnderstand such Bishops for the substance of â—â—eir câ—lling as ours are And so let vs see how well he hath reduced the whole controversie his text set aside to these two questions because he dealeth against two sorts of Disciplinarians who as he pretendeth differ greatly in their opinions the one from the other His first question he thus explaineth Whâ—ther the primâ—tive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops such for the substance of their calling as ours are or by such Presbyteries as they stand for viz. eyther parishionall consisting of the Parish-Bishop and a companiâ— of lay or onely governing elders or Presbyters in cities consisting of the President and other Presbyters Whereof some are Ministers but the greater some laye or onely governing elders The question being thus layd downe because the expositioÌ„ standeth generally betwene Presbyters and Diocesan Bishops a man would think that all which stand for the one do generally and alike reject the other Whereas notwithstanding the D. other of his minde doe acknowledge that presbyteries had place and use in the goverment of the ancient Churches and he would perswade his readers that the more learned sort of disciplinarians doe acknowledge the primitive Bishops to be diocesan But if the opposition be not simply betwene presbyteries and Bishops but onely betwene such and such yet a man would judge that both sides hold both diocesan Bishops and presbyteries though they disagree in the nature of their functions whereas it is apparant that he affirmeth diocesan Bishops to be absolutely disclamed of the later sort of presbyterians Agayne in the difference which he putteth betwene the elder the yonger sort of Disciplinarians who would not conceite that the elder sort deny vnto country parishes aswel any governing Elders as a parish Bishop have no entire presbyteries but in Cities onely Wheras it is well knowne that all their presbyteries are nâ—t limited to Cities that Elders are allowed to country-parishes even by them that contrive the Churches of City Country into one Eldershipp yet so as the Elders in the Country have not ful power of jurisdiction Moreover in the 2. question as he hath proposed it who would not thinke both that all which plead for presbyteries whether severall in every parishe or one in diverse doe holde the goverment which they imbrace to be a like necessary and that such as stand with the D. for diocesan Bishops doe with one consent strive onely for the lawfullnes of their places and not for the necessity or perpetuity of their functions Yet he indeavoureth to perswade his reader lib. 4. pag. 161. that the reteyning of diocesan Bishops such as he standeth for is noâ— condemned by any moderate or judicious divine but onely by the late Presbyterians whereas it is too evident for his deniall to evince the coÌ„trary that many at this day doe stand forth eagerly for the necessitie
of three yearees afterwards sendeth Tâ—mothy to be their Bishop who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that we should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time he maketh mention of the Churches of Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. In all this if there be any probability it lieth in his last wordes wherein he seemeth thus to argue S. Paul maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Ergo you may not think there was but that Church at Ephesus in his time The consequent of this Enthymem is subtilly set down If his meaning be to perswade his reader that there was more The D. laieth downe his consequence subtilly then one Church at Ephesus in Pauls time because he mentioneth Churches in Asia his consequence is worse then nought nothing hindreth his Refuter to think that there was one onely Church at Ephesus although there were more Churches in Asia That epistle to the Corinthians wherein he mentioneh the Churches of Asia was written before his departure from Ephesus recorded Acts. 20. 1. as we maye gather 1. Cor. 16. 5. 8. 10. compared with Acts. 19. 21. 22. yet when after this he had speach with the Elders of Ephesus those many Elders which he now telleth us Paul had there placed they had no severall titles or cures but in coÌ„mon attended the whole flocke or Church as himself avoucheth serm pag. 18. from the very words of Paul Acts. 20. 28. where he doth apparantly contradict himself if he now labour to perswade that there were at that time more Churches or distinct congregations A contradiction in the D. if he c. then one that Ephesus But if in arguinge as he doth he intend no more then this to shewe that in Pauls time besides that Church at Ephesus there were in Asia some other Churches what is this to the purpose I meane to prove that in Saint Iohns time each of the 7. Asian Churches conteyned diverse congregations As for that he addeth of Timothy sent vnto Ephesus to be their Bishop his ordinary coÌ„tinuance there vntil his death it is sooner said then proved as shal be shewed hereafter were it true it giveth him no help to justify his former assertion of diverse congregations in every of these Churches But 2. he proceedeth to shew that Peter likewise by his preaching converted many in Asia And 3. after the death of Peter and Paul S. Iohn went into those parts preached the Gospel for many yeares ordeyned Byshops Presbyters where need was 4. Wisheth vs to add to the Ministery of the Apostles the preachings of the Byshops and Presbyters ordeyned by them and Disciples whom they had instructed by whose Ministery some Churches were brought to the fayth as that of Colossae in the CoÌ„fines of Phrigia in Paules time From all which particulars in stead of coÌ„cluding that which he pretended to make more then propable viz. that the 7. Churches of Asia conteyned each of them diverse congregations he appealeth to the conscience of every indifferent reader whether it be not unlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of 45. yeares Wherevnto for answer 1. I also appeale to the coÌ„science of every indifferent reader whether the D. hath not proved himselfe a notable triâ—â—er The Doct. a notable trifler when he thus disputeth It is very unlikely that there should not be in any one of those famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus that is in the whole citie country belonging to it any more then one ordinary coÌ„gregatioÌ„ Therefore it is more then propable that they all conteyned diverse congregations But 2. how often will the D. contradict himself doth he not confidently affirme serm pag. 18. that in the Apostles times parishes were 10. The D. coÌ„radicteth himself not distinguished not any Presbyters assigned to their several Cures And doth he not still maintaine the same position def pag. 69. onely he excepteth the Church of Alexandria which was farâ— from any of these 7. And. 3. had not the Churches of Ierusalem Rome as great helps to enlarge them by the Ministery of many excellent Teachers and for as many yeares yet himselfe denieth any ordinarie congregations to be multiplied in them See we what he saith plainely for the one pag. 92. and 124. and more closely touching the other pag. 88. And 4. since he acknowledgeth that thâ—se Churches were much annoyed with heretiks as Paul foretolde since that which he foretolde Act. 20. 29. 30. did principally concerne the Church of Ephesus and himselfe complayneth of their generall forsaking him in Asia 2. Tim. 1. 15. moreover since it appeareth even by the testimonie of Iohn or rather of Christ himselfe that Ephesus had left her first love and that partly by persecutions and partly by false Teachers the prosperitie and growth of those Churches was much hindred Revelat. 2. 4. 9. 13. 15. 20. and 3. 2. 16. the indifferent reader will easily seâ— how litle likelihood there is that there should be eyther in Ephesus or in any the rest of those cities of Asia any more then one populous congregation of Christians 5. Lastly if any man think that after the preaching of such and so many as he saith for the space of 45. yeares it is probable there were more then 7. ordinarie congregations let him judge indifferently betwixt the Doctor and his Refuter whether it be not more likely his Refuters assertion is true that there were no more then 7. distinct Churches such as Colossae Magnesia and Trallis whereof he speaketh then that each of the 7. as the Doctor affirmeth was divided into severall Congregations And this may suffice I doubt not to shewe that the Doctor Sect. 12. ad pag. â—1 hath sayde nothing to disprove that first braunch of his Refuters reason for the deniall of the consequence of his Proposition when he sayd that it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of these Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinarie assemblies The other two braunches the Doctor telleth us he will ioyne togither And in deed they must concurre not onely one with the other but also both of them with the former For if he could have proved by much more pregnant arguments then he can that those 7. Churches had bene eaâ— of them divided into diverse congregations yet it will not followe they were Dioceses vnlesse it appeare also that all of them did depend upon one Cathedrall Church as cheife and had not the power of ecclesiasticall government apart in themselves Wherefore all his labour is lost if he produce not better probabilities to disprove these two later points If saith he there were but one Bishop for the Church both of the citie and Countrye as there were but 7. in all
the â—aith which were as his Refuter truely avoucheth neither can the Doctor deney it but a fewe like to the nomber of Christians which was in London and the townes about it in Q. Maries daies or which now is in Paris or some Cities in Fraunce Wherefore to say as he did that the Churches were great Cities c. might better serve his turne as the Refuter judged to dazell the eies of the simple that they might thinke the people of those Churches to be well neere if not altogither as many The Doct. useth cunning in his purgation but yet in raine as the cities conteyned Now the D. to purge himselfe from so foule an imputation thanketh God that he â—s free both from desire and intent of dazaling the eies of the simple but this notwithstanding let the reader observe the cunning which he useth in this purgation The intent of dazeling he disclaymeth but he contradicteth not that which his reâ— objecteth vz. that he would have his reader to think that those Churches contayned as many people as the cities did onely he quarrelleth with him pag. 54. for strayning his words to The D. quarrell is fond and causlesse this meaning as if he had sayd that all the people in the citie and country had bene aâ— that time Christians which is in deed a causles quarrell a fond cavill seing in the D logick divinity here is a great difference betwene these two speaches All the people of the citie country were Christians and the Church conteyned within her circuite all the people of city and countrey for though he reject the former as absurd yet he maintayneth the latter for a sound position Else why doth he not interprete himselfe to have spoken according to an vsuall metonymy of the christian people onely q. d. The 7. Churches were the christians which then inhabited the cities and countries adjoyning Why doth he rather choose pag. 53. to explaine his meaning thus The Churches were that is contayned not onely the cities but the countrie and to illustrate his interpretatioÌ„ by such an instance as this A man is not onely body but soul also that is man consisteth of body and soul or whole man conteineth these two parts for if every of the 7. Churches doth so contayne citie and countrie or consist of those two partes as a man conteineth or consisteth of soule and body then both the whole citie and the whole countrie adjoyning must necessarily concurre to the very essence or being of the Church consequently in his estimation and vnderstanding none of those Churches did consist of or containe onely a fewe of the people as a parte of citie and countrie but rather all in generall Wherefore if he will cleare himselfe of that foule imputation which he semeth so farr to abhorre let him deale plainely and disclaime his construction he now inforceth of conteyning both citie countrie and stick to the usuall metonymie of the christian people in citie and countrie So his arguments will stand in this forme Whatsoever Church in S. Iohns time was or contâ—yned the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning the same was properly a dioâ—ese yea such a diocese as ours are But every of the 7. Churches of Asia was or contayned in S. Iohns time the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning Therefore every of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese yea such a diocese as ours is If it please the D. in his next to give allowance vnto this forme his assumptioÌ„ will perhaps be allowed to passe with some connivence till there be some good cause of calling it into question but he will finde it a labour surpassing all his skill and strength to make good the propositioÌ„ Wherefore I have litle hope that he will make this exchange seing he indeavoureth his best to justify aswell the words as the matter of his first assumptioÌ„ agaâ—nst his refuâ— exceptions Concerning the words first is it saith the D. so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the citie should be given to the Sect. 14. ad sect 8 pag. 53. Church Let him looke back to Apoc. 1. 11. he shall find that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. I answere the Ref how vnlearned soever in the eies of the D. hath no need to learne at his hands that the name of a citie may be and with ecclesiasticall writers is put metonymicè for the Church which was in that citie yet will it not be very easy for the D. to shew us that the Apostles used this phrase of speach in their writings For when they speak not of the place or citie it selfe but of the Church seated in any citie they usually explaine theÌ„selves by some such words as these The Church which is in Ierusalem or Antioch c. Act. 8. 1. and 11. 22. and 13. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Apo. 2. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. The Church of the Thessalonians Smyrnians c. 1. Thess 1. 1. Apoc. 2. 8. and 3. 14. The Saints at Ierusalem Lidda c. Act. 8. 13 22. Ephes 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 2. As for the words of Apoc. 1. 11 wherevnto he sendeth his Refuter to learne that the 7. Churches were Ephâ—sus Smyrna c. let him know that he hath learning enough to see that the D. glosse hath no warrant froÌ„ the text The words are kâ—ipempson tais eâ—clesiais tais en Asia eis Ephâ—son The D. glosse is without warrant of the text kieis Smurnan c. And send to the 7. Churches which are in Asia at Ephesus and at Smyrna c for it is no strange thing to finde â—is put for en and our latin translators as the vulgar Vatablus Beza c. doe with one consent turne eis Epheson c. Ephesi vel Epheso Smyrna c. I wish the D. to see whether the Holy Ghost himselfe the best interpreter of himself doth not turne eis Epheson eis Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11. by en Epheso en Smyrna c. Apoc. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. 14. And as little skill as the Refuter hath in the tongues yet hath he observed thus much that when the Apostles in their writings doe note the persons to whom any letter or mesâ—age is sent they doe either use the dative case as here tais â—câ—lâ—siais so elsewhere humin apestale to you is the word of salvation sent Act. 13. 26. hon epempsa humin I have seÌ„t Timothe to you 1 Cor. 4. 17. see the like Phil. 2. 19. Math 20. 16. Apoc. 11. 10. or else they take the preposition pros as when Paul sent Tychicus to the Ephesians Colossians he saith hon epempsa pros humas Ephe. 6. 22. Colos 4. 8. see the like Luk. 7. 19. Ioh. 16. 3. Acts. 19. 31. and 23. 30. Tit. 3. 12. As for the proposition eis in embassages c. it doth alwayes note the place and
not the persons as may be seene in these and the like Math. 2. 8. 20. 2. Luc. 15. 15. 16. 27. Act. 10. 5. and 17. 10. and 19. 22. and 20. 17. 2 Tim. 4. 12. But this difference is most clearly to be discerned where the persons and places are mentioned togither Luc. 1. 26. 27. the Angel Gabriel was sent from God eis polin vnto a citie of Galile called Nazareth pros parthenon to a virgin c. and 4. 26. vnto none of them sâ— the wydowes of Israel was Elias sent but onely eis Sarepta c. pros gunaika cheran to Sarapta c. to a widowe there See Act. 9. 2. and 15. 2. in which last place as some translators take eis for en as the Syrian interpreter Vatâ—blus and the vulgar so our english interpreters elder and later use a transposition of words thus to Ierusalem vnto the Apostles Elders which transposition though they use not neyther Apoc. 1. 11. nor Tit. 3. 12. where Paul saith make hast to come to me pros me eis Nicopolin to me vnto Nicopolis yet the meaning of the spirit of God in these later places is the same with the former namely after the mention of the persons to whom to add the places also vnto which repaire was to be made And as the D. discretion did see this in Pauls speach vnto Titus lib. 4. pag. 107. to wit that those words â—is nicopolin were necessarily added because else Titus should have ben vncertein both where Paule was to be found and whether he was to goe so doutlesse if prejudice had not blinded his eies his discretion would have led him to see also that those words â—is Epheson c. Apoc. 1. 11. were no lesse necessarie to give vnto Iohn sure direction unto what parts of Asia he was to sende and in what cities those Churches had their assemblies vnto which he was charged to send the things which were revealed to him Wherefore if his learning serve him to adjudge it a most absurd collection and a sensles perverting of the meaning of Gods spirit for any man to say that the scripture testifieth Paul to be Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. the Apostles and Elders to be Ierusalem Act. 15. 2. then may the indifferent reader very well wonder at the D. The reader may wonder at the D. oversighte oversight in affirming so confidently as he doth that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. that this is to be fouÌ„d Apoâ— 1. 11. But 3 to give the D. the utmost advantage he can desire from those words eis Epheson kai Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11 viz. that they are thus to be interpreted q. d. to the Church at Ephesus c. and consequently that the name of the citie is put by a metonymy for the Church in the citie how wil this warrant him to say that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. or rather as at the first he sayd that the 7. Churches were great and ample cities c. It is well known that Achaia was a large countrie and contained sundrie provinces see Aret in Act. 18. 27. and Hiper 1 Cor. 1. 1. and when the Apostle sayth 2. Cor. 9. 2. that Achaia war prepared a yeare agoe for their benevolence to the Saints it must be confessed that by Achaia he meaneth as he interpreteth himselfe cap. 1. 1. all the saints that were in all Achaia yet were it a strange speach and such as I suppose as the D. learned eares are vnacquaynted with to say that they whose harts the Apostle had prepared were a large country and contayned many provinces But to proceed the D. for a new supplie telleth us it is so vsuall with good Authors speaking of Byshops to say they were Byshops of such or such a citie that he might fill a volum with quotatioÌ„s to this purpose In deed The D. hath filled his great volume with quotations to prove what no man doubted of and leaveth the maine question without releefe he hath filled a great part of a great volume with quotations and testimonies that are to as little purpose as these which prove that no maÌ„ doubteth of left the mayn matter in questioÌ„ destitute of all releife for whereas he should have shewed that it is usuall with good authors speaking of the Ch in the Apostles tymes to say as he doth that they were great and ample cities not cities alone but also the countries adjoyning he wholly silenceth this point and telleth us that many good authors doe intitle the Byshops of succeeding ages Byshops of this or that citie but he had reason to doe so for the former is indeed so vncooth that he hath not any one good author to cleare him froÌ„ singularity in an absurd phrase of speaking but the later he found himselfe well able to confirme and therefore to send him home his owne words pag. 54. ful soberly he goeth about it telling us that he could fill a volume with quotations but a few testimonie shall suffice and very learnedly out of his reading he sheweth that Eusebius saith Evodius was the first and Ignatius the second Byshop of Antioch and th 〈◊〉 Ignatius writing to Policarpus stileth himselfe Byshop of Antioch As if the Church of Antioch must needs be a great citie because Antioch was so whereas the D. himselfe acknowledgeth that for 200. yeares and more it could scarcely be verefied of any citie or couÌ„try that they were all Christians All the rest of his testimonies are not onely after division of parishes as himselfe sayth but also after Constantines time when whole cities with their countries adjoyning were subjected to the fayth and therefore if they proved as they doe not that they had sayd the Churches were then great cities yet would it not have justifyed him in so affirming of the 7. Churches in S. Iohns time To come at length from the words to the mater of his assumption whereas the Refuter told him that the 7. Churches Sect. 15. ad sect 8. pag. 54. and 55. and sect 12. pag. 62. could not conteine the people of those cities because some fewe onely were true christians the generality of them remeyning pagans the D. not daring to contradict him herein yet quarrelleth with his proofes and faine would maintaine if he could that the Church conteyned both citie countrey though the christians were never so few First therefore because he shewed out of Eusebius lib. 4. cap. 15 that Policarpus Bishop or pastor of the Church at Smyrna was martyred by the rage of the The D. scoffeth at at his Ref. and yet justifieth his assertion and condemneth his owne multitude and that in the sight of his owne people the D. having scoffed at his learning reading addeth that which doth not onely justifie his Refuter assertion but also confute his own Every body knoweth saith he that in all cities and countries for the space of almost 300. yeares the Christians
