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
with his owne interpretation p. 106. of this book where he taketh it for that vniversall congregation of Gods elect which is spoken of Ephes 1. 22. and 5. 25. 6. As for those places which he saith doe definitely signify a Church congregated into a Synode or Congregation though by the line which is drawne in his table they seeme to belong to the Church of a nation yet I guesse they should have bene referred rather to the Church of a citie or country adjoyning And if so then although he leave it doubtfull whether it were a set or vncerteyne congregation yet he plainely acknowledgeth that by these places Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 18. 14. 23. is meant the Church of a citie and country adjoyning gathered into one congregation and then he forgetteth himselfe in construing those words otherwise pag. 104. 105. following Yea though a contradiction in the Doct. he should now carrie those places as the line draweth them to the Churches of an whole nation yet can he not escape the blame of an apparant contradiction in his understanding of Act. 14. 27 both places of his book compared besides a grosse oversight in making the Church spoken of Act. 11. 26. 1. Cor. 11. 18. c. to be farre more large then the church mentioned 1. Cor. 1. 2. Act. 13. 1. And 7. touching the places which he taketh to signifie indefinitely any company of Christians c. it is strange he should not see as definite a limitation of the place and nation or province in Act. 9. 31. 15. 41. 1. Thes 2. 14. as there is in the places forealleaged for the Churches of a nation Rom. 16. 4. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. And no lesse strange that he which could discerne a church definitely deciphered Act. 14. 27. 1. Cor. 14. 19. 34. 2. Cor. 8. 23. 1. Tim. 5. 16. 3. Ioh. 6. should not discerne asmuch in Act. 15. 3. 4. 18. 22. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 1. Tim. 3. 5. 3. Ioh. 9. 10. And 8. lastly since he referreth the word Churches Apoc. 2. 7. to the same signification that he given unto it ca. 1 4 11 20. viz. definitely to the church of a citie and countrie adjoyning how is it that so soon after he understandeth the same the like Apoc. 2. 7. 17. 23 29. c. indefinitely of any company a contradiction in the Doct. of Christians not defining the place or societie whether of nation or citie c And yet as if he had a dispensation to define what the Holy Ghost hath not defined hereafter he will tell us pag. 57. that by Churches in the conclusion of each epistle Apoc. 2. 7. 17. c. we may very well understand the particular Churches which were under the charge of every angell to whom the epistles are directed Thus much to his significations of the word Church froÌ„ which Sect. 2. to the Doct. 3. sect pag 6. 6. being so manifold as he saith he proceedeth to shew what is truely properly a Church upon earth And first he saith that by warrant of the word every company of men professing the faith of Christ is both truely a church also a true church But it is more then he can prove as shall appeare in the examination of some particulars following He addeth that as the whole company of the faithfull upon earth is the true Church and spouse of Christ so also the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any nation or part of the world is to be termed by the name of a Church The former I may grant him but touching the later I must ask what he meaneth by this phrase is to be termed doth it imply a necessity or onely a liberty and conveniency If the first what reason hath he to debarre us from reteyning the phrase of speach which himselfe confesseth in the former page to be usuall in the new Testament namely to call the Christians of an whole nation Churches in the plurall number If the later whence hath he his warrant since he hath not in all his table any one place which giveth the name of a Church in the singular number to the faithfull of an whole nation save onely that of Act. 7. 38. which is spoken of the Iewish people whiles they were one congregation not yet divided into severall Synagogues or Church-assemblies vnder the guidance of Moses and Aaron in the wildernes But he argueth a pâ—ri in this manner The whole people of the Iewes profissing the true religioÌ„ were one Church though conteyning very many particular coÌ„gregations or Synagogues which were also so many Churches Even so the whole people of The D. reasoneth inconsequeÌ„tly from the Church of the Lewes to the Churches of the gentiles England professing through Gods mercie the true Catholike and Apostolike faith is to be called the Church of England The consequence hereof might be denied for why should the forme and constitution of the Iewish Church vnder the law be a more fit patterne for us to follow then that form of Church-constitution which was established vnder the Gospell for the Christians of all nations both Iewes Grecians Is there not more strength in this coÌ„sequence The Christians of an whole nation are every where in the new Testament called Churches no where by the name of a Church in the singular number as Churches of Asia Macedonia Galatia Iudea Galile and Samaria 1. Cor. 16. 1. 19. 2. Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Thes 2. 14. Act. 9. 31. Ergo the Christians which at this day professe the faith of Christ in England are rather to be termed the Churches then the Church of England especially seing the number of Churches or congregations is farre greater in all likelihood then the number of families was in any one nation in the Apostles times Notwithstanding if the Doctor can as he assaieth paralell the people of England with the Iewish nation in that which properly made theÌ„ as some think one church he might take more libertie to include them al vnder the name of the church of England To effect this vnto that which some alleadge viz. that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high-Preist who was a figure and therefore ceased the Doctor frameth a double answer 1. It is evident saith he that it was one Church because it was one people or coÌ„mon wealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high-Preist and after there were through corruption more then one 2. Neyther was the high-Preist a type of Christ in respect of his preheminence and government over the Preists people but in respect of his sacrifice intercession for the whole people c. To the first I reply as followeth 1. It is evident that the Christian Iewes in Iudea were one people or coÌ„moÌ„ wealth ruled by the same lawes
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
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
