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
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
eyther ignorantly or absurdly alleadged For however the two first verses of Act. 2. are by some learned Interpreters restreyned to the 12. Apostles because they think the promise of the holy Ghost belonged to them alone cap. 1. 4. 5. yet are there others also of good account that holde it no absurditie to think that the rest of the disciples which accompanied the Apostles cap 1. 14. 15. were pareakers with them of the holy Ghost because it suiteth well with Ioels prophesye urged by Peter cap. 2. 17. 18. and with that riches of Gods grace manifested in many others afterwards cap. 8. 17. 10. 45. 46. 19 6. And D. Saravia whose judgement should not be lightly rejected of Mr Doctor and his associates holdeth it lib. de minist grad cap. 5. for so certaine a truth that the whole number of 120 received the holy Ghost that he distributeth them into these â— ranks 12. Apostles 72. Evangelists and 36. prophets which put togither make the just number of 120. But I will not contend for this matter onely I wish that moderation which is in Piscator in Acts 2. 4 who though he appropriateth the gifts of the holy Ghost then given to the 12. Apostles yet denieth not but many others were then assembled with them in the same place But hereat the D. â—â—ombleth and cannot see though it should be granted that the 120. were all assembled togither how it should be a parishenall assemblie wherein the 12. patriarshes of Christendome were met togither why was not Iacobs houshold at the first one family though the 12. Patriarches of the Iewish nation were there combined in one society Yea was not Noahs coÌ„pany in the ark one family though they were the roote of all nations and people that filled all kingdomes countries in the world Or did the comming of Paul Barnabas because they were Apostles into the Synagogue at Antioche Act. 13. 14. alter the nature of the assembly and make it no longer a parishonall Synagogue As for the 6. and 44. verses of Act. 2. they were jointly cited to Sect. 12. 2d pag. 91. shew that those 3000. converts mencioned vers 41. had recourse to one place both before and after their conversion for they are included within the mention of that multitude which came togither vers 6. of those beleeveres which are sayd to be all epi to auto in one place vers 44. But the D. telleth us that Calvin preferreth another sense viz. that they were in one that is joyned togither in heart and affection as is sayd Cap. 4. 32. and the Doctor knoweth that others preferre the sense the Refuter giveth yea acknowledgeth also that it may be true and may signify they coversed togither in one place which is to grant asmuch as the Refuter asketh For if the words may be so construed then it must also be confessed that as yet they made but one assembly gathered in one place Not so saith the Doct. he speaketh not of their assemblies for ver 46. he speaketh of their meetings in the temple Belike his meaning is that their Church assembly is mencioned vers 46 not vers 44. if so there is some kindnes in him that will give his adversary another text as sit for his purpose as the former for if they all met togither for holy exercises in any one place temple or any other the Refuters assertion standeth firme Yea but the D. will not have his Refuter to be so much beholding to him for he addeth that in the temple they could not meet alone that there nationall râ—ther then parishonall meetings used to be assembled As if the comuning in of straÌ„gers into one of our parish-Churches at the time of Lectures and sermons made the assembly to be no parishonall assembly but somewhat else perhaps we shall know of him hereafter what but how doth this concourse of others weaken the Refuters purpose will the D. say the Christians at Ierusalem were too many for one congregation because when they all met in the temple some others were intermingled with them doth not the contrary rather follow very strongly viz. that they all were not more then such as might and did assemble in one place seing they were all with one accord in the temple although they could not there meet alone Concerning the meetings of the 12. Apostles and multitude of Sect. 13. the Disciples Acts. 6. 2. and of the whole Church with the Apostles and Elders Acts. 15. 22. 