were persecuted by the Gentâ—les Every body therefore knoweth say I that the Churches in S. Iohns tyme must needs consiste of a very fewe in comparison of the rest and therefore neyther were the cities the Churches neyther did the Churches contein the people thereof 2. Againe whereas the Refuter added that the Church of Smyrna writing of the sayd martyrdâ—m of Policarpus intitleth herselfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna therfore asked whether a whol diocese or country of Christians diâ—â—â—habite Smyrna the D. sayth it is an obiâ—ctim scarce worth the answering but yet vouchsafeth it a frivolous answer vz. that the whole diâ—cese was seâ—ted cheefly in the citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is sayd to be in the head and that though by the Church at Smyrna we should vnderstand onely that part which did inhabite the citie yet the â—aming it the Church which is 〈◊〉 Smâ—rna excludeth not the Churches in the countrye from being of the same body or diocese with it Whereunto for reply first to the last what meaneth he to begg that which he should prove rather if he could to witt that there were The D. beggeth CHVRCHES in the Country which were parts of the same body with the Church in the citie for if this cannot be proved the former part of his answere is absurd where he compareth the Church in the city to the head of the body For it is a monstruous body that hath eyther no body at all or an head bigger then all the rest of the body Moreover to burie in silence his unseemly may I not say blasphemous comparison in comparing a Diocesan Ch seated in the citie to Gods sitting in heaven how absurd is he in The D. coÌ„parison is more then vnseemely absurd comparing the Diocese to the soule which is in the head and in all the body besides For what shall the body be trow ye if the whole Diocese be the soule The city he saith is the head the country parishes belike are the rest of the members the citie and country joyned togither do make the Diocese yet the Diocese is not the body but the soule of the body Herevnto I may adde that which is objected pag. 55. of the Refuters answ from the text of holy scripture The epistles were directed to the Angel of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephâ—sus the Church of Smyrna the Church c. as if the whole cities were the Churches The Doctors answere pag. 62 is that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntil it was wholly converted to Christianity yet the whole citie meaning â—â—bs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles c. neither is it material that the Church is sayd to have bene in Ephesus seing in urbe the Church was cheefely seated as was said before I suppose the Refuter is not ignorant of that difference which the learned hystorians put betweene urbs civitas Vrbs ut M. Varro lib. 1. linguae latinae tradit ab orbe urno quae pars est aratri deducitur circum dividebantur enim aratro loca extruendo oppido designata ut ait Servius sulco muri designabantur Civitas autem tameâ—si pro urbe oppidove frequenter usurpatur proprie tamen ipsa est civium koinonia et societas moribus legibusque institutis gubernata nam et hi qui passim tractu aliquo habitant ijsdem legibus et institutis usi Civitas dicuntur Caesari sic habet Ioach Vadianus in Epitome trium terrae partium pag. 34. 35. Impress Tiguri Anno 1534. But what use doth the Doctor make of this difference The whole citie meaning Civitas saith he was not the Church till it was wholly converted to Christianitie Well then it seemeth when he saith the Churches were cities he tooke not the word citie for civitas which cheefly noteth the people that live in a communion togither He then acknowledgeth he tooke the word citie for that which is called urbs the walls and howâ—es within which the citizens for the greater part were inclosed If so he sheweth himselfe too absurd to be confuted with any other argument then such as is framed in Bocardo If not we may then with good leave I hope conclude that seing the Church of Ephesus was neytheâ— urbs nor civitas therfore it cannot at all be truely sayd to be the citie much lesse both citie and country And to what use then serveth if I may be so bold to ask once againe that difference he yeeldeth betweene urbs civitas Forsooth the whole citie mâ—aning urbs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles Well and may not the same be sayd of the whole citie meaning civitas Else why doth he tell us that when the Apostles planted presbyters in every citie they intended the conversion of the whole citie and country by their Ministerie Thus wisely hath the Doctor distinguished betweene urbs Civitas that what he affirmeth or A distinction without any difference denieth of the one the same in his understanding must be affirmed or denied of the other As for that he addâ—th to shewe his understanding of the text sc that the Church was seated not wholly but cheefly in urbe eyther beggeth the maine question as before was noted if he think there were some other Churches in the Country The Doct. beggeth or else coÌ„senteh to his refut that were parts of the same Diocesan body or he dissenteth not from his Refuter if he think the Christians inhabiting some townes and hamletts in the country did ordinarily assemble with those of the citie for the publick works of Gods worshâ—p Thus have we heard all that the Doctor can say in defense of his Sect. 16. ad sect 8. 〈◊〉 54. assumption as he first delivered it when he sayd those Churches were great and ample cities c. As for the change which he hath now made choise of viz. that they conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning he hath nothing else in defense thereof then a naked repetition in a manner of that which was before delivered to help the consequence of his reasoning yet I will vouchsafe to meÌ„tion it least he should think better of it then it deserveth If any maÌ„ ask saith he how it may be said that the Church conteyned City and Countrye when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in eyther of both I answere as before that the circuite of the Church or Diocese was the same when there were fiwe and when there were many yea when all were Christians His former answere whereto he nowe referreth us affirmeth the circuite of the Churches to be the same aswell before the division of parishes as after not actually but onely in the intention of the Apostles or first founder Which limitation he remeÌ„breth again in that answere
Bishop of the City adjoyninge how could they and their people be reputed parts of the citie-Citie-Church or inclosed within her circuite Wherefore since it is confessed serm pag. 24. that Country townes remeined heathenish for a time after the conversion of the Citie it must be confessed also that the Churches circuite at the first did not inclose the Countrie villagies as it did afterwardes Notwithstanding to justify his former assertion he alleadgeth that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a fewe the same Bishop of the City having jurisdiction over all the Christians both in the City and the Country aswell when all were Christians as when but a fewe He would have said that the Bishops which succeeded some ages after in the same City had the same jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country when they were all converted to the faith which the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe in the City Country adjoyning that first yeelded obedience to the Gospell For he acknowledgeth Def. pag. 54. that it could scarce be verified in any place till Constantines time which was above 200. yeares after the Apostle Iohns daies that all the people of City Country were Christians But with what bands can the D. tie togither these parts of his reasoning with what hands can the Doct. tie togither the parts of his reasoning The Bishops in Constantines time and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first Apostolike Bishops had over those fewe that first imbraced Christianity Therefore the circuite of the Church was at the first when they were but fewe the same that it was after when all became Christians Is there not much more probability in this coÌ„sequence The Bishops in Constantines daies and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe which at first imbraced Christianity Ergo the circuite of the Church and Bishops charge was farr lesse whiles there were but a fewe then it was when all the people of City and Country were converted vnto the Christian faith Which of these two hath more probability I leave to the indifferent reader to judge Wherefore till the D. can make good the consequence of his reasoninge all the proofes which he braggeth of for the demonstration of his antecedent the ancientest of them being after the first 300. yeares as appeareth Def. pag. 36. c. doe give just occasion of returning into his owne boosome that definitive sentence which he delivereth against his opposites viz. that the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome since the Apostles times ought without coÌ„parison to prevayle with all men in perswading theÌ„ to acknowledge that every Churches circuite was much inlarged by the generall conversion of all in Cities and Countrey townes above the authority of a fewe self-conceited persons such as the D. and his associates not so singular for learninge as they are singular in opinion when they would make the world beleeve if they could that every Churches circuite was the same at first when but a fewe imbraced the faith that it was after wheÌ„ all the people of City Country were made members of one diocesan Church If the D. shall flie as to a Sanctuary â—o his former evasion viz. that the Châ—câ—â—â—uite contâ—ined at the first both City câ—uÌ„tâ—y in the inteÌ„tioÌ„ of the Apost or first founders I haue enough already said to drive him out of this starting hole unless he caÌ„ provide some better forfication to releeve himselfe in this behalfe But he supposeth that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumptioÌ„ by repairing the breaches which his Refuter had made in the reason which his sermon tendred in defence thereof His words are these whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith the 7. starres were the Angles of the 7. Sect. 18. ad sect 9. pag â—5 56. Churches it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the couâ—tries adjoyning From hence his Refuter drewe this connexive syllogisme answere p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth â—ut 9. and some of them mother cities then they were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the countries adjoyning But our Saiviour c. Ergo Now the D. misliking the frame of this argument referreth him to his former manner of arguing sect 2. pag. 42. 43. where he shewâ—th how this lyllogisme is to be framed and there we find a double proof layd downe in defence of his assumption as he hath now shaped it vz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuite the cities and countries adjoyning the which he affirmeth to be proved first joyntly thus if the 7. Churches within their circuite comprized all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries But the first is true for our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches â—n Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and contayning within their circuite all the rest Concerning the Doct. joyntly let us severally observe first that he concealeth his conclusion secondly that he departeth from the words laid downe in his sermon and thirdly that he followeth not his owne directions giuen for the reducing of an Enthymeme or connexive argument into a simple syllogisme 3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting 1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion the reason is apparant he concludeth not his assumption which is in questioÌ„ For his propositioÌ„ being such as it is vz. that if the 7. Churches comprized within theire circuite all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries his conclusion must be this none other that the 7. Churches did comprize within their circuite all the Churches that were both in the cities and countries of Asia a point farr differing from that which himselfe proposed to prove to wit that the 7. Churches within their circuite conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning that is as himselfe explaineth his owne meaning pag. 52. the circuite of every one of those 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and country adjoyning for the consequence of his proposition as he hath proposed it runneth more currant then it would if he had sayd as he should thus If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuite all the Churches in Asia then every of those 7. Churches conteyned in her circuite the whole citie with the country adjoyning For here a man might very wel deny the coÌ„sequent although he sawe better proof then the D. hath brought for the justifying of the Antecedent 2. But when departeth he froÌ„ the words of his sermon both in the antecedent
of all Asia to be conteined in the circuite of those 7. Churches Notwithstanding if this be his meaning he playeth the Sophister in his induction For by citie countrie in his conclusion which is the assumpon of his principall syllogism he meaneth paroikian et â—horan which are the partes of a Diocese and his meaning must be the same in the two last Churches Philadelphia and Thyatira Wherefore well hunge together his argument hangeth togither in this fashion Of the 7. Churches 5. conteyned Mother cities the Provinces subject to them the other two conteyned Diocesan cities the countries to them belonging Ergo every of those Churches were of a like circuite and constitution in conteyning a Diocesan country togither with the citie But if that be true which he saith of Philadelphia and Thyatira that the one was subject to Sardis th' other to Pergamus then were the Churches of Philadelphia Thyatira conteyned within the circuite of Sardis and Pergamus as partes of the Country Province subject to those cities And hence it will followe that these 7. Churches were not of one forme and constitution but of differing condition some being onely Diocesan the rest metropolitan or provinciall Churches So that like as his first speach generally delivered of all 7. that they were great and ample Cities is now limited to those 5. mother Cities pag. 45. so in his next defence he may doe well to restreine vnto the same 5. Metropolitaine Churches that which now he affirmeth of all 7. viz. that they comprized within their circuite all the Churches that were in Asia whether in the Cities or in the Countries therevnto belonginge But since the spirit of God giveth equall honor to every of those Churches no prerogative to any one above another his proofes had need to be very pregnant demonstrative that shall perswade the contrary And this may suffice to shew how little cause he hath to bragg as he doth p. 52. that he hath made good his assumption The D. braggeth without cause by necessary proofe for in both his proofes first joyntly and then severally his antecedent is false and his consequence sophisticall Let us now cast a look a little vpon his dealing with that frame of argument to which his Refuter reduced the proofe of his assumption Sect. 20. ad sect 9. pag. 56. And first because he denied both proposition and assumption he complaineth and very justly that his hap was so hard that scarce any one proposition or assumption in his reasoning might be acknowledged to be true But he comforteth himselfe in vaine as the issue hath already I doubt not wil hereafter shew when he sayth his refuters happ is so hard that he is not able to prove any one eyther proposition or assumption of his to be untrue To infringe the proposition it is answered that though it were graunted that our Sauiour wrote those epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that all the rest depended as children vpon the mother For put the â—ase the Emperour finding some abuse commonly reigning in Asia should have written to those principall and mother-cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent that all other cities and townes should be warned by his reproofe of them might a man coÌ„clude thereupon that all other cities and townes of Asia were subject to the government of those 7 The D. reply is that this put case is worthy to be put in a cap case and therefore that all his readers may see he deserveth to have the â—loak-bagge he putteth a new case in this manner But say I quoth he put the case the Emperour should so doe with that intent that what he writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those towns villages which were within the circuite of their jurisdiction would it not strongly prove that all those other townes villages were subject to theÌ„ As if he had sayd grant me but thus much that all the rest of the townes and villages in Asia Will thâ— D. never cease craving were within the circuit of the jurisdictioÌ„ of those 7. Churches or cities then I can strongly prove that they were subject to them He addeth some experiment from our selues when the King or his Councell would have any thing intimated to all his subjects in certaine countries their warrants are directed to the Leiftenants of ech countrie and from them the high to constables c. And when the Archbishop would have any thing imparted to every parish he directeth his letters to the Byshops the Byshops to the Archdeacons and they to their officers in every Deanry c. which sheweth a subordination of officers in greater and lesser circuite of jurisdiction even so saith he by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the Churches it may be gathered that the rest of the particular Churches were subject to them And it may well be that when our Saviour writing to every one of the Angels severally and concluding each epistle with this Epiphonema Let him that hath an eare heare what the spirit saith to the Churches would have it vnderstood that what he writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches which were vnder his charge To all which I answer 1. to make his similitude cleare and sutable in the later part to the former he should have sayd that Christ intending to admonish or reprove all the Churches in Asia directeth his letters to the provinciall or metropolitan Churches they to the diocesan the diocesaÌ„ to the particular congregations vnder them Or else that what he wrote to the Angels of the metropolitan Churches they imparted to the diocesan Bishops the Diocesan Bishops to Parishe-Presbyters But then he should have assumed that which he cannot prove neyther by Scripture nor tradition wherefore it is plaine that his similitude halteth downe right 2. The D. similitude halteth And since the 7. Churches are equally written to and the Angells of each Church are equally honoured with a several epistle directed to them we may very well perswade our selves that none of those Churches or Angels was subordinate or subject to the other And therefore it was never intended by our Saviour Christ or his Apostles that the ecclesiasticall state should follow the civill or that the Churches planted in Mother-Cities or Shire townes should conteine within the circuite of their jurisdiction the townes villages or Country subjected to the government of the City 3. I also â—dd that though he could prove that the Angels and Churches specially written unto by Christ did impart the letters unto other Churches and their Ministers yet would it not strongly but strangely conclude the rest of the Churches and their Ministers to be subordinate or subject to those 7. Churches their angels For come we for triall hereof unto our selves and our owne stories The Archbishop of CaÌ„terburie in the dayes
Ministers and thus he layeth it downe Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselves Apostles and were not or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers had a corrective power over other Ministers The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the lâ—tter Apo. 2. 20. Therefore these Angels which before I proved to be Byshops had a corrective power over other Miniâ—ters The conclusion which the D. first aymed at serm pag. 49. when he laid downe the parts of this assumption as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48. was this that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct even those Presbyters which assisted them as parts of theire Presbyterie in the government of the Diocese Wherfore the Refuters answer pag. 101. knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephesâ—s for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles were not And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra for suffering the Teachers of the Nicholaitan hâ—riâ—y then Byshops â—ad majoritie of rule for correction over diocesan Presbyters And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops nor those persons with whom they dealt Diocesan Presbyters To this the D. replyeth The D. reply is â—rivolous false and slandâ—â—â—us that the answer is frivolous because he hath before proved the former his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shiâ—â— Wherevnto my rejoynder is that the first part of his reply is frivolous or rather false and the second a maâ—â—â—cious slaunder 1. For to say he hath proved and not to shewe where is meere trifling And if he have not eyther in his sermon or any part of his defence before-going any one â—yllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point which he faith he hath before proved what truth can there be in his saying 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters since the Doctor confesseth pag. 124. the word to be used in some Councels graunting the word may be used in a sense and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. 104. of his answere is it not a malliâ—ious slaunder to say he devised it aâ—d that for a shift espetially seing in the rest of his answere to this argument he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan But the Doct. saith pag. 124. that he neyther vsed the worde at all neyther if he had would he have used it in The D. understaÌ„deth not his owne testimony that sense scz for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government for in his vnderstanding the country Ministers are called Diocaesani Concâ—l Agath cap. 22. Tolet. 3. cap. 20. and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop were called Civitatenses But to our understanding it seemeth that the Praesbyters called Diocesani Concil Tolet. 3. cap. 20. being opposed to another sort there termed Locales were not country Ministers affixed to particular places but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyterâ—e which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese The words of the Councell are these Hâ— verò clerici tam locales quam Diocefani qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint querelas suas ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters as the Doctor would perswade but rather giveth both names to the same persons Id statuinus quod omnes jubent ut CivitateÌ„ses sive Diocesani Presbyteri vel Clerici salvo jure ecclesie rem ecclesiae sicut permiserunt episcopi teneant â—t vendere aut donare penitus non presumant But to leave this quarrell about words and to come to the matter seing it is cleare that the Do first intended by this argument to prove that Bishops had corrective power over those Presbyters which assisted them in they re Diocesan charge is not the Refuters answere very direct and pertinent to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning when he telleth him That the Teachers against whom those angels eyther did or shoulde have sâ—t themselves were not such Presbyters Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne to prove that they were such Presbyters nor removed the presumptions which the Refut alleadged for his denyall doth not the blame of a weak consequenceâ—ly still heavy upon his shoulders Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one and the defense of the other and then give upright sentence First touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined the Refuter asketh pag. 102. Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop should call themselves Apostles And addeth any mans reason will give him that these false Apostles were men who coÌ„ming froÌ„ some other place would have thrist theÌ„selves into the Church there to have taught with authoritie and by right of Apostleship And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira he saith that they also might be such intruders or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach having no calling thereto but however it no way appeareth that they were Ministers and members of the presbytâ—â—â—e assisting the Angel of that Church Now what saith the Doct Doth he make the contrarie appeare viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie No for he will not determine whether they were Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops Presbyterie or not and whether of the Diocese originally or come from other places Onely he saith it is playne they were Teachers that being in their Diocese the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. Wherein observe we 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere scz that it no way appeareth that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers it is more then he can prove his bare avouching that it is plaine doth not plainely coÌ„vince it yet will it nothing advantage him nor disadvantage his Refut to grant it 3. Moreover in saying that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. eyther it is frivolous if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then is common to every Pastor or Minister in his owne charge since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbidd such companions or else it is a begging of The D.