which our Bishops exercise is wholly by Gods word But 2. though those words detracted by the Doctor had not bene added by them if he thinketh it wil prove that the function now exercised by Bishops is warranted to them by Gods word he forgetteth his owne distinction betweene potest as modus potestatis togither with the difference which he putteth betweene function and authoritie lib. 4. pag. 100 102. 147. Neyther 3. is that authority which the booke requireth Bishops to exercise such a sole power of correction as the Doctor giveth unto them for the same booke requireth also of every Minister aswell as of the Bishop at his ordination that he preach the word and administer the sacraments The D. owne testimony against him discipline so giving every Minister a stroke in the outward policie government of the Church aswel as the Bishop which the Doct. taketh quite from him But to conclude this point the booke of articles doth in deed shewe the judgement of our Church in some matters of policie and church government devised by men aswell as in more weighty points of faith set down in Gods word Wherefore the doctrine of our Church concerning the later is not to be sought for in the booke of consecration or the 36. article that establisheth it much lesse in the preface of that booke but rather in those articles which concerne faith and sacraments For the whole body of our Church being assembled in Parliament evidently perceiving that there were some clauses sentences and articles in that booke and the preface thereof not warrantable by the word did therefore approve of it no further then it concerned the doctrine of faith and sacraments and provided also that no Minister of the word should be tied by his subscription further to approve it as well appeareth by the statute 13. Elizab cap. 12. And here I wish the reader 1. to take notice that in all that booke there is no word of Archbishops Archdeacons Deanes rurall Deanes with the rest of that rowe so that they will not be found be like in the word nor hath God by his spirit appointed them in his Church 2. To observe how the Doct. that so boldly and confidently that I say no more rejecteth so many Synods Churches and learned men alleadged by the Refut and acknowledged by himself to be orthodoxal divines is not so wel seene in his allegation here as he would seeme to be surely he mought very well conceive that we might take exception not onely to his booke of ordering Bishops Preists and Deacons but to the article that establisheth it both being made by the Bishops themselves Iudges in their owne cause and seeking their owne preheminence espetially when they were both so farre excepted against by that whole assembly of Parliament as not to binde any by subscription to approve them so much as consonant to the word Thus much concerning the booke of articles and the D. dealing with vs therein Come we now to the Confession of the English Sect. â—â— church collected as the D saith out of the Apologie The wordes as he layeth them downe are these We beleeve that there be divers degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Preists some Bishops c. But he should have read out to the end of the sentence and not breake off with an c. so keeping many of his readers from the sight of them if he durst for overthrowinge his owne cause For the very next words insinuate that these diverse degrees If the D. had read his owne testimony to the end it would have bene against him are of order not of power and jurisdiction whiles they make the office of those divers degrees to be one and the same saying to whoÌ„ is coÌ„mitted the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion It seemeth the D. was somewhat shortwinded when he read that sentence and I challenge him to bring one word out of all that confession that giveth more authoritie to Bishops then to other Ministers that are called Preists Doth not the 7. article of that confession professe that Christ hath given to his Ministers one aswell as another power to binde to loose to open to shutt Doth it not make the authoritie of binding and loosing to be in thaâ— censure of excoÌ„munication and absolving from it aswel as in preaching mercie or judgement Doth it not make the worde of God the keye whereby the Ministers must open or shut the kingdome of heâ—veâ— And doth it not affirme that the disciples of Christ aswell as the Apostles received the authortie of opening and shutting by it And that the Preist is a Iudge in this case though he hath no manner of right to challenge an authoritie or power that is as the observation vpon it vnderstandeth it civil or to make lawes to mens consciences To be short doth it not affirme that seing one manner of worde is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all that therefore there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting If I belie not the Confession but that these be the very wordes thereof let him that readeth confider whether the Confession produced by the Doctor as an Advocate in his behalfe to prove the Refuters fourth vntruth hath not as a Iudge given sentence against his owne Client Worthily therefore hath he here cited this confession and of no lesse worth is his owne observation vpon it It is to be noted saith he that our Church acknowledgeth nothinge as a matter of fayth which is not conâ—â—yned in Gods worde or grounded thereon And I will note it with him and doe tell him that he noteth well for vs and againste The Doct. note is for vs and against him selfe himselfe For if the government of the Church by such Bishops as he speaketh of be a matter of faith why putteth he a difference betweene matters of discipline and the articles of fayth and referreth the question of the function and superioritie of Bishops to the former lib. 3. page 38 and howe is their government mutable and not perpetually necessary as in his defence he often affirmeth In deed he once sayd that the â—piscopall function and authoritie which Timothy and Titus had the same with ours as being assigned to certaine Churches consisting in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches This was the Doctors faith when he preached and printed his sermon page 79. but it seemeth his Refuter hath occasioned his departure from it But let we that passe and keep we him to his note here Thus I reason It is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing for a matter of fayth which is not conteyned in
reviving of their cerâ—monies amoÌ„gst us is so freely preached published tending to vphold their hierarchy aswell as ours the Doctors reasons being in deed the very same with theirs The Doctor answereth with many vile and opprobrious speaches and 1. telleth vs that the advantage which ariseth to the Papists both by his doctrine preached and the ceremoniees mainteyned still amongst us may through Gods blessing be this That when they see us not so new fangled as our opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they have departed from the primitive Church but are content to observe the auncient government lawful ceremonies used in the primitive Church they may be induced to joyne The D. abuseth the name of God with us c. Then which what can be sayd more against reasoÌ„ their owne profession to the abusing of the name of God and his blessing Knoweth he not that to this day they have bene incouraged in their madnes by our coÌ„ming so neere them and departing no further from them Doe they not both say and write that our book of leiturgie is an Apish imitation of their Masse-book that our religion cannot stand without their ceremonies that the contention that is amongst vs for them and eating their broath putteth them in good hope of our eating their rostemeat Doe not the Rhemists in their annotation upon Ioh. 21. 17. affirme that the Protestants otherwise denying the preheminence of Peter yet to uphold their Archbishops doe avouch it against the Puritans Yea even of late take they not occasion to fill theire bookes with our canons and constititutions arguments and resolutions to let passe others what will the Doct. say to that worthy Proctor of theirs Iacobus Gretzerus hath he not panegyr missae cap. 11. 