A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath

CHAP. 4. That Presbyters were appointed, not to parishes, but to dioceses.

T He Analysis of the 2. argument is mistaken by him, to say no worse: for he should have looked to the end of that, which though he make the 3. section, should have been joined to the 2. Where he should have found this to be the main conclusiō of all that which followeth the first argument (concerning the 7. churches), to that place. viz. That the Presbyteries in the Apostles times, were not appointed to parishes, but to dioceses. From whence the principal question of this part, is thus to be inferred. The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes, but Dioceses: therefore the churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government were not parishes, but dioceses. This consequence the refuter grāteth, in grāting the connexiue propositiō of the syllogism, which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not, it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption, viz. to visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed.

The antecedēt (which is also the propositiō of the syllogism if the assumption be added) I prove by 2. arguments. The first concluding thus:

This propositiō I omitted also, as taking it for granted. As for his cavils against his own proposition which he framed for the nonce to cavil withal, they are not worth the refuting. For besides that he absurdly cavilleth with me, as though I had said, that all in the city & country were in S. I • bus time converted: he allegeth that

But I spake of them which did accidentally convert others, but of such as by whose means the conversion of the city and country was originally intended. And I say, that they whose ministry was intended for the conversion of the city and country; to their care or charge, both for the first converting of thē, & government of thē being converted, the city & country belōged. As for Cenchreae, though it be called a church, (as every company of Christians may so be termed) yet it was not such a church as they speak of, endued with power of ecclesiastical government; but subject to the jurisdiction of the Church of Corinth.

Now followeth the assumption:

This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments, is set down p. 18. 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 chief cities: the other, is the 〈◊〉 , or as they call it causa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their hope, by the ministry of the Presbyters placed in the city, to convert them which belonged to God both in city & country, grounded on the force of the gospel restified by our Savior. The words are these: for it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any 〈◊〉 , they first preached to the chief cities thereof▪ Wherein when through God's blessing they had converted some, their manner was to ordain Presbyters▪ hoping by their ministry to convert not only the rest of the city but also in the countries adjoining so many as did belong to God. The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leaven, which being put into any part of the 〈◊〉 , seasoneth all.

These words thus set down at large, be the assumption of the syllogism which he hath framed (for what cannot he bring within the compass of his syllogisms?) and thereof he maketh 3. parts. About the first, he saith, he will not strive, viz. the Apostles beginning to p • each in the chief cities of every nation, which (though he think I cannot prove) is most easy to be proved, because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conversion of nations: as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures & other ancient records, that they took that course: As Paul intēding the conversion of Asia, where he stayed three years, continued in Ephes • s all the time: intending the conversion of Macedonia, went to Thessalonica & Philippi: of Achaia, to Corinth &c. The second also he frankly yieldeth, that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had converted some to the truth. But the 3, which is indeed the assumption it self, and which is inferred on the former as I set them down (that if the Apostles intending the conversion of the nation, as they began themselves to preach in the chief cities, so they placed Presbyters to the same intent, hoping by them to convert both city and country: then were they appointed and it was their duty to labor the conversion of all belonging to God both in city and country) the assumption, I say, it self he doth deny, saying,

By which few words the deep wisdom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded. 1. They conceive that churches in the first constitution of thē when there were but a few converted, and before parishes were distinguished, were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted, all being converted to the profession of the faith, & parishes distinguished, pastors being severally assigned to certain particular ordinary set congregations. 2. That the flock over which they were set, was only that number of Christians already converted, and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God. But our Savior calleth the elect not converted his sheep. And the Lord in Corinth had much people, when but a few were as yet converted. 3. That their proper office was to attend them only which were already converted, & not to labor the conuersiō of the rest. As though the Apostles intended by their ministry the conversion and salvation of no more, then of those few which at the first were converted. But for the better manifestation of their wisdom, they shall give me leave to appose them with a few questions. The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained, were they not ministers of the word? Calvin confesseth it; and if you should deny it, I have manifestly proved that they were not lay, nay that there were not any lay presbyters. Were not the presbyters many? in some places more, in some fewer, according to the proportion of the cities, or countries where they were placed? were these many Presbyters (who at the first were sometimes as many, as those who were besides converted, the Apostles conveying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit, on them whom they had first converted, who thereby were enabled for the ministry, as Acts 19.6.) Were they, I say, being many, intended only to attend that small number which at the first was converted? Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters, when few others were converted, intend the conversion of more then those few? and was it not their office the • to labor their conversion? If they were not to labor their conversion, how were they to be converted? Nay if they did not labor it, how were they converted? Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flock, or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishoppe; the rest being his assistants, as the Presbytery? When therefore more were converted then could well assemble together in one ordinary congregation, were not the congregations divided? Upon this division was there a Bishoppe and presbytery assigned to every several congregation, or only a Presbyter; the Bishoppe assisted with his Presbyterie having a general superintendencie over all, not only to attend those who were already converted, but also to procure the conversion of the rest; and still as people in diverse places were converted, to furnish them with a Presbyter, and to guide and govern both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to be a several Church, and his institution to be their Minister. To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the division of parishes and after, that as either before there was over one congregation a Bishoppe and presbytery, so there should after to every particular congregation be assigned a Bishoppe and presbytery: or after, as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their several charges was to attend them; so before the Bishoppe and presbytery should have been provided properly for that number alone which was converted, and they should not have thought it to belong to their charge, to seek or to labor the conversion of the residue: I say, to think this, argueth the parish-disciplinarians to be of shallow judgment, and the parish-discipline to consist of vnd • sgested fancies.

Upon the proposition therefore and the assumption before propounded, this conclusion notwithstanding all his cauills, doth follow:

The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proved may thus be framed:

The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and evident truth: for when there were no parishes distinguished, how could the Presbyters be assigned to several parishes? And if they were appointed to labor the conversion of all which belonged to God, both in city and country, how were they not appointed to dioceses? For can he think, that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country, and which after also were converted, belonged to one parish? Is it not evident, that after their conversion they were divided into many both in city and country? And what though at the very first all the Christians in the city and country, if they had been assembled together, would have made but a small congregation? were they therefore of one parish before there was any parish at all? Was not the circuit of the Church, as before hath been proved, and of the Bishop and Presbyteries charge, the same in purpose and intention at the first, when they were but a few, which it was afterwards in execution, when all were converted?

The assumption also is that which the Refuter himself holdeth, that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostles times. Howbeit, I except the Church of Alexandria, as after you shall hear. But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both, yet he wrangleth with both, and as a man confounded, yet resolved to contradict, though against the light of his conscience, he denieth the conclusion, and contradicteth himself.

The proposition after his perpetual manner, he propoundeth connexiuely: If the parishes were not distinguished, &c. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes, &c. The force of the connection, as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses, he suppresseth, leaving out the words of greatest force, viz. that they were appointed to labor the conversion of those that belong to God, so far as they should be able, both in the city, and in the countries adioining. And as it inferreth that they were not appointed to parishes, he answereth not: only he maketh a flourish with the show of regestion; which kind of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus. Howsoever the world goeth, the consequence must be denied: that is resolved upon, though he have nothing to oppose against it. Yes he hath two things to oppose; the first a question,

As if he should say, What if the main question between us be true, in that part which we hold, viz. that the Churches were parishes, and not dioceses? Where are you then? Why, but I prove they were not parishes, because the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes, but to dioceses. And come you now with this question, What if they were? Yea but I will prove they were. You will need your proofs in a fitter place. Yea but in the mean time I disprove your consequence. You will say something perhaps to blear the eyes of the simple: but you do not indeed deny, and much less do you disprove the consequence. The denial of the consequence were this: Though it be supposed that parishes were not distinguished, and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conversion of all both in City and Country; yet it doth not follow, that they were appointed to dioceses, and not to several parishes: and not this, nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish. This is to deny the main conclusion which is already proved. Yea but the proof of this denial disprooueth your consequence. The consequent perhaps, which is the conclusion, but the consequence it cannot, without supposing as it doth not, those things which are supposed in the proposition, thus: Though there were no parishes, yet they were assigned to parishes: though they were appointed both for City and Country, yet they were not appointed for dioceses. You deny therefore, as a man amazed, the main conclusion: the consequence of the proposition you touch not.

But let us see how he disproueth the conclusion, though his argument come out of time, and be here used only for a poor shift. It may thus be framed:

First, I deny the proposition, not only because the circuit of the Churches (in the Apostles intention) was not included within a City, as of the French and Duch Churches with us; but chiefly because the French Church (for example) in London is but one Church, among many professing the same religion, being a certain and set number, having a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men, placed among us, not with purpose to convert either the City or Country to them, but to attend them of their own Church; whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times, before the division of parishes, were not each of them one among many, but were planted among heathen people, having a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them, as leaven is put into the lump, with purpose to convert the rest both in City and Country. The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it, was Matrix Ecclesia, as after it was called, begetting other Churches and spiritual Fathers for them; which being begotten in City and Country, were all (even when the whole City and Country were filled with her offspring) to be subordinate and subject to her, as their mother. But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among us.

As touching the assumption, I say, that the French and Duch Churches with us are not properly parishes, nor such as the ancient parishes were, after the first division of them, seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes, either of them being endued with power of ecclesiastical government, and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof, but being entire bodies by themselves are models (as it were) of diocesan Churches, having a Presbytery (as the Church of Geneva hath) to supply the want of a Bishop, which once they had, and still might have, in imitation of the ancient Christians, who when the City where they dwelt was replenished, and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith, (as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria) as ours be with men of another Language, had a Bishop of their own in all respects like other Bishops, saving that they held not the Mother Church, and therefore had neither the like Clergy, nor the like revenues to maintain them.

The second thing which he opposeth, is (as I said) a show of regestion: which he propoundeth with great confidence, as if he had me at no small advantage saying,

You see how brag he would seem to be. But good sir, what is this to my consequence? If there were no parishes in the Apostles times, then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes. You answer, If there were no parishes, then there were no dioceses. To what end is this spoken? To deny my consequence, or the main conclusion? Assume, But you say there were no parishes, therefore there were no dioceses; which is the contradictory to the main conclusion. But where do I say there were no parishes? Not in the proposition, where it is only supposed; but in the assumption: for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition, is positively set down in the assumption. Therefore when he would seem to deny the consequence of the proposition, he doth not so much as touch it. But by taking a supposed advantage, against the Assumption, he denieth the principal conclusion.

But let us examine his argument. If there were no parishes in the Apostles times, there were no Dioceses. This consequence I deny. For the Diocese was the same before the Parishes were divided and after. And the circuit of the spiritual jurisdiction intended the same before parishes were divided, with that it was after they were divided, that is answerable to the civil. The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention, before all were converted, and in execution after all were converted, which belonged to the civil state, Yea, but saith he; every Diocese consisteth of distinct Parishes. It is true after the distinction of Parishes, but not before, as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaves after the distinction, which before it contained vndistinguished in the lump. A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished, which at his first conception were not distinct.

The Proposition being thus recovered out of his hands, J am now to rescue the Assumption. Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into parishes, &c. Which is to be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as true of the most Churches. Here I expect a direct answer. were they divided into parishes, or were they not? If they were (as at Alexandria it seemeth to have been, even in the Apostles times) then was not every Church but one parish: if they were not, then the Presbyters were not assigned to several parishes, and so the assumption is true. Nay, rather then the assumption shall go for currant, we will deny each Church to have been but a parish. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction, as that he should not care so he may gainsay his adversaries present assertion, how shamefully he contradicteth himself? yet thus it fareth with our refuter. In oppugning the proposition he said, and labored to prove it, that each church was but one parish, the same he saith, and saith again, in defending their objections, & propounding his own only argument.

They be his words in the conclusion of his answer to the assumptiō. And the same he repeateth, pag. 71.

But let us see what he objecteth against the assumption.

, and (therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition) the which though he call an error, yet I proved to be an evident truth, and discovered the shallownes of their judgment, which do deny it. Besides that error, he chargeth the main points in the assumption as altogether void of truth. The points are these: 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their several titles or cures: 3. that they were in common to attend the whole flock converted. For that which is added of laboring the conversion of the residue, &c. is the error forsooth which before he noted. How proveth he these points to be false? Thus: And then putteth the like case of a school, himself being worthy to be put into a cloak-bag. For in which of these points doth this orderly & vnconfounded man, note such disorder and confusion? or was not the confused conceit he speaketh of, in his own brain? Let him call to mind what even now he said in oppugning the proposition; Tell me then, is the French or Duch Church in London distinguished either of them into several parishes, which is the first point? If they be, how are they but one Parish? Are their ministers, supposing them to be as he saith many, (as there were many Presbyters in the Apostles times in each Church before the division of the parishes) are they assigned to several titles, that is, parishes or cures? If their Church be not divided into diverse parishes, how can their Presbyters be assigned to diverse? which is the 2. point. Thirdly, do not their ministers communi consilio & mutuo auxilio, by common counsel and mutual help attend their whole flock, none of them being appointed to a several charge? And yet all this (I hope) without disorder or confusion. That therefore which he bableth in the greatest part of the page, concerning disorder and confusion, is wholly to be ascribed to his own distemper and confusion.