Church-governmeÌ„t which is for civill policie betweene cities and other villages Notwithstanding I deny not but it were as absurd to desire a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish that is to say such a Lord Bishop as ours are and such a Presbytery as are the Deane and Prebends of our cathedrall Churches as to require for every village a Major and Aldermen of that state that they beare at this day in the citie of London For wee may well say with Musculus in Mat. 9. 35 Deus bone quis ferret sumptus tot equitum reliquorum de comitatu episcoporum si nostri episcopi quales eos habemus episeopatus suos circuire cogerentur c. Who goeth on and sheweth how base and unfitting a thing it is for the great pomp and state of Bishops at this day to visite poore villages and how unable such places are to beare the charge of their expences in their visitations No merveile therefore if it be too great a but then for every parish to mainteyn an whole colledg of cathedrall Clercks togither with the retinew of the Lo. Bishop 3. But herein the Doct. deceiveth his reader in conveying into his The D. deceiveth his reader by a false conceit hart this false conceit that the state of the ancient Bishops their presbyterie was no lesse unfitting in regard of their pomp and charge for a countrie towne then their condition is that pretend to be their successors at this day Thus have we heard to what particulars he stretcheth the name Sect. 6. ad â—ect 4. pag. 6. 7. of a Church as it is used in the scriptures attend we now to his coÌ„clusion All this saith he I have the rather noted because some having first strongly coÌ„ceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish have haled the places of scripture where ECCLESIA is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit c whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleadged out of the scriptures I hope the indifferent reader will discerne by the answere alreadie made that the Doctor deserveth to be censured in The D. deserveth to be censured in his own terms his owne termes viz. that having first strongly conceited all the differing formes of visible Churches which are now in use scz nationall provinciall diocesan and parishionall to be lawfull hath haled the places of scripture where ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of his conceit whereas in very truth he cannot alleadge any one testimony out of the scripture which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to such a multitude of Christians distributed into many particular assemblies as we esteeme a nationall or provinciall or diocesan Church And as for parish assemblies which conteyne one congregation though he caÌ„ scarcely affoard us any one testimony yet it is already shewed that besides the Church of Cenchreae which he acknowledgeth to be a parish he graunteth that the most of the Churches in the greatest cities during Pauls time did not exceed a populous congregation And in his own table page 4. for a Church congregated into one congregation he giveth us all these scriptures Act. 11 26. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself 14 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 22. 14. 5. 12. 19. 23. 28. 34. 35. 3. Ioh. 6. which are so many testimonies to justify the congregations which we call parishes But we need not to goe further then to his words â—mediately following for in graunting that at the first conversion of cities the whole number of the people converted being sometimes not much greater then the number of presbyters placed amongst them were able to make but a small congregation he doth acknowledge every of the ancient Churches to have been at the first such as wee call parishes That which he addeth viz. that those Churches were in constituting and not fully constituted till their number being increased they had their Bishop or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons is but a renewing of his old suite or begging of The D. renueth his old suite oâ— begging the question if he understand by the Pastor or Bishop such a diocesan Prelate as he pleadeth for And yet if by constitution he meane that forme of a Church which maketh it properly a Diocese and not a Parish he overturneth the foundation whereon he first builded his diocesan Churches in his serm pag. 18. where he affirmeth the apostolike Churches to be Dioceses properly because the Presbyters first ordeyned when as yet they had no Bishop were trusted not onely with the feeding of those few already converted but also with the care of indeavoring the conversion of the rest both in citie and country therefore he applyeth to their Ministerie that comparision of a little leaven which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe now used in the wordes following to shewe what was the office of the Bishop and Presbytery Which point how true or false it is and how fit or unfit for his purpose shall have fitter occasion to shew in the answere to his 4. chapter and to the 6. section of his third where also I shall meet with that which followeth touching the intent of the Apostles in planting Churches in cities to wit that when parishes were multiplied as was fit and necessarie upon the increase of Christians in the cities and countries adjoyning they should all remaine under the governmeÌ„t of one Bishop or superintendent seated in each citie Meane while the reader may see that the Doctor hath little cause to boast of his conquest before he hath put on his harnesse for the conflict Wherefore he but bloweth the trumpet of insolent vanitie when he faith avain blast of the D. that all the disciplinarians to the world shall never be able to shew that there were or ought to have bene after the division of parishes any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for an whole Diocese He should remember that he being the opponent in this controversie the burthen of proving lieth on his shoulders and therefore it had bene his part to have demonstrated from the scripture that which he affirmeth touching the intent of the Apostles in the first constituting of churches for one testimony from holy writ to shewe that they intended and ordeyned that the citie Church should spred her wings over the whole diocese and cover vnder the shadow thereof all the people after their conversion and distribution into many parishes writings to justify this assertion will easily draw us to acknowledg that diocesan Churches were instituted by the Apostles But til this be done though he write ten volumes more and each of them ten times greater then this yet he shall never be albe to convince the coÌ„science of his indifferent reader in the point which he vndertaketh to prove to wit that the Apostolicall Churches were properly and if not actually yet at least intentionally dioceses
not parishes But though he cannot fortify his owne assertion yet will he assay Sect. 7. ad sect 5. pag 7. to throw downe their hold that oppugne it with this jolly Enthymem The word Eeclesia signifiâ—th according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small Ergo the use of the word in the scripture doth not savour their conceit which iÌ„magine there is no true Church but a parish Wherein he doth neyther rightly The D. in one Enthymem saniteth 2. set downe their assertion nor assume a cleare truth to refute it The first appeareth by H. I his table pag 6. of his book whereto the Doctor pointeth in that besides a particular congregation of Christians meeting for religious exercises which the Doct. calleth a parish he acknowledgeth the name of Church to be given in the scriptures vnto some other societies viz. the Catholike militaÌ„t Church on earth the invisible society of Gods elect absolutely Catholike the people of a particular coÌ„gregation considered without and besides their Ministers and the company of a Christian familie The truth is he holdeth the onely true visible Church indowed by Christ with the spirituall power of order and government in it selfe to be none other then a particular congregation Neyther is the truth hereof infringed by that which the Doctor assumeth seing the name of a Church given at large to any company of Christians in regard of their profession of the true faith cannot prove the power of Ecclesiasticall government to belong vnto every such company of Christians or to any other society then one particular congregation 2. But he assumeth for a grounded truth that The D. reasoneth ex non coÌ„cessis which he shall never be able to justify when he saith that the word ecclesia signifyeth according to the usuall phrase of the Holy Ghost any company of Christians great or small For he cannot shewe any one place of scripture where the word Church in the singular number is giveÌ„ to such a multitude of Christians in an whole Nation Province or Diocese as was distributed into many particular congregations Yea his own table page 4. sheweth that when the scripture speaketh of the Christians in an whole nation it calleth them Churches plurally and not by the name of a Church singularly as Churches of Galatia Asia Macedonia 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. t. Gal. 1. 2. And the like phrase of Churches is used for the Christians of one province Act. 9. 31. the Churches had rest throughout all Iudea Galile and Samaria Wherefore to let the Doctor see how little the use of the word favoureth his conceit of Diocesan Churches c. I will this once tender him this argument The word ecclesia in the singular number doth no where note such a number of Christians as is divided into many particular congregations in any diocese nation or province Ergo the use of the word in the scripture favoureth not their concest which imagine that the Christians of an whole Nation Province or Diocese though distributed into many congregations may not with standing by the warrant of the word be rightly termed one Church Yea it serveth rather to confute then to coÌ„firm the point now in questioÌ„ viz. that the 7. Churches meÌ„cioned in this text were properly Dioceses not Parishes As for his large discourse touching the diverse significations of these words Eeclesia Paraecia Diaecesis coÌ„monly translated Church Parish Diocese how they are taken in the ancient writers I see not what advantage he can make by it to conclude the question The summe of all that he saith is this In ancient writers Ecclesia paroecia Dioecesis having refereÌ„ce to a Bishop his whole charge doe signify a Diocese and not a parish Which how true it is I cannot now enquire vnless I should digresse into a new controversy For the present it shall suffice to observe that though it were granted to be true yet it will not justify his assertion that the 7. Churches of Asia mencioned in his text were properly dioceses not parishes for in the consequence of his reasoning if he shall so argue he beggeth the question in two particulars which he should The Doct. beggeth the question in 2. particulars but cannot make evident by good demonstration viz. that in his text the word Ecelesia hath reference to one Bishop and his charge and that it carrieth the same signification for the singularity or plurality of particular congregations comprized within it which it doth in those ancient writers whom he citeth Leaving therefore this whole discourse and overpassing also his 2. Chapter as apperteyning to another question viz. how ancient that distribution of Dioceses and Parishes is which in later ages preveiled and passing by his whole 3. Chapter concerning the 7. Churches being handled in the former part lib. 3. I will now proceed to his 4. Chapter and the argument there concluding that the first Apostolike Churches were properlie Dioceses because the presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed but to whole cities countries that is to dioceses Chap. 2. conteyning an answer to the D. argument to prove that the first Apostolicall Churches were properly dioceses not parishes because the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses Sect. 1. ad sect 1. cap. 4 of the D. pag. 64. We have already heard in the former part how feebly the D. argueth to prove the 7. Churches of Asia to be great and ample citie togither with the countries adjoyning when he saith it cannot be denied but they were such because our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7 and nameth the principall some whereof were Mother cities He addeth imediately after For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation they first preached to the cheise cities thereof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had converted some their manner was to ordeyne Presbyters hoping by their Ministery to convert not onely the rest of the citie but also the countries adjoyning so many as did belong to God Which words the Refuter answ pag. carried as the 2. reason to conclude the point before questioned because finding the former argumeÌ„t to be so obscure and vnfitting as it is before shewed to be he judged it in effect all one to say It cannot be denied but the 7. Churches were great ample cities c. for it is evideÌ„t that the Apostles in the cheife cities of any nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine Presbyters by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie and country adjoyning and to transpose the sentences in this manner It is evident that the Apostles in the cheife cities of every nation where they had converted some to the faith did usually ordeine presbyters c. Ergo it cannot be denyed but the 7. Churches were great and ample Cities
nor Presbyters assigned to their severall Titles or Cures but were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole slock seeding them that were already conuerted and labouring the conuersion of the rest so farre as they are able both in citie and country theÌ„ were not the Presbyteries appointed to Parishes but to Dioceses In the Apostles times the Churches were not diuided into severall Parishes c. Ergo in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appointed to Parishes but to Dioceses We see here how he hath himself framed it now he telleth us how his Refuter after his perpetuall manner propounded the propositioÌ„ connexively thus Is the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times nor the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures but in coÌ„mon were to attend the whole flock conuerted or to labour the conuersion of the residue then the Presbyters in the Apostles times were not appointed for parishes but for dioceses Was it a fault in the Refuter trow ye to propound the proposition connexively with astrict eye to the words of his sermon and is it praiseworthy in the Doctor to exchange it for an other coÌ„nexive propositioÌ„ wherein he also made a change of one phrase for his advantage for having The Doct. changeth a phrase for advantage at the first sayd that in the Apostles times Parishes were not distinguished now he saith the Churches in their times were not diuided into seuerall parishes which later may be true and yet the former false as we shall see anon when we come to his assumption But as a man full of charges he chargeth his Refuter with a worse fault viz. the suppressing of the force of the connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to Dioceses in leauing out as he saith the wordes of the greatest force viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God c. A worse fault in deed were it true but hath he no other way to The Doct. to disgrace his Ref. caluÌ„niateth disgrace his Refut then by so false a calumniation as this is doth he not faithfully set downe his owne wordes to wit that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flock converted and to labour the conversion of the residue In deed for brevitie sake he omitted the words following so sarre as they should be able both in the citie countries adioyning but doth not himself vse the like abbreviation pag. 66. The Doct. 2. argumeÌ„t is but a beggerly repetition of the point urged in the former lin ult pag. 67. lin ante penulr and 68. lin 14 But though I coÌ„mend him not for this yet I cannot but praise him for speaking the truth in saying that â—e force of his connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to Dioceses lieth in this that they were appointed to labour the coÌ„uersion of those that belonged to God so farre as they were able both in the citie and in the countries adioyning For this maketh good what before was touched cap. 2. sect 3. scz that his 2. argument is but a beggerly repetition of the same point which he urged in the former And seing in his reply pag. 74. to his Refuters objecting it an errour before refuted he maketh no other defence then this that â—e bâ—th prouid it to be an euident truth discouered the shallownes of their indgment that deny it It were sufficient to send him back for his answere to that which hath bene already spoken to shew the weaknes of his defense Yet to take from him all evasions as I wish the reader to see what is further observed touching the state of this argument sect 14. so I refuse not to examine what he hath brought eyther in maintenance of his owne argument or in removing his Refuters answer His proposition as he hath set it seemeth to be as he saith of sect 2. ad pag. 69. necessary and euident truth and well may it seeme so to him but all thinges are not so as they seeme yet if his reasons be of any worth I will graunt him a seeming truth in it First he asketh how the Presbyters could be assigned to severall Parishes when there were no parishes distinguished And 2. if they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God in the citie and countrey how were they not appointed to dioceses Behold here how the Doctor is driven to disioynt his propositioÌ„ like as he doth also pag. 70. lin 2. 6. and to prove the part thereof a part Why then doth he count his Refuter Def. lib. 1. pag. 148. to be no better then a grosse headed Sophister for the like course and why then did he not divide it at the first into 2. members the one concluding that the presbyters were not appointed to parishes the other that they were appointed unto dioceses But once againe to return him his owne what cannot he bring within the compasse of one of his syllogismes Now to answer his questions touching the first be it freely confessed that when Parishes were not at all distinguished Presbyters could not be assigned to several Parishes But if the Doctor had not departed from the words of his proposition whether craftily or carelesly I leave it to his owne conscience I would flatly have refused to assent to his connexion for the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles might be assigned unto parishes that is to say the Churches unto which the Presbyters were assigned might be each of them one particular congregatioÌ„ although the Churches planted by the Apostles were not as yet divided into severall parishes or distinct congregations And to the second connexioÌ„ propounded after the same maÌ„ner which he taxeth in his Refuter with an if in stead of when which word his proposition imbraceth I answer as before to the proposition of his former argument sect 4. cap. 2. It doth not followe that the Presbyters were appointed to Dioceses that is to diocesaÌ„ churches such as ours although it should be graunteth that they were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God both in citie and countrey Neyther doe his questions that follow give him the least releife to justify this consquencewhich I disclaim It semeth his meaning is to perswade his Reader that the denyall of his consequence will inforce his Refuter to father this fancie that all the people which belonged to God in the citie and countrie were afterwards converred belonged to one parish And the absurditie hereof he hopeth will appeare by this that after their conversion they were divided into many parishes both in citie and countrie For answer 1. I ask why it should be more absurd to say that the people of one parish may be or were divided into many parishes then to say that the people of one Church or Diocese may be were distributed into many Dioceses or Churches but he is much deceived if he think that the denyall of his consequence will drive
about some parts of his answer then to propose any sound argument for the justifying of the points impugned which is in deed the perpetuall course of this great disputer for the most part But let us see whether he hath so just cause as he suppofeth to Sect. 4. insult over his Refuter when he saith to let passe his scoffs more fit for a vice in a play then a Doctor of divinitie in re tam seria as this is that his Refuter wrangleth as a man confounded yet resolved to coÌ„ntradict though against the light of his conscience denieth the conclusion coÌ„tradicteth himselfe The contradiction objected will come to be examined in his defense of the Assumption All that is sayd to weaken the consequence or proposition he taketh to be but a bare deniall of the conclusion And first he so conceiveth of his quaestion what if every one of the Churches then were but one parish c. because he cannot see how it impugneth the consequence in any respect But had he had so much charitie towards his Refuter as he would have yeelded to himselfe he might have supplied that which the state of the question and the scope of his answer requireth to be necessarily understood q. d. what if though that were granted which he supposeth every one of the Churches then were but one parish which by reasoÌ„ of the multitude of people had many Teachers so he might have seen that he impugneth his consequence so farre as it inferreth that the Presbyteries were not appointed unto parishes and that therfore he both wrongeth him to say that in that respect he giveth it no answer at all and sporteth himselfe in vaine with the hope of a victorie that turneth to his ruine For his quaestion rightly conceived as before is shewed doth in plaine phrase of speaking import thus much q. d. Be it granted that parishes in the Apostles times were not distinguished in any citie and the country nere adjoyning nor presbyters assigned to their severall cures this nothing hindreth but that every one of the Churches which by their ordination injoyed a presbyterie or companie of teachers might be one parish that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place And that which is added touching the French Dutch Churches serveth not to prove the maine conclusion as the Doctor supposeth therein mistaking his Refuters Analysis but to justify the deniall of the consequence by a paralel comparing those outlandish churches here in England with the ancient Apostolike Churches in this manner It is well knowne that the French and Dutch Churches here in England have first a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them 2. no parishes distinguished in any citie for them 3. nor presbyters so assigned to their several cures as our parish Ministers are Be it also graunted that the Apostolike Churches in cities had the like yet the French and Dutch Churches are neyther doth the want of distinct parishes and presbyters assigned to their severall cures hinder their being each of them one parishionall not a diocesan assembly that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place Why then might not those Apostolike Churches be yea how should the want of distinct parishes c. hinder their like being If the Doctor will needs have the comparison brought into a syllogism it may be thus framed What hindreth not the French Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly that cannot binder the Apostolicke Churches which in Cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly The want of distinct parishes and presbyters so assigned to their severall Cures as our parish-Ministers are doth not hinder the French or Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly Therefore the like want cannot hinder the Apostolike Churches which in cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly As for his cavils agianst his owne Argument framed I will not Sect. 5. say for the nonce to cavill withall but vpon a mistake of his Refuters meaning though I might passe by them as not directly touching any part of the argument before contrived yet because they contradict some pointers implied in the comparison I will remove them out of the way least any one should stomble at them First therefore whereas he hunteth after some differences between the Apostolike Churches and the French or Dutch Churches here in England thereby to shew that they are not of like condition as the Refuters comparison importeth I answer 1. the Doctor cannot be ignorant that comparisons are not to be racked beyond the purpose of the Author that produceth them neyther is he so simple but that he may see his Refuter principally intended herein to compare the Apostolike Churches with the FreÌ„ch and Dutch Churches that as the later have so also the former had by reason of the multitude of people many teachers to attend theÌ„ and yet remayned one Church assembly not distributed into severall congregations vnder severall Ministers Herein therefore if the comparison holde as himselfe confefseth and argueth for his advantage pag. 74. 75. all the differences that he alledgeth were they as many moe as they are cannot contradict or infringe the truth of the Refuters speach when he saith doe you not see the like in the French and Dutch churches here in England 2. But what are the dissagreements which he hath found out For the most part such as are now questioned concerning the Apostolike Churches for he saith Their Presbyterie consisteth for the most part of Lay-men placed among us not with purpose to convert either the Ciâ—â—â— or countâ—â—â— to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrary wise the Churches in the Apostles times had a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leaven is put into the lump with purpose to convert the reâ—â— both in Ciâ—â—â— and Countrie As if he would argue that they agree not in the points assumed by the Refuter for his purpose because they answere not his expectation in the particulars which his imagination ascribeth though his arguments cannot conveigh them to the Apostolike Churches As for that other difference viz. that the French Church in London is but one among many prosessing the same religion whereas the Apostolike Churches were not so before the division oâ— parishâ—â— but planted among heathen peo-ple though he make it a chiefe one yet is it srivolous and of no value The Doct. pulleth downe with the one hand what he fetteth up with the other especially seing himselfe pag. 72. compareth the French Churches here with those ancient Christians who dwelt in Cities replenished with men of another saith