12. demonst dogm cap. 7 alleadged against the reformed Churches our service booke for their popish holy dayes D. Tooker and our late booke of Canons both for the signe of the Crosse for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament for the whole hierarchy from the Archbishop downewards and for divers other their superstitions Hath not Cornelius Scultingius in his hierarchica Anacrisis alleadged D. Whitgift and transcribed whole leaves out of him for defence of their hierarchy Doth not Stapleton relect against Whitak Cont. 2. q. 3. art 3. take the Bishops arguments for the upholding of their hierarchy to uphold the Popes affirming they are built both on one foundation c I suppose the Doct. will not deny this yea they that are acquainted with their writings knowe more then this of the advantage they take by such sermons as that the Doctor printed What likelihood is there then of winning the Pipists by comming neerer them no no experieÌ„ce hath taught us that this policie in seeking to win the adversaries by dallying and playing with them and comming so neere them hath bredd more papists in England in few yeres then were wont to be bredd in many in so much as we have cause to feare that under colour of licking he Papists whole by this meanes the wound is become so great that all the balme in Gilead will sâ—atce salve it the case is so desperate Sect. 3. But 2. what shall we say to those opprobrious speaches which the D. casteth forth against all that mislike the ceremonies and episcopall government in saying they are new fangled and so farr caried with hatred to their persons papists he meaneth as to depart further from them then they have departed from the primitive Church And what to his vnjust The Doct. calumniateth both his Ref the reformed Churches censure of his Refut and of all that accorde in judgment with him when because he called his doctrine Antichristian he faith it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our opposites His tongue is his owne and he thinketh that none of his Lords will controwle him wherefore he spareth not to stuff a great parte of his great volume with such vnsavoury reproaches Perhaps he ment to justify at least it well appeareth he hath justifyed his ref in charging him to have given the papists much advantage for is it not a great advantage vnto them when they may if they liste assume the Doctors testimonie to disgrace those worthy divines which in other reformed Churches have abandoned the ceremonies and government controverted in our Churches with departing and that in a newe fangled and factious humor and of meere hatred to their persons from that ancient government and those lawfull ceremonies which they received from the doctrine and example of the primitive Church But it seemeth he forgatt that of Tully verecundius loquor propter Pompeium For however he vilifieth his refuter without blushing taking him to be no better then a dishclout yet considering he had so many Pompeies to deale with as his refuter mentioneth he could not but harden his face as an Adamant that he blusheth not notwithstanding their names with their testimonies and arguments and their just praises given them by other learned more then by the refuter to count all newe fanglisme and faction But 3. his freindes wil say he had good cause to be offended with Sect. 4. him that charged his doctrine to be Antichristian for who can with patience beare so heavie an imputation But the Doctor must beare it and it will stick close to his ribbs till he can remove the reason that inforceth it vpon him To witt that his doctrine tendeth to the upholding of the popish hierarchy aswell as ours and therefore is Antichristian The consequence he impugneth not all his labour is to weaken the Antecedent And first in the detestation thereof he cryeth out God forbid which brought to my minde the saying of Hazael 2. Reg. 8. 13. who when Elisha tolde him of the evill he should doe protesting against it with indignation sayd what is thy servant a dogge that I should doe this great thing and yet for all that he did it And I have heard some in my time crye fie on the Divil when they have done him great service Let vs therefore see whether the D. prayer and doings agree In the popish clergie saith he above Bishops and Archbishops the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as governours of the vniversal Church in in whom the popish â—yerarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth And againe Their government is justly called Antichristian who are his assistantes in this vniversal government The Doctors drift is as it seemeth to free him selfe from defending the popish hierarchy because he mainteyneth not eyther that headship and goverment of the vniversall Church which maketh the Pope to be properly Antichrist or that subordination and assistance vnto him in his headship which maketh the Romish Hierarchy to be properly Antichristian A poore shifte The Doct. hath a poore shift and a silly defence and a silly defence
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
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
Bishop of the City adjoyninge how could they and their people be reputed parts of the Citie-Church or inclosed within her circuite Wherefore since it is confessed serm pag. 24. that Country townes remeined heathenish for a time after the conversion of the Citie it must be confessed also that the Churches circuite at the first did not inclose the Countrie villagies as it did afterwardes Notwithstanding to justify his former assertion he alleadgeth that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a fewe the same Bishop of the City having jurisdiction over all the Christians both in the City and the Country aswell when all were Christians as when but a fewe He would have said that the Bishops which succeeded some ages after in the same City had the same jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country when they were all converted to the faith which the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe in the City Country adjoyning that first yeelded obedience to the Gospell For he acknowledgeth Def. pag. 54. that it could scarce be verified in any place till Constantines time which was above 200. yeares after the Apostle Iohns daies that all the people of City Country were Christians But with what bands can the D. tie togither these parts of his reasoning with what hands can the Doct. tie togither the parts of his reasoning The Bishops in Constantines time and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first Apostolike Bishops had over those fewe that first imbraced Christianity Therefore the circuite of the Church was at the first when they were but fewe the same that it was after when all became Christians Is there not much more probability in this coÌ„sequence The Bishops in Constantines daies and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe which at first imbraced Christianity Ergo the circuite of the Church and Bishops charge was farr lesse whiles there were but a fewe then it was when all the people of City and Country were converted vnto the Christian faith Which of these two hath more probability I leave to the indifferent reader to judge Wherefore till the D. can make good the consequence of his reasoninge all the proofes which he braggeth of for the demonstration of his antecedent the ancientest of them being after the first 300. yeares as appeareth Def. pag. 36. c. doe give just occasion of returning into his owne boosome that definitive sentence which he delivereth against his opposites viz. that the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome since the Apostles times ought without coÌ„parison to prevayle with all men in perswading theÌ„ to acknowledge that every Churches circuite was much inlarged by the generall conversion