Yea, but

. So saith S. Luke, Act. 20.28. What of that? if they were to attend the whole flock in common, then were they not assigned to several parishes, which were but parts of the flock, to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted. Either of whom? he had mentioned none but S. Luke only. But let that pass. For to what purpose doth he ask, whether Luke said, that a flock was anymore then one assembly? If the flock were but one assembly, that which I proposed is the more confirmed. For if they were to attend all one assembly, thē were they not assigned to several parishes. But yet I would have him know, that the word flock, the word ecclesia or church which there, & the word people, which in other places is used as a word of the same signification, is of a larger extēt then to signify only one assembly. The flock is that, for which Christ the good shepherd did give his life; unto which appertained the sheep which his father gave him, not only among the Jews, but the Gentiles also. And this flock is that Church which God (meaning Christ, who is God) in that place of the Acts is said to have redeemed with his blood, & that people of his which he saveth frō their sins. And as this is spoken of the Church in general; so the company of them that belong to Christ, in any Nation, Province, Diocese, City or Parish, may be called the Flock, the Church, the people of God. Neither do I doubt, for the reasons before alleged, but that the flock in which those Presbyters, Act. 20. were set as overseers, was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus, and the Country adjoining, where he saith, I confess it is beyond the compass of my reading, who never read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , applied to fowls, but have found the word used properly for a flock of sheep, and metaphorically for the flock of Christ's sheep; but that flock is not one only particular congregation. For Luke 12.32. John 10.16. as touching the word Ecclesia, which he denieth to signify any other outward company of men, then a particular congregation only, I have already said more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast. But hear his conclusion: This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance, until as you have seen him deny it before, so you shall see him again and again to deny it. Jn the mean time I beseech you how is it inferred? If the word Church signify only a particular congregation, (and such a one was that flock in which the Presbyters were set, Act. 20.28.) therefore there is no truth in the assumption which denieth the parishes to have been distinguished, and the Presbyters assigned to their several titles or cures. Who seeth not, that the contrary is to be inferred? If the word Church did signify one congregation, and was in every City but one, and if such was the flock which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common, then it followeth that the flock was not divided into particular parishes, nor the Presbyters assigned to several cure • . And so the assumption by his own inference is proved to be true.

This and thus weakly, saith the refuter, hath M.D. proved the point of so great importance: And thus and thus stongly, say I, hath our refuter disproved it. Now let the judicious Reader judge, whether my weakness hath not been of sufficient force to overthrow his strength.

CHAP. V. Answering their objection, who say, that in the first two hundred years, all the Christians in each great City, were but one particular congregation, assembling in one place.

N Ow we are to examine their proofs. And first, that which I objected for them, and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himself.

Here the refuter chargeth me, that

Thus makes he no conscience, either of belying me, who only intended to answer that, which I took to be their chief objection, and had of late been most urged: or of outfacing the truth with vaunts of diverse testimonies and reasons, which are scarce worth the answering; blaming also me for bringing but one reason for them, when himself after all his brags, bringeth but one, and that not so strong, though you add thereto the testimonies which he vaunteth of.

In the objection, which J bring for them, he putteth such confidence, that if he can make it good against me (whereof he doubteth not, such is his tried valor) all my

No doubt he would appear to be some tall man, if he durst show his head. But let us hear his dispute: for he hath taken the objection out of my hands, because I did not urge it strongly for them, objecting no more then J knew myself able to answer: and yet all that he addeth is but loss of time in multiplying of words.

First, he premiseth a syllogism concluding the main question, that the Churches in the Apostles times (he should have added as I did, and the age following, for themselves in their question include two hundred years) were not dioceses properly, but parishes.

But if this proposition have no better hypothesis to support it, I may deny it: seeing I have proved before, that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes. So that the addition of this syllogism hath made his cause somewhat worse then it was before.

The assumption is th ••• r ••• d :

The former syllogism for brevity I omitted, desiring in few words to bring their argument to the issue, presuming that any man might from my conclusion deduce the main question, after this manner:

The second which containeth the issue, I propounded as forcibly as he hath done. But my adversary is one of those disputers, who when the consequence of an Enthymeme is denied, make it good by a connexiue syllogism. When as an Enthymeme, for disputation, is by so much better then a connexiue syllogism, by how much it is shorter: the consequence being the same with the connection of the proposition, the antecedent all one with the assumption, and the consequent the very same with the conclusion of the connexiue syllogism. Such disputers are good to waste paper, and spend time.

But to the point. I deny, as before, both the consequence and the antecedent of the Enthymeme ; so now, both the proposition and the assumption of his syllogism. The proof of the consequence he slubbereth over, for his faculty is better in denying consequences, then in proving of them.

But I have proved that it is an undigested fancy & rare conceit of shallow (if not giddy) heads, which see no further then their nose end, to imagine that the Apostles intending (as they cannot deny) the conversion of the city and country, did place in the city a Bishop and Presbytery, to take charge only of that small number which at the first was converted; but chiefly from hence to infer, that every particular parish should have the like B • shop and Presbytery. The ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles intent as I expound the same. And therefore when all both in city and country, were converted to the profession of the faith, they acknowledged the general care and inspection over them all, to belong to that one B • shop of the city, and themselves as I said in the Sermon, to be part of that Church: and never did, unless it were in time of schism or heresy, set up another B. and Presbytery within the diocese: but every congregation contented it self with a learned Presbyter, if it could be so well provided for. And this is so manifest a truth, that I doubt not to pronounce him void either of a sound judgment, or good conscience, that shall deny it. This consequence therefore will never be made good. And therefore the Refuter might have saved his labor if it were ought worth, which he spendeth upon the assumption, until he had proved the proposition.

Yea but this consequence belike might have been made stronger. For

I mislike not his addition of the towns about, so he will be pleased, as he addeth them to strengthen his consequence, so not to forget (as I doubt he will) to take them into the defense of his antecedent. But where he speaketh of his digging deeper; others as good Pioners as he, to undermine the state of our Church, went no deepeer: and I durst not add more to their antecedent, as he hath done, lest I should make it too absurd.

But what meaneth that parenthesis,

I fear to be circumvented with this inclosure. Belike there were more congregations then one in the cities and towns (as he said before Cenchrea was a distinct Church from Corinth) and then, how shall all both in city and country, be said to be but one congregation? Tush, we have a bush for that gap. We will except all other congregations but that one, and so they being excepted, all will be but one. Ridiculum caput! As if you had said, all the congregations of Christians both in city and country were but one, unless there were more then one. I promise you you have digged well, and have hedged your ditch with a strong enclosure. But why had you not the like hedge or wall rather for the city? (unless there were distinct Churches in the city) for then all had been cockesure. This hedge for the towns, and this wall for the city, would have sufficiently fenced the antecedent. But then the consequence had been ridiculous: and as it is now propounded, (with this inclosure in the antecedent) is altogether as weak as it was before. For to what purpose are the towns added, if the parishes be excepted? And by this inclosure the antecedent it self is bewrayed of falsehood. For if there were in the city and country more distinct Churches, or parishes, (as here is supposed) and these all subordinate to one (as I have manifestly proved before) then all these will make a diocese. I say therefore again, that though their antecedent were true, yet the consequence were to be denied.

The reason whereby I disprove the Antecedent, is by the Refuter framed after his fashion, and propounded at large. It shall suffice to turn his proposition into an Enthymeme; thus: The number of the Christians in the greatest Cities was very great, (he should have said, greater then could ordinarily meet in one assembly) the times such for persecution, as would not permit them ordinarily to meet in great multitudes, and the places of their meeting private and vncapeable of any great multitude, (I say such multitudes:)

Therefore in the first two hundred years, all the Christians in any great City (and the towns about, which he should have added) did make more then one particular congregation ordinarily assembling in one place.

Did not I tell you that he would forget to add to the Cities, the Towns about them, which he did add to his Antecedent to make the former consequence good, but dares not add it now for fear of marring all?

But what doth he answer to it, as it is? First, he cavilleth, and merely cavilleth with the consequence, objecting such things as he is persuaded in his own conscience, neither were in the primitive Church, nor ought to have been. Themselves do teach, that parishes ought to be so well compact and trussed together, as that all of the same Church may conveniently and ordinarily meet together; and also that where the multitude is greater, then that all can well meet together, they ought to divide themselves into diverse congregations. And now he telleth us of great parishes, either in the suburbs of London, or in some parts of the land, which were at their setting out nothing so populous as now they are: both which sorts being so mightily increased in respect of the number of their parishioners, himself I dare say is of opinion that they ought to be divided. And therefore ought not (but that he meant to cavil) to have supposed the practice of the primitive Church (which he and his consorts do always urge as a precedent for imitation) to be suitable to those instances, which though he giveth, yet he and all his partners do utterly mislike, as swerving from the practice of the primitive Churches. And where he saith,

he utterly mistaketh me in so conceiving (though I am not ignorant they hold very strange things) but this J conceive you to hold, that each visible Church was, and still ought to be a particular ordinary constant congregation of Christians, which not only may conveniently, but also must necessarily, (if they be not by sufficient causes hindered) assemble together ordinarily to prayer, and to the ministry of the word and Sacraments. And I say, that in respect of the number, or rather innumerable company of Christians (which T. C. himself thinketh to have been greater in those times then now) in respect of the times wherein they lived, raging with persecution, and in regard of the places, vncapeable of such multitudes, it is incredible, yea impossible, that all the Christians in the greatest cities and countries about them, should make but one particular congregation, ordinarily and constantly meeting in one place. Neither doth that further his cause, which he professeth to be their assertion for not only they, but also those that dwelt in the remotest parts of the Country (though distinguished into many particular congregations) did not hold themselves to be entire bodies by themselves (unless they were schismatics or heretics) but all members of the same outward body and visible Church, whereof the mother Church in the city was the chief or head, by which they were denominated, and also distinguished (as now they are) from other Churches.

Having thus caviled with the consequence, he proceedeth to the antecedent, (which is the assumption of his syllogism) denying every particular branch thereof. And first for the number: he would examine my proofs: but

Verily, for ought I see, my imaginations are better reasons then your strongest proofs. And that here appeareth where you weaken my imagination, J will not say falsify it, by propounding it after your manner. But could a man professing sincerity, so cast off all shame, as to affirm that all I say, is but upon imagination, when of that which I say there are four proofs set down in the Sermon? first, by comparison of the less to the greater: secondly, an instance of Rome: thirdly, the testimony of Cornelius: fourthly, the testimony of Tertullian. The first he propundeth thus:

It is your fashion to make my consequences not to exceed the proportion of your own imagined ability in answering them. My reason standeth thus:

In my argument (as you see) comparison is made not only between Jerusalem and other greater Cities, but chiefly (which was omitted by the Refuter) between the short time of a few weeks, and the continuance of 200. years. If at Jerusalem, within a few weeks, the Christians were become many thousands; how may we think they were increased before the end of 200. years, in Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, and such like Cities? So that I doubt not, but the consequence is strong enough (containing an argument from the less to the greater) though I prove none of those four things which he would have proved: as first,

Which maketh not against the consequence, but rather for it, seeing those which remained not in Jerusalem, were by persecution dispersed to other Cities, to help forward the plough of Christ there. Secondly, which needeth not to be proved, seeing the means which had been used, and the miracles which had been wrought at Jerusalem, were also effectual in other places, and are at this day, besides the like means of their own. Thirdly, which also needeth not to be proved, seeing we know by the report of the best Writers, how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time. Fourthly, Which exception also is frivolous, seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, but even these seven of Asia, were famous in those times for the profession of the faith. Thus you see, how he seeketh all the corners of his wit, to find, if it were possible, some starting hole, whereby to escape the force of this consequence. But these points are not worth the standing on.

Only whereas now he chargeth, the second time, all them of Asia, with apostasy from the faith, because S. Paul saith, that all who are in Asia had forsaken him; he must be admonished to reform his judgment. For first, Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia, but only of all those Asians of note, who had been in Rome since his imprisonment: of which number (saith he) are Phygellus and Hermogenes. Neither doth he speak of an apostasy from the faith, but of their forsaking him in his affliction, as the Disciples had shrunk from our Savior Christ: for else, when he saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle, In my first Apology no man stood with me, but all • id forsake me, we might in like manner collect, that all were Apostares from the faith. But what kind of desertion Paul meaneth, whereinto those of Asia did fall, it appeareth by the contrary practice of Onesiphorus, whom he commendeth in the same place, who often refreshed Paul, and was not ashamed of his chain: but when he was at Rome, he was so far from shrinking from Paul, that he most diligently sought him out and found him. The others of Asia (of whom he complaineth) when they were in Rome, shrunk from him, as being ashamed or afraid of his chain. Thus Chrysostom expoundeth it, that Paul when he was apprehended, was forsaken of his friends: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : it is likely there were many then in Rome, from the parts of Asia; but none, saith he, stood to me, no man would know me, all were estranged from me. Theophylact likewise: When Paul was apprehended of Nero, he was forsaken of all the faithful in Asia. who from Asia had gone to Rome with him. O • cumenius in like manner: When Paul was apprehended of Nero, his friends of Asia did forsake him: for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul, or otherwise faithful men; but all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , withdrew themselves, and as we say, drew their necks out of the collar, after Nero had laid hold on him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : those in Asia, that is, those of Asia. It is likely (saith Theodoret ) that some of those which in Asia had believed were at Rome, but avoided the company of Paul for fear of Nero.

As for the assumption, viz.