25. the D. answer is they were not parishonall but rather Synodicall pag. 90. The later indeed is comoÌ„ly taken for a Synodicall assemblie because the Synode selebrated in succeeding ages followed the patterne there given by the Apostles in determining the like questions but if we looke to the persons there assembled it carried no great resemblance of a Synode for none were called thither from any other Church or Churches in the Countries adjoyning onely some were sent from Antioch to conferre with the Apostles and Elders which then abode at Ierusalem and they gathered the whole Church of the Citie togither for the hearing and determining of the matter then controverted which course was imitated in the next age before Synods grew into coÌ„mon use when one Church by letters and messengers sent and craved the help and direction of some other Church their Ministers in any question of weight that began to breed disturbance But for the Refuters purpose it sufficeth that the whole Church was then assembled in one place as vers 22 25 shew as the same is clearely collected also from Acts. 6. 2 so there is lesse reason to make it a Synodicall not a parishonall assembly There remaineth Act. 21. 22. where it is told Paul that the whole â—ultitude would come togither when they should beare that he was some which words are in all reason to be refered to those many thousands of beleeving Iewes mentioned vers 20 for of them it is sayd that they were informed of him that he taught to for sake Moses and for their satisfaction he was directed to goe into the temple and to shew himselfe an observer of the law vers 21. 24 and however the Doctor after his manner wrangleth with the allegatioÌ„ in saying the word multitude may be otherwise understood to wit of the people of lerusalem in generall aswell unbeleevers as beleevers yet he denieth not but it may be meant of the beleevers onely which is a plaine confession that the beleevers in that Church were at that time no more then such as might well asseÌ„ole into one place Neither doth the mention of many ten thowsands in those words posas muriadas c. vers 20. make the number such as by no meanes could meet togither in the publique worship of God seing it is apparant Luk. 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ did partake his doctrine were also many muriades And albeit he began at the
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
the â—aith which were as his Refuter truely avoucheth neither can the Doctor deney it but a fewe like to the nomber of Christians which was in London and the townes about it in Q. Maries daies or which now is in Paris or some Cities in Fraunce Wherefore to say as he did that the Churches were great Cities c. might better serve his turne as the Refuter judged to dazell the eies of the simple that they might thinke the people of those Churches to be well neere if not altogither as many The Doct. useth cunning in his purgation but yet in raine as the cities conteyned Now the D. to purge himselfe from so foule an imputation thanketh God that he â—s free both from desire and intent of dazaling the eies of the simple but this notwithstanding let the reader observe the cunning which he useth in this purgation The intent of dazeling he disclaymeth but he contradicteth not that which his reâ— objecteth vz. that he would have his reader to think that those Churches contayned as many people as the cities did onely he quarrelleth with him pag. 54. for strayning his words to The D. quarrell is fond and causlesse this meaning as if he had sayd that all the people in the citie and country had bene aâ— that time Christians which is in deed a causles quarrell a fond cavill seing in the D logick divinity here is a great difference betwene these two speaches All the people of the citie country were Christians and the Church conteyned within her circuite all the people of city and countrey for though he reject the former as absurd yet he maintayneth the latter for a sound position Else why doth he not interprete himselfe to have spoken according to an vsuall metonymy of the christian people onely q. d. The 7. Churches were the christians which then inhabited the cities and countries adjoyning Why doth he rather choose pag. 53. to explaine his meaning thus The Churches were that is contayned not onely the cities but the countrie and to illustrate his interpretatioÌ„ by such an instance as this A man is not onely body but soul also that is man consisteth of body and soul or whole man conteineth these two parts for if every of the 7. Churches doth so contayne citie and countrie or consist of those two partes as a man conteineth or consisteth of soule and body then both the whole citie and the whole countrie adjoyning must necessarily concurre to the very essence or being of the Church consequently in his estimation and vnderstanding none of those Churches did consist of or containe onely a fewe of the people as a parte of citie and countrie but rather all in generall Wherefore if he will cleare himselfe of that foule imputation which he semeth so farr to abhorre let him deale plainely and disclaime his construction he now inforceth