of all in Cities and Countrey townes above the authority of a fewe self-conceited persons such as the D. and his associates not so singular for learninge as they are singular in opinion when they would make the world beleeve if they could that every Churches circuite was the same at first when but a fewe imbraced the faith that it was after wheÌ„ all the people of City Country were made members of one diocesan Church If the D. shall flie as to a Sanctuary â—o his former evasion viz. that the Châ—câ—â—â—uite contâ—ined at the first both City câ—uÌ„tâ—y in the inteÌ„tioÌ„ of the Apost or first founders I haue enough already said to drive him out of this starting hole unless he caÌ„ provide some better forfication to releeve himselfe in this behalfe But he supposeth that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumptioÌ„ by repairing the breaches which his Refuter had made in the reason which his sermon tendred in defence thereof His words are these whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith the 7. starres were the Angles of the 7. Sect. 18. ad sect 9. pag â—5 56. Churches it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the couâ—tries adjoyning From hence his Refuter drewe this connexive syllogisme answere p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth â—ut 9. and some of them mother cities then they were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the countries adjoyning But our Saiviour c. Ergo Now the D. misliking the frame of this argument referreth him to his former manner of arguing sect 2. pag. 42. 43. where he shewâ—th how this lyllogisme is to be framed and there we find a double proof layd downe in defence of his assumption as he hath now shaped it vz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuite the cities and countries adjoyning the which he affirmeth to be proved first joyntly thus if the 7. Churches within their circuite comprized all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries But the first is true for our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches â—n Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and contayning within their circuite all the rest Concerning the Doct. joyntly let us severally observe first that he concealeth his conclusion secondly that he departeth from the words laid downe in his sermon and thirdly that he followeth not his owne directions giuen for the reducing of an Enthymeme or connexive argument into a simple syllogisme 3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting 1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion the reason is apparant he concludeth not his assumption which is in questioÌ„ For his propositioÌ„ being such as it is vz. that if the 7. Churches comprized within theire circuite all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries his conclusion must be this none other that the 7. Churches did comprize within their circuite all the Churches that were both in the cities and countries of Asia a point farr differing from that which himselfe proposed to prove to wit that the 7. Churches within their circuite conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning that is as himselfe explaineth his owne meaning pag. 52. the circuite of every one of those 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and country adjoyning for the consequence of his proposition as he hath proposed it runneth more currant then it would if he had sayd as he should thus If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuite all the Churches in Asia then every of those 7. Churches conteyned in her circuite the whole citie with the country adjoyning For here a man might very wel deny the coÌ„sequent although he sawe better proof then the D. hath brought for the justifying of the Antecedent 2. But when departeth he froÌ„ the words of his sermon both in the antecedent
to dazell the eyes of the simple or to shew some smal skil in histories He addeth one slender propp borrowed from Theodoret to prove that Colossae was no part of Asia Theodoret saith he being of opinion that Paul had bene at Collossae proveth it because it is said that he went through Phrygia Neyther lâ—t any man object that Paul was forbidden of God Act. 18 for Luke speaketh of Asâ—â— and Bithyniâ— not of Phrygia I graunt that Phrygia was not within S. Lukes Asia and I have proved that it was within S. Iohns Crambo bis imo sepius poâ—â—ta Asia and therefore the Doctors oft bringing in of his lame consequence cannot make him any better but the more loathsome rather And to confute Theodoret if he were more direct for him then he is I could send him to Hierome who in his prologue to the epistle to the Colossians saith Collossenses et hi siâ—â— Laodicenses sunt Asiani Some other authorities also might be added to sway the ballance with the Refuter which accounteth those Churches of Collosse Hierapolis and Troas within the limitts of Asia properly and in Saint Iohns vnderstanding so As touching Magnesia and Trallis his answer is it appeareth not that they were as yet converted to the faith and when they were converted Sect. 23. ad p. 61. 62. they were inferiour to those 7. which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subiect to Ephesus If the Doctor had remembred nowe upon his second thoughts what he spake upon his first or at least wrote in his sermon pag. 62. he would never have vsed this poore shift to make it a quaestion whether A poore shift in the Doctor Magnesia and Trallis were converted to the faith when Iohn wrote his Revelation for there to proove that Onesimus was that Angel of Ephesus to whom Iohn directed his first Epistle he thus reasoneth When Ignatius wrote his Epistle he testifieth that at that time Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus Now he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome as appeareth by his first epistle ad Marium Cassob that is to say betweene the 90. yeare of our Lorde and 99. in the middest of which time the Revelation was given Therefore it may well be supposed that the Angel of the Church at Ephesus to whom the first epistle was directed was Onesimus Yea he buildeth so confidently on this supposall that without any staggering he sayth he is able to shewe that Onesimus was at that time Bishop of Ephesus as the very man whom the Holy Ghost calleth the angel of that Church Defenc. lib. 1 pag. 34. and lib. 4. pag. 40. With a little change the Doctors premisses will serve to justify the Ref against himselfe in this manner When Ignatius wrote his Epistles the Churches of Trallis and Magnesia flourished and enjoyed their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons neyther were any thing inferiour in estimation and honour unto other Churches as appeareth by his Epistles written to them and placed before others Nowe he wrote whiles Clemens was Bishop of Rome that is betwixt the yeare of our Lord 90. and 99. And S. Iohn wrote his Revelation in the yeare 97. Therefore it may well be supposed yea it is so evidently proved that the Doct cannot contradict it that the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis were flourishing Churches when S. Iohn wrote his Revelation 2. But we will not make an advantage to our selves by the D. errour For that which he now affirmeth sc that Ignatius wrote his Epistle a litle before his death is more agreable to the truth if we may beleeve Eusebius to whom the D. in his sermon referreth us for the better confirmatioÌ„ of his assertioÌ„ seing Eusâ—bi Lib. 3. cap. 35. affirmeth that the epistles of Ignatius