Which is a strange speech, seeing it is one of the premisses whereupon the conclusion is inferred, and which being granted, their assertion cannot be true. But here again he telleth us of Which is spoken against reason, and against sense: for first, it was not intended, that they of Jerusalem should meet, as those of London which be of one parish, after their multitude was increased. Secondly, neither might they (being under persecution) meet in great multitudes, as those of London, which through God's goodness enjoy peace and liberty. Thirdly, neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes. But where I said, it was not intended, when their multitude should be great, that they of Jerusalem should assemble together, as they who are of one parish about London ; that needeth some explanation. The parishes about London, and everywhere from the beginning, are each of them one among many, severed from the rest, with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinary set congregation, having one Presbyter, and not a presbytery, much less a Bishop assigned to them: whereas contrariwise, the Church of Jerusalem, whereunto James was appointed Bishop, assisted with a presbytery of Ministers, was never intended to be one parish among many, but to be a mother Church, which should by God's blessing beget others to be severed from it in particular assemblies, and yet to remain subordinate and subject unto it, as children to the mother. It was never meant, neither in Jerusalem, nor in any other City, that the Bishop and his presbytery should be set over no more but one particular congregation; or that as more congregations should be constituted, everyone should have a Bishop and a presbytery. But they were provided for the people of God, that either then were in the City and Country, or after should be; which as it increased, was to be divided into several Congregations, whereunto Presbyters severally were to be assigned; all being members of one body, subjected to the Bishop and Presbyterie of the mother Church, which was (as it were) the head of that body.

The Refuter not contented thus to have caviled with my argument, doth also threaten (as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands)

But his minaces are but words, and his words but wind: for this is all he can say or do:

Me thinks there is great reason, why I should not only doubt of it, but plainly deny it: for when he saith, he should have said how long; that being compared with other Cities at the same time, and of the like continuance, the reason of his consequence might appear. There be three reasons to be given, why the Church at Jerusalem should not be at the end of one hundred or two hundred years, so great as in other Cities. First, the persecution begun with the martyrdom of Stephen, and continued until the destruction of Jerusalem : upon the beginning of which persecution, all the faithful in Jerusalem (except the Apostles) were dispersed into other parts. Secondly, • he rejection of the Jews, (for the generality of them) when the Gentiles were to be called. 3. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, about the year 72. and final extirpation of the Jews out of Jerusalem by Aelius Hadrianus about the year 137. who called it Aelia after his own name, prohibiting any • ew to come anymore within that City. So that if it were true, that the number of the Christians in Jerusalem within the first 200. years had never exceeded the proportion of a parishional assembly: yet hereof it would not follow, that the number of Christians in other Cities, should for 200. years continue so small. No reasonable man therefore would look to have that consequence granted him.

The Assumption also is false. The Church of Jerusalem, whereof James was Bishop, never was a Parish; so far was it frō continuing so still. But as the people both in the City and Country were under one high Priest; so was it intended, that all the Christians, both in the City and count • y should be under the Bishop of Jerusalem, and so continued until the destruction thereof. Afterwardes, because that City being destroyed, Cesarea was made by the Romans the Metropolis of Jewry; it came to pass (the church following the common-wealth) that the Bishop of Cesarea was the Metropolitan. The Bishop of Jerusalem having the Bishopric of the City, & the places adioining. Howbeit, in process of time, the Christians honoring the place, granted the prerogative of the 4. Patriarchship to the Bishop of Jerusalem or Aelia, reserving to Cesarea the Metropolis, her own dignity.

Nether is it probable, that the Church at Jerusalem after they once came to the number of 5000 (as quickly it did, & continued with great increase until the death of Steuē ) did ordinarily meet all in one place. We read of some Panegyricall meetings, as it were, in Solomon's porch, and in the temple, such as be the meetings at Paul's Cross, or at the Spittle; but their ordinary, & as it were parishional meetings, were by cōpanies in more private places. Nay, I say further, that the meetings either of the 12. Apostles, (who never were intended to be members, either all, or any of them, of one parish) with the Disciples, Act. 6.1. or of some of them with the Presbyters, and whole assembly, Act. 15.22.26. (which places are by the refuter alleged) were not parishional, but rather Synodical.

As for those other places in the Acts: some of them are ignorantly, some absurdly alleged. In the 2. of the Acts he quoteth three places, viz. the two first verses, 6. & 44. In the first, it is said, that when the day of Pentecost was come, they were all with one accord in the same place. All, that is, all the Apostles, whose mutual society, and conversing together is noted. So do some old Manuscrpts read, saith Beza, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , all the Apostles. For to them alone had Christ promised, that they should be baptized, after a few days, with the holy Ghost, and to that purpose he commanded them to stay at Jerusalem, expecting the performance of this promise. Luke also showeth, who they were, verse 14. saying, that Peter stood with the eleven, and the people who wondered at them, seem to in • inuate, saying, are not all these men of Galilee? Is it not strange then, that the conversing of the Apostles together in one house, should be alleged as an example, yea pattern of a parishional assembly? Or if by all, were meant the 120. Disciples assembled before the descending of the holy Ghost; how doth it prove, either that they were a parishional assembly, wherein the 12. Patriarchs of Christendom were met; or that they continued for an 100. or 200. years, so small a company as a parishional assembly; seeing within a few days, yea the very same day, they grew to be many thousands?

In the 6. verse it is said, that when this voice or rumor was spread in the streets concerning the Apostles, speaking with variety of tongues, great multitudes of people flocked together, not of Christians (to make a parishional assembly,) but of all sorts to behold this wonder: whereat when some had wondered, and some had scoffed, by Peters sermon, 3000. of them were converted.

In the 44. verse, Luke saith, that all they which believed, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and had all things common, and sold their possessions, &c. Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth either signify they conversed together in one place, and kept company one with another, and so speaketh not of their assemblies, for verse. 46. he speaketh of their meeting in the temple, (where they could not meet alone,) wherein national, rather then parishional meetings used to be assembled: or else it signifieth they were in one, that is, they were joined together in heart and affection, as it is said Act. 4.32. which sense Calvin preferreth. There remaineth Act. 21.22. where the Presbyters of Jerusalem, who were with James their Bishop, when Paul came to him, tell Paul that it cannot be avoided, but the multitude would come together, hearing that he was come. Understanding by the multitude, either the multitude of the people of Jerusalem, as well those which believed not, as those which did, (for they direct him to go into the temple, there to show himself to be an observer of the law) or the company of believers only, who when they would flock together to see him, should find him in the temple conforming himself to the law of Moses. But to the absurdity of alleging these places, this is added, that none of them reach anything near the time which we speak of. For the 2. of the Acts speaketh of that which was done within a fortnight after Christ's Ascension. The 6. before the martyrdom of Stephen : the 15. above 20. years, the 21. about 15. years before the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, almost 150. years before the period of that time whereof we speak. And yet in Act. 21. there is mention of I know not how many ten thousands of believing Jews; ver. 20. You see, say they to Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , how many ten thousands there are of believing Jews, &c.

My second argument to prove, that in some Cities the multitude of Christians did not ordinarily assemble in one place, as one set particular congregation, is a particular instance of the City of Rome, in these words.

To this instance his answer is twofold. First,

. Of no credit; because, both the author deserveth no credit, and the matter reported by him, is unlikely and untrue. The Author, either because wrongfully he beareth the name of Damasus ; or if it be Damasus himself, he is not to be credited in reporting a matter done 300. years before his time. So that we are resolved to deny it, let the author be who he will. Yea, but the Doth he in this particular disagree from approved histories? Or is there any reason, why he should be suspected of forgery in this particular? In all writings of the Romanists, which are suspected of forgery, there is something contained which seemeth to be coined, or foisted in for an advantage. Now I would gladly know, to what end they should fain this particular? serveth it to magnify the Papal supremacy, or to maintain any of their corruptions, or to contradict their opposites in anything which they held in former times? Nothing less. For to begin with the last; It could not be counterfeited with purpose to contradict anybody; for, that one and the same Church, was and ought to be divided into Parishes, and that Presbyters were and ought to be severally appointed to them, never any man that J have read or heard of, denied before T. C. Not Calvin, nor Beza, nor any other favorer of the pretended Discipline before him. Likewise, that which is reported, was a godly and necessary act, which had been practiced long before this in Alexandria (though I knew not so much when I made the Sermon, but you shall hear of it in due place) which also was practiced upon the like occasion in all the Churches of the world: that is to say, when the number of Christians was so increased, that they could not all conveniently meet in one place; they were by their B. divided into diverse assemblies. Was not this done in all Churches whatsoever yea ought it not to have been done? In Rome it was done, long before the time of Damasus (for before his time there were above 40. parish Churches built in Rome ) and no doubt but it had a beginning, and a beginner; which, if it were not Euaristus, let it be shown who it was. It was done, as J will straight ways note, before Tertullian's time, who flourished about the year 180. And therefore if not by Euaristus, thē by one of the other ancient BB. within the compass of the limited time, who were godly BB. & famous Martyrs.

That it was Euaristus his act (to let pass Damasus, and the volumes of the councils which report it out of him, Platina, Onuphrius before cited, and Sabelliciu testifying the same: ) others as opposite to Popery as our refuter, have believed, & accordingly reported. John Bale reporteth of Euaristus, that he shining with the grace of God, even in the time of persecution increased the number of the sacred assemblies of Christians. Likewise Robert Barns that famous Martyr saith, Presbyteris Rome, titulos distribuit : He distributed the titles or parishes to the Presbyters. To these I might add the testimony of a Protestant writer, who for 30. years together studiously labored in penning a Chronology (though it be not printed) wherein among other things he reporteth of Euaristus (who as he noteth was made Bishop of Rome in the year 99. ) that he brought the places of the assemblies of the Christian brethren in Rome unto 7▪ congregations▪ & appointed to each of them several pastors & teachers, that they might by such means remain more secret, live in better security, and hear the word with more ease and profit, then otherwise they could (considering the iniquity of the time) if they did meet in greater nūbers.

As touching the matter, he saith.

and yet that which he excepteth against as the matter, is not so much as material. The question is, whether Euaristus divided the Church of Rome into diverse several congregations, and assigned several Presbyters to them, as Damasus reporteth. But whether the Presbyters before attended them promiscuously, or the people met uncertainly, that is not the question. But seeing he is pleased to except against those words which are not in Damasus, but Onuphrius & myself added as a reason of Euaristus his act; let him also be pleased to answer me, whether the whole Christian people of Rome in the city, suburbs & country adjoining, did usually & ordinarily meet together in one assembly throghout the whole term of 200. years; or in diverse assemblies, as they could most conveniently. If they always or most usually met together; then, whether always in one certain place, or in diverse uncertainly & occasionally. The former himself denieth. If the latter, then the Presbyters had not charge of them severally, but of them all promiscuously: then also the people met uncertainly. If they did not ordinarily meet all together, but in diverse assemblies (which is the truth) then, whether were the several meetings set and certain, and several Presbyters appointed to them: or were the meetings and Presbyters for the instructing of those assemblies, appointed uncertainly, as occasion and opportunity served. If the latter, which seemeth to have been the use before Euaristus his time: then that is true, which he excepteth against. If the former, which was brought to pass by Euaristus, then the main assertion which he oppugneth, is true.

His words are these: On the sunday as it is called, all the Christians dwelling in the cities, or abroad in the countries, do come together in the same place. He speaketh not of the Church of Rome in special, but of the practice of all Christians in general. Is therefore the word all to be taken collectiue, or distributive ? if in the former sense, then his meaning should be that all Christians in the world, whether they dwelt in cities or countries, did on the Lord's day meet in one place; which is absurd. If the latter, then he meaneth all them distributiuely, who, whether they lived in the cities or countries, belonged to one congregation. As if one of us speaking of the custom of our times should say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , on Sunday so called, there is a coming together of all into one place who do dwell in the cities or the countries : that is, all in every place that belong to the same congregations. And that it is so to be understood, it appeareth by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cities, propounded in the plural mumber. For his meaning never was, that the people of diverse cities did meet ordinarily together: & the note of disiūction • or, added to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 country, doth signify that those of the country did not all meet with thē of the City; for then he would have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but that all did meet in their several congregations, whether they lived in the cities or countries.

But well may this refuter with shame enough hide his head, who shameth not so oft to falsify the authors which he quoteth. This is that which Platina reporteth of Dionysius, that he being made B. straightwaies divided the Churches and coemiteries (which were the places of Christian meetings) in the city of Rome to the presbyters: but he saith not that he first did it; neither was it his mening: for he had said the same before of Euaristus. Abroad also, saith he, in the country, he distributed parishes & dioceses (so country parishes are called) to the end that everyone should be content with his bounds & limits. Agreeable hereunto is the report of Dionysius himself (if it be himself) in his epistle to Seueru • the B. of Corduba. For whereas Seuerus had asked his directiō, what course was to be takē concerning parish churches throghout the province of Corduba : he wisheth him to follow that, which he had lately done in the church of Rome, ecclesias vero singulas, singulis presbyteris dedimus, several Churches we assigned to several presbyters, & divided to thē the churches & coemiteries, & ordained that everyone should have his proper right, in such sort as that none may invade the lands, bounds or right of another parish, but that everyone should be content with his own bounds, and so keep his church and people committed to him, that before the tribunal of the eternal Judge he may give an account of all committed to him, and may receive glory and not judgment for his deeds.

Now these reports are easily reconciled, with the afore cited testimony of Damasus. For, as Onuphrius also hath observed, Euaristus first divided the parishes to the presbyters, the mumber whereof by Hyginus not long after was augmented an. 138 After whō nothing was altered until the time of Dionysius: an. 260. who increased the mumber of the parishes, which afterwards were multiplied by Marcellus, about the year 305 &c. Besides, though Euaristus first divided the parishes in Rome ; yet Dionysius might be the first that set out the country parishes. Which distinction, if it will salve their credits, who have said that Dionysius first divided parishes, I will not be against it. His 2. answer is,

A likely matter. For the titles were the sacrae aedes, the places of metings unto God's worship, in which the Presbyters, or as Dionysius calleth thē, sacerdotes the Priests, were ordained to feed the people committed to them, with the ministry of the word & sacraments, and go before them in the worship of God. But of lay elders I have sufficiently spoken before, if anything will suffice, to persuade men, that there never were any such in the church of God.

