A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 2 · Chapter 4
CHAP. 4. That Presbyters were appointed, not to parishes, but to dioceses.
THe Analysis of the 2. argument is mistaken by him, to say no worse: for hee should hauehave looked to the end of that, which though he make the 3. section, should hauehave beene ioined to the 2. Where hee should hauehave found this to be the main conclusiō of al 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 principall 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 indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement were not parishes, but dioceses. This consequēce the refuter grāteth, in grāting the connexiue propositiō of the syllogisme, which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not, it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption, viz. to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed.
The antecedēt (which is also the propositiō of the syllogism if the assumption bee added) I proue by 2. arguments. The first concluding thus: They who were appointed to whole cities and countreys to labor so far as they were able, the conuersion of al that belonged to God, were appointed to dioceses, and not to parishes.
Ad pag. 54.This propositiō I omitted also, as taking it for granted. As for his cauils against his owne proposition which he framed for the nonce to cauill withall, they are not worth the refuting. For besides that he absurdly cauilleth with me, as thogh I had said, that al in the city & country were in S. I…bus time conuerted: he alleadgeth that there is no necessity, that they which were conuerted, should be of the same church with thē, who did conuert them. As for example they of Ceuchrea receiued the gospel from Corinth, and yet were a distinct Church: For it is called the church of C…nchrea. Rō. 16. 1. But I spake of them which did accidentally conuert others, but of such as by whose meanes the conuersion of the city and country was originally intended. And I say, that they whose ministery was intended for the conuersion of the city and countrey; to their care or charge, both for the first conuerting of thē, & gouernment of thē being conuerted, the city & country belōged. As for Cenchreae, though it be called a church, (as eueryevery company of christians may so be termed) yet it was not such a church as they speak of, indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernement; but subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church of Corinth.
Now followeth the assumption: But the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities & countries therto belonging, to labour so farre as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God.
This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments, is set down p. 18. the one, the end intēded by the Apostles in appointing presbyters in cities, which was the conuersion of the nation, for which themselues first preached in the chiefe cities: the other, is the …, or as they call it causa foreign, their hope, by the ministery of the Presbyters placed in the city, to conuert them which belonged to God both in city & country, grounded on the force of the gospell restified by our Sauior. The words are these: for it is euident that the Apostles when they intēded to conuert any …, they first preached to the chiefe cities therof▪ Wherin when through Gods blessing they had conuerted some, their manner was to ordaine Presbyters▪ hoping by their ministery to conuert not only the rest of the city but also in the countries adioyning so many as did belong to God. Mat. 13.53.The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leauen, which being put into any part of the …, seasoneth all.
These words thus set downe at large, be the assumption of the syllogisme which he hath framed (for what cannot he bring within the compasse of his syllogisms?) and therof he maketh 3. parts. About the first, he saith, hee will not striue, viz. the Apostles beginning to p…each in the chiefe cities of eueryevery nation, which (though he think I cānot proue) is most easie to bee proued, because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conuersion of nations: as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures & other anciēt records, that they took that course: As Paul intēding the conuersion of Asia, where hee staied three yeares, continued in Ephes…s all the time:Act. 20.1….31. intending the conuersion of Macedonia, went to Thessalonica & Philippi: of Achaia, to Corinth &c. The second also he franckly yeeldeth, that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had conuerted some to the truth. But the 3, which is indeed the assumption it selfe, and which is inferred on the former as I set them downe (that if the Apostles intending the conuersion of the nation, as they began themselues to preach in the cheefe cities, so they placed Presbyters to the same intent, hoping by them to conuert both city and countrey: then were they appointed and it was their duty to labour the conuersion of all belonging to God both in city and country) the assumption, I say, it selfe he doth deny, saying, it was the office of those Presbyters, to attend vponupon the flock, that is, the company already conuerted, but that it can neuer be shewed, nor may reasonably be thought that it was any part of their proper duty to labour the conuersion of the residue either in citie or country. By which few words the deepe wisedom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded. 1. They conceiue that churches in the first constitution of thē when there were but a few conuerted, and before parishes were distinguished, were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted, al being conuerted to the profession of the faith, & parishes distinguished, pastors being seuerally assigned to certain particular ordinary set cōgregatiōs. 2. That the flocke ouer which they were set, was onelyonly that number of christians already conuerted, and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God. But our Sauiour calleth the elect not conuerted his sheepe.Iohn 10. And the Lord in Corinth had much people, when but a few were as yet conuerted. 3.Acts 1….10. That their proper office was to attend them onelyonly which were already conuerted, & not to labor the conuersiō of the rest. As thogh the Apostles intended by their ministry the conuersion and saluation of no more, then of those few which at the first were conuerted. But for the better manifestation of their wisedome, they shall giuegive mee leaue to appose them with a few questions. The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained, were they not ministers of the word? Caluin confesseth it; and if you should deny it, I hauehave manifestly proued 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 countreys where they were placed? were these many Presbyters (who at the first were sometimes as many, as those who were besides conuerted, the Apostles conueying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit, on them whom they had first conuerted, who thereby were inabled for the ministry, as Acts 19.6.) Were they, I say, being many, intended onelyonly to attend that smal number which at the first was conuerted? Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters, when few others were conuerted, intend the conuersion of more then those fewe? and was it not their office the… to labour their conuersion? Jf they were not to labour their conuersion, how were they to bee conuerted? Nay if they did not labour it, how were they conuerted? Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flocke, or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishoppe; the rest beeing his assistants, as the Presbytery? When therefore more were conuerted then could well assemble together in one ordinarie congregation, were not the congregations diuided? VponUpon this diuision was there a Bishoppe and presbyterie assigned to euerie seuerall congregation, or onelyonly a Presbyter; the Bishoppe assisted with his Presbyterie hauing a generall superintendencie ouer all, not onelie to attend those who were already conuerted, but also to procure the conuersion of the rest; and still as people in diuers places were conuerted, to furnish them with a Presbyter, and to guide and gouerne both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to bee a seuerall Church, and his institution to bee their Minister. To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the diuision of parishes and after, that as either before there was ouer one congregation a Bishoppe and presbyterie, so there should after to eueryevery particular congregation be assigned a Bishoppe and presbyterie: or after, as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their seuerall charges was to attend them; so before the Bishoppe and presbytery should hauehave beene prouided properly for that number alone which was conuerted, and they should not hauehave thought it to belong to their charge, to seeke or to labour the conuersion of the residue: I say, to thinke this, argueth the parish-disciplinarians to bee of shallow iudgement, and the parish-discipline to consist of vnd…sgested fancies.
VponUpon the proposition therfore and the assumption before propounded, this conclusion notwithstanding al his cauills, doth follow: Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles,Ad. Pag. 5…. were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses.
(Serm. sect. 3. page 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished &c. to page 19. l. 5)
The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proued may thus be framed:
When the Churches were not diuided into seueral parishes nor Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures, but werein cōmō to attēd the whole flock feding them that were already conuerted, and labouring the conuersion of the rest, so farre as they were able both in citie and country: then were not the Presbyteries appointed to parishes, but to dioceses.
In the Apostles times the churches were not diuided into seuerall parishes, &c.
Therefore in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were appointed not to parishes, but to dioceses.
The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and euident truth: for when there were no parishes distinguished, how could the Presbyters be assigned to seuerall parishes? And if they were appointed to labour the conuersion of all which belonged to God, both in citie and countrey, how were they not appointed to dioceses? For can hee thinke, that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country, and which after also were conuerted, belonged to one parish? Is it not euident, that after their conuersion they were diuided into many both in citie and countrey? And what though at the very first all the Christians in the citie and countrey, if they had beene assembled together, would hauehave 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 beene prooued, 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 conuerted?
The assumption also is that which the Refuter himselfe 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 heare. But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both, yet he wrangleth with both, and as a man confounded, yet resolued to contradict, though against the light of his conscience, he denieth the conclusion, and contradicteth himselfe.
The proposition after his perpetuall manner, hee propoundeth connexiuely: If the parishes were not distinguished, &c. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes, &c. The force of the connexion, as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses, he suppresseth, leauing out the words of greatest force, viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God, so farre as they should be able, both in the citie, 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 shew of regestion; which kinde of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus. Howsoeuer the world goeth, the consequence must be denied: that is resolued vponupon, though he hauehave nothing to oppose against it. Yes he hath two things to oppose; the first a question, What if eueryevery one of the Churches then were but one parish? As if hee should say, What if the maine question betweene vsus bee true, in that part which wee hold, viz. that the Churches were parishes, and not dioceses? Where are you then? Why, but I prooue 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 prooue they were. You will neede your proofes in a fitter place. Yea but in the meane time I disprooue your consequence. You will say something perhaps to bleare the eies of the simple: but you doe not indeede denie, and much lesse doe you disprooue the consequence. The deniall of the consequence were this: Though it bee supposed that parishes were not distinguished, and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conuersion of all both in Citie and Countrey; yet it doth not follow, that they were appointed to dioceses, and not to seuerall parishes: and not this, nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish. This is to denie the maine conclusion which is already prooued. Yea but the proofe of this deniall 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 Citie and Country, yet they were not appointed for dioceses. You deny therefore, as a man amazed, the maine conclusion: the consequence of the proposition you touch not.
