A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 2 · Chapter 3

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 2 · Chapter 3

p. 40CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon, prouing that the seuen Churches of Asia, &c. were Dioceses.

THese testimonies and proofes hitherto produced, are so euident & demōstratiue for dioceses and diocesans, as that if no more could be said, they are sufficient, if not to perswade, yet at the least to conuince the gainsaiers. But if besides these, the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase, shall be made to returne vponupon him, and to driue him and his consorts like the men of Ai, vponupon these new forces; and if the forces which hee bringeth to maintaine his quarell, shall bee found to bee of no force, and altogether vnable to endure the least encounter; p. 41then doe I hope, that our Disciplinarians themselues will be perswaded to speake no more for the new found parish Discipline. But before I enter into this second conflict, I am to take a suruey of his forces, which I perceiue are diuided into 2. troopes, the one encountering with my forces, the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline.

In his encounter or refutations;Pag. 53. first he findeth fault, that I doe not conclude in this second part, what he would hauehave me to conclude according to his forced Analysis. For answere whereof let my words be considered.

(Serm. s. 1 pag. 17. I come now to the second: which is, to shew that in the Apostles time and in the ages following, the Churches wherof the Bishops are called Angels, (or to vse their own words, the visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment) were Dioceses properly, and not parishes. This is prooued out of this place &c.)

The assertion which I indeuour to prooue in the foure first points of my Sermon, was this, that the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church, were Diocesan Bishops, and for the substance of their calling, such as ours be. This assertion, after I had prooued it in the first point foreign, by disproouing their Presbyteries: in the three next points I indeuour to prooue it foreign, shewing that they were such as ours are, both in respect of the largenesse of their authoritie; to which end I shew that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point, and themselues Diocesans in the third: and in respect of the height of their authoritie and Preheminence, that they were superiour in degree to other ministers &c. which I prooue in the fourth. In this second p. 42point therefore, if I indeauour to prooue that the primitiue Churches, which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and were indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment, were not parishes properly, but Dioceses; nothing could be more directly, and pertinently deliuered. But the onelyonly thing, which I seeke to prooue and maintaine in this part, as eueryevery man seeth, is, that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries, &c. were not parishes properly, but Dioceses. And this I first prooue by mine owne arguments, and secondly maintaine against theirs.

§. 2. That the 7. Churches were Dioceses.My arguments were two. The former grounded on the text, and is thus to be framed:

Churches, whose circuit contained not onelyonly cities, but also countries adioyning, were Dioceses.

The circuit of the 7. churches, wherof the 7. Angels were Bishops, (and whereto other Churches hauing Bishops, and Presbyteries, indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, were like) contained the cities and Countries adjoyning▪

Therefore the 7. Churches &c. were Dioceses.

The proposition I did not expresse, but did presuppose it, and take it for granted. Likewise that part of the assumption (inclosed in the parenthesis) affirming that to the 7. Churches, all others which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and consequently were indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, were like, I also presupposed: because it is not to be doubted but that the primitiue Churches indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, were of the like nature and constitution. And vponupon this hypothesis, the onelyonly argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause,Pag. 66. is grounded: affirming that it is clear by all learned (I know not what) that the constitution of the visible Churches, was at the first one & the same in al places.

Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoyning, it is proued; first, ioyntly. For if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised all the Churches in Asia, then all both in cities and countries: but the first is true; for our Sauiour p. 43Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all vnderunder these 7. as being the principall, and containing within their circuit all the rest.

Then, seuerally: The church of Ephesus, contained a great and ample citie (indeed a Metropolis or mother city) and the country subiect to it: the church of Smyrna a mother city & the country belōging to it: the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adioyning: the church of Laoidcea, a mother city and the country vnderunder it: the Church of Pergamus, or Pergamū, a famous city, (which had beene the fear of the Kings of Asia) and the countrey belonging to it: the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories.

Now let vsus see how our refu…er cauilleth with these arguments. The first he frameth thus:

If the churches of Asia to which our sauiour Christ writ,§. 3. were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but also the coūtries adioyning, then they were dioceses properly and not parishes:

But the churches of Asia were such. Therefore they were Dioceses &c.

Of this syllogisme (saith hee) the assumption is on the eighteenth page, and the conclusion on the seuenteenth. The proposition is of necessity so to be supplied. To which I answere, that the consequence thereof is naught. Euen so in your conceit bee almost all that you make for me.Ad page. 54. His answer to the proposition. But …s your necessity or need such, that you cānot frame a syllogisme with hope to answer it, vnlesse the propositiō hauehave cō sequence which you may deny? Let me intreat you, that the proposition may be simple as euen now I propounded it, & thē deny it if you can. Churches whose circuit contained not on the cities but also the co…ntries adioyning were Dioceses. This proposition will stand vnmooueable, when the fo…dation of your discipline wil be raced. And so wil the cōsequēce which your self propoūd, being groūded on this propositiō as the hypothesis therof. But why is the consequēce naught? for it will not be amisse to take a breef view how he playeth with it. 2. reasōs he rendreth 1. Because it presupposeth that al p. 44Churches in the world at that time were …mple and great Cities. Which as it appeareth to bee manifestly false to all that are of any vnderstanding; so it, and some other places in his booke doe plainely bewray that hee doth not knowe,V…de infir. lib. 4. c. 4. § 3. What is the hypothesis of of a cōuexiue proposition. what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexiue proposition. The which that hee may know heere after, let him dispose his connexiue proposition in an enthymeme; and what part of the syllogisme is wanting, let him vnderstand that to be presupposed as the hypothesis whereon that consequence is grounded. And if that hypothesis bee false, let him know that the consequence is naught. But if it bee true (as alwaies it is in their argumentations who do not dispute sophistically, for they presuppose and take for granted nothing but that which in their opinion is certaine and manifest) then is the consequence necessary. As for example, let his connexiue proposition be disposed in this E…thymeme: The 7. churches contained within their circuit, not onelyonly the Cities but the countries adioining:

Therefore the seuen Churches were dioceses.

That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogisme which is vnderstood: viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not onelie cities but the countries adioyning, were dioceses. Which being a certaine and manifest truth, the consequence was necessary. But if I should say thus:

Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countreys adioyning, were dioceses: Therfore the 7. churches were dioceses: in this consequence the assumption were presupposed, viz. that the circuit of euerie of the seuen churches contained both the citie, and country adioyning. Which parts of Syllogismes omitted in Enthymemes▪ if the refuter would adde to make vp a simple syllogisme, either in his arguing or analysing, hee might spare both himselfe and his aduersary a great deale of superfluous trouble about his consequences. Hee must therefore vnlearne that art (if he would not p. 45be accounted a trifler) of flinging all arguments into a connexiue Syllogisme, that hee may hauehave a consequence to cauill with.

But so farre is the proposition which hee propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities, that it doth not so much as presuppose those seuen in Asia, which it mentioneth, to be such. That is not presuppo…ed in the proposition, but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption. Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition, but the simple proposition, which I said was the hypothesis thereof. If it be …aid, that what I say of the seuen churches, I would hauehave vnderstood of all other churches, and so seeme to presuppose (though not in my proposition, yet in my argumentation) that which the Refuter doth obiect: I answere, that as in other places I am not to bee blamed for concluding from other Churches to these seuen: so neither here for concluding from these seuen, to all others. For the forme and constitution of all the Primitiue Churches, being one and the same, as the Refuter confesseth; it is euident that what is truely said of other Primitiue churches in respect of their constitution, is verified of these seuen: And what is verified of these seuen, may bee truely affirmed of the rest. Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities, (that was spoken concerning fiue of these in Asia) it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adioining. And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery, or were (as you speake and meane) indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement.§ 4. Their instāce concerning Cenchreae. Neither can you giuegive instance in any one to the contrary. Yes, that they can. T. C. hath an instance: this disputer also hath one instance, pag. 57. and one in this place, and in some others. And yet all is but this: Some church was not a City, as for example, Cenchrea. He might hauehave said Cenchrea. Their reason is thus explicated:

p. 46Cenchreae was not a City,

Rom. 16.11.Rom 16:11Cenchreae was a Church,

Therefore some Church was not a City.

J distinguish of the word Church. For I denie not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church, much more in a village or towne. But the question is of such a church, as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery, and had, as they speake, the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement. Such a Church was seated onelyonly in Cities, or great towns answerable to Cities. And therefore, if they meane (as they doe: or else they might aswell hold their peace) that in Cenchreae was such a Church; I deny the assumption. Cenchreae was subiect to the church of Corinth, as al other towns thereabouts, and neuer had a Bishoppe or a Presbytery of her owne. Yea, but she had a Deacon. Suppose that were so, what then? seuerall Deacons, and seuerall Presbyters were placed in parish Churches, where was neither B. nor Presbytery, nor the power (which they speake of) of Ecclesiasticall gouernment. And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse, namely Phoebe. Of whom also it may be doubted, whether Paul calleth her foreign, one that ministred to the Church in Cenchreae, in respect of an office imposed vponupon her to minister to the needy, & to entertaine strangers on the churches cost, or in regard of her voluntary ministring to the faithful there, of her own substance. For if she were, as Bullinger, and diuers before him report, nobilissima & ditissima foemina, a most noble, and most wealthy woman; it is not like, that she was a widow maintained of the church;Luke 8.3.Luke 8:3 but one, which (like to Mary, Ioanna, Chusa, & Susanna mentioned in the Gospell, which foreign ministred to Christ of their goods) did maintaine and relieue the poore of the Church there, and giuegive entertainement to Christian trauellers of her owne cost. In which respect Paul saith of her,Rom. 16.2.Rom 16:2 that she had been foreign, a patronesse of many, yea of the Apostle himselfe. Neither is it likely that a widdow maintained of the church, as hauing little or nothing of her owne, should hauehave such busines in Rome, or (as it is thought) at the Emperours Court, as that p. 47the Apostle should write to the faithfull in Rome to assist her in her affaires. But it may be you desire to heare some further reason of his deniall of that consequence: you shal heare it. For, saith he, though it were granted, that these 7. were great Cities, & the Countries adioyning; …et there might be diuers others, which were small, &c. See you not how he seeketh about for starting holes? What if there were (and that is more thē might be) other smal churches? (as indeed there was none such as we speak of, but they were seated in the Cities, neither was any so small, but if it were indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernment, it was of the same constitution with those which were greater). What is that to this consequence? If these Churches contained ech of them not onelyonly the City, but the country adioining, then they were not Parishes properly, but Dioceses. His answere if it bee well weighed, is an exception against the conclusion. As if hee should say, though I would fain wrangle with your propositiō, but cānot (for how is it possible, but that if these churches did containe ample Cities with the countries, such as we cal shires, belonging to them, they were not dioceses but parishes?) & although your assumptiō should bee granted, namely, that these churches contained not only the cities, but countries: notwithstanding your conclusion is to be excepted against. For though these were dioceses, yet others might be parishes. Such a froward aduersary I hauehave met withall; who in other places accusing mee, for not concluding what these churches, or the angels of thē were, here findeth fault that J cōclude what they were. But both his accusations are alike vniust; seeing the constitution of them, and all others (indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment) was the same; and what is said of the one, is to be vnderstood of the other.