My 3. proof, is the testimony of Cornelius the B. of Rome: who, as he saith, there were 46. Presbyters at that time in the Church of Rome, & 108 others of the clergy, & 1500. poor people maintained all of them by the contributiō of Christians: so he calleth the Christian people in Rome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a very great & innumerable people. Did the B. and 154. clergy men attend one parishional assembly only? was there 1500. poor Christians, besides 154 of the clergy, together with the B. maintained of one parishional congregatiō? was an innumerable people, the people of one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place? This testimony, saith our refuter,

The limitatiō of the time, whereto they have cōfined the primitive church was devised for a poor shift, because they knew there was not the like evidence for the 2. century, as for the 3. Otherwise, what reasō can be rēdred, why there should be diverse parishes under one B. in the year 250. if it were not so in the year 200? especially, seeing they, which of purpose have written of these things, do profess that there was no difference in the mumber of the parishes in that time, & 10. years after. What reason can be givē, why the Christian people which was innumerable in the year 250. should have been in the year 200. the people of one particular parish? especially, seeing good authors before the year 200, do acknowledge as much as if they had said, that then they were innumerable.

To which purpose in the 4 place I quoted Tertullian, whom J needed not, if we will believe the refuter, to have cited,

By his good leave therefore, I will recite the words. For after that he had professed that Christians then (contrary to the judgment and practice of the Papists now) thought it unlawful for them to avenge themselves on their persecutors, he saith: For if we should show our selves to be open enemies & not secret auengers, should we want either number or strength? we are aliens frō you, et vestra omnia implenimus, and we have filled all places that are yours, cities, Islands, Castles, towns, assemblies &c. only your temples we leave unto you. If we should but depart away from you, the loss of so many citizens would amaze you. Without doubt you would be astonished ad solitudinē nostrā at the solitariness which our absēce would make, you would seek the relics of a dead city, wherein you might rule, more enemies then citizens would remain unto you; but now you have the fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of Christians, pene 〈◊〉 ci • ium, being almost all citizens, pene omnes ciues Christianos habendo, by having almost all your Citizens Christians. Let the Reader judge what the number of Christians were in those times, & whether Tertullian doth not speak chiefly of the city of Rome; & let him consider whether almost all the citizens of Rome (of whom ordinarily there were diverse hundred thousands) besides Christian strangers, servants, and the female sex, were like to be the people of one parish.

The same author speaking to the same purpose in another place, saith, it may be sufficiently manifest unto you that we deal according to the doctrine of divine patience Seeing we being so great a multitude of men, even the greatest part almost of every city, do carry our selves in silence & modesty.

And so much concerning the multitude of the people.

As touching the times, the refuter answereth, that

Whereof I doubt not But the question is, whether in diverse congregations, as I say, & as it is most evident; or altogether in one place, which is altogether incredible. As for the places, wherein the Christians in the first 200. years used to assemble, especially in time of persecution; whereas I say they were private houses, vaults and secret places not capable of such multitudes, as have been spoken of; for refuge he flieth to the v • lts & holes, as he calleth thē, which he supposeth were capable of great multitudes, but omitteth private houses, and other small rooms turned to this use. And whereas J say they were not capable of such multitudes, as were th • whole companies of Christians in the greatest cities, proved before to have been in a manner innumerable, he only saith great multitudes. But what we are to conceive of this point, let us inquire of Hospinian a Protestant writer, who hath traveled in this argument. He therefore saith, in the time of the Apostles, and some while after, the places of meetings which Christians had, were simple houses, neither were they permitted by the cruelty of tyrants, and rage of the people, to build, I say not magnificent, but not mean Temples. The places therefore of public meetings in those times were base, more like dens and secret corners, then magnificall Temples, as Eusebius • estifieth. And Tertullian plainly affirmeth, that in his time the Christians had no other temples but simple houses. Polydor Virgil testifieth, that the Christians were so far from having any temple built in these times, that all was secret, & their places of meeting were chapels, and those hidden and for the most part under the ground, rather then in open and public places. Bullinger likewise saith, that the ancient Christians under Constantine the Great, were wont under the quire of the temples to build crypta • , vaults, in memory of the persecutions, whereby the Christians under the Emperors before Constantine, were not suffered sometimes to come abroad; and therefore they were forced to hold their assemblies, and perform the sacred exercises in secret, sometimes in dens and other privy places.

But, saith the Refuter

To which purpose again, he allegeth his chapels of ease for a mere evasion, seeing himself is persuaded there was none such in those times. And where he saith, that ; I confess it to be true: for even after the distinction of parishes both in city and country, all of them belonged to one Church, as menbers of the same body. Yea but, saith he, if there were many particular congregations in every city, how chanceth it, he told us before, that the parishes were not distinguished? Distinguish the times, and the answer is easy. In the first hundred years, though Christians met in diverse places, as they could; yet neither, were there in the most cities certain set places of meeting, nor certain Presbyters assigned to them, as to their perpetual and peculiar charge. But at the end of the first hundred years, Euaristus divided to several Presbyters in Rome, titles, that is, the set places of meetings, which we call parish Churches, whereof they were entitled, and called the Presbyters of such and such a title or parish.

And thus have J maintained my arguments and answers against his cavils. Now am I to defend my assertion against his proofs.

CHAP. VI. Answering the Refuters arguments.

A Nd first, because you shall know what he meaneth to conclude, he propoundeth the question;

In which question, seeing he & his consorts restrain the times of the primitive Church to the first two hundred years; the Reader will I hope expect, that he should conclude, that fo • this whole term at the least, the churches were each of them but a parish, and that in all this time there were no dioceses.

His argumentation containeth two ranckes of instances: the former taken out of the scriptures; the latter out of the Fathers. The former he concludeth thus:

The proposition I will be content to yield to my adversary, so it may be lawful for me to use the like: for then I would conclude thus:

The consequence is the same with his, and grounded on the same hypothesis: viz. that all Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, were at the first of the same nature and constitution.

The former part of the assumption, concerning Alexandria, I will manifestly prove when I come to the third point, concerning Diocesans: viz. that it was not one parish, but contained diverse parishes, even in the first 100. years. Concerning Rome, I have proved already, that within the first 200. years it was divided into many parishes: and therefore although there be not so good evidence for other Cities in particular, yet the like is to be concluded of them, seeing they were all of the same constitution.

Passing by therefore his proposition, I take hold of his assumption, and do plainly deny, the Churches he speaketh of, or any other, which had a Bishop and Presbyterie, to have been for the first two hundred years, no more but parishes: for J doubt not, but it is easier to prove that within this term, not only the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses, but also the Bishops in the same Provinces, were subject to the Bishops of these three Cities. For as it is evident of Antioch, by the testimony of Ignatius, who calleth himself the Bishop of Syria; so no reason can be alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth, who in the third centurie, and in the ages following, were Metropolitans, were not so in the second; or if they were Metropolitans in the third, and in the ages following, (as most certainly they were) why they should not have been Diocesans at the least in the second.

But what doth he prove of the particulars? Are his syllogisms so soon come to an end? His chief proofs be, that in the Apostle Paul's time each of them used to assemble in one Congregation. Was this your assumption? You that are so strict in exacting syllogisms and direct proofs, should not have sought to carry away the matter, as it were, in the clouds. Yea but that which he proveth, doth prove the assumption. That shall thus be tried by his own form of argumentation:

The proposition is omitted by the disputer, as taken for granted: but therein he hath played the sophister; for he that meaneth truly, doth not use to omit any part of his argument, but that which is certain, or confessed. But the consequence of this proposition is worse then naught: for if he had only said thus, If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation, therefore for 200. years they were so ; the consequence had been stark naught: or if he had only said, If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation, then were they each one parish ; that consequence also had been naught: but when he saith, If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation, therefore for 200. years each of them was but a parish ; that consequence is, as I said, worse then naught.

That the first of the two consequences is naught, it is evident: for though at the first conversion of any great City, and for a while after, the number usually was so small, that they might have assembled in one place; yet it is certain, that within 200. years, their number was grown to be almost innumerable, as hath been shown, and therefore too great to make one ordinary congregation. This one exception (if no more should be added) overturneth all his dispute.

As touching the second: though it should be granted, that each of these Churches in the Apostles time, did ordinarily assemble together in one place; yet would it not follow, that therefore each of them was but a parish; and much less (which is the end of all this disputation) that all Churches endued with ecclesiastical power should be but parishes; and consequently, that every parish should have a Bishop and presbytery. The reasons of my denial of these consequences I have before set down at large, Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I have sufficiently overthrown already. For a surplussage I add these two reasons:

First, If these Churches, because they were each of them but one Congregation, were parishes before the division of parishes; then were they such Churches, as after the division, parishes were. This consequence may not be denied, especially by them who would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches. But they were not such: for the parishes, after their division, had not a Bishop and presbytery, but only a Presbyter assigned to them: neither was the Pastor thereof superintendent over others, neither was any of them intended to be a mother Church. Secondly, if that assumption was false which denied parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times, then these Churches were not only many congregations, but many parishes also. But he said before, that that assumption had no truth in it. These two just exceptions I have against his consequence. If against the former it be objected, that some of his testimonies do seem to prove, that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation: I answer, that his main argument and proofs thereof, do speak of the Apostles time. Those which are extended further, shall be further examined.

Now I come to his assumption; for though I do not deny, but that at the first, and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul, the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion, did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation; yet I cannot yield to all his proofs. His proofs be either allegation of Scriptures, or other testimonies.

His Scriptures for Corinth, are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and Rom. • 6.1. for Ephesus, Act. 20.28. for Antioch, Act. 14.27. Now let us consider the date of his testimonies, and then what is testified in them.

The date of them is ancienter then Paul his going to Rome, which was in the year 5 • . or • 6. Which I do note, to show to what time his proposition is to be restrained: as if he had said, If before the year 55. or • 6. they were but one congregation, then they were no more until the year 200.

The thing that is testified for Corinth, 1. Cor 11. is such, as might be written to the Church of England, as verse 18. When you come into the Church, I bear there be schism • s among you : verse. 20. When you come together in the same place, this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord : verse. 33. When you come together to eat, expect one another. Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae, whereof mention hath been made now thrice, to no purpose, unless it be against himself: for if C • nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth, as most certainly it was, it self having not a Bishop or presbytery, but a Presbyter assigned to it; this will proo • e, that the mother Church of Corinth was diocesan, (as all Cathedral Churches be) and that parishes distinguished from the Cathedral, as children from the mother, were such as that of Cenchreae.

That which is testified for Ephesus, Act. 20.28. is such as upon like occasion might by all. in his visitation be applied to a •• the ministers of a diocese; that they should attend the stock, &c. For must the word stock, which may be extended, either to the universal, or national, or provincial, or diocesan Church; must it needs signify only the congregation of a Parish? & yet he, that breathes nothing but novelties, saith it is a new conceit, to suppose a Diocesan flock. But this calumny of novelty I have by plentiful testimonies of antiquity (before cited) wiped clean away.

As touching Act. 14.27. cited for Antioch; where it is said, that Paul and Barnabas gathered together the Church, to relate unto them, what God had done by them, since they had laid their hands upon them, and had commended them to the grace of God: it is apparent; that not all the Church consisting of husbands, and wives, their children and servants, but some of the chief and principal, perhaps not many, perhaps not any, besides those of the Clergy, were called to that meeting.

These were his proofs out of the Scripture. His other testimonies are out of Eusebius, Ignatius, and some of our own Writers, all which testimonies are scarce worth the mentioning.

Of the ancient use of this word, sometimes signifying the whole Diocese, sometimes the whole City and Suburbes, I have spoken sufficiently heretofore, as also of that which he objecteth, concerning the . Wherto I add, that Eusebius, as he used the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the same purpose.

Ignatius writing to the Church of Ephesus , the multitude whereof he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as if he had of purpose noted it to be a Church consisting of many multitudes or congregations) exhorteth them, as one might in like manner the faithful in London, (though divided into many congregations) to come oft together to give thanks and glory to God: for when you come oft together into one place, the power of Satan is weakened, &c.

His other testimony out of Ignatius, is out of his Epistle to Hero, where he calleth the Church of Antioch 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Synagogue, that is, the church or congregation of the Lord. The word being used in the same signification with Ecclesia, whereof I spake before. But whether Ignatius were Bishop only of one Congregation, or parish, let his own words testify. Remember me saith he, (in his Epistle to the Magnesians) in your prayers, and the Church which is in Syria, whereof I am not worthy to be called the Bishop. And in the Epistle to the Romans towards the latter end , Remember in your prayer the Church in Syria, the which, instead of me, hath the Lord to be her pastor, who saith I am the good shepherd. Or, if these words be not plain enough, he calleth himself in the same Epistle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Bishop of Syria. Now let my adversary tell me, what manner of Parish Syria was. And let me hear also, what he can object against these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and Romans. For even they , which suspect his Epistle to Her • , which the refuter citeth, and four others, acknowledge these two to be no bastards Eusebius mentioneth both. And that to the Romans, he not only mentioneth, but also citeth a good part thereof.