as with Arrians as ours be with men of another language 3. And here by the way observe how the Doctor at vnawares pulleth downe with the one hand what he setteth vp with the other For against this comparison between those churches that lived among the Arrians and the French Churches among us alleadged to prove that the later are as he saith the former were models of diocesan Churches I may returne his owne exceptions thus The French Churches cannot be Models of diocesan Churches like as he supposeth the other were because their Presbytery consisteth for the most part of lay-men and wanteth a Bishop which they had neither are they placed and reâ—eined for the the conversion of the citie and countrie to them as in the Doctors conceit the ancient Churches among the Arrians were for otherwise how should they be converted as he argueth pag. 67. And this also by the way weakneth his arguing to shew that Sect. 6. the French and Dutch Churches among us are no parish assemblies For if they be neither diocesan nor models of diocesan Churches what else can they be then parishes such at least as the Refuter in this question esteemeth to be parishes or parishonall Churches 2. But in this point he sheweth himself what he is when knowing as is before noted sect 3. in what sense the Refuter holdeth those The Doct. knowing the Refut to speak in one sense â—â—ieth to an other Churches and the ancient Apostolike Churches to be parishes he doth notwithstanding flie to another sort of parishes viz. such as ours now are deprived of the power of ecclesiasticall government and subordinate to an other Church as members thereof to his exceptions therefore in this behalfe this reply may suffice That which is one Church among many in one citie is one parish or one congregation such as in this question we define a parish to be But the French Church in London is one Church among many in one citie as the Doctor acknowledgeth p. 7. 1 It is therefore one parish as wee understand a parish in this question Againe That which hindreth not the french and dutch Churches among vs fro being each of them one ordinary congregation assembling to one place for the worship of God doth not hindâ—â— them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question But the Doctors exceptions viz. that the members of the French and Dutch Churches doe dwel in many distinct parishes according to the circuite of our English division of parishes in London and other places aâ—d that their Churches are indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof these exceptions I say doe not hinder the French and Dutch Churches among us from being each of them one ordinarie congregation assembling to one place for the wor-ship of God Therefore neyther doe they hinder them from being each of them one parish as we take a parish in this question As for that one speach inserted touching the French and Dutch Churches when he saith they have a Presbyterie as the Church â—â— Geneva hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might have in an imitation of the ancient Christinians me thinks it scarce savoureth of truth or at least argueth forgetfulnes in himselfe For if that he speaketh of having a Bishop once in eâ—â—e and still in possâ— The Doct. speach either is vntrue or else contradicteth himself be referred to the French and Dutch Churches here in England where doth Alasco say that they once had a Bishop and how knoweth he that our Bishops would suffer them to have in each church a Bishop of their owne If to the Church of Geneva as he needeth not Alascoes testimonie to prove that they once had a Bishop so in saying that they now might have a Bishop what else doth he but contradict here what he earnestly pleadeth for lib. 4. pag. 166 viz. that the Churches of France and Geneva neyther in the first reformation could neyther now can obteyne the government of Bishops to be sâ—tled among them though they would but it is no new thing to meet with the Doctors slippings this way We come now to the Refuters regestion when he striketh at the Doctor with his owne weapon in this manner â—â— there were no parishes Sect. 7. ad P. 70. lin 8 in the Apostles times how could there be Dioceses seing every Diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes The Doctor telleth us it is but a floorish and a kind of answer that best fiâ—teth him that is at a non-plus But it is well knowne that this kind of answer is very usuall with divines nothing inferior to him eyther in schoole learning or divinity that to contradict any assertion belonging to the question aswell as the conclusion principally contraverted doth not the D. know that it is the course held by Mr Sadeel in all his Theologicall scholasticall disputations yea it is in deed of speciall use to put the adverse part to a non-plus or at least to let the indifferent Reader see the weaknes of his argument and therefore no mervâ—ile though the Doctors patience be not a little troubled with it But see we how he bestirreth himselfe to escape the stroak of it Good Sir saith he what is this to my consequence Againe to what end is this spoken to deny my consequence or the maine conclusion And a little after Therefore when he would sâ—â—me to denie the consequence of the propo-â—â—tion he doth not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against the assumption he dâ—niâ—th the principall conclusion Good Mr. D. with your patience is there no difference betwixt the deniall of the conclusion and the retorting of an argument against it And is it nothing to you if your maine conclusioÌ„ fall to the ground so that the consequence of one of your arguments stand uprightâ— but it is a fault in the Refuter when he would seeme to impugne your consequence to passe by it and to set upon your conclusioÌ„ when you thought it had been sufficiently garded Belike you looked not for such a stratageme at his hands whom you tooke to be amazed at the fight of your argument as you say pag. 71 and so shallow conceited when he is in his best wits that if we may beleeve you pa. 80. he can see no further then his nose end Yet perhaps if you had seene your consequence touched by the former part of his answer you would not have blamed him â— for running out against your conclusion before he gave the onset to your assumption But to let your scoffs alone tell us in good earnest doe you think your consequence is altogither out of the reach of this his regestion as you call it doth it not rather fall with the conclusion for how could Presbyteries be appointed to Dioceâ—es when there were none If therefore the want of
no cheiftie or preheminence to any one above the rest neyther perpetual not teÌ„porarie in any Pastoral duty of feeding or governing the people depending on them seing in his conceit they had neither Bishop nor President to guide the or to moderate their meetings in the absence of the Apostles who as he supposeth reteyned all episcopall government in their owne hands Which confused paritie or rather Anarchie as it was never imbraced of any reformed Church in these last times so it cannot without wrong disgrace to the Apostles be ascribed unto their ordinance As for the Apostles wordes to the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts. 20. 28. the Doctor seemeth inconstant and at odds with himselfe Sect. 13. ad sect 7. p. 75. in the application of them For he first quoted that text serm p. 18. to prove that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word and Sacraments where note that he limiteth the word flock and the duty of feeding to the company already converted which argueth as may well be supposed that he did not then conceive the residue of the City and Country yet vnconverted to be any part of that flock or The D. agreeth not with himselfe in the applicatio of Act. 20. 29. Church there spoken of but now he streatcheth both words to the whole nomber of all which in City and Country belonged to God and were by their Ministerie to be converted and rockoneth it as we heard before sect 7. one of the Refuters indigested fancies to restreine the flock over which those presbyters were set vnto the nomber of Christians already converted Heare we now the reasons that perswaded him to change his opinion for he useth not to doe and vndoe without reason First he urgeth the use of the word flock Iohn 10. 16. where the flock he faith is that for which the good shepheard gave his life vnto which apperteyned the sheep which his Father gave him even the elect not yet converted as he saith pag. 66. not onely among the iewes but the Gentles also even that Church which God meaning Christ who is God is sayd to have redeemed with his blood Acts. 20. 28 and that people of his which he saveth from their sinnes But how will he from his allegations inferre that the flock in which those Presbyters were set as overseers Act. 20. 28. was the people belonging to God aswell vnconverted as converted in the City of Ephesus and the Country adjoyning Doth not himselfe weaken the consequence when he faith This is spoken of the Church in generall yea but he proceedeth to say so the company of them that belong to Christ in any nation province diocese city or parish may be called the flock the Church the people of God Well then if the company of faithfull in one parish may be called the flock and Church of God aswell as a larger society of such as belonge vnto God in a nation province or diocese is not the Doctor yet as farre to seek as at the first for a found reason to perswade his conscience that the people yet vnverted but belonging to Gods election throughout the diocese or province of Ephesus were a part of the flock and Church which those presbyters were charged to attend to and feede May not a man with halfe an eye discerne that a greedy desire to contradict his Refuters assertion hath instead of better reason preveyled with him or rather as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter pag. 73. so transported him that he careth not how shamefully he contradicteth himselfe so as he may gainesay his adversaries present assertion Yet there is a worse fault that accompanieth this change of opinion in him for he absurdly consoundeth the visible Church of Christian professors knowne vnto men with the invisible Church or flock of Gods elect knowne onely to himself yea we may therevnto The D. coâ—radicteth himself coÌ„ foundeth the visible invisible Church maketh the Apostle author of a senselesse charge add a third fault no less absurd then the former when he makerh the Apostle Paule the author of a senseless charge imposed on the presbyters viz. to attende on a flock the nomber and parts whereof they neyther knew nor could know and to feede with the word and Sacraments such as were not yet begotten vnto the faith Attend we now a litle to the advantage which he maketh to his â—ause from this text to his removall of the disadvantage which his Refuter draweth from thence If sayth he they were to attend the whole flock in coÌ„mon then were they not assigned to severall parishes which were but parts of the flock to which purpose the place of the Acts was Sect. 14. quoted Before he borrowed as is observed sect 10. the first branch of his assumption to justify the second now the second is fortified by the third so that his owne pen maketh him guiltie of the fault which upon farre lesse cause he imputeth pag. 55. to Mark whethe D. be not coÌ„fouÌ„-ded in him self his Refuter scz to bring within the compasse of one syllogism two arguments which tend to justify the mayn point of the assumption Consider this well and with all remember that the 4. point is a bare repetition of that which he urged in the former argumet as is shewed sect 1. yea observe further that the second parr of his assumption which by this reckoning is the onely maine point of his argument is made a part of the consequence of his proposition as appeareth sect 2. By all which layd togither it is evident that this argument of his separatis separandis is nothing else but a concluding of the same by the same in this manner In the Apostles times the Presbyters were not assigned to severall cures whereby he meaneth parishes Ergo in their times they were not appointed to parishes But to come to his inference deduced from the place of the Acts. which he quoted if that be true which his words intimate that severall parishes were parts of the flock which the Presbyters were charged to attend how can there be a truth in the first branch of the Assumption which denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times must he not fall an ase at least lower then before when he sayd pag. 63. sect 6. that his assertion touching Churches not divided into parishes is to be understood â—â— epi to plaiston as true of most Churches I might ask him how it is possible the Presbyters should hold the charge of the flock in comon if it had severall parishes for the parts thereof how the flock could be undistinguished or attended on in coÌ„mon if the charge given to the Presbyters were such as upon like occasion might by a Bishop in his visitation be applied to all the Ministers of a Diocese as he afterwards affirmeth pag. 105. will it not be A contradiction in the Doct. hard think you
in one place Therefore both the presbyterie and the president thereof were assigned but to one congregation First he denieth the consequence vpon this ground that the Presbyters were provided not onely for the cities themselves but also for the countries adjoyning and in both aswell to labour the conversion of the rest as to take charge of them that were already converted Which being nothing but a repetition of that he before affirmed nakedly and without any proofe his refuter thought it enough to tell him that in asmuch as he hath before shewed his answere to be false the consequence will remain good notwithstanding And since he now boasteth that he hath proved his Refuters affertioÌ„ opposed against his answere viz. that it was no part of the presbyters proper dutie to labour the conversion of the unconverted throughout the citie and country adjoyning to be an indigested fancie of shallow if not giddâ—â— beades thaâ— see no further then their nose-end if the reader please to look back to that alreadie layd downe cap. 2. of this reply sect 7. 8. c. he â—lay perceive that the Doctor is very nose wise and his Phan tasia being bewitched with the sweet smell of the prelacie hath fathered on the Apostles such an intent in the placing of Presbyters in cities as never was discovered eyther to his care by any ancient tradition or to his eye in any monuments of antiquitie Wherfore his censure passed against his Refuter more properly belongeth to himselfe viz. that he slubbereth over the proofe of his owne arguments as having a better faculty in denying consequences then in proving any of the premisses whereon his cause relieth yet as if his dreames were Oracles he saith and indeed onely saith it for proofe he can yeild none that the ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles instent as he expoundeth it He addeth when all both in citie and countrie were converted to the profession of the faith which could scarcesly be verified of any citie country for 300 yeares after the Apostles began to place Presbyters in Cities I meane till constantines daies as the Doctor observeth pag 54 they acknowledged the generally care and inspection over them all to belong to that one Bishop of the citie and themselves to be part of that Church and therefore concludeth that the consequence of the former Enthymem will never be made good But the Reader may see how the D. is deceived in imagining that the former consequence is beaten downe by the strength of this last if he will take notice of that which he now assumeth contrived for his best advantage to conclude his purpose in forme of argument to this effect All that acknowledged themselves after their conversion to be part of the City Church and so belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that citie they all I say were a part of that Church from the beginning orat least a part of the charge of the Bishop and Presbytery first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that city But all the Inhabitants of the City Country after their coÌ„versioÌ„ to the faith acknowledged themselves to be part of the City Church and to belong to the generall care and inspection of the Bishop of that City Ergo all the Inhabitants of citie and countrie were a part of that Church from the beginning or at least a part of the charge of the bishop and Presbyterie first assigned by the Apostles to the Church of that citie And consequently though it should be granted that in the first 200 yeares all the ChristiaÌ„s of any one great citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place yet it followeth not that the Presbyterie president thereof were assigned but to one congregation If he can make any better use of his assumption for any other conclusion that may be more for his advantage good leave have he to follow his owne way meane while I deny the proposition wherein as we take it the strength of his reasoning lieth wish him to behold the weaknes thereof in this argument following All that acknowledged themselwes after their conversion to be partes of any citie Church c. were from the beginning partes of that Church c. But all the people which inhabited the severall dioceses of any province as soon as they were converted to the faith notwithstaÌ„ding they enjoyed their own Bishops to governe them yet they acknowledged themselves to be parts of the metropolitane Church seated in that cheife citie the Bishop therof to be their primate or head All the people therefore which inhabited the severall dioceses of any Province were from the beginning parts of the Metropolitane Church or at least parts of the charge of the Bishop and Presbyterie seated in the mother citie And consequently the Churches and Bishops of Mother cities were in their first foundation properly provinciall and not diocesan onely The assumption of this Syllogisme is the same with that which the D. avoucheth lib. 2. p. 113. lin 25. 29. But the conclusion with the coÌ„sequent annexed crosseth that which he affirmeth pag. 20. 1. 3. and 21. 1. 1 which contradiction if he will avoid he must disclaime the proposition so acknowledge that he trusted to a broken reed when he perswaded his owne heart that the subjection which the inhabitants of an whole diocese yeilded in the 4. age after Christ to the citie-Church and the Bishop thereof could argue invinciblie that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles 300 yeares before were provided aswell for the vncoÌ„verted as for those already brought to the faith As for the Antecedent of the former Enthymem which he rejecteth Sect. 5. ad pag. 81. with much disdeine but with little shew of reason to him that weigheth the matter because it belongeth to another question as is before noted I referre the handling of it to another place for the present it shall suffice to discharge the Refuter from those calumniations which the D. throweth on him for exchanging it with this Assertion All the Christians in any great citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place I mislike not saith the Doctor his addition of the townes about so he wil be pleased not to forget to take them into the defense of his Antecedent If he wil be pleased say I to take the Antecedent so and in such sense as it is tendred to him let him never think his Refuter will shrink from the defense thereof But the Doctor is timorous and feareth to be circumvented with the inclosure of that parenthesis unlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes and therefore he would faine have it to be removed or rather the word although to be set in stead of unlesse where we may see the old proverb verefied in him give him an inche and he will