to the Churches of Ephesus Magnesia Trallis c. were written in his journey towards Rome as he passed through Asia when he was sent thither to be martyred there which fell out by the D. owne account pag. 72. of his serm in the yeare of our Lord 107 but as others think was later to wit in the yeare 109. or 111. See Bucholcer Ind Chrono log Euseb in Chron. yet Nicephorus lib. 3. cap. 2. referreth it to the 3. yeare of Trajane which was at the utmost but 6. yeares after Iohns writing the Revelation Wherefore since it appeareth by Ignatius his epistles to the Churches of Magnesia and Trallis that they were at that time not newly converted as the Doctor intimateth but perfectly established and furnished aswel with Bishops as with other officers as is before noted Let the reader judg whether it be not more likely that those Churches had a beginning at least of their standing at that time then that they were not converted to the faith as the D. would perswade especially seing they were within the Province of Ephesus as he affirmeth which had so many helps to spread the faith of Christ thoughout all the corners thereof that he thinketh it absurd as we sawe before in answ to his 6. section pag. 61. that any man should make any scruple to yeeld that many particular coÌ„gregations were settled before that time within the Diocesan circuite of that Ch of Ephesus For is it not much more likely that Churches should be erected rather in some cities within the Province theÌ„ in some villages within the Diocese and if in any cities what are more likely then these wherof we speak But what shall we say to the last branch of his answere viz. that if they were Churches at that time yet they were both of them subiect to Ephesus These are his words heare we now his proofes and then give him his answere it appeareth saith he by the subscriptions in the councell of Calâ—edon and by the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperor Why doth it there appeare that Magnesia and Trallis at their first conversion were subjected to the Church and Byshop of Ephesus No but it appeareth there that in time of the councill held at Chalcedon and in the dayes of the Emperour Leo both which were at least 350. yeres after Iohns death the Byshops of Magnesia and Trallis were subject to the Byshop of Ephesus as their Metropolitane And he taketh it for granted that what soever Churches were subject to any Metropolitan citie or the Bishop thereof in those times of the Chalcedon councell and of Leo the Emperour they were subject to the Church and Bishop of the same citie from the tyme of their first imbracing the fayth But what The Doct. beggeth of his Refuter in one place what he denieth to himselfe in an other he now taketh for a knowne truth in the next page 63 he sheweth to be an apparaÌ„t falshood for there he affirmeth that Thyatira was in S. Iohns time subject to Pergam ' but in the time of the couÌ„cel of ChalcedoÌ„ subject to Synada in the Emperor Lâ—os dayes subject to Ephesus And in the same Emperours
be fortified by this Enthymeme Those whole cities and countries whose people are generally so â—stranged from the faith that their conversion must be laboured are not diocesan Churches like to ours Therefore neyther they who were appointed over such cities and countries set over diocesan Churches such as ours The Antecedent is a truth so apparant to all the world that it were madnes to contradict it And the consequence is such as I verify think no man of comon sense will ever call it into question As for the Refuters exceptions against the proposition which he had framed for an other purpose they are as the Doctor saith eavils not worth the refuting and yet to shewe his valour he will needes have a fling at them though with shame to himselfe For first for want of just matter of blame he forgeth a false calumniation in in saying That his Refuter absurdly eavilleth with him as if he had sayd that all in the citie and country were in S. Iohns time converted For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this that the Apostles ordeyned Preseyters for such an end as he supposeth yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities the countries adioyning And he backeth it with this reason that the seed of the word in many places was thick sowne but came thin up and the heat of perseeution at that time burnt up the zoale and profession of many Which if it were too weak to justify the exception why doth he not take notice of confute it thinketh he his unpartiall readers will take it for a sufficient refutation to say it is a cavill not worth the refuting The second exception is of more moment because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors owne argument before set downe For the ordeyning of Presbyters for whole cities and countries to labour the conversion of all that in those places belonged to God can never prove that they were appointed to the care and charge of diocesan Churches unlesse there be a necessitie that all which in time were to be converted by their Ministerie should be and remaine members of the same Church with them It shall not be amisle therefore to stay a while upon the examination of that which the Refuter hath sayd to justifie his deniall and the Doct. to mainteyn the affirmation of this necessitie Sect. â— In defense of the negative it was alleadged answ pag. 57 that it is very likely if not certeyne that they of Cenchrea received the gospell from Corinthe for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth for it is called the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply first layeth downe his own opinion touching this matter and then indeavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea out of his refuters handes His owne opinion or rather definitive sentence quast ex cathed a satis pro imperis he delivereth in this maner I say that they whose Ministerie was intended for the conversion of the citie and countrie to their care and charge both for the first conversion of them and government of them being converted the citie and country belonged And the Doctor onely saith it and dareth the Refuter or any of his vnlearned associates contradict it No verily they will rather assent to him so farre as truth and reason grounded on the truth of Gods word will permit them that is kat â—â— in parr but not aploos and in generall for it is most true that the Apostles and Evangelists whose Ministerie was intended eyther to begin or to bring forwards the conversion of any citie and country had the care and charge of the people in those parts aswel for the governing of them whom they did convert as for the labouring of their conversion at the first But how long and how was it for a perpetuitie or for a time onely till they might be furnished with their proper Ministery And when the faith spread it self from any of those cheife cities which first enterteyned it into the townes adjoyning that with such increase that the number of beleevers in those places were sufficient to make two or moe Churches or congregations did they all remaine still parts of one Church and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversie wherefore if the Doctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative he should haue plainly contradicted the refuter and sayd there was a necessitie that all which were brought to the faith in any city and country adjoyning by the labours of any appointed for their conversion should remayn though never so many or farre distaÌ„t meÌ„bers of the citie-Church which first enterteyned the gospell Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proofe then his bare word I say it to conclude this necessitie And it was not easy for him to yeeld any sound reason for the justifying of such an assertion in wisdome therefore he judged it better to say and affirme that which though it beleffe pertinent yet might seeme more reasonable viz. that such as were converted by their labours that were appointed to indeavor their conversion should submit themselves to be governed by them and in stead of yeilding any pregnant demonstration to confute his Refuters exception to make a shewe of removing that which was alleadged by him To this purpose he addeth that though Cenchrea be called a Church yet was it not such a Church as we now speak of indued with power of ecclesiasticall government but subiect to the â—urâ—sliction of the Church of Corinthe Thus he faith but hath he any other reason then such as before I say it to shewe the subjection of Cenchrea to the Church of Corinthe No surely for though he often reiterateth this affirmation pag. 46. 