Thus leaving that most pregnant, and authentic evidence of Ignatius to my adversary to muse upon; J come to his testimonies of our new writers, all which (excepting two testimonies of Tyndale ) he most childishly allegeth, to prove, that the Churches of Ephesus, and of other the like Cities, were each of them but a Parish; because they call a Church a Congregation ; using the word Congregation in as ample sense, as before I proved the word Ecclesia (whereof that is the English) to be used. The ancient English Bibles, never almost use the word church ; but instead thereof do use the word congregation, not only where is mention of particular Churches, but of the universal or catholic Church. As Mat. 16. Upon this rock I will build my congregation. Eph. 1. He hath made him head of the Congregation, which is his body. Eph. 5. Ye husbands love your wives as Christ loved the congregation. And so in the Communion Book, both in the Prayers & translation there used. As in the Prayer for the King, before the Epistle; have mercy on the whole congregation. In the solemnization of Matrimony, out of Ephes. 5. I speak of Christ and the Congregation.

The reasons why the first Translators of the Bible into English in these latter times did avoid the name Church, and instead thereof used Congregation, do seem to have been these two. The first, because Church or Kyrk, being derived from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth more properly signify the place of meeting, then the congregation it self, which is meant by ecclesia: and therefore the word Congregation thought to be the fitter translation. The second, because the Papists had abused the word Church, whether it were generally used, to signify the Romish Church; or particularly, to import the Romish clergy. So saith Tindal; Because the clergy had appropriated to themselves the name Church, therefore I translated the word Ecclesia, by this word Congregation. For when the people understood, that by Church was meant the company of men professing the faith of Christ, the name Church is everywhere used, as the translation of ecclesia.

Which allegation showeth extreme want, either of judgment, or honesty: for what church or congregation is there mentioned? the Church of Ephesus, or the universal Church of Christ? when it is said, as Christ is the head of the Church ? Upon which words, when the Rhemists had noted it as a corruption of the first English Bibles, which did not use the word Church, but congregation instead thereof. D. Fulke answereth; that the Translator rather used the word Congregation then Church, to avoid ambiguity, because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians: and that the people might know, that the Church is a gathering together of all the menbers into one body, which in the name of church doth not appear. But after the people were taught to distinguish of the word Church, and to understand it for the mystical body of Christ, the latter translations used that term; not that the other was any corruption; or the latter, any correction; but to declare, that both is one. Is it not plain, that he by congregation understandeth the universal Church, which is a gathering together of all the members into one body, but of the Church of Ephesus speaketh never a word?

In the 4. place the notes of M. Perkins sermons on the Apocalypse, taken from his mouth, are alleged▪ wherein it is said,

From which allegations to infer, that each church is but one particular congregation, is (as I said) most childish.

was not a childish mistaking, but a willful misalleadging of the Author, who in the former place hath no such thing. Or if he have anywhere, he useth the word Congregation in as large a sense as Ecclesia, whereof it is the translation. In the latter, speaking of such a Bishop as is described, 1. Tim. 3. that is, of such a one as (in his conceit) was but a Presbyter; he saith, by the authority of the gospel, they that preach the word of God in every Parish, and (perform) other necessary ministries, have right to challenge an honest living: Neither is the Refuter content once to have falsified the testimony of this holy Martyr; but again in the end of his book he allegeth him to the same purpose.

After he hath thus doughtily proved his Assumption concerning these 3. Churches, he bringeth a new supply of testimonies out of Ignatius, Tertullian, and Eusebius concerning others. Ignatius exhorteth the Magnesians,

, as with us, that belonged to the same congregation. And persuading the Philadelphians to unity, exhorteth them, that they would use one faith, one preaching, one eucharist, because the body of Christ is one, and his blood one, one cup, and one bread, one Altar for the whole Church, and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons: for there is but one God the Father, &c. one faith, one baptism, and one Church, which the Apostles have founded from one end of the world to another, &c. In which words, none favoreth the Refuters conceit, but that the word Altar being expounded for the Communion Table, which is not likely, and too much savoreth of popery. But by one altar, is meant Christ, who sanctifieth all our sacrifices or oblations, and maketh them acceptable to God: as Ignatius expoundeth himself in his Epistle to the Magnesians; all as one, run together into the Temple of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto one Jesus Christ as it were unto one altar. But that which he allegeth out of the same Epistle, if it were rightly alleged, would prove, not their ordinary and parishional, but extraordinary and panegyricall meeting to such an end: but this needed not: their Bishop at this time was come to Ignatius in his journey towards Rome, as appeareth by the beginning of the Epistle, as it were upon an honorable ambassage from the Church, as were the BB. of other Churches. But he saith, it becometh you as being a Church of God, to do as other Churches have done ; that is, as he showeth in the words following, to appoint a Bishop, that he may 〈◊〉 Antioch perform the • mbassage of God, that it may be granted to them being gathered together into one place, to glorify the name of God From whence also the Re • uter gathereth, Which is true, so oft as he preacheth. But Ignatius meaneth nothing less, then that they should appoint the Bishop of Antioch; but only willeth them to send a Bishop, as it were upon ambassage thither. His meaning is more plainly expressed in his Epistle to the S • yrneans, where he writeth to the same purpose, that seeing the Church of Antioch after his departure had some peace, (the persecutors contenting themselves to have taken him who was their ringleader from among them) he exhorteth them to ordain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a sacred Ambassador, who when he should come into Syria, should rejoice with them, because they had peace.

Tertull ••• also is made to speak for them, as though he said

By which testimony, if it were truly alleged, all Christian Churches, as they are one body of Christ, so all should meet together to make one parish. His words be these: I will now set forth the practices of the Christian party: That having refuted the evils (objected) I may declare the good. We are a body consenting in the knowledge of religion, in the truth of discipline or doctrine, and the covenant of hope: We come together into a company and congregation. Which words may be verified of the Christians of these times, which in every Church are divided into several congregations.

Out of Eusebius he hath nothing to allege, but that which before I came to his arguments I sufficiently answered; that

To which J answer, that Eusebius indeed calleth each of the Churches by the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but he calleth none of them a parish, as we understand the word parish. In the place which he quoteth concerning Jerusalem, Eusebius saith, that after the martyrdom of James (who no doubt from an Apostle, had been preferred to be a parish Bishop, because he was Christ's kinsman) the Apostles and disciples of Christ, which yet remained, did from all places come together, with those who were of Christ's kindred, to consult, whom they might think worthy to be James his successor; and that with one consent they made chuce of Simeon the son of Cleophas, as worthy the throne of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Church, because he also was our Saviors kinsman. All this was done (no doubt) in a parish meeting, to set a parish B. in his throne. In which throne of James, reserved, as Eusebius saith, till his time, the BB. of Jerusalem, having the honor of Patriarchs, did succeed.

As touching Alexandria, it is evident by that which before hath been shown, that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there, calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia, sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae, belonging to Alexandria, and all in one and the same sense: which plainly showeth, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he doth not mean that which we call a parish. Which will then better appear, when I shall prove that from Saint Marks time, there were more Churches or parishes there, and yet but one Church and one Bishop.

But suppose it were granted him, that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number, the proportion of an ordinary congregation; yet this would not prove them to have been parishes, as hath been shown.

Thus and thus weakly,

Now let any man, judge whether M.D. hath better proved, that the Churches in those times were dioceses, or I, that they were parishes. So say I, let any man now judge, who is of judgment; and if there be any comparison between the plain evidence which I have brought, and his slender proofs, let me be taken for a man of no judgment.

Yea but (saith he)

for his cause indeed, but to mine, advantage. For if there were not only diocesan, but also provincial Churches, and that within the first two hundred years; then is it absurd to imagine, that there were no Churches, but parishional. Neither did, or doth the being of provincial Churches, hinder dioceses, or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceits of this disputer, and his fellow challengers of disputation: First, that every visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority, immediately derived from Christ, for the gouer •• ent of it self in all causes ecclesiastical. Secondly, that every parish is or ought to be such a Church. From the former of these, this disputer seemeth to infer, that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the provincial Churches, and BB: that then the provincial be the only Churches. And by the same reason when the provinces were subject to the Patriarchs, none but patriarchall Chuches, (as that of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) were to be esteemed Churches. In the mean time you should have answered for yourselves, and not put off the confutation of his reioynder to others. But though you cannot confute him, yet you can abuse him, as by reviling and scornful terms in other places of your book; so here by notorious falsifying of his words▪ For where doth he say that our Bishops be but Suffragans or Curates to the two Arch-bishops, as you without shame or conscience do belie him? saith he, or meaneth he anymore but this, that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation, whereby the jurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction which he practiseth, he doth exercise from and under the Archbishop as his deputy? Here by the way let the Reader judge, with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft objected against our Bishops, that they be petite popes, , seeing now himself confesseth, that according to the order and discipline of our Church, they are subject to the Metropolitans. But to the point: none of these things which he objecteth, do hinder the being of dioceses, or diocesan Bishops; no not though they had been by G.P. called the Archbishoppes Suffragans. For whereas the Bishops have been by authors which have written within these nine hundred years, called Suffragans to the Archbishoppes, they mean thereby comprouinciall Bishops▪ who in the election of the Metropolitans, and in the provincial synods held by the Metropolitans, did give their suffrages with them: not that they be such as commonly we call Suffragans, but are as absolute Bishops as have been since the first appointment of Metropolitans; and they were actually acknowledged, as they were at the first intended, so soon as the diverse cities of one province had their Bishops. In all which, as there was consociation among themselves, as being all of one body; so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis, or mother City, as being their head. Thus was it provided in the canons, which for their antiquity, are called the Apostles canons, that the Bishops of every nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them, and esteem him as the head, and that they should do nothing exceeding the bounds of their own jurisdiction, without his consent. And that everyone may do those things alone which belong to his own Church and the Countries which be under it. Neither may he (meaning the Primate) do anything without the consent of all. The same is repeated and explained, as ye heard before in the Council of Antioch; calling the Primate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Bishoppe which governeth in the mother City, appointing him to have the care of the whole province, because there is concourse of men, who have business from all parts of the country to the mother City. And although they forbad Bishops to attempt anything beyond their compass, without his consent, according to the ancient canon, yet they say, Every Bishoppe hath power or authority of his own diocese, to administer or govern the same according to his conscience, and to have provident care of the whole Country subject to his City, and to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to dispose of all things with judgment.

It is apparent then, that the being of provincial Churches doth not hinder the diocesan, nor the authority of Metropolitans take away the jurisdiction of diocesan Bishops. Neither is any Church in the world, more agreeable to the form and government of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches, then this of England. For at the first, Metropolitans were not subordinate to any superior Bishops, but were, as Balsa •• saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , heads by themselves of their provinces, being Bishops of their own peculiar dioceses, and yet having a general superintendencie over the whole province. I cannot deny, but that long before the Council of Nice, there were Patriarchs above Metropolitans, whose original, as it seemeth, proceeded from human policy; as the cause of their ratification and continuance is ascribed to ancient custom. But the superiority of Metropolitans was either intended by the Apostles, as I think, when they appointed Bishops over mother Cities, who though at the first actually were but Bishops of their own diocese, yet upon the conversion of other Cities in the province, were to be ackowledged the chief; or at least, as Beza supposeth, they were ordained, not by authority of Councils, but s •• dente natura, & necessitate flagitante; nature advising, and necessity requiring it. For it was convenient, or rather necessary, that there should be consociation of Churches within the same province; and that the governors of the several dioceses, should meet for the common good; as also that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishops within their dioceses, might be remedied. By consequent therefore it was necessary, especially before there were Christian magistrates, that one in every province should be held as chief, or primate, who should assemble the synods, moderate them being assembled, see the decrees executed, and have a general superintendencie over the whole province. Beza therefore speaking of the aforesaid Canon of the Apostles, saith, quid aliud hic statuitu • quam ordo ill, quem in omnibus ecclesiis restitutum cupi ••• ? What other thing is here ordained, but that order, which in all Churches we desire may be restored?

That there were Metropolitan Bishops within the first 200 years, it is evident by those provincial councils, which in the second Century were held concerning the feast of Easter, being assembled and guided by Metropolitans. As the president of the provincial synod held at Rome, was Victo • the Metropolitan Bishoppe of Rome; of those in Palestine, Theophilus the Metropolitan of Cesarea, and Narcissus Bishoppe of Jerusalem; of that in France, Irenaeus the Bishoppe of Lions; of that in Achaia, Bacchylus the Bishoppe of Corinth; of that in Asia, Polycrates the Bishoppe of Ephesus. And so of that in Osroene and of diverse others. Now it is to be noted, that Eusebius speaking of the synod held in France, saith, there was a meeting of the Churches in France, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which Churches Irenaeus was B. Such a parish B. was he.

That there have been Metropolitans, and provincial Churches ever since the Apostles times, this one evidence among many, which might be alleged, may sufficiently evince. In the time, of the first Ephesine Council, Dionysius the governor of the East, whose chief seat was Antioch, having appointed Theodorus to be the Lieutenant of the Isle of Cyprus, the Patriarch of Antioch, because the ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the most part followed the civil, challenged authority over the Isle of Cyprus, and power of ordaining the Metropolitan Bishop of Constantia, the mother city of Cyprus. To which end, the clergy of Antioch procured from Dionysius letters, both to the clergy of Constantia, and to the Lieutenant of Cyprus, to interdict them from choosing their Metropolitan, the See being then void: or if they had already chosen their Bishop, that both he and they should repair to the Council at Ephesus, hoping that by the Council they should be overruled, according to the Bishop of Antioch his desire. Reginus therefore, who was chosen Bishoppe, with other Bishops of Cyprus, put up a Supplication to the Council, complaining that the Bishoppe and clergy of Antioch had sought, contrary to the Apostles Canons, and contrary to the determination of the Council of Nice, to bring them in subjection to them: and therefore requested, that as ever since the Apostles times, the provincial synod had ordained their Metropolitan; so their ancient right might not now be infringed. Whereupon the Council having censured the attempt of the Bishoppe of Antioch, as 〈◊〉 innovation, contrary to the laws ecclesiastical, and ca ••• s of the holy Apostles, decreed, not only that the Bishops of Cyprus, but also of all other dioceses and provinces, should retain their ancient right; and that no Bishop should challenge unto himself any province, which had not been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in former times from the beginning, under his predecessors jurisdiction. It hath seemed good therefore to the sacred and economical synod, that to every province her right, which •• er from the beginning it hath had, shall be kept pure and i •• iolable, according to the ancient received custom. Every Metropolitan having good l • a •• to take a copy of this Act for his own security. Whereby it appeareth, that the Isle of Cyprus had a Metropolitan from the Apostles time. And that no Metropolitan had, or ought to have, the government of any province, which had not always from the beginning been subject to his Se • .