of conteyning both citie countrie and stick to the usuall metonymie of the christian people in citie and countrie So his arguments will stand in this forme Whatsoever Church in S. Iohns time was or contâ—yned the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning the same was properly a dioâ—ese yea such a diocese as ours are But every of the 7. Churches of Asia was or contayned in S. Iohns time the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning Therefore every of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese yea such a diocese as ours is If it please the D. in his next to give allowance vnto this forme his assumptioÌ„ will perhaps be allowed to passe with some connivence till there be some good cause of calling it into question but he will finde it a labour surpassing all his skill and strength to make good the propositioÌ„ Wherefore I have litle hope that he will make this exchange seing he indeavoureth his best to justify aswell the words as the matter of his first assumptioÌ„ agaâ—nst his refuâ— exceptions Concerning the words first is it saith the D. so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the citie should be given to the Sect. 14. ad sect 8 pag. 53. Church Let him looke back to Apoc. 1. 11. he shall find that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. I answere the Ref how vnlearned soever in the eies of the D. hath no need to learne at his hands that the name of a citie may be and with ecclesiasticall writers is put metonymicè for the Church which was in that citie yet will it not be very easy for the D. to shew us that the Apostles used this phrase of speach in their writings For when they speak not of the place or citie it selfe but of the Church seated in any citie they usually explaine theÌ„selves by some such words as these The Church which is in Ierusalem or Antioch c. Act. 8. 1. and 11. 22. and 13. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Apo. 2. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. The Church of the Thessalonians Smyrnians c. 1. Thess 1. 1. Apoc. 2. 8. and 3. 14. The Saints at Ierusalem Lidda c. Act. 8. 13 22. Ephes 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 2. As for the words of Apoc. 1. 11 wherevnto he sendeth his Refuter to learne that the 7. Churches were Ephâ—sus Smyrna c. let him know that he hath learning enough to see that the D. glosse hath no warrant froÌ„ the text The words are kâ—ipempson tais eâ—clesiais tais en Asia eis Ephâ—son The D. glosse is without warrant of the text kieis Smurnan c. And send to the 7. Churches which are in Asia at Ephesus and at Smyrna c for it is no strange thing to finde â—is put for en and our latin translators as the vulgar Vatablus Beza c. doe with one consent turne eis Epheson c. Ephesi vel Epheso Smyrna c. I wish the D. to see whether the Holy Ghost himselfe the best interpreter of himself doth not turne eis Epheson eis Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11. by en Epheso en Smyrna c. Apoc. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. 14. And as little skill as the Refuter hath in the tongues yet hath he observed thus much that when the Apostles in their writings doe note the persons to whom any letter or mesâ—age is sent they doe either use the dative case as here tais â—câ—lâ—siais so elsewhere humin apestale to you is the word of salvation sent Act. 13. 26. hon epempsa humin I have seÌ„t Timothe to you 1 Cor. 4. 17. see the like Phil. 2. 19. Math 20. 16. Apoc. 11. 10. or else they take the preposition pros as when Paul sent Tychicus to the Ephesians Colossians he saith hon epempsa pros humas Ephe. 6. 22. Colos 4. 8. see the like Luk. 7. 19. Ioh. 16. 3. Acts. 19. 31. and 23. 30. Tit. 3. 12. As for the proposition eis in embassages c. it doth alwayes note the place and
were persecuted by the Gentâ—les Every body therefore knoweth say I that the Churches in S. Iohns tyme must needs consiste of a very fewe in comparison of the rest and therefore neyther were the cities the Churches neyther did the Churches contein the people thereof 2. Againe whereas the Refuter added that the Church of Smyrna writing of the sayd martyrdâ—m of Policarpus intitleth herselfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna therfore asked whether a whol diocese or country of Christians diâ—â—â—habite Smyrna the D. sayth it is an obiâ—ctim scarce worth the answering but yet vouchsafeth it a frivolous answer vz. that the whole diâ—cese was seâ—ted cheefly in the citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is sayd to be in the head and that though by the Church at Smyrna we should vnderstand onely that part which did inhabite the citie yet the â—aming it the Church which is 〈◊〉 Smâ—rna excludeth not the Churches in