105. 129. yet his best proofe is most certeynly so it was I doubt not therefore but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost equalling the beleevers in Cenchrea and those in Corinth with the same name calling the one the Church in Cenchrxa the other the Church in Corinthe Rom. 16. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. will argue our assertion to be more probable when we say they were distinct Churches alike indued with power of ecclesiasticall government then his denyall that hath no other confirmation then I say it or so it was for what authoritie hath he eyther to subordinate one to another or to confine in one ecclesiasticall body those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches Thus much for his Proposition his Assumption coÌ„meth now to Sect. 6. 2d pag. 65. be examined which he saith is confirmed by two arguments the one the end intended by the Apostles in appointing Presbyters in cities which was the conversion of the nation for which themselves first preached in the cheife
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
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
follow that every diocesaÌ„ Bishop ought to have a Presbyterie not one Presbyter onely to every Church that should grow up in his Diocese If he shall say that the Apostles charge of ordeyning many Presbyters for one Church was limited to cities is it not in effect to deny that the Apostle gave them any direction for diocesan Bishops how to furnish the Churches of their diocese But was the Apostles care onely for cities and not for country-townes Or did he appoint the Bishop and Presbyters of cities to labour the conversion of the townes and villages and yet give them no instrustioÌ„ how to settle a Ministerie amoÌ„g them must diocesan Bishops fetch their patterne for the right way of establishing particular Churches within their Diocese from Damasus his pontificall and the practise of Euaristus and Dyonisius that were Bishops of Rome and not from the writings of the Apostles If it must needs be so yet how shall this one poore sentence Presbyteris Romae titulos divisit Euaristus give warrantiâ—e unto these assertions 1. That each title was a distinct Church 2. That each title had one onely Presbyter and no more assigned to it 3. that those Presbyters were as he saith serm pag. 46. â—0 Pastors severed from the Bishop as no part of his presbyterie that assisted him in his Diocesan government 4. That besides those presbyters so distributed to their cures there were others which remayned with the Bishop as assistants unto him in the Mother-church Till these particulars be supported with better proofes then yet the Doctor hath produced I doubt not but the discreete reader will see he was ledd by prejudice rather then by any sound reason whoÌ„ he pronounced it an undisgested sancie to affirme that as every particular Church in the Apostles times had so now it ought to have a presbyterie to governe it But say he could prove by invincible arguments that the Sect. 12. parish-assemblies which are multiplied in every Diocese ought to have one onely presbyter and not a presbyterie as the first churches had which were planted in cities by the Apostles how will he ever be able to make good that difference which he putteth betweene the presbyters of parish Churches and the presbyterie of the mother-Mother-church when he giveth to the later and denieth to the former the dutie of labouring the conversion of all that eyther in citie or country remaine estranged from the faith It is before observed that in his conceit the presbyters of Ephesus were placed by S. Paul to indeavor the conversion of all Asia as farre as they were able and yet neverthelesse he giveth to the severall presbyteries of other cities as Smyrna Pergamus Thyatira c. the charge of converting all within their Diocese Now if the generall charge of the whole nations conversion first cast upon the presbyterie of one cheife citie be no barre against the presbyters of other cities to deny them the like charge for the rest of each citie and country adjoyning why should the Diocesan charge of any presbyterie in any one citie debarre the presbyters established in couÌ„trey townes that imbrace the gospell before some others from indeavoring the conversion of the rest in the same towne and the hamlett adjoyning If he have any testimonie divine or humane ancient or moderne to justify this difference why doth he overpasse them in silence If he have none is it not as indisgested a fancie as ever was broached by a man of learning And to come to our owne times since there is in many Dioceses great scarcity of able Teachers and the Doctor is perswaded that without the word preached men ordinarily cannot atteyne to salvation no nor yet to any degree thereof in this life viz. neyther to an effectuall vocation nor to justification or sanctification as he teacheth elsewhere serm of the dignitie and ductie of the Ministers pag. 27. I would faine knowe who there are that stand charged by office and dutie to labour the vocation of such as have not any able preacher set over them Whether the Bishop and his presbyterie or the preachers that are licensed for the Diocese or the Idol-ministers onely that have charge of soules in those places coÌ„mitted to them For why should not the Bishop Presbyterie stand charged with the office and duetie of labouring their vocation at this day if it did of old belong to their office to work out the conversion of such as remayned in unbeleefe and yet why should they beare the burthen of this work since there are many other preachers authorized for the Diocese and the Idol-ministers are by their institution to their benesices as deeply charged with the care of souls in their places as any of the mostable preachers Againe if all licenced preachers ought in dutie to lend their help for this work how shall this dutie of labouring to reduce vnbeleevers to the saith distinguish the office of the ancient Presbyters first ordeyned by the Apostles from the function charge of Ministers which now are allotted to their severall Cures but if the cure of souls which is coÌ„mitted to such Idols doe discharge all others froÌ„ the bond of this dutie how shall the people vnder their charge be brought vnto salvation It coÌ„meth to my remembrance at length that the Doctor saith our divines in the vniversities are ordeyned as the first Presbyters were to the nationall Church in coÌ„mon before they be assigned to their peculiar titles or cures serm pag. 50. in the Margin shall the burthen of this work relie on their shoulders I hope that in his next defense he will clearely resolve us of these doubtes meane while he must give both Refuter and Reader I think leave to think that the office and charge of our Ministers now affixed to their cures is altogither the same with the charge of those preaching Elders which were planted in the first Apostolical Churches to feed the slock that dependeth on theÌ„ Acts 20. 