And that Metropolitans were either actually appointed, or at the least intended by the Apostles, appeareth hereby: That ever since their times, in all provinces, throughout the Christian world, there have been Metropolitans, never misliked or contradicted by any, until this our age.

And whereas the Refuter objecteth, that this maketh against Diocesan Bishops, I say it maketh for them. For every Metropolitan is also a diocesan Bishop: having a peculiar diocese of his own, whereof he is Bishop; as the Archbishop of Canterbury, hath Canterbury, and part of Kent, besides some other peculiar Churches; the Archbishop of York, hath Yorkshire (excepting the County of Richmond, which belongeth to the Bishop of Chester) and the County of Nottingham.

To his question therefore demanding,

I answer, there remain 24 of them, where they were wont to be, for anything that he can say to the contrary, besides the Churches of Canterbury and York; which, as they be provincial Churches in respect of the 2. provinces; so are they Diocesan in respect of the peculiar dioceses belonging unto them. And where he saith, , he saith he knows not what. For Cathedral Churches, which are the mother Churches of every diocese, neither are, nor ever were parishes; nor the Bishop, nor Presbyteries of them, ever intended to one parish. And if it so fall out, that to some part of the Cathedral Church a particular parish belong; thereto a several Presbyter is appointed as to other Parishes. The meetings in Cathedral Churches whereof the Bishops have been presidents, were never Parishonal, but rather Panegyricall, even in the most ancient and purest Churches, under the best and most renowned Bishops since the Apostles times.

In the conclusion the Refuter pusheth at me with a Dilemma, as it were with a pair of rams horns. For such is his wisdom, that he thinketh diocesan & provincial Churches (which are subordinate one to the other) to be so opposite, as that to hold the one, is to deny the other. And therefore if I yield there be provincial Churches, then I must confess there be no diocesan: or if I will needs hold there be diocesan Churches, then I overthrow the provincial.

Thus hath he brought himself into a fools paradise, where I leave him to feed upon his own fancies, and to solace himself with the conceit of his imagined conquest.

CHAP. VII. Prouing the third point of the Sermon, that the Bishops of the primitive Church were Diocesan Bishops.

T He Refuter hath acquitted himself, in his own conceit, so valiantly and victoriously in subuerting my former assertion concerning dioceses, which he supposeth to be the foundation of my building; that as he looks for no strength in the rest of the building to resist his forces,

so he promiseth to himself assured success in overthrowing the rest. But if my building be founded, as it were, on a rock, against which his main forces could not prevail at all, but like the waves and billows of the sea, though they beat against it with great noise, return back with froth and foam, (as I hope it appeareth to every indifferent and judicious Reader) then may I promise to myself the like success in withstanding his future assaults. And the better hope J do conceive hereof, because he seemeth to confess that if I can demonstrate that the ancient Churches, were dioceses, that then the other points will follow of their own accord. But, that I have so demonstrated, that I never expect any sound answer thereto. As for this point which now I have in hand, it is not only demonstrated already, in the proof of the former, but is also by necessary consequence deduced therefrom. My purpose therefore is to be as brief in propugning this truth, as he is in oppugning the same.

J will therefore omit his frivolous cavil, which now the fourth time he repeateth for my not concluding, what he, according to his forced Analysis, would have concluded: because the Reader cannot but discern, that I directly conclude what before was propounded, viz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops, which I prove in the Sermon by degrees: first severally, before the division of parishes, and after the distribution of them, both in the city and in the country: then jointly, both before and after. For having concluded the former point with these words, that the Churches contained many particular congregations, unto all which there was but one Presbytery, or College of Presbyters assigned : and having here signified, that by the confession of the most learned Disciplinarians, each Presbytery had a President, which S. John calleth the Angel of the Church, and the Fathers, a Bishop ; I prove from that which hath already been proved, that the President of the Presbytery, the Angel, of the B. of the Church, was not a parishional, but a diocesan Bishop.

But before I come to the proof contained in this section, I am to note, how those last words of the former part, which are very material, are by this refuter passed over in silence. For it would be known, whether there were in Cities (where were many congregations) yea in whole dioceses, anymore Presbyteries or Colleges of Presbyters, then that one belonging to the mother Church in the City. If to show either his ignorance, or want of good conscience, he shall say there were (as indeed that is their assersion, that in every parish both in city and country, there ought to be a Presbytery or senate of ruling Elders) let him give but one approved instance to prove his assertion in the first four hundred years, and I will yield, that where was a parish Presbytery, there was a parish Bishop. If Calum and the reformers of other Churches, according to the pretended discipline, had been of that judgment, they would not have appointed one only Presbytery for many parishes. If he shall confess that in a whole circuit, which we call a diocese, there was but one college or senate of Presbyters, consisting of those who were called the Presbyters of the city, (which is a most certain and undeniable truth) then must he confess his platform of parish discipline to be a mere novelty, and an vndisgested fancy, having no warrant of scriptures, nor testimony of antiquity; and contrary wise, that there was but one Presbytery, and one Bishop set over a whole diocese. He that catcheth at every word, yea at the least letter whereat he hopeth to have the least advantage, (as at the term pagani in this passage, and at the little letters, in the word Cretans) would not swallow up in silence such pregnant arguments, if silence were not his best answer.

But though he would not see that argument, yet in my propounding of the question here to be concluded, he hath spied a syllogism, which I did not intend, out of that which I propounded in axiomaticall disposition, as taking it for granted. But the Refuter maketh me reason thus:

Which is the hansomest syllogism he hath bestowed on me as yet, neither will I refuse to maintain any one part of it, if he will be pleased to take notice of that, which even now was proved; that there was but one Presbytery for a whole diocese. So the proposition will be manifest, that the presidents of Presbyteries (which were provided for whole dioceses) whom the fathers call BB. were diocesan BB. for so much might have been added to the proposition out of my words.

The assumption I have made good before by the confessions of Calvin and Beza. But he beginneth with the assumption, saying that

For plentiful proof whereof I refer you to that which before hath been alleged out of Calvin and Beza. But what will not this Refuter quarrel with? for if the Churches had been such as he conceipteth, that is to say parishes, having everyone a Bishop and a Presbytery of governing Elders; would any man doubt, either that the Bishop was called the Angel of the Church, or that he was president of the Presbytery?

Was this the proposition which he denied? or was he so unreasonable to deny it? What can be more evident? But he seeth by this time what a goodly analysis he hath here made.

To return therefore to mine own analysis. In this section I prove, that the ancient Bishops were diocesan Bishops, even before the division of parishes, by three arguments, which for brevity sake I joined together.

The assumption is to be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as I said before, that is, as true for the most part. For it admitmitteth some exceptions, as namely the Church of Alexandria, (and perhaps some others) wherein I acknowledge • the parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times; but so, as several Presbyters being assigned to them, there remained one Bishop over all.

To all three, he answereth by denying the assumption: the truth whereof dependeth upon the proofs of the second point, which have been so many, and so manifest, as I hope to hear no more of the new-found parish discipline.

Here I prove, that after the division of parishes, the Bishops were diocesan: albeit in this section is contained but part of my argument, which standeth thus:

The proposition is most evident. The assumption standeth on two parts: first, that the Bishops were over all the parishes in the city, after they were divided. The second, that the Bishops were over all the parishes in the country, after their division. The former I prove in this section by induction of particulars: the latter in the next.

The Analysis being here mistaken by him, I will not meddle with that, which he hath thereby taken occasion to speak besides the purpose: because here I find him more modest, then hitherto he hath shown himself: neither will I shame him with his own friends, when for an evasion he supposeth, that in the primitive Church, some Ministers might have more Churches under them,

Only I will touch those things, which contradict that which I have delivered. And first, he observeth a contradiction in my speech. I said, that parishes (in cities) were not (for the most part) distinguished in the Apostles times. Here I • ay, that in the end of the Apostles times, viz. about the year one hundred, they began to be distinguished at Rome, by Euaristus the Bishop there. A shrewd contradiction J promise you, especially if you consider, that all the Apostles, but S. John, were dead before this time, and that this was in the very end of S. John's time. Neither is this a contradiction: for although Timothy was Bishop of Asia, and Titus of the Churches in Crete; yet it followeth not, that the parishes in the Churches of Asia or Crete, were distinguished. They were both by Paul's direction, as well by letter as example, to ordain Presbyters in the several cities; but that they placed any in the country, or assigned the Presbyters to several cures in the Cities, we read not.

To return therefore to my proofs: The induction standeth thus:

As touching Rome, I show that the parishes were first distinguished by Euaristus, about the 100. year; and not a Presbytery, but several Presbyters assigned to them, as hath been proved heretofore. At Alexandria I prove, that the Bishop had the charge of many Churches, within the first 200. years.

Excepted against? why? what was done in Alexandria, which all the Churches in the world did not practice, so soon as the parishes were divided? But what if this order began in S. John's time? what if by S. Mark, who died five or six years before Peter and Paul? let Eusebius, alleging the reports of them that went before him, be witness; viz, that Mark being sent into Egypt did preach the Gospel there, and was the first which did constitute the Churches in Alexandria it self. Then ever since S. Marks time, there have been Churches in Alexandria, which all from the beginning were subject to the B. Of these Churches , as J alleged in the sermon, was Julianus Bishop in the first year of Commodus, viz. 180. In the 10 of Commodus, Demetrius was Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Churches in Alexandria. And again more fully, that in the 10. year of Seuerus, Lae • us was president of Alexandria, and the rest of Egypt : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but of the Churches there, Demetrius had lately received the Bishopric after Julianus. In the third year of Philippus, after Heraclas had been sixteen years Bishop, Dionysius received 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Bishopric of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria. So it is said of Peter the famous B. of the Curches of Alexandria. of Alexander, that he was Bishop of the Churches belonging to that City. Constantius requested of Athanasius the Bishop , one of the Churches, which were many, at Alexandria, for the Arians. Valens by his letters signified, that Athanasius might safely retain the government of the Churches. What these Churches were, Epiphanius before in part declared, signifying that they were of ancient assigned to several Presbyters; all of them which were Catholic, or orthodoxal, being under the Bishop.

Neither should this seem strange, that the Churches in Alexandria were subject to the Bishop, seeing the rest in Egypt were under his jurisdiction. Neither was this a thing peculiar to the Bishop of Alexandria, but commō to others, especially who were Bishops of mother Cities. Ignatius was Bishop not only of Antioch, but of Syria, as you heard testified by himself. Irenaeus the Bishop of Lions, was Bishop of the Churches in France. And to omit others, as Diodorus the Bishop of Tarsus, to whose charge was committed the nation of the Cilicians, Amphilochius, who governed the whole nation of the Lycaonians, Photinus Bishop of the Churches in Illyricum, Agapetus Bishop of the Churches which were under Synada &c: Eusebius testifieth of Titus, and in the next age after of Philippe , that he was B. of the Churches in Crete. Theodoret saith the like, and of Timothy that he was Bishop of the Asians, whose metropolis was Ephesus. It is manifest, saith Chrysostom that to Timothy was committed the rest of the Church, or that whole nation of Asia.

To these testimonies of Eusebius and Theodoret, (I name so many as were cited in the sermon) the refuter answers:

What then? the question is not whether the witnesses lived in the first 200. years, but whether within that time, there were diocesan Bishops? It is a very uncharitable and unlearned part, that I say no worse, to imagine that Eusebius and Theodoret would, of their own heads, testify these things, and not by the relation of those which lived in former ages: especially, seeing Eusebius saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is recorded in histories. But suppose the testimonies of these 2. were not sufficient; what will he say to that cloud of the ancient & most authētick witnesses, which with one cōsent do testify, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, & those parts of Asia; and that Titus was B. of Crete? But of this more hereafter. In the mean time, let it be acknowledged, as a point of intolerable impudency, that in a matter of fact, so agreeable with the scriptures (I mean especially the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, written to them, as to Bishops) any of us should deny credit to the constant, general and perpetual consent of the ancient writers, whereof some lived 13 or 1400 years before us.