But let vsus see how he disproueth the conclusion,§. 4. though his argument come out of time, and be here vsed only for a poore shift. It may thus be framed: Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England, such were the Churches in the Apostles times. But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan, but distinct parishionall assemblies. Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan, but distinct parishionall assemblies. First, I denie the proposition, not onelyonly because the circuit of the Churches (in the Apostles intention) was not included within a Citie, as of the French and Duch Churches with vsus; but chiefly because the French Church (for example) in London is but one Church, among many professing the same religion, being a certaine and set number, hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men, placed among vsus, not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them, but to attend them of their owne Church; whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times, before the diuision of parishes, were not each of them one among many, but were planted among heathen people, hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them, as leauen is put into the lumpe, with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie 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 spirituall Fathers for them; which being begotten in Citie and Countrey, were all (euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring) to bee subordinate and subiect to her, as their mother. But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vsus.
As touching the assumption, I say, that the French and Duch Churches with vsus are not properly parishes, nor such as the ancient parishes were, after the first diuision of them, seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes, either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement, and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof, but being entire bodies by themselues are models (as it were) of diocesan Churches, hauing a Presbytery (as the Church of Geneua hath) to supply the want of a Bishop, which once cAlasco.they had, and still might hauehave, in imitation of the ancient Christians, who when the Citie 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 owne in all respects like other Bishops, sauing that they held not the Mother Church, and therefore had neither the like Clergie, nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them.
The second thing which hee opposeth, is (as I said) a shew of regestion: which he propoundeth with great confidence, as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying, that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another. If there were at that time no parishes, how could there bee dioceses, seeing eueryevery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes? Thus (saith he) the light will breake out, though men shut their eies against it. You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee. 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 denie my consequence, or the maine conclusion? Assume, But you say there were no parishes, therefore there were no dioceses; which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion. But where doe 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 positiuely set downe in the assumption. Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition, he doth not so much as touch it. But by taking a supposed aduantage, against the Assumption, hee denieth the principall conclusion.
But let vsus examine his argument. If there were no parishes in the Apostles times, there were no Dioceses. This consequence I deny. For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after. And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided, with that it was after they were diuided, that is answerable to the ciuill. The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention, before all were conuerted, and in execution after all were conuerted, which belonged to the ciuill state, Yea, but saith he; eueryevery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes. It is true after the distinction of Parishes, but not before, as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction, which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe. A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished, which at his first conception were not distinct.
The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands, J am now to rescue the Assumption.§. 6. Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes, &c. Which is to be vnderstood, foreign, as true of the most Churches. Here I expect a direct answere. were they diuided into parishes, or were they not? If they were (as at Alexandria it seemeth to hauehave beene, euen in the Apostles times) then was not eueryevery Church but one parish: if they were not, then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes, and so the assumption is true. Nay, rather then the assumption shall goe for currant, we will deny each Church to hauehave beene but a parish. Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction, as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion, how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe? yet thus it fareth with our refuter. In oppugning the proposition hee said, and laboured to proue it, that each church was but one parish, the same he saith, and saith againe, in defending their obiections, & propounding his own only argumēt. And yet here, this assumptiō must be censured, as hauing no truth in it, for that it denieth Parishes to hauehave beene distinguished in the Apostles times, and the Presbyters to hauehave beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures. They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō. And the same he repeateth, pag. 71.