the countrye from being of the same body or diocese with it Whereunto for reply first to the last what meaneth he to begg that which he should prove rather if he could to witt that there were The D. beggeth CHVRCHES in the Country which were parts of the same body with the Church in the citie for if this cannot be proved the former part of his answere is absurd where he compareth the Church in the city to the head of the body For it is a monstruous body that hath eyther no body at all or an head bigger then all the rest of the body Moreover to burie in silence his unseemly may I not say blasphemous comparison in comparing a Diocesan Ch seated in the citie to Gods sitting in heaven how absurd is he in The D. coÌ„parison is more then vnseemely absurd comparing the Diocese to the soule which is in the head and in all the body besides For what shall the body be trow ye if the whole Diocese be the soule The city he saith is the head the country parishes belike are the rest of the members the citie and country joyned togither do make the Diocese yet the Diocese is not the body but the soule of the body Herevnto I may adde that which is objected pag. 55. of the Refuters answ from the text of holy scripture The epistles were directed to the Angel of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephâ—sus the Church of Smyrna the Church c. as if the whole cities were the Churches The Doctors answere pag. 62 is that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntil it was wholly converted to Christianity yet the whole citie meaning â—â—bs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles c. neither is it material that the Church is sayd to have bene in Ephesus seing in urbe the Church was cheefely seated as was said before I suppose the Refuter is not ignorant of that difference which the learned hystorians put betweene urbs civitas Vrbs ut M. Varro lib. 1. linguae latinae tradit ab orbe urno quae pars est aratri deducitur circum dividebantur enim aratro loca extruendo oppido designata ut ait Servius sulco muri designabantur Civitas autem tameâ—si pro urbe oppidove frequenter usurpatur proprie tamen ipsa est civium koinonia et societas moribus legibusque institutis gubernata nam et hi qui passim tractu aliquo habitant ijsdem legibus et institutis usi Civitas dicuntur Caesari sic habet Ioach Vadianus in Epitome trium terrae partium pag. 34. 35. Impress Tiguri Anno 1534. But what use doth the Doctor make of this difference The whole citie meaning Civitas saith he was not the Church till it was wholly converted to Christianitie Well then it seemeth when he saith the Churches were cities he tooke not the word citie for civitas which cheefly noteth the people that live in a communion togither He then acknowledgeth he tooke the word citie for that which is called urbs the walls and howâ—es within which the citizens for the greater part were inclosed If so he sheweth himselfe too absurd to be confuted with any other argument then such as is framed in Bocardo If not we may then with good leave I hope conclude that seing the Church of Ephesus was neytheâ— urbs nor civitas therfore it cannot at all be truely sayd to be the citie much lesse both citie and country And to what use then serveth if I may be so bold to ask once againe that difference he yeeldeth betweene urbs civitas Forsooth the whole citie mâ—aning urbs was conteyned within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles Well and may not the same be sayd of the whole citie meaning civitas Else why doth he tell us that when the Apostles planted presbyters in every citie they intended the conversion of the whole citie and country by their Ministerie Thus wisely hath the Doctor distinguished betweene urbs Civitas that what he affirmeth or A distinction without any difference denieth of the one the same in his understanding must be affirmed or denied of the other As for that he addâ—th to shewe his understanding of the text sc that the Church was seated not wholly but cheefly in urbe eyther beggeth the maine question as before was noted if he think there were some other Churches in the Country The Doct. beggeth or else coÌ„senteh to his refut that were parts of the same Diocesan body or he dissenteth not from his Refuter if he think the Christians inhabiting some townes and hamletts in the country did ordinarily assemble with those of the citie for the publick works of Gods worshâ—p Thus have we heard all that the Doctor can say in defense of his Sect. 16. ad sect 8. 