His second reason why the consequence is naught:§. 5. because it doth not appeare, (neither is it true) that eueryevery one of these Churches was diuided into diuers seuerall ordinary asblies, all of thē depending vponupon some one as the chiefe, without power of ecclesiastical gouernment apart in themselus. Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion? is not the deniall of the conclusion, an euidence that the answerer is p. 48confounded? and is not confusion a manifest signe of one that writeth against his conscience, resolued not to bee perswaded, though his conscience be conuicted?

As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion, that they were not Dioceses, because they were not diuided. &c. it containeth three branches: First, that they were not diuided into diuers ordinary assemblies. Secondly, If they were, yet they did not all depend vponupon some one as the chiefe. Thirdly, That they had the power of ecclesiastical gouernement in themselues. These assertions would hauehave beene proued by them that are opponents, and will needes perswade vsus to admitte of their parish Discipline. But I am well assured that they are notable to proue any one of them. And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions, and to put them to proue them: yet because I desire from my soule to satisfie our opposites in this cause, as Brethren; and because they containe the very grounds of the parish-discipline, I will briefly disproue them. For, as touching the first, I hauehave often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of the churches which were not diuided into parishes; to those that bee. Would they hauehave the Church of a City, and country belonging to it, to bee all but one congregation, assēbling ordinarily in one place? If they would, thē are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted. But though they would, the ancient christians would not; who when their multitude was increased, in all places of the world were diuided into diuers particular assemblies. If they would hauehave them diuided, as of necessity they must: then let them tell mee, whether wee (that doe, and of necessity must, consist of diuers congregations) are to follow the example of any ancient church, as it was before it was diuided, or as it was after it was diuided. If the former, then are they absurd againe: If the latter, then hauehave I that which I desire. They will say perhaps, that each congregation after the diuision, was as that one before. Nothing lesse: Let them proue that, and I will yeeld in the whole cause. The one p. 49before had a Bishop, and a Presbytery, as they will confesse which were to attend the whole flocke, but after the diuision, not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery, but one of the Presbyters assigned to it, the rest remaining with the Bishop, who (as before) assisted with his Presbytery, had a generall superintendencie ouer them, as well diuided as vndiuided, and was but one in eueryevery diocesse, as well after the diuision as before. Which is so manifest a truth, so confirmed by testimonies before cited, so testified by the generall consent and practise of the Christian world, not one instance to be giuen to the contrary, as that it cannot but conuince the conscience, I hope also it will perswade. For tell mee I pray you, were not parishes distinguished in Constantines time and before, as well as now? Yes questionlesse. Were any other assigned to them seuerally, then seuerall Presbyters, euen as they be now? That also is out of doubt. Was it euer, or at any time otherwise, after the diuision of parishes? No without question. There remained but one Bishop, and one Presbytery for the whole citie and country, as well after the diuision as before. And that is so euident a truth, by that which hath bin said, that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer denie it.

But it will be said,§. 6. that the Churches before they were diuided, were not dioceses. Whereto I answere, that the circuit of the Church, in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it, was the same as well before the diuision of parishes, as after. Euen as the subiect of the leauen is the whole bach, in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpe, though the loaues bee not yet diuided, yea though but a little of the dough bee yet (after it is newly put in) seasoned. If you aske mee how J know this? I answere. First, because the whole Church of God, euer since the Apostles daies vntounto our age, hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles, and of their first founders: the circuit of eueryevery Church hauing from the beginning included not onelyonly the citie, but the country thereto belonging. Secondly, because that diuision of Churches which p. 50was three or foure hundred yeeres after Christ, with their limits and circuits, were ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning, as before hath been testified by diuers antient Councels. Thirdly, because it is confessed by aaBez. de grad. c. 24.Beza, and testified by Doctor bbRain. &. H. 542.Rainolds, and others ccCaes. Baron. an. 39.10. Wolfg. Laz. de rep. Rom. l. 2. c. 12. Beat. Rhena…. in lib. Not…t. prouinciar. imp. Rom. in descriptione Illyrici., that the distribution of the Church did vsually follow the diuision of the common-wealth: insomuch that those countries which were subiected to the ciuill iurisdiction exercised in any citie, were also subiect ordinarily to the ecclesiasticall: and as they were accounted of the same county or prouince, in respect of ciuill gouernment, so of the same Church or diocesse in regard of spirituall. And as the Church followed the ciuill distribution at the beginning, so also if there were any new citie erected by the authority of the Emperour, it was decreed by the Councell of Constantinople ddConst. in Trullo. c. 38. foreign.(following therein the canon of their forefathers) that the order of ecclesiasticall things should follow the ciuill and publike forme.