first to speak to his disciples vers 2 yet afterwards he spake to all the people assembled vers 13. 15. 54. Besides it is to be observed that a great number of these beleevers were strangers which were not inhabitants of Ierusalem but came thither to the feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost and some of them it may be not actuall members of any Church but such as are spoken of Ioh. 2. 23. 24. To conclude therefore seing it is evident by the wordes of S. Lokes storie that all the beleevers which belonged to the Church at Ierusalem in that time were assembled togither in one place from time to time as occasion served it is sufficiently proved all the Doctors cavils not with standing that they did not for their number exceed the proportion of one ordinary congregation and consequently as the rest of the Churches before spoken of so this was rather a parish assembly then a diocesan church like to one of ours As for the Doctors exceptions sect 6. pag. 87. viz. that the Sect. 14. ad sect 6. pag. 87. Church of Ierusalem was never intended to be one parish among many but a mother Church to beget others which were to be severed from it and yet to remaine subject to it and that it was intended that all the Christians both in citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem like as the people of citie and country were all under one high-preist me thinkes that reader is strāgely and strongly conceited of the Doctor that will enterteyne these points upon his owne meere conjecture and bare word For however it is cleare that many Churches drew their originall from Ierusalem and received the faith by their Ministerie which had bene for a time members of that Church Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 44. 9. 19. 22. yet is there not the least inkling of the least subjection that any of those daughter churches yeelded to Ierusalem or the presbyterie there established And therefore the intention which he dreameth of concerning the subjection of all Christians in City and Country to the Bishop of Ierusalem like as all the Iewes were anciently under the high preist hath neyther foundation in the holy scriptures nor can he gather it from the practise of succeding ages seing their advancing of the Church of Cesarea to the honour of a Metropolitance Church superiour in jurisdiction to Ierusalem argueth that they were altogither ignorant of it For among the many and great thoughts of the Doctors heart can this enter into it that they would wittingly depart from that order which was instituted or intended by the Apostles to follow the which was instituted or intended the Apostles to follow the course of that preheminence which the Romane Emperors that were enemies to Christ and his truth should establish in their politicall government But what need many wordes in a plaine matter This is enough for resuting so frivolous a fancie as hath no force of any sound reason to confirm it Thus have we seene how well the Doctor hath proved that the Churches founded by the Apostles were Dioceses properly like to ours and not parishes It now followeth in the second book that we examine his proofes for his Diocesan Bishops THE SECOND PART THE SECOND BOOK Chapter 1. Shewing that in the 4. point of the Doctors sermon and third book of the defense thereof there is not one place of scripture that affoardeth him any help of proof for the justifying of his episcopall function IN the fourth point of the Doct. sermon he handleth Section 1. ex professo the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and in the 3. book of his defense he indeavoureth the justifying of the same And first he intreateth in generall of their superiority in degree but though he boast serm pag. 29. that all antiquity favoureth his opiniō yet he passeth by the Apostolicall writings as too ancient for his purpose Notwithstanding when he commeth to declare the particulars wherein the superiority of Bishops consisteth he referreth us serm pag. 32. to the epistle of Paul to Titus cap. 1. 5. there to behold that threefold superiority given by him to Bishops to wit their singularity of preheminence during life and their power of ordination and of jurisdiction not confined to a parish but extended to the whole Iland of Creete and to all the cities thereof A text more fit to justify the function of an Archbishop or of a nationall Primate rather then the calling of a Diocesan Prelare if he could make good the parts of his reasoning viz. that Titus not onely had such a threefold superiority but also was by his calling a Bishop as he supposeth But this later wherein the controversy cheefly standeth hath no foundation in his text onely he telleth us pag. 50. of this third book that afterwards he projeth it in the sermon by the cōmon consent of the ancient most approved writers of the Church The which what is it but a secret confession that the text of holy scripture will not serve his turne to prove that Titus was a Bishop In like manner when to justify the singularity of preheminence in one Bishop over one whole Diocese he saith serm pag. 33. that there was one Timothy at Ephesus one Titus in Creete one Epaphroditus in Philippi and one Archippus at Coloss◠what else doth he but presuppose not prove that every of them was a Diocesan Bishop As if the whole Iland of Creet with all the cities thereof made but one Diocese and as if we were more bound to beleeve Mr. Doctors word then the Apostles testimoney who saith that there were other Bishops at Philippi besides Epaphroditus Phil. 1. 1. giveth vs to understand that Epaphras was one of their Teachers at Colossa and nothing inferiour to Archippus Colos 1. 7. 4. 12. Afterwards when the Cōmission which Paul gave to Yimonthy at Ephesus and to Titus in Creete is urged to prove the power of Bishops first in ordination and then in jurisdiction to make us a mends for his often begging he promiseth serm pag. 49. to prove afterwards that they were 〈◊〉 the which how he performeth we have heard before frō his own mouth for his proofes touching Timothy Titus are of the same nature as shall more fully appear hereafter Now more thē this here noted he hath not in his whole discourse I meane either his sermon or the defense thereof touchinge the superioritie of Bishops to prove by the scriptures that they have any such preheminence allowed then by God Wherefore if the Doctor hath found any cleare text to prove the episcopall function and superiority in question to be a divine ordinance it is likely we shall meet with it in the 5. point of his sermō and in the fourth book of his defense where this questiō is at large debated and his Assertion proved as he saith serm pag. 55. and def lib. 4. pag. 4. first by consequence and then directly whither
change adde detract as here he doth or else c. in his next first change his maine tenâ—â—t or conclusion and plainely professe that howsoever he vndertooke to prove that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses properlâ— yet that was not his meaninge but rather this that they were Diocesâ—s intentionally that is that it was their founders intention that in time to come after all the people of city country were converted they should become Dioceses actually and properly And sâ—condly as he hath already to colour the falshood of his antecedenâ— with an Index expurgatorius wiped away this clause great and amplâ— cities and by a Metonimie or some other trope as we shall heare an one turned his laying they were the cities and countries to this meaning the circuite of the Churches conteyned both cities and countryes adioyning so now he must once againe limit the word conteyned to an intentionall conteyning as if he had sayd it was the intention of their â—â—unders that in time they should conteyne such a circuite But to passe forwardâ—s this position is in truth more absurd and incredible then the former The Doct. propositioÌ„ more absurd then before For in affirming before that the circuite of every of those Churches conteyned both the citie and country with a favourable construction being vnderstood to speake after that vsuall Meâ—onymie which he noteth pag. 52. of the Christian people in citie countrye his assertion might the more easily gaine his Refuters assent and allowance to passe vncontrolde so long at least as he should remaine constant in his judgement touching the multiplying or distinguishing of parishes in such a circuite which in his sermon pag. 18. 22. he denieth to be done in the Apostles times and when the Apostle Iohn wrote the Revelation But now in avouching the circuite of each Church to be the same from the beginning that it was after the division of parishes thoughout the whole Diocese his reasons must be very pregnant and demonstrative before he can drawe any judicious reader that opposeth to him in this controversie to subscribe to his assertion But let the Doctor speake I praye Even as saith he pag. 49. the subiect of the leaven is in the whole Bache in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpâ— though the loaves be not yet divided yea though but a litle of the Dough be yet after it is newly put in seasoned So it is with the Church and the circuit thereof If the Doctor himselfe had made the application of his comparison we should more easily have discerned how fit or unfit it is for his purpose The pointe which he would at least should illustrate by this similitude is this that the circuite of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same aswel before the division of parishes as after Me thinks therefore to make the protaâ—is of his comparison answerable to the apodosis he should have rather said Even as the subiect of the leven in the intentioÌ„ of him that put it into the lump is the same while the leaves are undivided that it is after But if he had so proposed it then it had rather darkned then lightned that which he indeavoureth to perswade Because it is better knowen what the subject of the leven is before the lumpe be divided then after whereas in his assertion before expressed the state or constitution of the Church after parishes were multiplyed in city and country and subordinated to the jurisdiction of one consistorie is brought as better knowne to shewe howe fatte the circuite of the Church and spirituall jurisdiction stretched when as yet but an handfull of people in comparison of the rest was seasoned by the Ministery of the gospell Perhaps his meaning is that as he which putteth a little leven into an whole bache of breade intendeth that the leven should in time spreade her vertue over all and so the whole masse of meale made one body of a well levened lump so also the Apostles and firste founders of Churches when they first planted a Church and placed Presbyters in any citie or Diocese did intend that the leven of their doctrine being conveyed into the hartes of the whole multitude all might be made one body of a Diocesan Church If this be so seing in this comparison the Church is as the leven or that part of meale which is first leavened we may by his owne comparison discover the absurdity of his former assertion For as the circuite of the leven or meale leavened is at the first putting in and for a while after farre lesse then when all is leavened so also the circuite of the Church at the first erecting of it in any city for some ages after was farre lesse then when the whole people of the Diocese imbraced the faith Againe as it is contrary to the intent of him that putteth in the leven that the loaves being once divided should any longer remâ—ine partes of one lumpe or that among the loaves more regard should be had to that litle portioÌ„ of meale that was fiâ—st sowred to make of it a Mother-loafe vnto wâ—â— the rest of the loaves should owe any homage so it may seeme by this coÌ„parison to be contrary to the intent of the Apostles first founders of Christian Churches that when an whole Diocese became seasoned and distributed into many congregations there should be any such combination or suborâ—ination of those Churches that all should be subject to the jurisdâ—ction of one Caâ—hedâ—all Church seated in the citie But to leave his comparison to his his second thoughtes if he can make any more advantage of it hereafter I now demaund how he knoweth that the intention of the Apostles was such as he immagineth viz. that all the people of City and Country after the conversion of the whole should continue parts of the Church which at the first consisted but of a few Master D. supposing as it seemeth it were but reason to answere Sect. 10. ad sect 6. p. 49 therevnto doth aforehand prevente it and will have us to vnderstand that he knoweth it And therefore goeth on and saith If you aske me how I knowe this I answere First because the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuite of every Church having from the beginning included not onely the City but the Country thereto belonging I must here demaund againe how came it that the Church of God did vnderstand the Apostles intention to be such And how commeth the D. to knowe that they had any such vnderstandinge 1. Did the Church of God receive their vnderstanding in this point from the mouthes or pennes of the Apostles If they discovered their intention by writinge be the Doctor intreated we pray him to shewe us where we may reade it for our learninge If not by
in the prosyllogisme or confirmation therof when he said that our Saviour writing to the Churches in Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall c. For taking it for graunted that there were more Churches in Asia then those 7 and that our Saivour in writing by name to these did intend vnder their names to write to all the rest could the D. imagine that any man which denie those other Asian Churches to be writen vnto would upon his bare word imbrace that which now he affirmeth sâ—z that our Saviour in writing to all the C hes of Asia comprizeth all vnder these seven as being the principall and conteyning within their circuite all the rest This later I graunt is more direct for his purpose I meane to prove that those 7. churches at least some of them if not all were Dioceses in asmuch as other Churches were conteyned as he supposeth within their circuite but he as often before sheweth himself a notable trifler in begging the question when he taketh this for graunted which he The Doct. beggeth could not but know without good proof would never be yeelded yet he dealt wisely in not attempting what he could not effect for if those Churches of Colossa Hierapolis Troas mentioned in the scripture were not within Asia as he mainteyneth pag. 61. and if those of Magnesia Trallis recorded in other writers cannot be 12. A contradiction iâ— the D. proved as he saith p. 62 to have bene Churches in S. Iohns time all the world may wonder what records he wil bring to prove that there were any other Churches in Asia then these 7. which his text nameth And yet unlesse he prove also that those other Churches how many or fevve soever vvere conteyned within the circuite of those 7. or some of theÌ„ he must be much beholding to his reader if he wil take his naked affirmation for sufficient warrantise in this behalf 3. And since he rejecteth that connexive forme of reasoning which his Refuter gathered naturally from his owne words he might have done well to have practized here the lesson which he gave his Refuter pag. 44. for finding out of the right hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposition But it was some what an hard taske and therefore he would not put one finger to it notwithstanding that he may sâ—e how willing his Refuter is to learne and how readie to give him contentment in framing his arguments to his best advantage the connexive proposition shall first be disposed in an Enthymem thus Our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and nameth the principall Ergo those 7. Churches were great and ample cities c. or since he will needs have it conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning To bringe this Enthymem into a Syllogisme some little change of words must be made either in the Antecedent or in the consequent thus Whatsoever Churches are specially nuÌ„bred or named as principal by our â—av Christ when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia those Churches did conteine each oâ— them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyning But the 7. Churches mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20. are specially nombred and named as principall by our Sauiour Christ when he writeth to all the Churches in Asia Therefore the 7. Churches mentioned Apoc. 1. 11. 20. conteined each of them in her circuite the citie and countrie adjoyninge Or thus whosoever writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall he thereby signifieth that those 7. Churches conteined in their circuite each of them the citie and countrie adjoyninge But our Sauiour Christ writing to the Churches in Asia nombreth but 7. and nameth them as the principall Ergo he hereby signifieth that these 7. Churches conteined in their circuite each of them the citie countrie adjoyning Now to give the D. his choyse of these arguments not forbidding him to make a better if he can since there is no certeine or manifest truth in the The D. disputeth by begging 〈◊〉 proposition which conteineth the Hypothesis of his Enthymeme we may from his owne rule conclude that he disputeth sophistically and taketh that for graunted which he cannot make good while he hath a daie to live Thus have we seen how well he argueth to prove his assumption Sect. 19. ad pag. 43. joyntly let us now atteÌ„d a little how he coÌ„firmeth it severally 1. The Church of Ephesus saith he conteined a great and ample citie in deed metropolis or mother citie the countrie subject to it 2. the Church of Smyrna a mother-citie and the countrie belonging to it c. so proceedeth froÌ„ one of them to another to Thyatira Philadelphia with their territories But where are his severall proofes for these severall assertions It seemeth he is fallen in love with the trade of begging and The D. beggeth and is in love with the trade of begging else he would not begg 7. times to gâ—ther is growne past shame in it so as we may be past hope of dryving him from it els he would never produce 7. false positions to confirme his assumption before atteinted of falshood For since everie of those cities remeined for the greater part heathenish in the Apostle Iohns tyme it cannot be that any of them did conteine the whole citie much lesse citie and countrie The truth is each of these Churches was conteined within those cities as a small heape of corne is conteined in a great and large barne 2. And why doth he here also depart from the words of his sermon which were that some of those 7. Churches were mother-cities doubtlesse he sawe it was a verie slight and feeble consequence to reason as he should have done in this manner Some of those 7. Ch were mother-cities Ergo they The D. departeth froÌ„ the words of his sermon were everie of them great and ample cities c. And had his Refuter thus analysed his words it is likely the D. would have bin more offended then he is with that forme which he used in putting all his speach into one connexive argument 3. But to take his argument as he hath set it downe what meaneth â—e by the countries which he saith belonged to every one of those mother-cities Is it his meaning that the Ch of Ephesus Smyrna c. did conteine togither with their cities the whole provinces subject to those mother-cities or doth he limit the countrie to that part onely which made a particular diocese The later best fitteth his first purpose sc to prove that every of the 7. Ch was properly a diocese but the former agreeth best both with his own interpretatioÌ„ of his words p. 63. when he saith that some of those Churches were Metropolâ—is that is not onely mother-cities but also metropolitan Churches and with his former speach which affirmeth all the Churches in the cities and countries
c. But the D. saith his analysis mistakeÌ„ to say no worse as if he could have justly laid an heavier fault upon his Refuter if he had not favoured him And in deed he loadeth him with a fouler imputation when after in the same page he saith that in digesting his words before expressed into a connexive syllogisme he framed a proposition for the nonce to cavill withall A rash censure the less to be regarded because the Refuter may safely appeale to Gods owne tribunall who knoweth that he dealt syncerely and was led by the connection of both sentences to conceive the meaning to be such as is before shewed But he should saith the Doctor have looked to the end of that which he made the 3. sect where he should have found this to be the maine conclusion of all that followeth the first argument concerning the 7. Churches to that place viz. that the Presbyters in the Apostles times were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses But he thought it needlesse to carrie the word for so farre when there was need of help to prove the point aforegoing Notwithstanding let him walk in his owne way I doubt not but to make it appeare that the argument and the prosyllogismes thereof framed by himselfe doe discover both his owne mistaking of his Analysis to say no worse and the weaknes of his arguing aswell now in this defense as before in the sermon itself The maine conclusion to which he sendeth us hath these words serm pag. 18. lin ult c. The Presbyteries therefore in the Apostles times were appointed not to feverall parishes but to whole cities the couÌ„tries annexed viz. to dioceses that both they might convert them attend and fâ—ed them being converted The conclusion is long as you see and unfoldeth in it sundry propositions which since the Doctor hath not rightly distinguished I will presume though I looke to be required with shrewd words for my labour to propose to the view of the Reader in this manner The conclusion sheweth to what the Presbyteries in the Apostles times were appointed 1. Negatively They were not appointed to severall parishes 2. Affirmatively they were appointed to whole cities and the countries annexed Which is first explayned viz. to dioceses 2. amplified by a twofold end of their appointment 1. that they might convert them 2. that they might attend and feed them being converted So then it appeareth that in the words of his sermon before Sect. 2. going pag 18. 19. we are to expect the proofe of these 5. points for else he stretcheth his coÌ„clusioÌ„ beyond the bouÌ„ds of the premises which should inferre it viz. 1. the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to severall parishes 2. they were appointed to whole cities the countires adjoyning 3. those cities countries were Dioceses 4. one end of that their appointmet was to coÌ„vert c. 5. the other end was to attend feed the coÌ„overted But of these 5. propositioÌ„s he coÌ„cealeth wholly in this defense the third and last The former it seemeth he took for graunted and therefore now coupling the two first togither he setteth them downe in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses the other was wisely concealed because there is not one word in his sermon to make it good though it be of the greatest moment for his purpose In deed he had sayd before that the Presbyters were in coÌ„mon to attend the whole flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments and to labour the conversion of the residue c. but how great a difference there is betweene these two ends of the Ministery of the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles and those that his conclusioÌ„ mencioneth it is easy for the simplest of his Readers to discern Whether the change were made unwittingly or of purpose to deceive I will not determine neither will I presse him for resolution of the doubt unlesse he please It is the analysis of his conclusion and all that apperteyneth thereunto which we now look after His coÌ„â—lusioÌ„ whatsoever it was at the first is now coÌ„prized in this copound axlome before delivered The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses which he maketh the antecedent of a Enthymem to inferre the principal questioÌ„ touching diocesan Churches in general viz. Therefore the Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were not parishes but dioceses The Antecedent he saith is proved by two arguments the first whereof not to speak now of the proposition which he omitted lieth in this sentence The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries thereto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged unto God And to the confirmation of this he referreth all that which his Refuter carried an other way For it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any nation first preached to the cheife cities thereof c. to the words neyther were the parishes Which halfe perswadeth me that he hath borrowed his first argument for the proofe of the Antecedent from the second fourth points before noted to be couched in that conclusioÌ„ delivered in his sermoÌ„ For other wise his analysis cutteth theÌ„ off froÌ„ the coÌ„clusioÌ„ as superfluous branches maketh his first argument to be Cryptically inwrapped under the confirmation thereof Now if it were borrowed thenee then the wordes following serm pag. 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c in all equitie should be not a second argument to confirme his first antecedent but rather a new prosyllogisme to justify the generall proofe thereof To coÌ„clude whencesoever he derive it there is so small a difference between the Medius terminus of his first argument with both the prosyllogismes set to uphold it the wordes which in his second argument are of greatest force as he saith pag. 70. of this defence to prove that the persbyteries were appointed to Dioceses that they are little better when he hath made the best that he can of them then a beggerly repetition of one thing or a proving of the same by the same So that we may well think if his Refuter should The Doct. proveth idem per idem have contrived his arguments so as himself hath done he would have bene as readie as now he is to charge him with mistaking his Analysis But let him make the best advantage of his owne Analysis let us trie the valour of his syllogismes which he profereth to our Sect. 3. view And first of that Enthymeme which concludeth the principall question in this manner The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Therefore the churches indued with power of ecolesiasticall government were not parishes but Dioceses This consequence saith he the Refuter granteth ingranting the connexive proposition of the Syllogisme which he