〈◊〉 54. assumption as he first delivered it when he sayd those Churches were great and ample cities c. As for the change which he hath now made choise of viz. that they conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning he hath nothing else in defense thereof then a naked repetition in a manner of that which was before delivered to help the consequence of his reasoning yet I will vouchsafe to meÌ„tion it least he should think better of it then it deserveth If any maÌ„ ask saith he how it may be said that the Church conteyned City and Countrye when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in eyther of both I answere as before that the circuite of the Church or Diocese was the same when there were fiwe and when there were many yea when all were Christians His former answere whereto he nowe referreth us affirmeth the circuite of the Churches to be the same aswell before the division of parishes as after not actually but onely in the intention of the Apostles or first founder Which limitation he remeÌ„breth again in that answere
Asia by his estimatioÌ„ therfore not in Ionia wheriâ— Ephesus stood although many doe there place it but in Carâ—a as â—omy affirmeth to whose opinion also Ioach Vadianus ut supra in this point cleaveth Now if Saint Luke doth exclude both Caria Phrygia from his Asia it will follow that Saint Iohns Asia is of a larger circuite in asmuch as it includeth Laodicea which with Ptolomy is a citie of Caria but more generally is reckoned within Phrygia To come now at length to his refutatioÌ„ of that which is objected Sect. 22. ad pag. 61. of the D. by his Refuter why our Saviour writing to the 7. Churches should not vnder them comprize all the Churches in Asia the objection standeth thus even there or neere we finde divers other Churches as thosâ— of Colossa Hierapolis and Troas mentioned in the scripture to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belong to any of these 7. The D. answereth first touching the 3. former that none of them was in Asia properly so called whereof Iohn speaketh because Troas forsooth was the same with Phrygia minor and Hierapolis and Colossa were cities of Phrygia Major Why is it possible that the D. who hath perused so many Authors both Geographers others should be ignorant that Troas is not alwayes the name of a countrie or taken for Phrygia minor but sometimes the name of a citie in Asia called Antigonie or Alexandria or is he so vnacquaynted with his Refuters opinion concerning the forme nature of visible Chur. that he should conceive he would entitle an whole countrie such as Phyrgia minor is with the name of the Church of Troas and Doth not the D. cavill against his owne conscience joyne it with the Church of Colossae and Hierapolis which he holdeth to be but particular congregations shal I say that here also he cavilleth against the light of his conscience for can he thinke that Troas which is mentioned Act. 16. 8. 11. and 20. 5. 6. and 2. Tim. 4. 13. was the countrie of Phrygia and not rather some citiâ— Troas urbs marit in littore Asiae Aret. in Act. 16. 8. in the sea costes either of the same country or some otherwhere adjoyning The truth is as the learned in Geography who have examined the townes and countries in S. Lukes history doâ— conceive that the Troas which is pointed at in the forenamed places was a citie in that countrie called Troas as appeareth by Pliny lib. 5. cap. 30. 16. who placeth Alexandria in Troas that is the citie Vide dictinar Histor Car. Step. in Alexandriaâ— or towne of Troas in the countrie of Phrygia minor Ioach Vadianus in his forenamed Epitome p. 487 intreating of those parts of Asia which are called Aeolis Troas and having placed Assos whereof Luke speaketh Act. 20. 13. in Aeolis he saith Haâ—d procul Asso promontorium Lectâ—m attollitur Aeoliam et Troada disterminans Plinio Inde Troas oppidum Colonia Romana et Apostoli etiam aetate Alexandria dictum proximum Hellesponto Tenedo Insulae in ipsis Hellesponti faucibus jacenti atque hinc Lecto illinc Sigaeo promontorio septa Ejus Lucas meminit Act. 16. 8. 11. c. 20. 5. 6. meminit ejus urbis et ipse Paulus 2. Tim. 4. 13. But as the D. saith of Colosse Hierapolis which were cities of Phrygia major for so he will affirme of Troas a citie of Phrygia minor that neither the one nor the other were within Saint Iohns Asia because Saint Luke severeth Phrygia and Troas that is in his vnderstanding Phrygia major and Phrygia minor from Asia Act. 16. 6. 