Therefore though these Churches had not been diuided into seuerall congregations, yet had they each of them been dioceses. But now I adde, that at the time of writing the Reuelation, which was almost an hundeed yeeres after the birth of Christ, it is more then probable, that they contained diuers congregations. For when Paul had continued but two yeeres at Ephesus, the holy Ghost eeAct. 19.10.Acts 19:10restifieth, that all which inhabited Asia (so properly called) did heare the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gentiles. Well, Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them, and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres, afterwards ffAct. 20.31.Acts 20:31sendeth Timothy to be their Bishoppe, who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death. And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time, hee maketh mention gg1. Cor. 16.19.1 Cor 16:19of the Churches of Asia. Saint Peter likewise had preached, and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia, to whom among others, hee directeth ii1. Pet. 1.1.1 Pet 1:1his first Epistle. After the death of Peter and Paul, because those Churches were as Paul had foretold, much annoled with heretikes, p. 51Saint Iohn kkTestified by Origen. Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysost. Nazianz. apud Caes. Baron. in a…. 44.29., by the direction of the holy Ghost, went into those parts, preached the Gospell for many yeeres, ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was. To the ministery of the Apostles, adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them, and disciples which they had instructed: by whose ministerie, not onelyonly many particular Christians, but some Churches were brought to the faith. As that of Colossae, (which was in the confines of Phrygia, bordering on this Asia) in Pauls time, planted by the ministerie of Epaphra… llColoss. 1.7.Col 1:7, as their founder; watered by the ministerie of Archippus, as their Bishoppe. Now I appeale to the conscience of eueryevery indifferent Reader, whether it bee not vnlikely, that not in any one of these famous Churches, no not in that of Ephesus, there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it, any more then one ordinary congregation, after the preaching of such, and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres.

And so much for the first of his assertions: the other two I will ioyne together. For if there were but one Bishoppe for the Church, both of the citie and country, (as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches) and but one Presbytery: if the Churches both of the citie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie: if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bishoppe nor Presbytery, but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them: if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishoppe of the citie, and not onelyonly they, but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authoritie; all which, I hauehave by most euident arguments and testimonies proued already: then did the seuerall congregations and parishes, which J hauehave also prooued were all but members of one body, depend vponupon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head, which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia, cathedra episcopi, or the cathedrall Church, neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake, as I hauehave also proued before.

p. 52§. 7. His answere to the assūption.I come to the assumption, wherewith hee cauilleth egregiously, because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes, were not onelyonly the cities, but the countries adioyning, that is, as I expressed my meaning in the syllogisme before, that the circuit of eueryevery one of these Churches contained both the citie and country: which assumption I hauehave made good by necessary proofe. But, saith hee, Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie? Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing, and the Church another? But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple, &c. As touching this foule imputation (that I may beginne with it) J thanke God, I am free, both from desire, and intent of daz…ling the eyes of the simple. But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon: so I hauehave endeuoured with plaine euidence, to vphold and maintaine the truth, against the nouelty of your inuentions, and the subtilties of your sophistications, wherewith you hauehave too long both dazeled and seduced the simple. So much of that by the way.

If hee discerned the speech which I vsed, to bee improper, had hee not so much neither Art, I meane either Rhetoricke, or Logicke, nor grace, I meane charity, as either to conceiue me to hauehave spoken by a trope, or to explane my speech by such an enunciation, as the nature of the arguments doth require? When it is said in my text, the seuen starres are the Angels; will he say, who euer heard that starres were Angels? Or when Christ saith, This cup is my bloud that is sh…d, or, the new Testament in my bloud: will he say; who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testament? When I said the Churches are the cities and the country; could he neither vnderstand me as speaking (after that most vsuall metonymy) of the Christian people in the citie and country: nor yet explane my words, as the nature of the argumēts contained in the speech doth lead him? If I should say, a man is not onelyonly body, but soule also, or, the p. 53body is not one member alone, but many, you would vnderstand me thus: Man consisteth of body and soule; the body consisteth not of one member alone, but of many. Or thus; Whole man containeth these two parts: the bodie containeth not one member alone, but many. Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is (that is, containeth) not only the City, but the Country.