So is Titus called in the subscriptiō of that Epistle. And that they were Metropolitans, appeareth by all their successors, who were Bishops of Gortynae and Ephesiu • : the one, Metropolis of Crete, the other of Asia. How D. Bilson denieth this, let the reader see page. 409. of his book, (the other which the refuter citeth being misalledged) where he citeth Chrysostom and Jerome testifying that to Titus was committed a whole Island, and the judgment of so many Bishops; Theodoret, that to Timothy Paul committed the charge of Asia. Now if there were Metropolitan Bishops in the Apostles times, who besides their own peculiar diocese, had the oversight also of other Dioceses & Bishops; it should not seem strange, that there were Diocesan Bishops, who besides their cathedral churches, had many parishes and Presbyters subordinate to them. To which purpose Epiphanius also was alleged, who saith that each Bishop had diverse churches under them: to whom many other might be added; as that of Optat •• , that in the city of Rome (where was but one only Bishop) were above forty Churches: the Epistle of Constantine to Eusebius, mentioning those diverse Churches which were under him, and signifying as the multitude of Christians did increase, so the number of Churches was to be multiplied: the testimony of Theodoret the Bishop of Cyrus, who affirmeth, that it was his lotte to be pastor of 800. Churches: for so many parishes, saith he, Good sir, saving your wisdom, you shall seldom read in ancient records of enlarging of dioceses: but of the contracting of them, by erecting new Bishoprics, very oft. It was testified before, that the circuits of dioceses were from the beginning of the Churches: and therefore what circuit was of any Bishopric in Epiphanius his time, the same ordinarily, if not greater, was in the first 200. years.

In this section I prove the latter part of the former assumption, concerning country parishes. viz. that the Bishop of the city was over them also: which I prove by this Enthymeme:

The antecedent I prove by their care over them, both before they were converted, and after. Before, because they labored their conversion; after, because the Bishop out of his Presbytery assigned to each of thē a Presbyter, not a Presbytery, or a B. 2. Where the diocese was large, he substituted a Chorepiscopus, or country B. Of these points, the last, our refuter weary conscionably concealeth: all the former, very learnedly he denieth. He denieth, I say:

Which, as it is a most ignorant conceit, as hath been proved before: so would it have been most precious to the church of God, if the BB. and Presbyof those times, had so conceived. Now that both they and the country churches so conceived, as J said, the universal & perpetual practice of the church of Christ, subjecting in all places the country parishes to the Bishop of the city, doth inevitably prove. As if the Bishop, and presbytery had been ordained only for those few, that were at the first converted; and were not rather, as leaven put into the meal, to season the whole lump. I would gladly know therefore, who after the death of the Apostles and apostolical men (which labored in the cities) were appointed or provided for the conversion of the country towns? If it were not the office of the Bishop and Presbytery of the city, to which they were subject; much less was it the office of others, who being neither Apostles, nor Evangelists, were tied to their own charges, & might not by the most ancient canons of the church, exercise any mysteriall function out of their own bounds. Besides the bounds of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction followed the civil ordinarily; so that those countries were subject to the Bishop of the City in respect of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which were subject to the city itself. And therefore as they were actually under the Bishops charge, after their conversion; so were they intentionally, before. This is a point clearly confessed by Calvin, as you shall hear. So is the third, though this learned man deny it; viz, that Presbyters were by the Bishops of the city assigned to country parishes out of the clergy of the city. For the clergy of the city was the seminary of the ministry for the whole diocese. Neither was there any other ordinary means to supply the Churches which wanted. Scholars of their own, fit • o be ministers, country parishes had not: universities there were none: learned men from other dioceses were not to be expected, unless the Bishop of the city were not able out of his clergy to furnish them. But hereof I have spoken before:

As touching the last, that where the diocese was large, the Bishop in certain places appointed Chorepiscopos, as his substitutes, who together with their charge remained subject to the Bishop of the city (which is a thing most notorious, and confessed by Calvin and Beza, being also a most evident proof, that the churches were dioceses, and the Bishops diocesan, as J have shown before) our refuter passeth it over in silence; with what conscience, let the refuter Judge.

Passing therefore by this, which in no wise he was able to answer, he oppugneth the 3. point, bringing an instance of his own, and taking exception against my proof. We have, saith he, a plain instance to the contrary in the churches of Cenchrea and Corinth. A plain instance? to what purpose? that Cenchrea had a Bishoppe and a presbytery, and not a several presbyter assigned to it? that when it wanted a presbyter, it was not furnished from the clergy of Corinth? It is evident that Cenchrea was a village belonging to Corinth and subject unto it, as were all other towns and villages in those parts: and as the rest, so it (even by his own confession) received the gospel from Corinth. That it ever had a Bishop it is incredible: for by the laws of the church, those churches which at the first had Bishops, were to have them still. Let him show, that ever it had a Bishop or a presbytery, or that it was not subject to the Bishop of Corinth, as well as other towns and villages of Achaia; that ordinarily it received not their presbyter from Corinth, from whence, by his own confession, it received the Gospel; and I will yield to him. If none of these things can be necessarily proved; nay if none of them be probable or likely, how could he say that this was

. And yet this is the fourth time that the church of Cenchreae hath been objected to no purpose, unless it be to confute himself.

Against my allegation of the council of Serdica, he taketh great exception, objecting two contrary things unto me: whereof, if either were true, the one would take away the other. The former,

If I had alleged that canon, only to testify the practice of the Church at that time, not permitting Bishops in country towns and villages, there had been some small color for this objection: and yet but a color, seeing they do not (as you shall hear) prohibit the ordaining of Bishops in any Church where they had formerly been. And therefore the practice of the Church for multitude of Bishops now, was as it had been before; saving that by this canon order was taken for erecting Bishoprics, where none had been, but not for dissolving of Bishoprics, where any were. But it was the judgment and determination of that Council, which chiefly I alleged; which was, that one Presbyter is sufficient for a village or town. And therefore nothing was in this respect to be innouated, but as they had hitherto no Bishops or Presbyteries, but Presbyters severally assigned to them, so they should continue. The judgment of these men (I hope) was not much inferior to theirs, who lived in the first two hundred years. This being a council of three hundred orthodoxal Bishops who confirmed the decrees of the council of Nice, among whom was Osius the famous confessor, and Athanasius (then whom there hath not been a more famous Bishop for piety, wisdom, learning and soundness in religion since the Apostles times) whose judgment also in this particular was approved, as hath been shown, by the decrees of other councils, by the judgment of other fathers, by the practice of all churches, and never gain said or misliked by any in the former ages, nor yet by the reformers of the church in our age according to the pretended discipline, T. C. and perhaps someone or 2. others excepted. Now I would gladly know, what either reasons our refuter hath to confute their judgment, or testimonies to ouerweigh their authority. There was therefore no subtle purpose in me to delude any in this allegation, but an evil conscience in him that sought with so frivolous an evasion to elude so plain and pregnant evidence.

For the untruth of which objection, his ignorance must be his best excuse. It is plain, that in that canon direction is given chiefly for erecting of new Bishoprics; authorizing the Metropolitan and the other Bishops of the province, if the people of cities and populous places desired a Bishop, to erect a new Bishopric: but forbidding this to be done in villages or petite cities or towns, for which they judged the ministry of one Presbyter to be sufficient. Besides, the council of Nice had decreed, that the privileges of all churches should be preserved; and the councils of Afric more then once determined, that what Church soever had in former times had a Bishop, should still have a B. and the ancient custom of the church was ever held as a law among them, in this behalf. So that I hold it for a certain truth, that what Church in the end of the first 400 years had not a Bishop, the same had none in the beginning: and what Church soever had in the first 200. years a B. was at the end of 400. years acknowledged to have right to a B.

Indeed I do confess that the people of country towns sometimes being vainglorious, have desired a Bishop of their own, and the ministers being ambitious, and as it is said in the council of Carthage, lifting up their necks against their Bishops, have inflamed their desires: but these attempts were esteemed unlawful, and therefore as in councils they were prohibited, so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed. But hereof also I have spokē before.

Here J ask him, first, when this was done? for will he prove, that the irregular and unlawful practices of vainglorious people, and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ, were the lawful and ordinary practices of the purest churches in the first two hundred years? Secondly, whether it were lawfully done, or not? if yea, then doth he contradict the judgment of approved councils, the authority of orthodoxal Fathers, the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ, having nothing to oppose thereto but vain surmises, & unlikely likelihoods. If not, why are they alleged? shall irregular & unlawful practices be commended as patterns for imitatiō?

But let us hear his instances, which T. C. with great labor and long study gathered. The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop

If I say no, how will he prove it? Eusebius is alleged lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approved men, & BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla (one of Montanus his truls) mentioneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Zoticus of (or from) the village Comana, whose mouth Themiso stopped: noting the place, not whereof he was Bishop, but whence he came or where he was borne, for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia, saith Caesar Baronius, ex vic • Comana in Armenia ori • ndus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, borne at the village Comana in Armenia. Jn the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius Apollonius reporteth the same story; which Nicephorus also reciting, useth these words: Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus whē Maximilla begā to prophecy at Pepuza (a place which Montanus called Jerusalem) indeuored to convince her evil spirit, but was hindered of those which were her fauourits, meaning Themiso. Indeed Apollinarius calleth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; whereupō Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter: but though Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Peter calls himself, being more then a Presbyter, & as BB. usually cal one another Consacerdotes : yet afterwards he expresselie calleth him a Bishoppe. And thus the village, the

Coman hath lost her Bishoppe. For little the Refuter added of his own, to make his instance the greater. The second: Was not Mares (he should have said, Maris) Bishoppe of Solica ? Of Solica? Truelie I cannot but smile that so great a clerk hath learned his letters no better; for though the first letter be not unlike an S. yet is it the D. used in that print, as he might have learned of a Deacon in the same page. But this showeth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand, not consulting with the author. Theodoret saith, that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha, which he saith was but a small town, using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which I will speak of, when I come to Nazianzum, which also is termed so. For, saith Theodoret, Eusebius being desirous to install Maris, a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of virtues 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Episcopal throne, he came to Dolicha, by which phrase it appeareth, he did not ordain him the Presbyter of a parish, but such a Bishop as others were, at least of that time, being the fourth century after Christ, So far hath our refuter also ouershotte his mark. For though Dolicha were but a small city or town, as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be: yet that hindereth not, but that it might have a diocese belonging thereto, as well as ours have, though perhaps not so great.

The third,

. For this, T. C. quoteth Jerome tom. 1. catalog. Gennadij vir. illustr. Gennadius indeed saith, that he was vici non grandis episcopus. But Johannes de Trittenhem in his book de scriptorib. ecclesiast. saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus ; so that although his seat was no great town, yet his diocese was that whole territory. But when was this? about the year 440. so far doth my adversary, who complaineth of my ouershooting my mark when J alleged the council of Serdica, ouershoot me: for when he will scarce suffer me to shoot tenscore: he, as if he▪ were shooting for the flight, shoots 22, even tweluescore beyond the mark. I say unto him, it was not so frō the beginning. But by councils of Africa held towards the end of the fourth century permitted, namely, that in part of the diocese belonging to the B. of a city, new Bishoprics might be erected, if the people of those partes being populous desiring so much, and the Bishoppe of the city consenting thereto, it were agreed upon by the provincial Synod. But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way, in granting popular requests, against the canons of other received councils, and ancient practice of the Church: that Leo the great Bishop of Rome, was fain to write unto the Bishops of Afric to stay that excess.

The fourth: What was Nazianzum, but a small town where that famous Gregory the Divine was B? For which T.C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City? what if Gregory the Divine were not B. of Nazianzum? Nazianzum, though Socrates make mention of it as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a mean city, yet he calleth it a city: and though somwhere it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, a little city or town, yet was it such a city, that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitan BB. not that I think it had any other cities or Bishoprics subject unto it. I will not stand to argue that question, whether Gregory the Divine were Bishop of Nazianzum. For although diverse good Authors affirm it; yet I believe Gregory himself, who saith, he was not B. but only coadiutor to his Father there. He was by his dear friend Basil the great, made Bishop of Sa •••• , partly against his will, and af • er was made Bishop of Constantinople; but leaving both the former, being seized upon by Anthimu • the Bishop of Tyana, who placed another there; the latter, resigning it into the hands of the council of Constantinople, which preferred Nectarius to be his successor; he returned unto Nazianzum, where finding the See void, obtained of Helladius, who was the Bishoppe of Cesarea after Basil, that Eulalius might be ordained Bishoppe there. But I will not dispute this question; seeing it is confessed, that Nazianzens father was B. of that diocese.

These be all the instances which T.C. bringeth in this cause, excepting one more out of the canon law, which our refuter thought not worth the objecting. But his inference hereupon is worth the observing.

Whereto I answer: that I read with resolution to yield to the truth wheresoerver I find it. But God hath given me so much judgment, as not to be persuaded by mere colors, such as I signified in my preface T. C. arguments in this cause to be, and such as in this treatise I have proved many of them to be, and so will the rest, if the Refuter shall urge them, or take upon him to maintain them.

Having so substantially answered the substance of my argument, he taketh occasion to show his learning, in giving a more learned reason why the heathen are of Christians called Pagani, then I did. I said, and, I am sure, have read it in some learned author, that they are so called, because the people who lived in the country villages (which are properly called pagani, a pag • , and that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Pomp. Festus saith, quia eadem aqua vterentur ) remained for the most part heathenish, after the cities, for the most part, were converted to Christianity.

Which if it were Tertullian's meaning, as well Christians, as infidels should be called Pagans. But Tertullian is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dark, and writeth (as it seemeth) above some men's capacity. With Christ, saith Tertullian, as well a believing pagan is a soldier, as an unbelieving soldier, is a pagan ; meaning by Pagan, according to the use of the Romans, him that is not a Soldier. Whereas therefore among the Romans, and all warlike nations, those who were Soldiers, were greatly honored (as the use of the word miles and armiger with us doth show) and contrariwise those who were not Soldiers; were of base esteem, called Pagani, perhaps in some such sense as Villani with us, that is to say, villains, clownes, boores: Tertullian dissuading Christians from going to war under infidels, persuadeth thē not to be moved with this respect, of being honored, if they be soldiers; and dishonored, if they be not: for, saith he, with Christ, a faithful man, though despised in the world as a pagan, is highly esteemed and honored; and also an unfaithful man, though honored as a soldier, or cheuallier in the world, is of base account with Christ. But how heathē people should from hence be called Pagani, I know not, unless Christians were also called milites or cheualliers: for Pagani here, as a base term signifying villains or clownes or boores, is opposed to milites, as a name of honor.