8. But the answere is already made that the D. is deceived in taking Iohn and Luke to imbrace one and the same partition of Asia for the limits thereof The Apostles Peter and Iohn doe follow the most usuall vnderstanding of those that gave vnto it a larger circuite as appeareth in reckoning Laodicea a citie of Phrygia or Caria within Asia and therefore the Churches mentioned by the Refuter viz. Troas Hierapolis and Colosse being all within Phrygia are inclosed in Saint Iohns Asia But the D. hath some other evasions which cannot yeeld him the releife he expecteth It is recorded saith he pag. 61. by Eusebius in Chron that in the yeare of Christ 66. and 10. of Nero these 3. cities Laodicea Hierapolis and Colosse were overthrowne with earth quakes and although Laodicea florished againe in S. Iohns time and Hierapolis not long after yet of Colosse as Calvine observeth that shortly after the epistle written to them that Church with the rest perished so that it stood in S. Iohns time he readeth The D. shifteth not c. A poore shift for to make the best of all the allegation for his purpose it is no more then this he neither readeth nor remembreâ—h any mention of any Church at Colosse iâ— S. Iohns tyme nor of any Church florishing at Hierapolis when he wrote his Revelation and therefore he thinketh that his Refuter might have spared the mention of these And what if his Refuter should gratify him herein yet hath he no reason to deny a florishing Church at Troâ—s and another at Miletum a citie in the borders of Caria which himselfe estemeth to be within S. Iohns Asia since the Apostles made choise of that place to call thither the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 27. and there left Trophimus behind him sick 2 Tim. 4. 20. not to speak of Assos where the writers of the centuries Cent. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 2. 16. doe think there was a Church because Paul was conducted thither from Troas Act. 20. 13. 14. there to meete his companions 2. Yet if that be true which the Doctor saith that Papias was made Bishop of Hierapolis by S. Iohn let the reader judge how vnlikely it is which he would perswade that at the writing of the Revelation there was no Church at all there seing S. Iohn lived not above 4. yeares after for he wrote Anno 97. died as the Doctor will have it Anno 101. but in the account of some others Anno 100. 3. Againe what necessity is there in this consequence which the Doctor taketh for vndeniable Those 3. citie were overthrowne with the earthquake Ergo the Churches whicâ— there flourished before did then perish with the cities 4. And why doth he answere nothing touching the state of those Churches whiles they stood in that prosperity which the scripture ascribeth to them Col. 4. 13. 16. Act. 20 6. 7. If none of them then did owe subjection to Ephesus or any other of these 7. churches how should they or so many as remayned in S. Iohns time become subordinate vnto them When all is done he must seek to his first answere and see if he can make it good viz. that they were with in S. Iohns Asia Wherefore he may in his next defense buâ—ie this in silence as an idle flourish
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.
take an ell was his Refuters liberalitie nothing worth wheÌ„ he was content to annexe unto the citie the towns adjoyning that had any distinct Church in them Did the Doctor at first find himselfe able to confound the former Antecedent which spake onely of the Christians that were within the citie and to prove it not onely false but also unreasonable and incredible And is he nowe too weak to consute that assertion which for his advantage is tendred to him in stead of the former viz. that all the Churches in any great citie and such townes adjoyning as had not any distinct Church in them made but one particular congregatioÌ„ must he haue all the townes annexed to the citie and this also freely graÌ„ted that in some of those townes there were distinct Churches blame him not though he affect this well for he findeth himselfe man good enough to incounter with such an assertion as this if his Refuter would mainteyne it against him viz. that all the christians in a great citie and the townes adjoyning though there were distinct Churches in some of those townes made but one particular congregation Meane while to case his hart of that foreconceited feare which the sight of the parenthesis in his Refuters AntecedeÌ„t cast him into 1. he sporteth himself with some unsavorie jests which argueth that the ridiculum caput he speaketh of cleaveth close to his owne shoulders and at length full soberly he undertaketh to shewe that the inclosure before meÌ„tioned bewrayeth both weaknes in the consequence and falshood in the Antecedent First touching the consequence he judgeth it as weak as the Sect. 6. former because he seeth not to what purpose the townes are added because the parishes be excepted The former overmuch mirth of the Doctor hath as it seemeth marred his memorie for he sawe well enough before to what purpose the townes were added namely to strengthen the consequence of the first Enthymem framed by himself against one branch of his answere which affirmed the Presbyters to be divided aswell for the country as citie For the Refuter desirous to come as neere to the Doctor