But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter,§. 8. Churches called Cities. that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church? Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11. and hee shall finde, that the seuen Churches were, Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie, as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose. These few testimonies may suffice: Eusebius mmEuseb. Chr. an. 45. Ann. 71.saith, that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch, and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch, &c. The Councell of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria, maketh mention nnSocrat. lib. 1. fol. 177. a.foreign, of the Bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius ooEpist. ad Epise. Afric.calleth Damasus, foreign, the Bishop of the great Citie Rome; and Dionysius, ppDe sentent. Dionys.the B. of Alexandria. The first Councell of Constantinople qqConc. Const. 1. c. 1.2.3.mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the Bishop of Rome. And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo,rrConst. in Trul. c. 2. Nectarius is said to hauehave beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople, Dionysius the Archbishop foreign, of the great Citie of Alexandria. Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vntounto Councels, as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, &c. to the Councell of Sardica, Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria, Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia; and in like maner all the rest, stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities. Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops, or vntounto Bishops: Ignatius stileth himselfe thus: ssIgnat. ad Polycarp.Ignatius foreign, the Bishop of Antioch. Leo ttEpist. 1.2.3. &c.in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome, sometimes Vrbis Romae, of the Citie of Rome. Basil writeth p. 54to Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata, to Athanasius the Bishop of Ancyra, to Ambrose the Bishop of Millaine, and writing to the Bishops of France and Jtaly, calleth himselfe the B. of Caesar…a.

This title giuen to Bishops after the diuision of parishes, plainly prooueth also, that they were not Bishops of any one parish, but of all the Churches in the Citie, and of the whole diocesse.

My assertion therefore, that each of the seuen Churches was not only the Citie, but the countrey also adioining, would according to the true meaning thereof hauehave beene consuted, if hee had beene able, and not the words fondlie cauilled with. But not contended heere with, he stretcheth my words beyond that which his owne conscience would tell him was my meaning; as if I had said, that all the people in the City and Country had beene at this time Christians. Which could scarcely bee verified of any Citie and Country for 200. yeeres after and more, I meane vntill Constantines time. Neuerthelesse, this was an assertion which he found himselfe able to confute. And therefore full soberly he goeth about it, telling vsus, that there were not then so many Christians as inhabitants, nor it was not then in Ephesus, as it is now in London. And very learnedly out of h…s reading telleth vsus, that Polycarpus uuEuseb. l. 4. c. 15.was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude, in the sight of his people: when eueryevery body knoweth, that in all Cities and Countries, for the space of almost 300. yeeres, the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles.

If any man aske, how it may bee said, that the Church contained the Citie and Country, when but a few Christians, in comparison of the heathen, were in either of both: I answer (as before) that the circuit of the Church or diocesse was the same, when there were few, and when there were many, yea when all were Christians. Neither were there more Bishops set ouer the Citie and Country when all were Christians, then when there were but a few; the same Bishop of the Citie hauing iurisdiction ouer all the Christians both in the Citie and country, as well when all p. 55were Christians, as when but a few: which J prooued before by the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome euer since the Apostles times; which ought without comparison to preuaile with vsus aboue the authoritie of a few selfe-conceited persons among vsus, who are not so singular for learning, as they are singular in opinion; whose pride and arrogancie in aduancing themselues against the iudgment and practise of the vniuersall church in all places, and in all ages since the Apostles times, is intolerable.

Yea but saith hee, the Church of Smyrna writing **Euseb. l. 4. c. 15.of the said Martyrdome of Polycarpus, intituleth her selfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna. Was there a whole Diocesse or Countrey of Christians inhabiting Smyrna? Which is an obiection scarce worth the answering. For whether by the Church of Smyrna you vnderstand the whole Diocesse, it was seated chiefely in the Citie (as the soule, which is in all the bodie, is said to bee in the head; and God, who is in all places, to be in heauen) or but that part which did inhabit the Citie, you are not to maruell, if the whole companie of Christians inhabiting a City, are called a Church, seeing the companie of Christians in a parish, or in a familie, deserueth that name. Neither doth the naming of it selfe the Church which is at Smyrna, exclude the Churches in the Countrey from being of the same bodie or diocesse with it. And thus much may suffice to hauehave spoken concerning the first syllogisme which he framed for mee.

Now are wee to examine the second.§ 7. The 1. proofe of the assumption, viz. that the seuen Churches contained both the Cities and Countries adioining. M.D. (saith he) perceiuing that this assumption wanted strength, sought to fortifie it by two reasons. This is my aduersaries vsuall, though odious, fashion, sophistically to argue eueryevery assertion of weaknesse, for which I bring proofe: when rather the proofe (if it bee good, as hitherto hee hath not beene able to disprooue any) doth argue the weakenesse of their iudgement, who denie or doubt of the truth which is prooued, and the strength also of the assertion, which is armed with such proofe.

p. 56Ad pag. 55.The former reason he propoundeth thus:

If our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbreth but seuen, and some of them mother Cities, then were they great and ample Cities, and not the Cities alone, but the Countries adioining.

But our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbreth but seuen. &c.

To let passe his vnmannerly gibing, not worth the mentioning, and to referre you to the manner how this Syllogisme is to be framed, before xxSupr. §. 2.mentioned, let vsus see how hee dealeth with this frame which himselfe hath fashioned. He denieth, after his vsuall manner, both the proposition and the assumption. So hard is my happe, that scarce any one proposition or assumption, which hee frameth for me, may be acknowledged to be true: and yet so hard is his happe, that he is not able to prooue any one either proposition or assumption of mine to be vntrue.