cities the other is the motive their hope by the Ministery of the Presbyters placed in the citie to convert them which belonged to God both in citie and countrie grounded on the force of the Gospell testified by our Saviour Math. 13. 13. Thus he saith but why contriveth he not his two arguments into 2. distinct syllogismes that we might see the strength of each of them a part Nay why doth himselfe combine them in one connexive proposition in this manner pag 66 If the Apostles intending the conversion of the nation as they began themselves to preach in the cheife cities so they placed Presbyters to the same intent hoping by them to convert both citie and countrie then were they appointed and it was their dutie to labour the conversion of all belonging to God both in citie and countrie For if the assumption be added to this proposition is it not as large as that which his Refuter framed and divided into 3. parts viz. 1. that the Apostles intending to cōvert any natiō first preached the Gospell in the cheife cities thereof 2. and having converted some there usually ordeyned Presbyters 3. by their Ministery to convert the rest of the citie countrie Why then should he not take home to himselfe those words of his wha◠cannot he bring within the compass of his syllogismes 2. Moreover since he saith that the last of the 3. parts distinguished by his Refuter is the assumption it self and inferred on the two former as he setteth them downe doth he not confound the assumption with one at least if not with both of the arguments which should confirme it for if a man should say that the D. preached his sermon to enlarge his favour with his good Lord the Bishop of B. and W. the rest of the Prelates who would not vnderstand such a speach to carrie this meaning that the very end whereat he aymed in his preaching was the enlarging of his favour c. And that an hope to gaine more grace with them moved him to vndertake the work If then himself or any friend of his should deny and contradict this speach would he not take him for a trifler or rather a slanderer that should make his boast he could prove it with 2. arguments and yet had nothing else to say then in a change of phrase to repeat the same thing in this māner The inlarging of his favour with his good Lord the Bishop c was the very end which he proposed to himself when he preached And he hoped by this meanes to gaine more grace Therefore doubtless he preached this sermon to enlarge his favour c. Yet such and no better are the Doct. arguments when he proveth that the Presbyteries were planted by the Apostles in Cities to labour the conversiō of the cities and countries adjoyning because their conversion was both the end intended by the Apostles the thing they hoped by their labour to effect 3. But perhaps there may be found upon due examination some greater light or help for the clearing of the assumption in question then can at the first blush be discerned in the arguments as they are layd downe It shall not therefore be amisse to compare them a part with the point wherevnto they are referred and to avoid blame if it be posible I will stick close to the words of his owne connexive proposition before delivered derive frō thence the Antecedent of each Enthymeme First then from the end intended by the Apostles he argueth thus The Apostles intending the conversion of any nation as they began themselves to preach in the cheife Cities so they placed Presbyters to the same intent Ergo those Presbyters or Presbyteries were appointed to labour the conversion of all that belonged to God both in citie countrie The pith of the argument lieth in the later braunch of the antecedent viz. the Apostles placed Presbyters in the cheife Cities for the conversion of the whole nation And it seemeth to be fortifyed in this manner The Apostles placed Presbyters to the same intent for which themselves preached in the cheife cities But they preached there with an intent to convert the whole nation Therefore they also placed Presbyters in the Cheife Cities for the conversion of the whole nation To begin with the conclusion which is the Antecedent of the D. first argument if there were an evident truth in it it would serve if need were to contradict the antecedent of the maine argumēt propounded sect 4 in this sort The Presbyters or Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were placed in cheife cities for the conversion of the whole nation Ergo they were appointed for whole provinces or rather nations and not for dioceses properly The same will be concluded much more fully from the proposition of the last syllogisme and the instances that he giveth pag 66 to prove the assumption thereof For if Th' Apostles placed Presbyters in cheife Cities to the same intent for which themselves began to preach there If also Pauls intent in preaching and staying at Corinth an whole yeare and 6 monthes and 3. yeares at Ephesus was to convert not the diocese of Corinth or Ephesus onely but the whole nation of Asia and Achaia Then it will follow that Paul in placing Presbyters at Corinth and Ephesus did not appoint the for thē for the diocese of Corinth or Ephesus but for the whole country of Achaia and Asia to labour as farre as they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God in those parts To the like purpose his 2. argument tendeth when from the Apostles hope he reasoneth thus The Apostles hoped by those Presbyters which they placed in cheife Cities to convert both citie and country And this their hope was grounded on the force of the gospell testifyed by our Saviour Math. 13. 53. Ergo those Presbyters were appointed and it was their dutie to labour the conversion of all that in citie and countrie belonged to God For vnlesse their hope the motive that guided their intention should be absurdly restreined into a farr narrower compasse then the end which they intended the countrie whose conversion he incloseth within their hope and so allotteth to the charge of the Presbyters as the lump that was to be leavened by their Ministery must be the whole nation and not so small a portion as one Diocese But as I purpose not to dwell vpon this advantage so I need not use many words to remove the ground of both his arguments since they have no other foundation then his owne wavering fancie which doth not well accord with itself It is time I should compare the Refuters answer his defence togither to see whether his second thoughts have any more weight of reason in them then the first It can never be shewed sayth the Refut answ pag. 57. neyther may it be reasonably thought that it was any part of those Presbyters proper Sect. 7. ad p. 66 duty to labour the
conversion of the residue eyther in citie or countrey For howsoever we deny not but that it belonged to them both as Christians to use all opportunity of winning to the faith as Ministers to preach to the heaeÌ„ also if they were present in their coÌ„gregatioÌ„s yet it was their office to attend on the flock whereof the holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. And not like Apostles or Evangelists to imploy themselves in the conversion of them that were no Christians By these fewe words saith the Doctor the deep wisdome of the parish disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. they conceive that Churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a fewe converted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted c. 2. that the flock over which the Presbyters were set was onely that number of Christians already converted c. 3. that their proper office was to attend them onely which were already converted and not to labour the conversion of the rest c. The last of these I confesse is plainly averred by the Refuter and the second by consequence implyed But the first hath no shadowe of any foundation in his words so that the Doctor his deep wisdome hath drawne it I suppose out of his owne drowsy imagination And yet if it be an erronious conceit why bendeth he not the stroak of some one reason or other against it Yea how will the D. free himself from error seing the refuter hath nothing in his whole answer that doth more savour of that conceit then these words of the Doct. Def. pag. 54. that the circuite of the Church was the same when there were fewe and when there were many yea when all were Christians and those in his sermon pag 25. that vpon the division of parishes there happened no alteratioÌ„ to the state of the Bishop 2. Moreover if the second be an errour whose hand is deepest in it whether the Refuter who alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the office of Presbyters was to attend that flock whereof the H. Ghost had made them overseers or the Doctor who citeâ—h the same scripture serm pag. 18. to justify this speach that the Presbyters were to attend the flock converted feeding them with the word sacraments Very likely then he supposed it to be a truth A contradiction in the Doct. that the flock over which they were set was onely that number of Christians which were already converted And he had good reason so to judge because that flock onely was the visible Church which then professed the faith of Christ at Ephesus But now he seeth it is an error so to conceive because our Saviour calleâ—h the elect not converted his sheep Ioh. 10. 16. and the L. in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet converted As if men could give or take the charge of such a flock or people as they neyther know nor could be taught to discerne by any notes that come within their vnderstanding because the Lord who knoweth all that he hath chosen and appointed in time to call and to whose cies things to come are as manifest as things preseÌ„t doth entitle his elect though yet vnborn or at least vnconverted by the name of his sheep or his people 3. As touching the third point the Refuter hath plainely discovered his judgment how farre he granteth it and in what respect he denieth it to be the dutie of Presbyters to labour the conversioÌ„ of Infidels For besides the coÌ„mon dutie of Christians to use all opportunity for the winning of them to the faith they are as he faith to preach vnto them if they will come into their assemblies but to imploy their labour in traveiling to and fro in any countrie or diocese to preach vnto them where they find any concourse of people this he denyeth to be any part of the Presbyteriall function and judgeth it rather to be the work of an Apostle or Evangelist Which plaine dealing of the Refuter requireth in equity the like at the hands of the Doctor by shewing how in what course holdeth it their dutie to labour the conversion of infidels whether by the like traveil and imployment that the Apostles Evangelists vndertooke in places where the gospell had not yet any entrance or whether in any other fashion that the Ref apprehended not But he I will not say craftily concealeth from his Reader the parts of his Refuters distinction and as if he had simply denyed them any way to labour the conversion of any that were allenated from the faith he resteth on this trifling replie as though saith he the Apostles intended by their Ministery the conversion and salvation of no more but those few that were at first converted And then for the better manifestation of their wisdome he should have sayd of his owne inhability to make good his assertion he opposeth them with a fewe questions which yet are more then needed but let us heare them they are these 1. Whether the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were not Ministers of the word 2. whether they were not many in some places more in some fiwer yea sometimes as many as those who were before converted Act. 19. 6. 3. whether they being many were onely to attend that smal number of converts 4. whether the Apostles in ordeyning many intended not the conversion of more then those few 5. whether it was not their office to labour their conversion 6. If not how they were to be converted 7. Nay if they did not labour how were they converted Of these 7. the. 3. 4. and 5. might have been spared seing they are already answered viz. that the conversion of citie countrie did not belong to their office as any proper work thereof and therefore was not intended by the Apostles in ordeyning them otherwise then is before expressed The rest also might have been overpassed since he knoweth his Refuters mind therein save that he would closely intimate vnto his Reader as it seemeth two arguments to justify his owne assertion for the answer which himself hath given to the 2. first may argue for his purpose in this manner The Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were all Ministers of the word and were many in each Church yea in some places as many as those that were besides converted wherefore it is probable that the Apostles intended by their Ministerie to convert the rest and that it was a duty proper to their office to labour their conversio How true it is which in the first place he avoucheth I will not here debate it belongeth to another treatise the later part of his Antecedent importeth that the Apostles ordeyned many Ministers for each Church though the number of converts were so small that in some places it scarce exceeded the number of Presbyters A matter so unlikely that if the consequent annexed must hang in
distinct parishes in the Apostles times doe argue that there were no dioceses doth it necessarily argue also that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were not appointed to dioceses But the Doctor we see is a man of that courage that though he foresâ—e he cannot long escape his adversaries The D. â—â—â—eth from one starting hole to another till he be shut out of all hands yet he will fly from one starting hole to another till he be shut out of all For he telleth us his consequence is this If there were no parishes then the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but he knoweth I need not tell him that that is not all he should have added but â—o dioceses And for us it sufficeth if one part of his consequence be overthrowne for the other will fall of it selfe afterwardes Againe I must tell him that howsoever his consequeÌ„ce as he hath now with his detraction proposed it may seeme in vincible yet himselfe such is his happ hath shewed us a way how to crush it For if the want of distinct parishes in the Apostles times will argue as is afore shewed that the presbyteries were not appointed to dioceses then it will also argue that they were appointed to parishes for he must confess vnless he will confess himselfe to be ignorant in logick as he saith lib. 1. pag. 60. that in this controversy this diâ—â—unction is implyed viz. that the presbyteries were appointed either to dioceses as he saith or else to such parishes as we spoke of The disproof therefore of his dioceses is a direct proofe of our parishes The which the Doctor as it seemeth foreseeing falleth vpon the examination of the argument which runneth thus If there were no parishes distinguished in the Apostles times then Sect. 1. there were no dioceses such as ours for every such diocese consisteth of diverse distinct parishes But in the Apostles times there were no parishes distinguished Therefore neither were there any dioceses in their daies such as ours are How necessary this clause dioceses such as ours is I have shewed heretofore because Bishops such as ours cannot be had without dioceses such as ours And here it maketh the consequence of the argument as cleare as the Sun in a cleare summers day Yet the Doct. denieth it because he imagineth that the diocese was the same and the circuit of the spirituall jurisdiction intended the same before parishes were divided with that it was after they were divided that is answerable to the civil but that is coleworts more then thrice sodden the falshood and vanity of which evasion is already sufficiently discovered in the answere to his 3. cap. sect 6. 8. It shall here suffice in one word to remember him of this that his owne wordes doe convince that the want of parishes distinguished argueth there were no dioceses such as ours which in execution and not intention onely comprize all the inhabitants of City and Country I might put him in minde of another difference betwixt our and the ancient dioceses which in circuite as he saith answered to the civill seing ours doe not so for some of them conteyn many shires within their circuite and sundry shires are dismembred by the spirituall jurisdiction which draweth them to severall dioceses But let us see how he removeth the piller that vpholdeth the consequence of the argument viz. that every diocese such as ours consistech of distinct parishes It is true saith he after the distinction of parishes but not before But is not this answere miserune An absurb evasion kersphogeton an absurd evasion and no better then a very denyall of the conclusion For to borrow the Doctors comparisions before applied to the question of dioceses and their circuit pag. 53. when he saith that every man consisteth of soul and body and the body consisteth of many members if one should answere him It is true that a man consisteth of those parts after the conjunction but not before and the body hath many members after the distinction of the members but not before would he not censure him for an absurd caviller and his answere for a poore evasion of one that is at a non-plus yet such and none other is the Doctors answer And. 2. that it may appeare to what purpose his answer serveth I will here frame the argument that fortifieth the consequence before denied and leave it to the readers judgment to give sentence betwixt the Doctor and the Refuter in this cafe Whatsoever consisteth of distinct parishes that cannot have his being or subsistence before parishes were distinguished But every Diocese such as ours consisteth of distinct Parishes No Diocese therefore such as ours can have any being or subsistence before there be a distinction of Parishes Now to answer as he doth that the assumption is true after parishes were distinguished but not before is it not all one in effect as if he had sayde that there may be and were dioceses before there there were any parishes so that vnder a pretence of contradicting the assumption with a frivolous distinction he doth in deed as a man amazed or rather confounded deny the conclusion As for the comparisions borrowed by him to justify his answer Sect. 9. they fall farre short of his purpose First he saith a batch of bread consisteth of many loaves after the distinction which before it conteyned undistinguished in the lumpe But he must remember that a Diocese doth so consist of many parishes as a Province doth of many dioceses and a Patriatchship of many provinces Wherefore as he confesseth that Metropolitan Bishops and Patriarcks and consequently provinciall and patriarchall Churches grewe followed th' one upon the combination of Dioceses and the other vpon the consociation of Provinces lib. 4. pag. 7 so his Refuter holdeth that these Diocesan Churches and Bishops had their originall from the conjunction of many particular congregations subjected to one Diocesan consistorie And it is evident so to be in asmuch as the first Churches planted in cities by the Apostles were for a while as the Doctor himselfe confesseth pag. 6. and 103. but a small congregation and when more were converted then could well assemble togither in one ordinarie congregation the congregations were divided still as people in divers places were converted the Churches as he also acknowledgeth pag. 67. were multiplied so that the many parishes which grewe up in a diocese were not all distinguished at once as the loaves of one Bach are after the seasoning of the whole lump And therefore neither were they all coÌ„teyned within the bowels of the citie-church undistiguished as the loaves are in the lumpe before their division but rather as the first constituted Churches consisted of diverse families but by the combyning of many christian families in one ecclesiasticall assembly so also they became in process of time diocesan and provinciall Churches not by reteyning all the Christians of an whole diocese or province in one confused lump till
all were leavened but by consociating many particular Churches which were distinguished some at one time and some at another as the nomber dayly increased vnder the the oversight of one diocese or provinciall Bishop His second comparision of a man who consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct if it be well weighed maketh more for his Refuter then for himself For as it is willingly granted that a man in his first conception hath no distinct members so it is as freely professed that it is no man to speak properly much less is it such a man as the Doctor is Wherefore that which he presupposeth in his comparison viz. that the Churches planted by the Apostles before parishes were multiplied in the cities and countries annexed were Dioceses even so as a womans ofspring is a man before the parts of an humane body are formed and distinguished this I say argueth with the Refuter and against the Doctor that The D. argueth against himself and for the Refut it is no less absurd to say that the first Apostolike Churches which had no parishes distinguished in their circuite were notwithstanding properly Dioceses yea such as ours are at this day then to affirme that a childe in his first conception before the parts of his body are framed is yet properly a man yea such a man as all others that are borne and converse among men We have heard how well he hath bestowed his paines for recoverie Sect. 10. ad sect 6. pag. 73. of his proposition out of his Refut hands it remaineth that we attend what he saith for the rescuing of his assumption which hath these parts 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures 3. that they were not onely to attend the whole flock converted but also to labour the conversion of the residue 4. and that in both these duties they must labour in cōmon In what sense the first is contradicted by the Refuter we have seen before sect 3. where was also noted how farre it differeth frō that which he now giveth in stead thereof viz. that the Churches planted in cities as at Ephesus Antioch c. were not in the Apostles times divided into Parishes from whence he may recieve a direct answer which here he expecteth to his question whither the Churches were thō divided into parishes or not viz. that although the Apostles did distinguish parishes by constituting particular congregations in severall places that is in each towne or citie that enterteyned the faith one Church-assembly yet none of the Churches which they established in any towne or citie was in their times subdivided into severall parish assemblies But what shall we say to that two horned argument which thus disputeth for his advantage If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times as at Alexandria it seemeth to have beene then was not every Church but one parish Is they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to their severall cures and so the Assumption is true The Doctor taketh on imediately after these words against his Refuter for being transported with a spirit of contradiction whereof by and by in the meane time is not the Doctor The Doct. contradicteth him himselfe a strange kind of disputer that will contradict one branch of his owne assumption to justify his maine conclusion and yet assume the same to confirme another part of his assumption and then make his boast that his whole assumption is true But to answer him in kind thus I reply If the Churches were divided into parishes in the Apostles times then his assumption in the first branch is false if they were not then each Church in their times was but one parish that is to say one congregation and so he erreth in his maine conclusion And that he may see I use not this regestion because his argument hath put his Refuter to a nonplus for a more direct answere I give him to wit that his first horn hath a weak consequence his second is sophysticall The one is weak beause that which maketh an Church bearing the name of this or that citie as the Church of London or Sarum to be more thē one parish is not the distribution of the people of each diocese into many parishes but the combining of the parishes so divided into one Diocesan body If therefore he will prove the Church of Alexandria or any other which he supposeth to have been divided into sundry parishes in the Apostles times not to be one parish he must make demonstratiō of that which he often averreth but neyver proveth by any testimony divine or humane to wit that the parishes which issued out of the citie-church by such division were subordinated to her jurisdiction as daughter churches to their Mother The other is sophysticall because in saying the Presbyters were not assigned to severall parishes untill the Churches were divided into parishes he taketh the Presbyters not joyntly for the Presbyteries whereof his conclusion speaketh but singly for each Presbyter or Minister apart For we may grant that the assignement of one Presbyter to take the charge of one parish followed in course of time the multiplying of parishes in one Diocese and yet mainteyne that Presbyteries were appointed to severall parishes that is to say to particular congregations before any Church planted in cities by the Apostles was divided into severall parishes Wherefore had the Doctor regarded in what sense the Refut taketh these words Presbyters and Parishes or severall Cures when he denieth the two first branches of his assumptiō he would never have made so srivolous a flourish as he doth both here afterwards pag. 76 of a false conceited contradiction for his perswasion that every of the Apostolike churches was but one parish made him to censure the assumption as voyd of truth in that it denieth parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times and the presbyters or Presbyteries ordeyned by them to be assigned unto their distinct charges Neyther shall the Doctor ever be able to prove though he strive til his heart ake that in this impugning of his assumption he contradicteth his owne perswasion formerly delivered But let us see how he freeth his assumption from the errors or Sectiō 11. ad pag. 74. untruthes objected against it First touching the third point before set downe viz. that the Presbyters were not onely to attend the converted but labour the conversion of the residue he was told that it was but the repetition of an errour before noted in the former argument whereto he answereth nothing but that he hath proved it to be an evident truth Wherefore his proofes being disproved the errour remaineth unsalved And the repetition of it seing he cōfesseth it to be of greatest force to prove that the Presbyteries were appointed to Dioceses pa. 70. argueth him to have ill distinguished