as the truth will give leave acknowledgeth that the Christians which inhabited the townes or country round about the citie made their repaire vnto the citie there to joyn with the inhabitants thereof in the publick worship of God till their number so increased that they might conveniently enjoy a distinct Church in some one or moe of those townes And as it was meet the Refuter should yeeld so farre to the Doctor so is it absurd and against coÌ„mon sense he should be denied to except those townes that had a distinct Church seated in them But will you see how strongly the Doctor impugneth the consequence as it now standeth with this inartificiall argument q. d I cannot see to what purpose that addition serveth Therefore this later consequence is altogither as weak as the former Had the Refut at any time argued so loosely to infringe any of the Doctors consequences he had been worthy to beare this censure that his facultie is better in denying consequences then in proving them But the Doctor not being yet returned to his right temper at this time is to be borne with not onely for this fault but also for a worse in charging the Antecedent of falshood when he hath nothing to alleadge that directly impugneth it yet let us give him the hearing By this inclusure saith he the Antecedent it bewrayed of falshood for The D. to charge his Refuter with falshood delivereth a double untruth and yet to no purpose if there were in the citie and countrey more distinct Churches or Parishes as here is supposed and these all subor dinate to one as I have manifestly proved then all these will make a Dincese Behold here a double untruth propounded to conclude a falshood in his Refuters Antecedent yet all wil not serve the turne when he hath done the most he can For first the parenthesis in the Antecedent doth not necessarily suppose that the townes round about every citie had distinct Churches in them onely it holdeth the matter in suspense touching some one or moe townes in some countries because as the Doctor remembreth Cenchreae neere unto Corinth was a distinct church and in such a case it excepteth such townes and annexeth to the citie church the rest Neyther is it true that he hath manifestly proved the subordination of many Churches unto one within the Apostles daynes no nor yet within the first 200. yeares after Christ But say there were a truth in both his untruthes and graunt him also that which he inferreth to wit that many Churches subordinate to one will make a Diocese how doth this convince the refuters Antecedent of falshood Did not his passions blinde his judgement when he imagined there is strength enough in this cosequence for thus he reasoneth Many Churches in citie and country subordinated all to one do make a Diocise Ergo all the Christians in a citie and the townes adioyning which have no distinct Church in them must needs make more then one particular congregation But perhaps he correcteth his owne errour in the words following when he faith I say therefore againe that though their Antecedent were true yet the consequence were to be denied The which what is it but to run from one errour to another For it is before observed that the conclusion which the Refuter slandeth here to mainteyn is no other in effect then this that the Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned not to the overfight of many Churches but to one onely congregation Now if there be a truth in his Antecedent which affirmeth that at that time the Christians in any citie and townes around it such namely as had no distinct Churches in them made but one congregation the consequence of the argument cannot be infringed otherwise then by shewing that the presbyters received from the Apostles not onely the charge of that one coÌ„gregatioÌ„ but also the govermeÌ„t of some other churches established in some other eyther more populous or more remote townes Which to demonstrate it sufficeth not to assume this that many churches subordinate to one doe make a Diocese but good proofe must be added also that this subordination of many Churches in countrey townes to the Church of the citie tooke place in the time of the Apostles and was ratified by their allowance Having thus freed the Refuters Enthymem from the Doctors Sect 7. frivolous exceptions I will once againe produce it to his viewe but in another forme which shall not affright him as the former parenthesis did in a plaine syllogisme therefore which kinde of argument he best affectâ—th thus I reason All the Christians which in the Apostles tymes dwelt in and about any great citie and were called the Church of that citie made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place But all those Christians were
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