The proposition hee would confute by an foreign, though it were granted that our Sauiour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia, yet it will not follow, that therefore all the rest depended vponupon these, as children vponupon the mother. To which he addeth the foreign, in denying the former part of the assumption, viz. that our Sauiour did not write to all the Churches of Asia. His deniall of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case: If the Emperour finding some abuses commonly raigning in the whole Country of Asia, should hauehave written to these principall and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses, with intent (saith he) that all other Cities and Townes should be warned by his reproofe of them, (which put-case with that intent is worthy to be put into a cap-case) might a man conclude thereupon, that all other Townes and Cities of Asia were subiect to the gouernment of these seuen? But say I, put the case, that the Emperor so should doe, with that intent, which is, and also hath beene vsuall in such cases, that is, to the intent that what hee writeth to them, might by and from them be notified to those Townes and Villages which were within the circuit of their iurisdiction: would it not p. 57strongly proue, that all those other townes and villages were subiect to them? Come we to our selues. When the King or his Counsell would hauehave any thing intimated to all his Subiects in certaine Counties, are not warrants directed to the Lieutenants of each County, from them to the high Constables of eueryevery hundred, from them to the Constables of eueryevery towne? and doth not this shew that the officers of the towne are subordinate to those of the hundred, and much more to the gouernours of the County? In like manner when the Archbishop would hauehave any thing imparted to eueryevery parish, hee directeth his letters to the Bishops, they, to the Archdeacons, they, to the officers in eueryevery Dean…y, they acquaint (in particular) eueryevery Parish. Euen so by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches, what he would hauehave imparted to all the particular Churches, it may bee gathered, that the rest of the particular Churches were subiect to them. And it may well be, that when our Sauiour writing to eueryevery one of the Angels seuerally, & concluding each Epistle with this Epiphonema, Let him that hath an eare, heare what the Spirite saith to the Churches, would hauehave it vnderstood what he writeth to the Angell, he writeth to the Churches, which be vnderunder his charge.