28. 1. pet 5. 2. that the conversion of Insidels then was none otherwise a work of the office of those Presbyters then it is the dutie of our Ministers now to labour the vocatioÌ„ of those which in parishes adjoyning to theÌ„ doe want the ordinarie meanes of their salvation The proposition therefore and the assumption of his first argument before propounded sect 4. being found weak and destitute of any stay sufficient to uphold them we are now to see if his second argument be of any more worth to inferre that conclusioÌ„ which he indeavoureth to justify viz. that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 3. Removing the second argument proposed by the Doctor to prove that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed Sect. 1. â—d Sect. 3. cap. 4. pag. 68. serm pag. 18. unto Dioceses and not to Parishes His second argument Mr Doctor himself hath thus framed When the Churches were not diuided into several Parishes
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
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-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
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
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
who is your Teacher he doth affirm that Epaphroditus is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians vers 25. because he was their Byshop or Pastor In like manner touching Ambrose how loosely dooth he reason Ambrose saith that the Apostles mencioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephe. 4. 11. were Bishops Ergo in saying that Epaphroditus was by the Apostle made their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. he meaneth that he was affixed and limited to the Episcopall charge of that Church in like sort as the later Bishops were and for that cause called their Apostle Nay rather it followeth from Ambrose his wordes that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinitie with the Apostleship I meane in this that he had onely a temporarie overfight of that Church as the Apostle himself had before during the time of his aboade there And this hath confirmation from the wordes that follow which the Doctor was wise enough to conceale his whole speach is this Erat enim corum Apostolus ab Apostclo factus dum illum in exhortationerie eorum mittebat ad eos quia vir bonus erat desiderabatur a plebe Where note he was desyred of the people not because he was their Pastor but because he was a good man and was now sent vnto them by the Apostle and so made their Apostle for their present instruction or exhortation not to take perpetuall charge of them for as afterwardes he saith in vers 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss he was necessary for many other Churches as one that yeilded solisium er auxilium both comfort help to the Apostle By all which it appeareth that in Ambrose his judgment Epaphroditus by his ministeriall function was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop There remaineth Theodoret whose wordes make the fairest shewe for him yet are they not so full as he pretēdeth for that which he saith in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed c. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist seing they had a temporary charge of some one or moe Churches committed to them Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properlie episcopall and such as now is controverted Yea the Doctor himself doth so vnderstand Theodoret when he faith in 1. Tim. 3. that those who now are called Bishops were at the first called Apostles and that thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the philippians c. For he gathereth from Theodorets testimony conferred with some wordes of Ierom Def. lib. 4. pag. 72. that the first Bishops so reputed were Apostles and Apostolike men that is Evangelists and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remained none were chosen our of the Presbyters to the office of a Bishop whence it followeth that Epaphroditus in Theodorets judgment is called an Apostle not because he was a Bishop but for that he was an Apostolicall man or Evangelist Wherefore it is but a vayn bragge of Mr. D. 1. to conclude as he doth pag 67. that all the Authors which he cited give testimony with his exposition And 2. to ask with what face his Refut could deny it For although he hath face enough to affirme whatever may seem to advantage his cause and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed yet the truth will discover it selfe to them that with an upright eye search after it to their shame that seek to deface it Now whereas he addeth that his authors before mencioned Sect. 7. ad sect 13. p. 68. doe all goe against the interpretation of the word Apostolos which his Refuter bringeth he saith no more but what his Refuter had before acknowledged His Authors were produced not to confute his Refurer before he sawe his answer but to justify his owne collectiō from the words of the Apostle which since he cannot effect he shal doe best not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions especially seing in such a case as this when Interpreters doe varie about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture the judgment of the indifferent Reader must be swayed neyther by the number yeares or learning of the parties but by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they doe best accordeth with the circumstances of the text it selfe and with the use of the word or phrase in other places Wherefore the Refuter though he mencion the names of some which imbrace his interpretation yet grounded himselfe rather upon the probability of reason then the creditt of their testimony Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himselfe to reject so lightly as he doth the judgment of Mr. Beza and Piscator in saying they are asmuch parties in this cause as the refuter himselfe For if it be true he hath wronged Beza in affirming that in the question of Diocesan Churches and Bishops he goeth with him and against his Refuter Lib. 1. pag. 48. and Lib. 2. pag. 140. Lib. 3. pag. 11. and that he is so farr from condemning the A contradiction government of Bishops reteyned in other reformed Churches that he wished withall his hart that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva the episcopall government had bin reteyned for so he sayth Lib 4. pag. 161. 166. but it is no strange thing to the observant reader to find the Doctor very often in this contradicting fault amongst others Let us see what he answereth to the reasons that were delivered to prove the Refuters construction the more likely viz. that Epaphroditus is called their Apostle or rather Messenger because he was sent by the Philippians in their stead to minister unto the Apostle Paul The first reason hath two braunches 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. doe shewe how he ministred unto him 2. the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthes benevolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuitie frō the Philippiās to Paul c. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians 2. but he saith it is vnlikely that eyther he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard And why unlikely is not that interpretation mostly likely which best agreeth both with the parts of the same scripture and with the vse of the word or phrase in other places And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct Let them be compared together and sentence given with the truth First touching Epaphroditus that he was their Imbassadour or Messenger to the Apostle Paul the evidence alleadged by the Refuter from the same verse and cap. 1. 18. is so pregnant that the Doct. cannot deny it yea he