But let vsus see what he obiecteth against the assumption. First,Ad pag. 59. he findeth an errour in it before noted, concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination, which he saith, is here repeated , and (therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition) the which though hee call an errour, yet I proued to be an euident truth, and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement, which do denie it. Besides that errour, he chargeth the maine 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 seuerall titles or cures: 3. that they were in common to attend the whole flocke conuerted. For that which is added of labouring the conuersion of the residue, &c. is the errour forsooth which before he noted. How proueth he these points to be false? Thus: whome can M.D. perswade that the Apostles would either appoint or allow of such confused assemblies, wherein the teachers and hearers should eueryevery day so disorderly be changed? And then putteth the like case of a schoole, himselfe being worthy to be put into a cloake-bagge. For in which of these points doth this orderly & vnconfounded man, note such disorder and confusion? or was not the confused conceite he speaketh of, in his own braine? Let him call to mind what euen now hee said in oppugning the proposition; that eueryevery one of the churches then, was but one parish, which by reason of the multitude of the people had many teachers. Do we not see the like, saith he, in the French & Duch churches here in England? & concludeth, that such Parishes there were in the Apostles times, and none but such. Tell me then, is the French or Duch Church in London distinguished either of them into seuerall 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 diuision of the parishes) are they assigned to seueral titles, that is, parishes or cures? If their Church be not diuided into diuers parishes, how can their Presbyters be assigned to diuers? which is the 2. point. Thirdly, doe not their ministers communi consilio & mutuo auxilio, by common counsel and mutuall helpe attend their whole flocke, none of them being appointed to a seuerall charge? And yet all this (I hope) without disorder or confusion. That therefore which hee bableth in the greatest part of the page, concerning disorder and confusion, is wholy to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion.
Yea,§ 7. but M.D. telleth vsus that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flocke . So saith S. Luke, Act. 20.28. What of that? if they were to attend the whole flocke in cōmon, then were they not assigned to seuerall parishes, which were but parts of the flocke,Act. 20.28. to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted. Doth either of them say, that a flocke was any more then one ordinarie assembly, and might not that be a Parish as well as a Diocesse? Either of whome? hee had mē tioned none but S. Luke onelyonly. But let that passe. For to what purpose doth he aske, whether Luke said, that a flocke was any more then one assembly? If the flocke were but one assēbly, that which I proposed is the more confirmed. For if they were to attend al one assembly, thē were they not assigned to seueral parishes. But yet I would hauehave him know, that the word flock, the word ecclesia or church which there, & the word people, which in other places is vsed as a word of the same signification, is of a larger extēt then to signifie onelyonly one assembly. The flocke is that, for which Christ the good shepheard did giuegive his life;Ioh. 10.16. vntounto which appertained the sheep which his father gaue him, not only amōg the Iewes, but the Gentiles also. And this flock is that Church which God (meaning Christ,Act. 20.28. who is God) in that place of the Acts is said to hauehave redeemed with his bloud, & that people of his which he saueth frō their sins. And as this is spoken of the Church in generall; so the company of them that belong to Christ,Mat. 1.21. in any Nation, Prouince, Diocesse, City or Parish, may bee called the Flocke, the Church, the people of God. Neither doe I doubt, for the reasons before alleadged, but that the flock in which those Presbyters, Act. 20. were set as ouerseers, was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus, and the Country adioyning, where he saith, the word foreign, is ordinarily vsed of beasts and fowles that heard and flocke together. I confesse it is beyond the compasse of my reading, who neuer read foreign, applied to fowles, but hauehave found the word vsed properly for a flocke of sheepe, and metaphorically for the flocke of Christs sheepe; but that flocke is not one onelyonly particular congregation. For Luke 12.32. Iohn 10.16. as touching the word Ecclesia, which he denieth to signifie any other outward company of men, then a particular congregation only, I hauehave already said more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast. But heare his conclusion:Sup. cap. 1. if my, (that is, if the word Ecclesia doth not signifie any other then a particular congregation) what truth is there in his assumption, Ad pag. 60.that denieth parishes to bee distinguished, (he would hauehave said to hauehave beene distinguished,) in the Apostles times, and the Presbyters to hauehave been assigned to their seuerall titles or cures? This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance, vntill as you hauehave seene him deny it before, so you shall see him againe and againe to deny it. Jn the meane time I beseech you how is it inferred? If the word Church signifie onelyonly 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 hauehave beene distinguished, and the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures. Who seeth not, that the contrary is to bee inferred? Jf the word Church did signifie one congregation, and was in eueryevery City but one, and if such was the flocke which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common, then it followeth that the flocke was not diuided into particular parishes, nor the Presbyters assigned to seuerall cure…. And so the assumption by his owne inference is proued to be true.
This and thus weakly, saith the refuter, hath M.D. proued the point of so great importance: And thus and thus stongly, say I, hath our refuter disproued it. Now let the iudicious Reader iudge, whether my weakenesse hath not been of sufficient force to ouerthrow his strength.