And thus you hauehave heard, how he hath fared with the Proposition. The Assumption hee distinguisheth into two parts, the former,§ 10. Whether Christ wrote to all the churches in Asia. affirming that Christ wrote to all the churches of Asia: the latter, that some of these seuen Churches were Mother-Cities: both hee denieth as false. The former, because it is vnlikely, as he saith, if not impossible, that our Sauior writing to that third part of the world which was not much lesse then both the other, Africa and Europe, would write but to these 7. which were all together in one little corner of it. Here I appeale to my aduersary, if he be a man of learning, whether hee doth not cauill against the light of his conscience, seeing he could not be so ignorant▪ as to thinke, that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalypse, and else where in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, is p. 58not meant Asia the great, nor yet that which is called Asia minor, being the whole Chersonesus, now called Natolia, bounded on the north with Pontus Euxinus, on the west with the Hellespont, & mare Aegaeum, on the south, with the Mediterranean sea, including▪ according to Ptolemey, eight countries, whereof Asia (so properly called) is one. And albeit he knoweth (as I am perswaded) that by Asia in the Apocalypse, is meant onelyonly that, which is so properly called; yet he maketh a great flourish, partly to shew some small skill in Geography; but chiefly (that I may vse his owne terme,) to dazell the eyes of the simple;Ad pag. 56. shewing how vnlikely it is, either that the great Kingdomes of Asia maior should bee Parishes vnderunder the seuen Churches: or that those many famous Churches of Asia Minor, as the Churches of Derbe, Lystria, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, Pergain Pamphylia, of Galatia, which were many, were but dependants vponupon these seuen. If hee doth not know, that none of these Countries are contained in that Asia whereof the holy Ghost speaketh: let him compare but these few testimonies of Scripture. Act. 2.9.10. & 6.9. & 16.6.7. & 1. Pet. 1.1. and he shall find, that Cilicia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bythinia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, and Mysia, (meaning Mysia maior, or Olympina) being all parts of Asia minor, are reckoned as diuers countries from that Asia, which is mentioned in the Scriptures. If the refuter would needs hauehave shewen his skill in Geography, he should hauehave done well to hauehave set down the bounds and limits of this Asia, whereof wee speake. For the Authors that write thereof, whome I hauehave seene, doe not agree with the Scriptures. The Romanes, when Attalus aaStrabo Geograph. lib. 13.Philomator the King of Pergamus, and the countries adioyning, had bequeathed his Kingdome to them, and they had recouered it from Aristonicus who claimed it as his inheritance, they reduced it into a Prouince, and by the name of the continent called it Asia, hoping it would be an introduction to the rest. Erasmus p. 59bbErasmus Annot, in Rom. 16.Rom 16saieth, it is euident, that when Asia is named absolutely, that part of Asia minor is signified where Ephesus standeth. And ccErasm. in Act. 16.Acts 16on Act. 16. where Paul and his company were forbidden to preach the Word in Asia, the holy Ghost meaneth (saith hee) that Asia, not which by the generall name is called minor, enuironed on each side, but on the East, with the Sea, and which comprehendeth Phrygia, Pamphylia, Galatia, and some other Countries; but that which is neare to Ephesus; for that properly is called Asia-minor. But hee doth not tell vsus how much of the Country, which is not farre from Ephesus, is contained within the circuit of Asia. Those which write of Geography, giuegive a larger circuit vntounto it, then agreeth with the Scriptures, bounding it northward on Bithynia, westward on Propontis, Hellespont, and the Aegean sea, which in those places is called the Icarian sea: Southward, on the Rhodian sea: Eastward, on Lycia, Pamphylia, and Galatia. And by this meanes, they include within the limites of it. Phrygia, both the greater and the lesse (wherein Troy stood,) and Mysia, both the greater, which is called Olympina, and the lesse, which is called ddPtolem. calleth Mysia Pergamene, maior.Pergamene. When as Phrygia is in the Scriptures distinguished from Asia, and onelyonly the borders or frontiers of it, where Laodicea (according to their opinion) standeth, are reckoned in it, and likewise Mysia, Olympina, and Phrygia minor, (which is also called Epictetus or Troas) are reckoned apart from Asia. So that according to the scriptures, Asia seemeth to include, Ionia, Mysia▪ Pergamene, Lydia, or Maeonia, and perhapps Caria; for thereof is no mention. In Ionia stoode Ephesus, and from it northward, Smyrna. In Mysia Pergamene eeMysiae principatum Pergamum obtinuit. Aen. Sylu. in Asia minor. C 62. Acolis quondam Mysia appellata. Plin. l. 5. c 30. Ptolemy among the Cities of Lydia, and Maeonia reckoneth Thyatira, Sard…s and Philadelphia.stood Pergamum northward from Smyrna: and southward from it Thy…tira, which Strabo calleth Mysorum vltimam. In Lydia (which Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny, l. 5. c. 29. take to bee all one with Maeonia) stood Sardo… (which Strabo calleth Lydorum p. 60caput) southward also from Pergamus. In the confines of Mysia and Lydia stood Philadelphia. The borders of Phrygia, Caria and Lydia are hardly distinguished, saith ffStrabo l. 13.Strabo, because they meet together, and are confounded in the midlands, (as Aeneas Syluius saith,) and this confusion is encreased, saith Strabo, because the Romaines hauehave diuided these countries, not by the nations, but according to the administrations (foreign) that is, circuits of iurisdiction, wherein Courts are kept, and iudgements exercised according to law. Now in these confines standeth Laodicea, which according to Ptolemey ggPtol. l. 5. c. 2.is a City of Caria, and by the testimony of the holy Ghost in the Apocalypse is a part of Asia, though by the most Geographers it is saide to stand in the borders of Phrygia. Eunapius hhIn Maximo.speaking of Clearchus made proconsull of Asia, by Valens the Emperor, describeth the circuit foreign, of that which now properly is called Asia, that it beginning at Pergamum, and comprehending the sea coasts, endeth in the continent at Caria, the mount Tmolus circumscribing the borders thereof on Lydia. So that according to this description the circuit of Asia is lesse then that which is limited in the Scriptures, Lydia, and Caria being excluded. And accordingly in the subscriptions iiSubscript. Con. Nicen., to the Councell of Nice, not onelyonly Phrygia, but Lydia also and Caria are reckoned apart from Asia, that we should not maruaile, that a lesse circuit is assigned vntounto it in the Scriptures, then the Geographers doe describe, seeing within a lesse compasse then that which the Scriptures assigned thereunto, it is circumscribed by others.

Seeing therefore Asia is gathered into so small a compasse, let vsus see what the refuter can obiect, why our Sauiour writing to these seuen Churches, should not vnderunder them comprise all the Churches in Asia. Because euen there or near, saith he, we find diuers other churches: as those of Colossa, Hierapolis, & Troas mentioned in the Scripture; to let passe Magnesia, and Trallis recorded in other writers. p. 61But none of the three former are mentioned in the scripture as parts of Asia: Troas beeing the same with phrygia minor, and Hierapolis, and Colossae, Cities of Phrygia maior. It is recorded by Eusebius kkIn Chronico., that in the yeare of Christ 66. and tenth of Nero llTacitus saith in the 6. of Nero, and so as it is thought within two yeares after the Epistle to the Colossians was writen. Tacit. l. 14 codem anno Scil. 6. Neronis exillustribus Asiae vrbibus Laodicea tremore terrae prostrata, nullo a nobis remedio proprijs opibus reualuit.these three cities Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae, were ouerthrowne with earthquakes. And although we read that Laodicea was quickly reedified, and flourished againe, when Saint Iohn wrote the Reuelation, and Hierapolis not long after, seeing we read that Papias Saint Iohns Scholler was by him made Bishop there▪ yet of Colossae, as mmCal. in argum. epis. ad Coloss.Caluin obserueth, that shortly after the Epistle was written to them, that Church with the rest perished; so that it stood in Saint Iohns time, I read not, neither doe I remember any mention of it, or of the Bishops thereof, in, or neere those times. Howbeit in processe of time it was reedified, and called Conae, or Chonae, whereof Nicetus the writer of the annales, because he was of that citie is called Coniates. Oecumenius nnIn Coloss. 1.Col 1saith that Colossae was a citie of Phrygia foreign, which is now called Chona, and by that name foreign, is reckoned among the Bishopricks as they are digested by Le… ooIur. graecor…m. pag. …8. num. 54.the Emperour. That Colossae was no parte of Asia Theodoret sheweth: For beeing of opinion that Paul had beene at Colossae, he prooueth ppPrefat. in Epist. ad Coloss.it because it is said that he went through Phrygia. Neither saith he let any man object that Paul was forbidden qqAct. 18.Acts 18of God. For Luke speaketh of Asia and Bithynia, not of Phrygia.