In this section, I prove that the BB. both before & after the division of parishes, were diocesan: and first I answer an objection: for whereas some might imagine, that Bishops before the division of parishes were parishional, after, diocesan, as being set over many churches: I show (which before hath been proved) that the circuit of the Bishops charge, or diocese, was the same before the division of parishes, which it was after, &c. And to this purpose I declare, that the circuit of the B. charge from the beginning, contained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , meaning thereby the City whence he hath his denomination, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is the country subject unto it. And whereas some understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify a parish, according to the vulgar use of the English word, I shown that in the best authors, even after the division of parishes, it signifieth the whole city with the suburbs. My reason standeth thus:

The proposition is of undeniable truth, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being so understood, as I proved before.

The assumption J prove by two most pregnant testimonies; the one, being one of the ancient canons called the Apostles; the other a canon of the council of Antioch, whereof I have also spoken before. But to them we may add the next canon called the Apostles, which is also recited in the council of Antioch: That a Bishoppe may not presume out of his own limits, to exercise ordinations, to Cities and Countries not subject to him. And if he shall be convinced to have done this without the consent of them, who hold those Cities or Countries, let him be deposed, and those also whom he hath ordained.

This syllogism being too strong to be refuted, his best course was not to see it. Notwithstanding he cavilleth with some points therein. For whereas his chief proof before, was, that the Church of Antioch, of Ephesus, of Jerusalem, of Alexandria &c. were each of them but one particular congregation &c. because Eusebius calleth each of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thereby abusing the Reader, as if Eusebius had by that name meant that which we cal a parish; here he disauoweth the authority of Eusebius alleged according to his true meaning,

Which is a silly shift: seeing Eusebius speaking of the Churches of whole Cities in the first two hundred years, even of such as he had expressly mentioned as containing many Churches, he calleth them by that name. As at Alexandria he acknowledged the Churches to have been instituted by Saint Mark, and yet he comprehendeth them all afterwards, yea after the number of them was increased, under the name of the paroecia in Alexandria, as I have shown before. And where besides Eusebius, I quote Epiphanius, and the Council of Antioch, he saith, Which also is a very frivolous exception, seeing it is easy to show, that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were usually lessened: but that they were any wheres enlarged, he will hardly show. Therefore, look what the circuits of the Churches or Bishops charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time, the same, at the least, they were in the first two hundred years.

And whereas I allege one of the ancient canons called the Apostles, nor that I think they were of the Apostles own penning, but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called, and by all sorts of writers so alleged, he chargeth me with

In that I said they were so called, it doth sufficienttly both here and where after I cite them, show my meaning. But let us hear what he can say against them, for my mind giveth me, he will leave them in better credit then he found them. In both places it is said, that they are apohryphall (as we call the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) not because they are either false or counterfeit, but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles own writing: for if they were, they ought to be esteemed of canonical authority, like the other scriptures. Notwithstanding they are ecclesiastical canons, which for their great antiquity and authentic authority, are commonly called Apostolical, received of ancient Fathers, and approved by Councils. And although some of them may be suspected, as foisted in, or depraved by heretics, yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Councils as authentic, are without exception; being of as great credit as any other ecclesiastical writings whatsoever. Such is the canon we speak of, the words whereof which I cited being verbatim, recited in the Council of Antioch. I will not discuss this controversy, wherein much may be said on both sides. Only this J will say, that as Damascene exceeded the truth, in reckoning them with the canonical scriptures: so some learned and judicious men have been much overseen in too much censuring of them: as first, that they are condemned in the canon law, when indeed the very scope of the 16. distinction is to authorize them, and to acknowledge them, though not as canonical scriptures, yet as authentical canons.

Secondly, that Isidor condemneth them : Whereas indeed the words of Isidor , in the true copy are these. That by reason of their authority, we prefix before the other councils, the canons called the Apostles (although of some they are called apocryphal) because the greater part receive them; and the holy fathers have by synodall authority ratified them, and placed them among canonical constitutions.

when as indeed that Council rejecting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the constitutions of Clement, (which also were called Apostolical) because they were depraved by heretics, authorized the canons, decreeing that the 85. canons shall remain firm and sure, which of their holy and blessed forefathers were received, and confirmed, and delivered unto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles. And whereas some think, that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them; I find it to be otherwise. For diverse of them are cited before his time, being sometimes called absolutely the canons, sometimes the ecclesiastical canons, sometimes the ancient received canons of our Fathers, sometimes Apostolical canons, as I have partly noted before . Neither is the authority of the general Council held at Ephesus, though after Epiphanius his time, to be neglected, which calleth them the canons of the holy Apostles. So much of those canons, and also of this section, which though it do most directly and necessarily conclude, that Bishops were set over dioceses, yet he calleth it a needless discourse, which, because he knew not how to answer, he taketh leave to pass by it.

In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Calvin, whom I produce, not as this sophister cavilleth,

, but as one that taketh part with us, against our new sect of Disciplinarians, especially in the second and third point, (which their dissenting from Calvin, Beza, and other learned Authors of discipline, he always cunningly dissembleth.) And that his authority may be of more weight, as I confess him to have been a worthy servant of Christ, whose memory with me is blessed; so I profess him to have been the first or chief founder of the Presbyterian or Geneuian discipline: in setting up whereof, the Bishopric being dissolved, and the common weal reduced to a popular State, I acknowledge him to have dealt very wisely, his project of discipline being the best, that that City did seem at that time capable of, there being no hope, that either a Bishop or a Presbytery consisting wholly of Ministers, would be admitted. But he cannot endure to hear, that Calvin should be esteemed the first founder of this discipline. For cōfutation whereof, he telleth us (what we have heard an hundred times, but never shall see proved) that this he should have said, that writ before Calvin lived, and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true; which as I have manifested already in respect of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Luther, so far as they have been alleged: so shall I in respect of Wycliffe and the Waldenses, whoneuer once dreamed of their lay presbyteries, and much less of their new-found parish discipline.

Neither can he abide that Calvin should be said to agree with us in these three points; but he must abide it, for truth will prevail.

Let him not abuse the Reader; his agreeing with us in the second and third point, overthroweth the new-found parish discipline, but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers, and with the practice of Geneva, understanding by B. (as they do) the President of their Presbytery: their Church being a diocese consisting of many parishes, over which one Presbytery only is appointed. Of which Presbytery, if the President were perpetual, • as he was in Calvin's time, and (as always he was in the primitive Church, there being not one instance to be given to the contrary; which order Beza misliketh not, but sometimes wisheth it were restored) then should they come nearer the practice of the Apostolical Churches, then now they do. In the mean time, as their Church is a diocese, and their Presbytery serving for the whole diocese; so the President for the time being, is diocesan. But whether that be so or not; once, Calvin's judgment agreeth with mine in these three points: As though we were destitute thereof, and they contrariwise, for their discipline, had the precept and practice of the Apostles. Which well may they take for granted, but never will be able to prove: and as though the universal and perpetual practice of all the Churches in Christendom, and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred years, were not a sufficient demonstration to persuade a man that hath a sound judgment, joined with a good conscience, what was the doctrine and practice of the Apostles. For if any man shall say, that all the Apostolical Churches, and all the godly Fathers, and glorious Martyrs, did ever from the Apostles times observe a discipline and government of the Church, repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed; I doubt not to say of such a man, that as he is void of modesty, so hath he no great store either of judgment or honesty.

But how far forth Calvin agreeth with us, will appear by that chapter which I alleged, the title whereof is this; Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the manner of governing which was in use before the papacy. The which, as he saith in the beginning, will represent unto our eyes a certain image of the divine institution. For although the Bishops of those times made many canons, whereby they might seem to express more then was expressed in the holy scriptures, notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of God's word, that you may easily perceive, that they had almost nothing in this behalf, diss • nant frō the word of God. This is a good testimony, you will say, given to the discipline of the primitive Church: but doth he testify, that the three points you speak of are agreeable thereunto? that shall you now hear. And first, concerning the Presbyteries he saith, as before I alleged, every City had their College of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers, &c. The Refuter repeateth the words, which I cited out of Calvin thus:

I hope to salve both presently. I confess, good sir, that Calvin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17. I confess also, that speaking in general of the practice of the Church, he saith coldly and in few words, the rest of the Presbyters were set over the censure of manners and corrections. But when he cometh more particularly to relate the practice of the ancient Church, he giveth full testimony to the truth. For can any man understand Calvin, as saying, they had any other Presbyery, besides the college of Presbyters in every Church? Doth not Calvin plainly say, every city had their college of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers? Hear then the words of Calvin: Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium, qui pastores erant ac Doctors. Nam & apud populū munus docendi, exhortandi & corrigendi, quod Paulus episcopis iniungit, omnes obibant: & quo semen post se relinquerent, iunioribus, qui sacra militae nomen dederant, crudiendis, nanabant operam: Every city therefore had a college of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers. For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching, exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enjoineth to Bishops, and also that they might leave a seed behind them, they employed their labor in teaching the younger sort, who had given their names, to serve in the sacred warfare, that is, the younger sort of the Clergy. Thus therefore J reason:

The assumption is evident: The proposition himself proveth, when he saith omnes, all of them exercised the offic • of teaching, &c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. &c. What can be more plain? For where there are none but Ministers, there are Ministers only: where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people, which Paul enjoined Bishops; and instructing the younger sort of the clergy, there are none but Ministers. Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching, &c. there are Ministers only.

As touching the second, Calvin most plainly giveth testimony to it in the next words following: Vnicui{que} ciuita • i erat attributa certa regio, qua Presbyteros iude sumeret, & velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur: To every City was attributed a certain region or country, which from thence should receive their Presbyters, and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church. What can be more plain, that each Church contained the city and country adjoining, that both city and country made but one Church, as it were one body, whereof the head was the city, the other members the parishes in the country: that the Presbyteries were only in cities, and that the country parishes received each of them their Presbyter, when they wanted, from thence? Who therefore (to use his own words) could be either so ignorant as not to see, or so shameless as not to acknowledge, that the Churches in Calvin's judgment were dioceses? How doth he avoid this? Forsooth

But doth he not mean dioceses, when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a city and country adjoining? Yea but he No doth? he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities, of which the Bishops were Presidents. As for country parishes, they had not Presbyteries, but several Presbyters: and those they had, as Calvin saith, from the Presbytery of the city. Besides, when he maketh the city and country to be but one body, it cannot be doubted, but that he meant the Church in the city was the head of this body, and the rest of the parts subject unto it. Whereto you may add that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocese, where it was large, as the Bishops deputy, in the country subject to him. But what Calvin's judgment was in this behalf. let the Church of Geneva, framed thereby, test • fie. Which is as much a diocese now, as when it was under a Bishop, there being but one Presbytery, unto which all the parishes are subject. But let us hear what this Refuter doth confess Calvin to have acknowledged in this behalf: Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience, being convicted with evidence of truth; but desirous to make a show of opposition, when they know not what to say against it. Doth not Calvin plainly say, that to each citt • was attributed a certain region, and that both were one Church as it were one body? To what purpose doth he then say, that Is not his answer in effect this, Calvin doth confess that the Churches indeed were dioceses, and that the Bishops had under their charge both the city and country adjoining, (for that also he confesseth in the next point) but they were not Bishops having such authority as you speak of? that is, I confess he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point, as you say; but yet in the fourth (which also you confess) he dissenteth from you. Howbeit he expresseth his mind absurdly, when he saith, For was not the Bishop a diocesan, if his Church was a diocese? if he had under his charge both the city and country adjoining? Yea but Though Calvin acknowledgeth the Bishop to have been only President of the Presbytery, like to the Consul in the senate of Rome (which you call a titular B.) wherein (being the fourth point) he dissenteth from us; yet doth he acknowledge, that under his Bishopric, was contained both the city and country, and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop, unless he that is Bishop of a diocese, be not a diocesan Bishop.

His testimony therefore to the third is clear, especially if you add that which followeth, concerning the Ch • repiscopi, or country Bishops. For Calvin saith, If the country which was under his Bishopric, were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in every place, rural Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place. Which is a most pregnant testimony, both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan. For if every parish had sufficient authority within themselves, what needed rural Bishops to overlook them? If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish, why doth Calvin say the Country was under his Bishopric? Why doth he say, that the Bishopric was sometimes so large, that there was need of Country Bishops as his deputies, to represent the Bishop in the province or country? But what saith the Refuter to this? he confesseth (not ingenuously, but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerva, as if it stuck in his teeth ) that

All the question concerning the Apostles times? do not yourselves extend your assertion to 200. years? And if nothing will settle the conscience but what is alleged from the Apostles times, what have you to settle your conscience for your opinion, who can allege no sound proof neither from the Apostles times, nor afterwards? But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter, seeing I have heretofore proved, that the circuit of every Bishops charge, was from the beginning as great, if not greater, then afterwards? And if nothing may be in the Church, but as it was in the Apostles times, then ought not the whole people of any country be converted to the profession of Christianity, because none was then: and as well might they allege, that no whole country ought to be converted to the profession of the faith, because none was in the Apostles times, as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church, because it was not so in the Apostles times.

Thus have I manifestly proved, that Calu •• giveth testimony to the first point; and in the two latter, that he wholly agreeth with us. So doth