single out an other if the cheife care of that whole Church and the oversight of all Bishops or Ministers that there laboured in the Gospell were the standing right and singular prerogative of Epaphroditus And till the Doctor hath yeilded some stronger probabilities for his assertion then are yet seene I nothing doubt but the indifferent reader will see and acknowledge that from the text it selfe we have more reason to denie then he hath to give to Epaphroditus the singular superiority of a diocesan Bishop in the Church of Philippi Secondly concerning those brethren that were sent with Titus to the Corinthians since the principall ende of their Embassage was to stirre up those of Corinthe to make ready their benevolence for the poore Saintes at lerusalem 2. Cor. 8. 6. 24. 9. 3. 5. it is not likely that the Apostle Paul would be the author or approver of applying in this service any that were affixed as Bishops to the selted charge of particular Churches especially seing there was at that time store of others that accompanied the Apostle in his traveiles and might better be spared as having no setled imployment in any one place Moreover it may be probablie if not necessarily gathered from the Apostles description of those men that they were Evangelistes rather then Bishops Of the one he saith 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. his praise is in the gospell throughout all the Churches and not that onely but he was chosen also of the Churches to be suntcdemos bemoon our fellow-traveiler or companion in our journey c. And of the other vers 22. We have oftentimes proved him to be diligent or carefull in many thinges c. But there is not one word that intimateth any bande whereby they were tied to the selted charge of any particular Church or Churches much less can it be gathered from the Scriptures that they had the singular preheminence of diocesan Bishops Wherefore leaving the Doctor to his meditation upon these considerations let us proceed to some other particulars urged by him to justifye the title of his 3. chapter viz. that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops Chapt. 5. Shewing that the supposed Bishopprick of the Apostle Iames is not supported but contradicted by the scriptures which the Doct. alleadgeth And mainteyning the Refuters reasons produced to prove that he receyved not the episcopall power or function by any ordinatiō from his fellows Apostles bandled by the D. serm pag. 62. c. Def. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. and the Res pag. 131. 132 c. THe Doct. 3. argument is thus propounded pag. 65. of his sermon Sect. 1. ad cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 48. 49. The Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops and committed the Churoches vnto them Therefore the opiscopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution First touching the consequence because the Refuter sayd it was too nere a neighbour to the proving of idem per idim venlesse by ordination we understand the deputing of persons to that Church and by institution the appointing of the calling it self the Doct. thinketh he did him wrong to think he would commit so grosse a fault as to prove the same by the same seing he could not but discerne that he argueth from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function But had not the Refuter trow ye reason to doubt of the Doctors meaning doth he not serm pag. 92. take both these assertions for one and the same viz. that the episcopall function is of divine institution and that Bishops were ordeyned of God For if they be not one in the D. apprehension how shall the direct proofe of the latter be a direct proof of the former But since he now testifieth that he argueth from the ordination to the institution I will so vnderstand him In that which followeth I cannot but commend his honest and plaine dealing for beholding an oversight in the Ref when in this sense he acknowledgeth the consequence to be good he himself vndertaketh to lay open the weaknes of it and confesseth freely that a just exception may be taken against it viz. that though the Apostles ordeyned the persōs yet Chirst instituted the function for that is the judgment of many of the Fathers and among the rest of Cyprian who Lib. 3. ep 9. saith that our L. himself ordeyned Apostles that is to say Bishops Whereto I say that we are beholding to the Doct. that teacheth us to impugne his owne argument and now since by his owne confession the consequence is not good he must be beholding to us if we permit it to passe without check for in deed it is a cleare case that the ordination of persons cannot prove the function it self to be instituted of them that give the persons their ordination And here by the way the reader may see how lightly the D. esteemeth the judgment of the Fathers in this very question wherin he relieth most upō their testimonie For if al those Fathers which affirm the Bps to be the Apostles successors that the two degrees of Bps or Presbyters doe answer to the degrees of the Apostles 72 disciples c. doe hold the episcopall functiō to be Christs owne ordinance as here he confesseth and if they that thus teach be so many so ancient vnsuspected and approved that it cannot be denied but the calling and superiority of Bishops togither with the inferiour degree of Presbyters is of Christs owne institution as he concludeth lib. 3. p. 32. how cōmeth it to passe that the Doctor hath the forehead eo deny it and mainteyne so stifly as he doth that The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the episcopall function was instituted by the Apostles Thinketh he to salve this difference by saying as he he doth that of this matter he will not contend when as yet he contendeth very earnestly to make good his assertion yea he boasteth lib. 3. pag. 24. that he hath with such evidence demōstrated the calling of Bishops described in his sermon to be of Apostolicall institution as he is wel assured his Refuter with all his partakers will never be able soundly substācially to confute Perhaps his best evidēce is yet behind for hitherto we have seene nothing that carrieth any such weight with it that the Refuter should neede to call for any help of his partakers to remove it let us therefore attend on the proofe of his Antecedent which he vndertaketh to effect by shewing the time when the places where and the persons whome the Apostles ord yned Bishops Concerning the time the Doctor putteth a difference between Sect. 2. ad sect 2. p3 49. 50. the Church at Ierusalem and the rest For there because shortly after Christs passion a great nomber were converted to the faith and because it was the Mother-Church vnto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini ordeyned Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the Mother-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
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