Dioceses But however the D. may at his pleasure wholly leave out the age following or wander for his proofes beyond that coÌ„passe to Constantines daies and the ages following his time yet his Refuter must be bound to the stake precisely to conclude that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times but also in the age following Parishes properly not Diocesâ—s Yea even then when he discerneth pag. 100 that two rancks of Instances are produced to prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth the former taken out of the scriptures the later out of the fathers he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200 years A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude then by direct answer to infringe that which is objected But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall of multiplying of parishes in cities of combyning many congregations in one diocesan body I will therefore with the Doct. leave first take a view of that which is objected answered touching the state of the Churches which were of greatest note in the Apostles times To begin then with the objection which himself propoundeth Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem pag 79. his purpose was to contradict not the maine question though he so affirmed but the conclusion of his 2. last argumeÌ„ts which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64. And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question to make it more strong for his advantage I will apply it to the point whereat he aymeth with a supply onely of those words which are by him suppressed yet necessarie to be added The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles togither with the presideÌ„ts of the Presbyteries were assigned each of them but to one particular ordiâ—â—try congregation assembling togither in one place Therefore they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese To the consequent I add these words but for a parish to make the contradiction the more full because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses And for the same cause I also add to the Anâ—ecedent these words ordâ—yned by the Apostles The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place is a parish and not a diocese Therefore what is provided but for one such congregation the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese This latter connexion cannot be impugned The consequent or conclusion is the proposition which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthymem The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their assertion against whom he disputeth serm pag. 4. and in affirming here def pag. 79. that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof Onely he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition when he saith that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations For saith he iâ— proposition have no better hypotheses to support it I may deny it seing I have proved before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes But I answere that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth I need not seek any new propp to uphold it it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter sect 9. where he may if he shut not his eyes see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning that the Apostolike Churches before the division of parishes in the city Country annexed could not any otherwise be properly dioceses then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man before his body have the distinct members so that to returne him his owne phrase the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned viz. that the presbyteries and their presidents ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned each of them but to one particular ordinarie congregation assebling togither in one place the Doctor hath no cause to blame us though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument which he framed for us for I suppose none of our side were so foolish as to deliver for the proof thereof that assertion which he tendreth to us to wit that in the first 200. yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one such congregation Wherefore till he produce his Authour from whom he received this argument I will pray leave to think he forged it for his owne advantage that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much to wit that all the members of those Churches wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place Against which proposition rightly vnderstood of the time when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination I find no just exception taken eyther in his sermoÌ„ or this defense seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes to the age following whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his mayne conclusion Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was at the time of giving presbyteries to them if we say they exceeded not one congregation is it not a frivolous cavill to answere that they farre exceeded the proportion of one congregation in the next age following and the later part thereof It is apparant therefore that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares in the age following the Apostles were inserted into this question by the Doctor both here and afterwards pa. 100 onely to give him some colour of a just exception against his Refuters reasoning and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times to the ages following But let us see how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect 4. 2d 79. 80. selfe in this Enthymem In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
dying day What hindreth save onely a prejudiciall conceit of his supposed Bishoprick there but he might think that like as Paul and Peter did so also Iames might spend many yeares in other places and yet have recourse thither as they also had so long as the Iewish policie remayned in force Was he not ordeyned of Christ to the office of an Apostle aswell as the rest with an ample commission and charge to goe forth into all the worlde beginning at Ierusalem so proceeding throughout all Iudea and Samaria and vnto the vtmost partes of the earth c Mark 16. 15. Math. 28. 19. Luke 24. 47. Acts. 1. 8. and doth not Mark testify of all without exception vers 20. that as Christ had commaunded them so they went forth and preached every where I but the Doctor will here perhaps urge that which he hath alleadged sect 4. p. 51. 52. though our Saviour bad his Apostles to goe into all the World yet his meaning was not that every one should traverse the whole world for great inconvenience disorder and confusion would have sollowed thereof Therefore the Apostles by the direction of the Holy Ghost before their dispersion from Ierusalem divided the worlde among themselves in such sort that one beinge assigned to one part and another to an other every man walked within his owne compasse and did not usually build vpon the foundation of an other c. 2. Cor. 10. 13 -16 Now as they were carefull to provide for other partes of the world so would they not all forsake Iewrie and Ierusalem but assigne one of their company to take charge thereof who though he were an Apostle yet being assigned to the peculiar church of one nation might not vnfitly be called as he was in deed the Bishop therof And hence is it that although the Apostles were commaunded to goe into all the worlde yet Iames stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death Loe here the Doctors wordes but doe ye not see that his conclusion weakneth the credit of S. Markes testimony in like sort as he doth elswhere pag. 116. one speach of Ieromes viz. that vntill factions arose in the Church which occasioned the bringing in of Bishops the Churches were governed by the cōmon councell of presbyters This saith he is vnture in respect of the Church of Ierusalem which had Iames for her Bishop before any Presbyters were there ordeyned So albeit S. Mark saith that the Apostles went forth as Christ commaunded them and preached every where yet the Doctor saith in effecte It is vntrue in respect of Iames for though he lived 30. yeares after Christ yet he went not forth to preach abroade but stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death But whether Ierome doe contradict himselfe or not for how trulie the Doctor so supposeth we are not now to examine his testimony is too weak to exempt Iames from partaking with the rest in that which Mark affirmeth of all without exception And it is no small wrong both to Iames to his fellow-Apostles to make them all guilty of transgressing Christs command the one in neglecting the other in procuring the neglect of the Apostolike functiō in the principall work thereof to wit in traveyling to make disciples and to constitute Churches among such as had not yet received the faith Sect. 11. True it is that every one was not to traverse the whole world this was not imposed on every one of the Apostles severally but on all joyntly and they were by the spirit of God directed where to imploy their labours Notwithstanding it is no true vision but a deceiptful dreame of the Doctors owne hart to īmagin that the Apostles before their dispersion frō Ierusalem by the holy Ghosts direction divided the world among themselves as it were into 12. provinces or rather Patriarch-shipps in such sort that none entred into the line or circuit of an other For had this been so then Peter was too blame to stay at Ierusalem with Iames when the rest were gone into other parts Gal. 1. 18. 19. and to make so many yeares residence as he did in Iudea Acts. 19. 32-43 10. 23-48 and 11. 2. and 12. 3. 2. And by what right could Paul attempt the planting of the Gospel in so many countries so far distāt one frō an other as he did Act. 26. 18. 11. 25. 26. 13. 2. with 14. 26. chapters following if all the world had ben divided vnto the 12. before their departure from Ierusalem 3. Or why should Paul Barnabas be joyned in one cōmission as joynt traveilers in the same line Act. 13. 2. if all the rest had a severall circuit allotted to each a part 4. Againe doth not that agreement Gal. 2. 9. when a distribution not of Countries but of people Iewes and Gentiles was made betwene Paul and Barnabas and those 3. pillars Iames Peter and Iohn argue very probablie that there was no such distribution of the vniversall world into severall partes as the Doctor imagineth formerly ratified by the holy Ghost 5. Lastly it is apparant that Paul for the coast into which he traveiled had not his whole compasse allotted him at once but was guided by speciall direction from one place to an other Act. 13. 2. 4. 16. 6 -10 18. 9. 11. 19. 21. And as in his own affection he alwayes strived to preach the gospell where Christ was not named least he should build upon an other mans foundation Rom. 15. 19 20. so he had from time to time the measure of his line distributed unto him of God 2. Corinth 10. 13. Wherefore as I freely acknowledge that every one walked within the compasse of his owne measure allotted to him by God so I flatly deny that there was any such generall division of the world made at once And concerning Iames though for the reasons before named I perswade my selfe he spent not all his dayes in Ierusalem yet I graunt he had as good warrant for the stay which he made there and the recourse he had thither as any the rest of the Apostles had for their traveile into more remote parts of the world to wit the direction of the holy Ghost and not an assignment from his fellow-Apostles onely But as the direction or assignement which Paul had to publish the gospell in Macedonia or at Corinthe Act. 16. 10. 18 9. made him not the Bishop of those people or countries neyther did Peters portion of the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus Galatia Capadocia c. 1. Pet. 1. 1. argue him to be their Bishop so in like manner though I should graunt that Iames his circuite was for the most part or altogither if the D. will inclosed within the countries of Iudea Galilee and Samaria yet this limitation doth not prove him to be the provinciall or natonall Bishop of those Churches The D. therefore buildeth upon that weak and sandy foundation of his own or other mens fancie in affirming that he might
Fathers he replieth neyther shifts nor against the fathers but true defenses in favour of them For the Apostles being sent to preach the gospel to all nations made their chiefe aboad in greatest cities of most resort as at Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Rome c. now because this residence in the mother cities was afterwards supplyed by the Bishops of them therefore were the fathers wont to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities wherein they aboad most which they might the rather for that the word episcope in their speach to wit Euseb â—emens betokeneth in a generall meaning any charge or oversight of others c. It is plain then that the Doctor in his former wordes giveth his tongue and pen libertie to run out beyond the bounds of truth 1. In carrying unto his witnesses to impugne their testimonie that which was intended onely to contradict his owne position 2. in construing that to be meant of an absolute denyall of the name of a Bishop which was spoken of the episcopall function properly taken for that which now beareth the name The reader therefore is to be advertised that although the Refuter indeavoured by some exceptioÌ„s against the Doctors witnesses to shew that their testimony is too weak to bind the conscience to enterteyne their report for an undoubted truth yet he is so farre from giving them all the lie as the Doctor not very christianly chargeth him that treading in the stepps of many other worthies he salveth their credit by distinguishing the speciall proper signification of the word Bishop from that which is more generall and improper For properly in the phrase of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3 1 2. Tit. 1. 7. it noteth him who by his function is limited and fastened to the perpetuall oversight of one particular Church and now in coÌ„mon speach it is appropriated to the function of a Diocesan Prelate but in a more generall construction as the Apostleship is called episcope a Bishoplike-charge so the Apostles were by the Fathers termed Bishops And some of them as Iames and Peter vvere sAid to be Bishops of thosE Churches wherein they were reported to have made their longest residence And that the Fathers doe use the word in this latter construction the Refuter judgeth it most probable becausE he is perswaded not without good reason that in the former signification Iames being an Apostle neyther was nor could be a Bishop So then if the Doctor who holdeth Iames to be properly a Bishop yea a diocesan Bishop in function like to ours will justifie his assertion by those fathers whom he alleadgeth ought he not to haue demonstrated that which he wholly overpasseth to wit that the Fathers which entitle Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem meane thereby that he had proper function of a diocesan Bishop But he thinketh it sufficient to remove the grounds which his Refut layd to make good his deniall let us therefore come to it The Refuter saith that Iames neyther was nor could be properly Sect. 7. a Bishop seing he continued in the Apostleship a distinct office from it The D. answereth that none of his authors were so simple but they knew aswell as the refuter that Iames was an Apostle neyther knew they any reason which the Res would seem to know why his being an Apostle should binder his being the Apostle or angel of that Church for so were the Bps at the first called Yet with his leave some of theÌ„ were so simple that they thought this Iames called by Paul the L. brother was the sonne of Ioseph by an other wife before he was espoused to Marie the mother of Christ see Euseb lib. 2. ca. 1. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. col 579. vbi dicitur Epiphanius idem sentire which is in effect to denie him to be one of the 12. whom Christ selected to that office of Apostleship For among them there were onely two called by the name of Iames the one the sonne of Zebedaeus and brother of Iohn Math. 10. 2. Mark 3. 17. the other was the sonne of Alpheus Mat. 10. 3. Mark 3. 18. and brother to that Iudas which was also called Lebbaeus or Thaddâ—us Luk. 6. 15. 16. Act. 1. 13. with Mat. 10. 3. 4. and Mark 3. 17. Ambrose also was so simple that he accounteth this Iames Comment in Gal. 1. 19. â—ot onely the sonne of Ioseph but also one of those brethren of Christ which continued in unbeleife Ioh. 7. 5. after the 12 were daily attendants on thei Maister 2. Neyther were they all unacquainted with that difference between the functions of an Apostle a Bishop properlie so called which the Refuter maketh his reason for the deniall of the later office to them that bare the former Augustin distinguisheth the Apostleship from a Bishoprick as a greater office from the lesser Quis nâ—scii illum apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui preferendum de Baptis lib. 2. ca. 1. this sentence of Augustin is alleadged by D. Sutcl De pont Rom. lib. 2. ca. 10. pag. 140 143. to strengthen this consequence that if Peter were an Apostle then he could not be a Bishop or Pastor proprie loquendo Epiphanius an other of the Doctors witnesses is more playne for this purpose For having said that Peter and Paul were both Apostles and Bishops in Rome he saith withall Haeres 27. that there were other Bishops whiles they lived because the Apostles went often into other countries to preach Christ and the City of Rome might not be without a Bishop What can be more playne to shewe that since the Office of an Apostle requireth traveile abroad into diverse countries to preach Christ and the office of a Bishop bindeth to attendance at home on that one Church wherof he is made an overseer therefore and Apostle cannot be properly a Bishop Let me therefore here say to the Doctor as Doctor Reynolds did to Mr. Hart Conf. cap. 6. Divis 3. ad finem you may learne by the Fathers themselves that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that citie they meant it in a generall sort and signification because he attended that Church for a time and supplied that roome in preaching of the gospell which Bishops afterwards did And if this satisfy not the Doctor let him goe roundly to work and prove by other parts of their writings who are his witnesses in this question of Iames his Bishoprick that Iames his coÌ„tinuance in the function of an Apostle was no hindrance to his receiving and holding of a Bishopr properly so called In the mean while let us passe on to the new writers which concurre with the Refuter not onely in denying Iames to be properly a Bishop but also in that more generall assertion that an Apostle could not be a Bishop properly Chapt. 7. Concerning the new writers that ioyne with the Refuter in denying Iames to be a Bishop properly and whatsoever else the D. hath for the upholding of Iames his supposed