As touching Magnesia, and Trallis; it appeareth not, that they were as yet conuerted vntounto the faith▪ when they were conuerted (as not long after I confesse they were, seeing Ignatius a little before his death did write vntounto them) they were▪ inferiour to those seuen which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall, and both of them subject to the Bishop of Ephesus; as appeareth by the subscriptions in the Councill of Chalcedon rrAction ….where Eutropius the Bishop of Ephesus subscribing, as other Metropolitanes did, for himselfe and the Bishops which were vnderunder him beeing absent, among twentie others mentioneth Alexander of p. 62Magnesia, and Maximus of Trallis. Likewise in the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperour ssIu…. graecevom. pag. 90.among the Bishops subiect to the Bishop of Ephesus foreign, the Bishop of Tralles, and of Magnesia, vponupon Maander are numbred. VponUpon these weake premisses the Refuter inferreth a very confident conclusion. It is cleare therefore, saith he, that our Sauiour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia, but onelyonly to those seven which he nameth; to no…e of which, so many and so famous Churches could belong. Whereto I aunswere, according to that which I hauehave prooued, that eueryevery Church that was in Asia in these times, was either one of these seuen, or depending on them. As for those Churches which he mentioneth in Asia maior, or Asia minor, yea euen those which were in Phrygia minor, or Troas, or in Phrygia maior, as Hierapolis, and Colossae, were not any of them in Asia so properly called: there remaine only Magnesia, and Tralles to prooue his conclusion. Which either he cannot prooue to hauehave beene Churches at this time; or if they were, hee cannot disprooue, that they belonged to one of these seuen. So that nothing, which he can obiect, doth hinder, but that vnderunder these seuen, our Sauiour did write to all the Churches in Asia.

§. 12. That some of the seuen Churches were mother Cities.Thus the former parte of the assumption remaineth true; and so will the latter, though he say it is vtterly false: for his reason is no other, but that which I hauehave alreadie confu…ed, that they were neither mother cities, nor cities at all. And whereas he obiecteth, that the Epistles were directed to the Angell of the Church in Ephesus, in Smyrna &c. and not of Ephesus the Church, Smyrna the Church, as of the whole cities were the Churches: I answere, that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas, was not the Church vntill it was wholly conuerted to the profession of Christianitie: notwithstanding the whole citie, meaning vrbs, was contained within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles, and acknowledged by the iudgement and practise of p. 63that Church, conformable to the iudgement and practise of all other churches in christendome. Neither is that materiall that the church is said to hauehave bin in Ephesus (as it also was when the whole city was conuerted to christianity) seing in vrbe, in the city, the church was chiefly seated, as was said before.

Now that some of these were Metropoleis, that is, as I said, not onelyonly mother cities, but also Metropolitan churches, I wil briefly declare. Those cities which were capita foreign, the heads of the ciuil iurisdictiō, where the presidēts of the Roman prouinces held their assemblies, & kept their courts, were mother cities to the rest, which were vnderunder the said iurisdiction. But such were fiue of these, as hath beene heeretofore noted out of Plinie: ttPlin. l. 5. c. 29 et 30.viz. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardes, & Laodicca. Where also Philadelphia is noted as one of the cities subiect to Sardes: and Thyatira to Pergamus. This distinction the Church followed in al, excepting Pergamus, which it selfe was subiected to Ephesus: and Thyatira, which had belonged to it, sometimes to Synada (for in the councel of Chalcedon uuActio. 6.Marmianu… the Bishop of Synada among the BB. which were vnderunder him, reckoneth Helladius of Thyatira) sometimes to Sardes, as in the Emperor Leo xxIur. gracorom. pag. 90.the Philosophers time. The Bishops of the other 4. in the council of Chalcedon yyActio. 3.in the condemnation of Dioscorus, are stiled Metropolitanes; and in the diuers subscriptions to that councill, are placed among the Bishops of the mother cities. In the foreign zzIur. graecorā. 88.or distribution of the Churches by the Emperour Leo, Ephesus is a Metropolis aaPage 90.hauing 36. Bishopricks vnderunder it, among which Pergamum is the 19. Sardes likewise is a Metropolis, hauing vnderunder it 24 Bishopricks, whereof Philadelphia is the first and Thyatira the third; to Laodicea likewise bbpage 94.21. Bishoprickes were subiect, and to Smyrna,ccpage 100. 7.

And so much may suffice for the first argument grounded on the text.