in this sort If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certeyne place then neither had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certeyne place Ergo neyther had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem The Doctors answer is that he hath shewed sufficient reason why he should not graunt the consequence in setting downe the difference between Iames and the rest of the Apostles But are the differences such as he can and will mainteyne that they necessarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop and the rest nor otherwise they neyther are nor can be a sufficient reason of his deniall of the cosequence Let us therfore peruse them First he saith that Iames herein differeth from the rest that to him at the first the Church of Ierusalem was assigned I answer that an assignement to the oversight of one Church maketh not a Bishop unlesse he be also confined unto it alone and that for perpetuitie But the Doctor can never prove that Iames was so coÌ„fined to the charge of the Church of Ierusalem Moreover we have better evidence for Pauls assignement to the Church of Corinth Act. 18. 9. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9. 2. 2. Cor. 10. 13. then can be alleadged for Iames his assignemeÌ„t to Ierusalem And if we may beleeve the D. he telleth us pag. 52. that at what time Iames was assigned to Ierusalem the rest were assigned also to their circuite one to one part and an other to an other This first difference therefore is eyther none at all or not such as can give the function of a Bishop to the one and deny it to all the rest Secondly the Doctor addeth that Iames did not traveile as the rest from one country to an other being not confined to one province But it is shewed in the former section that Iames was neyther confined to Ierusalem nor debarred from traveil abroad and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth will confine some others to certeine countryes as Thomas to Parthia Andrewe to Scythia and Iohn to Asia no lesse then Iames to Ierusalem And let me aske him what proofe he can make worthy of credit that Matthew Matthias and Iames that was martyred at Ierusalem Act. 12. 2. spent their daies in traveil froÌ„ one country to an other And if Iames be to reckoned a Bishop because he rested at Ierusalem when others traveiled from place to place why he should deny the rest to be also properly Bishops when they took up some speciall place to rest in as he sayth Iohn did at Ephesus c. specially seing the fathers intitle them Bishops of those places where they rested Thirdly an other difference he noteth scz that wheras the other Apostles having planted Churches when they sawe their time coÌ„mitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames coÌ„mitted the Church of Ierusalem to no other But can he tell us to what Bishops the Churches of Iconium Lystra Derbe Antioch in Pisidia and sundry others planted by Paul were coÌ„mitted For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches which being planted by him received no other Bishop to governe them if this reason proveth Iames to be the Bishop of Ierusalem The consequence therefore of the argument abovesayd is nothing weakned by the differences which the Doctor putteth betwene Iames and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth Notwithstanding that the reader may see how grossely he erreth in combyning these two functions of an Apostle a Bishop in one person I will here propose some of the reasons which D. Sutlif a zealous mainteyner of the episcopall governmeÌ„t hath pressed against Peters supposed Bishoprick at Rome De pont lib. 2. cap. 10. The Apostles saith he and Pastors or Bishops properly so called are â—o distinguished that an Apostle is one thing and a Pastor or Bishop is another Sect. 6. He hath given us as saith Paul Ephes 4. 11. some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers What can be spoken more cleerely he hath given some Apostles others Pastors and Teachers quosdam dedit Apostolos alios autem Pastores et Doctores Wherefore as he concludeth concerning Peter so doe I concerning Iames if Iames were an Apostle he could not be a Bishop Pastor to speak properly vnlesse we will confound both the gifts of Christ and membra dividentia the members of the division set down by the Apostle 2. The Apostles had this priviledge that they were called sent by Chrst iÌ„mediately Mark 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops it is farre otherwise they were not called iÌ„mediately of God but by men Paul prescribeth lawes vnto Timothâ— what manner of men were to be chosen Bishops warneth him to lay no hands suddenly upon any man 1. Tim. 3. 2. and 5. 21. Seing therefore Iames was by Christ alone not by men called chosen and ordeyned wheÌ„ce could he have a Bishoprick given him As for those Fathers which say that Iames was by his fellow-Apostles ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem we have already Cap. sect 22. heard Doctor Sutliffs answer this onely now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop seing he saith that Iames receyved the episcopall power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo as is also before shewed cap. 5. sect 13. 14. 3. The office of Bishops is farre inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it for the Apostles ordeyned Bishops heard their causes c. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonicall scriptures and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into al truth Iohn 14. 26. 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative for there were none more greivous schismes raised in the Church neyther any more foul heresyes sprang from any then froÌ„ Bishops Wherefore seing Iames was an Apostle quid opus erat ut quasi capite diminutus ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem velut Patritius ad plebem transiret I might adde his 4. and 9. arguments but because they come nere to things already urged I passe them over onely that it may appeare he putteth no difference betwene Peter and Iames in the limitation of their ministrie as the D. doth I will close up all with that which he hath elswhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec Iohannem nec Iacobum Apostoluns propriâ— dicimus fuisse Episcopum rationeÌ„que hanc reddidimus quia Apostolici officij â—ines nullâ— eranâ— Episcopi aut em suas habuere certas dioceses et provincias Yea saith he we say not that the Apostle Iohn or Iames was a Bishop properly we have rendred this reason for it that there were no bounds or limitts of the Apostolicall function whereas Bishops had their certeine diocesâ—s and provinces Which reason seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at as being vnable to answer it I hope the
he say there I meane to winter to conclude for certeinty that his Mr. was at Greenewich when he wrote 3. And if he say here I meane to winter to send to his Mr. for new direction where to find him As for the testimony of Athanasius Oecumenius and others which following the error of him that first iÌ„magined Paul to be at Nicopolis when he wrote to Titus drunk it in without any further examination it cannot overweight the force of any just probability to the contrary for in questions of this nature yea of greater event often times the heedlesse receiving of that which some one or moe of the Ancients have imbraced hath bin the cause of many errors But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him then the authors of the Centuries he might well have spared the citing of them for they leave it doubtfull whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis In the next place he urgeth the generall consent of the ancient Sect. 2. ad sect 18. pag 107. c. Fathers as Eusebius Dyonisius Dorotheus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostome and others to the number of 16. which testify that Timothy and Titus were Bishops To all which he received a threefold answer Frst that the fathers in so calling them take not the name properlie for the functioÌ„ of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop but improperlie in a more generall signification like as they call some of the Apostles Bishops for the work and preheminence sake wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them This answere is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare deniall of that which they affirme wherefore it shall suffice to urge him vnto the proofe of the point denyed and by him wholly neglected scz that the Fathers did so term them properly as giving them the very function of Diocesan Bishops for which he pleadeth Secondly he was tolde their consent was not so generall as he would make us beleeve the truth of which answer is evident by this that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence we heare not the names of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian or any other that lived in the first 300. yeares For that counterfeyt that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita is demonstrated by many worthy divines D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis Areopag Perkins problem pag. 9. Scult Medull de Dyonis script pag. 484. to be such a novice that he was unknowne to Eusebius and Hierom or any other of the ancients before Gregorie the great Wherefore it will give the Doct. little reliefe to graunt him that in his time it was generally received that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus especially seing the Papists may also from his testimonie likewise conclude that in his time the Monkes were of great credit in the Church many of their ceremonies as annoyntings crossings Incense coÌ„secrations c. were in vse and that in his time it was generally coÌ„fessed that Bishops onely were allowed divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere Hierarch eccles Cap. 4. 5. And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius that he was so farre from esteeming Timothy as a Bishop that he rather maketh him a Deacon epist ad Trall the Doctor answereth by distinguishing the times that he was such an Evangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordeyned a Presbyter lastly a Bishop he explayneth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning whose purpose is nothing else but to shew what service Deacons doe owe to Bishops by comparison of that service which holy Steven did to blessed Iames Timotheus Linus unto Paul c. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the DeacoÌ„ and not vvith the Bishop as T. C. rightly observeth yet as he giveth not to Paul the function of a Bishop so neyther unto Timothy the office of a Deacon Nay rather he shadoweth out in Timothy the office of an Evangelist in that he maketh him an assistant unto Paul in his Apostleship As for that fancie vvhich the Doct. broacheth of Timothies serving first in the office of a Deacon then of a Presbyter lastly of a Bishop it is not for his credit to father it upon Ignatius or Ambrose It is true that Ambrose saith Timothy was ordeyned a presbyter and that he was a Bishop because he had no other presbyters before him yet affirmeth he withall that there is but vna ordinatio episcopi presbyteri that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter vterque enim Cacerdos est Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh confuteth that thrice ordination vvhereof the Doctor dreameth And if Ignatius had bene acquainted vvith Timothies ordinatioÌ„ to the Bishoprick of Ephesus doubtlesse in vvriting to the Ephesians he vvould not have associated him vvith the Apostle Paul as a joynte Teacher or Mr by vvhom they vvere instructed in the faith Vos ergo tâ—les estote a â—alibus magistris eruditi Paulo Christifere Timotheâ— fidelissimo He would rather haue distinguished their functions like as he doth the Pastorall charge of Evodius from the Apostolicall function of Peter and Paul who first planted the gospell at Antioch as his words alleadged by the Doctor serm pag. 82. ad Antioch shewe In vaine therefore braggeth he of a generall consent of the auncient fathers when of all that lived in the first 300. yeares there cannot any one be alleadged that giveth to Timothy and Titus the name of a Bishop much lesse the function of a diocesan Bishop Here perhaps the Doctor will againe put us in minde of Eusebius Sect. 3. who reporteth out of former histories that Timothy first had the Bishoprick of the Church of Ephesus Titus of the Churches in Creet And because this his report is the maine foundation whereon all the rest are grounded I will vouchsafe it this particular answer following It is worth the noting that what he speaketh he delivereth not as a certain truth grouÌ„ded on the holy scriptures but as a doubtfull report derived from other stories from whence no sure proofe can be drawne in divinitie as before hath bene observed But not to insist on this exception why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument Timothy obteyned first episcopen the oversight tes paroikias of the Church in Ephesus like as Titus had of all the Churches in Creet Ergo they had each of them the function of a Diocesan Bishop in those Churches For Timothyes charge being paroikia en ephesoo the parish in Ephesus was too narrow a compasse for a Diocese Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta an Iland that had an 100. cities and therefore called hekatompolis had too large a jurisdiction for one province Moreover since there are no records of like authoritie to shew that any one Bishop in the Apostles dayes enjoyed the like superintendencie
over all the Churches of any kingdome or countrie we have reason to think that Titus his cōmission was extraordinarie In deed Theodoret on 1. Tim. 3. and Chrysostom Hom. 10. on 2. Tim. doe give as large jurisdiction to Timothy as to Titus yea farre more large esteeming him to have the charge of all in Asia as Titus had in Creta But Chrysostome plainely signifyeth that this was extraordinary for of Titus he sheweth that how soever Paul cōmitted so great a charge to him because he was one of his companions a man of whose fidelitie he had good proofe in whom he put much confidence Hom. 1. in epist ad Tit. yet it was never his meaning that his burthen should lye by continuall succession on the shoulders of any one man Hom. 2. in Tit. 1. 5. Per civitates inquit neque enim voluit Insulam totam vni viro permitti sed unicuique propriam curam ac solicitudinem indici c. If then Titus his cōmission to Creta was but Temporarie when Eusebius giveth to Timothy at Ephesus the self-same Overseer-ship or Bishoprick if you will the self same I say or the like for his power and function with that which Titus had over all the Churches in Creta When also Chrysostome some others doe match them in extent of jurisdiction extraordinary doth not the Doctor argue loosely in drawing their testimony to justify that peculiar function of a diocesan Bishop which he giveth unto Timothy and Titus Especially seing it is evident by Eusebius his owne wordes lib. 3. cap. 31. 32. that he acknowledgeth the first and neerest successors of the Apostles among whom he reckoneth Timothy and Titus to be for the most part Evangelists and plainely distinguisheth them from others which were more properly Pastors or Bishops And we have before observed out of Dorotheus that Timothy had no setled continuance at Ephesus as Bishops have on that one Church whereto they are affixed Ambrose also maketh S. Paul a fellow Bishop with Timothy when on 1. Tim. 1. 3. he giveth this note Obsecrat episcopus coepiscopum suum And Hierome though he gave the name of a Bishop unto Titus allotteth to him the peregrination of an Evangelist in saying if the Catalogue of ecclesiasticall writers in his first tome be his that he preached the gospell aswell in the Ilands lying round about as in Creta it selfe and that the Apostle did therefore call him away from Creta quia eum haberet necessarium in evangelij ministerium because he was necessarie for him for the ministery of the gospell Hieron in Tit. 3. The Refuters third answer therefore viz. that the scripture calleth Sect. 4. ad pag. 120. Timothy an Evangelist even after he was sent to Ephesus 2. Tim. 4. 5. is so farre from being contradicted by the fathers that it receiveth approbation from some of those whom the Doctor would draw to his side And whereas he addeth that if they had generally affirmed him to be a Bishop properly it cannot be of force to teach us contrary to the scriptures to acknowledge his episcopall function he speaketh but the truth neyther can the Doctor for shame directly contradict him in so saying yet rather then he will faile to make a shewe of impugning this answere he perverteth it to an other purpose then was meant saying It is all one with the second objection already answered viz that the scripture calleth Timothy an Evangelist and therefore he was no Bishop but the best is if that had bene so I hope the objection is sufficiently mainteyned against the D. answer As for the newe writers whom he alleadgeth pag. 110. for a new supply to concurre with the Fathers for the justifying of that Bishoprick which he ascribeth to Timothy and Titus his friendes may wonder at his impudency that can doe this without blushing Mr Calvin he saith the authors of the Centuries doe affirm that Timothy was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesus he should have added with all proved that by the name of a Pastor they meane a Diocesan Bp such as ours But the cōtrary is manifest first by the cold allowance which the authors of the Centuries give to Timothyes Bishoprick Cent. 1. lib. 2. col 614. when they say they can finde no certeintie in any approved writer quomodo aut quamdiu after what manner and how long Ephesianae ecclesiae Doctor gubernator prefuerit he was teacher and governour of the Church of Ephesus But especially by that which Mr Calvin saith on 2. Tim. 4. 5. to prove that Paul there speaketh of the office of an Evangelist 1. that there was such a speciall function mentioned Ephes 4. 11. betweene the Apostles and Pastors that were the second helpers to the Apostles 2. that the Evangelists excelled the Pastors in degree and dignitie of office 3. that it is most probable Timothy was one of them and not of the Pastors 4. that Paull in the honourable mencion of that his office respected both his incouragement and the commendation of his authoritie to others As for that presidencie which D. Fulk giveth on Tit. 1. 5. to Timothy and Titus I most freely subscribe unto it and yet reject that episcopall superioritie which the Doctor taking part with the Rhemists in their Annotations contendeth for in them In like manner I say with Beza that Timothy was the proestoos but that a president of a presbytery is according to Bezaes language a Bishop that is to say a Diocesan Bishop such as ours as the Doct. would have the reader to conceive it is so foul an untruth that he cannot without check of conscience avouch it seing he cannot be ignorant that Beza every where disclaimeth that sole and singular preheminence which the Doctor with the Romanists ascribe to Timothy and Titus Yea he flatly impugneth Timothies Bishoprick and that in most plaine termes in his Annot. on 1. Tim. 3. voluit eum Paulus ferente necessitate Ephesi subsistere non vt illi ecclesiae tanquam episcopus addictus esset sed vt ecclesia constituta pseudapostolis occurrere◠vnde etiam postea revocatus est romam ab ipso Apostolo neque constat an Timotheus postea sit Ephesum reversus vt qui fuerit Evangelista c. Paul would have him necessity requiring it to be at Ephesus not to be fixed as the Bishop to that Church but that the Church being constitute he might meet with the false Apostles from whence also he was afterwardes called to Rome by the same Apostle neyther is it certaine whether Timothy afterwards returned to Ephesus as he that was an Evangelist c. Thus having discovered the Doct. deceitfull and dishonest dealing with his owne witnesses and his weak handling of the whole controversie I hope I may be bolde with the Readers consent to conclude that the Doctors assumption touching Tim and Titus viz. that they were ordeyned to the function of diocesan Bishops by S. Paul the one at Ephesus the other in
before shewed in answ to cap. 6. lib. 2. pag. 105. 106. that the Church of Antioch in the Apostles times was but one ordinary congregation assembled in one place Thus much for Evodius It followeth now of Liuus concerning Sect. 3. whom the Doctor telleth us serm pag. 82. that Peter and Paul being at Rome and there continuing somewhat above two yeares about the yeare of our Lord 56. ordeyned him Bishop of Rome who continued Bishop there â—0 yeares before the death of Paul 12. yeares â—fter and for proofe thereof citeth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Euseb lib. 3. ca. 13. 16 In his Margin he saith that Peter came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Nero to oppugne Symon Magus and Paul shortly after from whence after 2. yeares they both departed To begin with this last can the Doctor be ignorant that Eusebius and Hierom two of his best witnesses for the antiquitie of the episcopall function doe referre Peters oppugning Symon Magus at Rome to the 2. yeare of Claudius or can it be unknowne to him that many of our divines of great reading and sound judgement doe contradict both branches of his assertion and shewe from the sacred scriptures that Peter was not at Rome neyther at the time of Pauls first coÌ„ming thither nor yet in the time of his two yeares imprisonment there I forbeare to lay downe the particulars which are urged to this purpose the Doct. may peruse at his leysure what is written by D. Reynoldes in his Conf. with Hart the place before noted And Doctor Whitak de pont Rom. pag. 353 -359 Catal. test verit col 61. last edition and confute their reasons if he can He shall surely therein gratify the Romanists for Bellarmin convinced with the arguments on our side alleadged confesseth that Peter was not then at Rome when Paul came thither and from thence wrote so many epistles as those to the Colos Ephes Galat. Philip. and others which make no mencioÌ„ of Peter Now if Peter were not at Rome in those two years of Pauls remayning prisoner there how could he joine with Paul at that time in ordeyning Linus to the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome Add herevnto those perswasions which induce us to think that he had no such function at that time with Pauls allowance For why should he forget his paines or deny him that honor which he affoardeth to others that were his felow-workmen in the Ministery of the Gospell to make mencion of his name and labours at least in some one of those many epistles that he wrote from Rome in the time of his aboad there yea had he bin the Bishop of Rome when the Apostle Paul sent so many epistles from thence to other Churches would not he rather have made choise of him to joine hands with him in the Inscriptions of the epistles to the Philip and ColossiaÌ„s then of Timothy who in the D. opinion was eyther yet standing in the degree of a presbyter or if a Bishop the Bishop of Ephesus in another country In deed his name is remembred among other that sent salutations to Timothy 2. Tim. 4. 21. but since it is without any note of preheminence eyther in office or labours it argueth strongly that Paul was ignorant of any such episcopall charge or superiority as the D. alloweth him 10. yeares before Pauls death As for the ancient Fathers and Historiographers Eusebius the Sect. 4. D. best witnes for computation of times expresly saith lib. 3. ca. 2. Linus obteyned the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome after the Martyrdome of Peter and Paul which cutteth off the first ten yeares which the Doctor giveth him in the government of that Church But Damasus whose report the D. imbraceth as if it were an oracle serm pag. 23. affirmeth in pontificali de Petro that Linus ended his race in the Consulship of Capito Rufus which was more then one yeare before the death of Peter and Paul as D. Whitakers sheweth de pont Rom pag. 343. Wherevnto Iunius also assenteth Animadvers in Bellar. cont 3. lib. 2. ca. 5. not 15 and 18. I forbeare to prosecute that variety of opinions in all writers old and new touching the first Bishop of Rome and the order of their succession some giving to Clemens the first place some confounding Cletus and Anacletus some severing them and some conjoyning Linus and Cletus togither in the episcopall charge as doth Rufinus prefat recognit Clement But since there is such disagreement and the same so great that it perplexeth the learnedest favourites of the Romish succession it may give us just cause to affirme that their testimonie can yeeld no certaine proofe of any one whether Linus Clemens or any other that by the Apostles appointm t had the singular and setled preheminence of a Bishop in the Church of Rome It followeth concerning Mark the Evangelist whom the Doctor Sect. 5. affirmeth to be the first Bishop at Alexandria by the appointment of Peter and that testified as he saith by Nicephorus Gregorie Eusebius Hierom and Dorotheus In deed Nicephorus is worthy to be the foreman of the Doctors Iurie in this question for who fitter to cast a cloak of truth upon a fable then one known to be the author-of many fables Of S. Mark many things are repeated in the scriptures that will hardly be brought to accord with his supposed Bishoprick at Alexandria or with that which the Doctor affirmeth of him to wit that he was Peters disciple and his perpetuall follower For to overpasse his first attendance on Paul and Barnabas Act. 12 25. 13. 4. 5. 13 and on Barnabas when he was parted from Paul Act. 15. 37. 39. he was with Paul at Rome as one of his work-fellowes unto Gods kingdome Coloss 4. 10. 11. Philem. vers 24. and departed thence to visite the Saints at Colosse and in other Churches adjoyning Col. 4. 10. and he was with Timothy or neer to him when Paul wrote his last ep to him 2. Tim. 4. 11. But to overthrow his Bishoprick the very name of an Evangelist which the Doctors best witnesses with one consent allow him is sufficient seing we have before proved that an Evangelist could not assume the office of a Diocesan Bishop Neyther can the Do take that exception against Mark which he doth against Timothy Titus scz that be was but in the degree of a Presbyter seing he granteth him to be one of those that are kat hexochen called Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. cap. 4. sect 12. pag. 95. Moreover that which Eusebius and Ierom doe report of his writing his gospell at Rome according to that which Peter had there preached and of his carying it into Egypt and preaching it in Alexandria see Euseb lib. 2. cap. 14. 15. Hieron catal in Marco this I say is contradicted by Irenaeus more ancient then both for he lib. 3. ca. 1. testifieth that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter Paul And this testimony