should by a Congregation signifye either Vniversall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church is a most false vnlikely conceit Can any of these bee one Visible Congregation in the singular nomber He alleageth as hee thinketh textes for his pupose Matt. 16. Ephe. 1. and 5. Which surely may well yea they are to bee vnderstood of a Visible Congregation viz. indefinitly taken See heereof the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Visible Church Argum. 26. 23. Of Mai. Beza “ Def. 4.166 hee affirmeth that hee wished with all his heart for the Diocesan Bishops governemēt in Geneva Which is as true as that which the Iesuits blazed abroad how Beza before his death recanted his religion Beza lived to cōvince the Iesuits of vntruth to their faces If hee were now alive he would do the like to this Doct. and those other of whō he saith hee heard it The like audacitie is in that his report that the most learned iudicious Divines in France and Geneva could bee content that Diocesan Bb. governement were renewed among them The most learned in France and Geneva Verily as they were who renewed it Scotland of late Most learned and most iudicious were they Laus proprio sordescit in ore And I feare rather that knowen parable to be heerein verifyed When the trees would have a King the Olive Figtree and Vine refusing the Bramble tooke it on him and said to the trees †Iudg. 9.15 Come put your trust vnder my shadow When all shiftes faile the adversaries will calumniate vs as not dutifull to the King and Civil governement Which though D. Downame saith “ Def. 1.45 hee will not dispute yet he maliciously insinuateth As touching dutifull affection to the Kings person none can say more if he list then D. Downame him selfe in my particular Yea what wordes I spake whē he held his peace to a Noble Lord of Scotl. An. 1601. when neither of vs durst be seene nor heard abroad for feare of whom Verily of those who were his best friends since If I was thē so dutifully animated toward the K. when we only hoped for his Maiestie God forbid I should bee lesse now when we have him Being so maligned traduced as I am I could not but speake of this Touching our duty generally to his Maiesties authoritie and place the evidence of reason sense plead for vs. Tertull. ad Scapul We acknowledge with Tertullian that he is Solo Deo minor Lesse then God only In Church governement we impeach not his Soveraigtie neither in matter nor manner Therefore no way at all The matter is only about Ezcommunication and Making of Ministers and such like things Of the essentiall forme whereof Christ only is institutor his Ecclesiasticall servantes bee the Ministers The King is neither Author nor Minister Vnto this I suppose all agree For the maner Seeing we holde each whole Church in the greatest extent can be no mo ordinarie Congregations then one how can these either by their comming togeather or by their consenting in any Spirituall busines only for them selves I say how can these impeach the Kings power one haire His Supreme Vniversall overseeing and ordering them and all others yea his chastising them when they do any thing amisse how can it be let how can it be hindered by such a handfull And because hee must vse Substitute Rulers in his general overseeing the Churches of his Dominions we frō our hearts do honor them also and submit to them as to Gods Lieutenants in their severall places Only we testifie that if the Kings power be committed to any Ecclesiasticall person especially Civill coactive power it draweth with it both a breach of Christes ordinance who said to such Ministers “ Luc. 22.25 Math. 20.25 2. Chro. 19.11 You shall not be so and also a torture to Christian subiects cōsciences Wherefore we desire of God that the King would be pleased to appoint as Ichosaphat did a Zebadiah to bee generall Governor vnder him in Church causes so far as it pertaineth to the King to deale in them and as King Henry 8. a L. Cromwell his Vicegerent in rebus Ecclesiasticis and as his Maiestie him selfe did as I have heard in Scotland before hee came among vs. Which may be far more easily performed with inferior subordinate Officers vnder them also for this purpose in every place in a Monarchie then in any Popular or Aristocraticall Cōmon wealth Vnitie how And verily this is it and not a Diocesan Bishop which would bring great vnitie and that according to God If D. Downame wil vrge which he grateth vpon in this said †Def. 1.45 pag. 45. that the Churches indepēdent authoritie standeth not with the Kings Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall and that which els where wee say viz. nothing may be obtruded on the Church against their willes I answer indeed every Churches power is independent spiritually and immediat vnder Christ our meaning therefore is that by ptetended Spirituall authoritie Chap. 9. nothing may be obtruded imposed on any true Church against their willes But we grant that Civill Magistrates may and sometime ought to impose good things on a true Church against their willes if they stifly erre as somtime they may And me thinks Doct. Downame also should bee of this minde with vs. This is thus answered often before pag. 115. c. Hitherto our answer to some of our Adversaries chiefest obiections and evill wordes And so I draw to an end CHAP. IX A short advertisement to the vpright hearted and Christian Reader touching this Writing Cause YET first I desire the Christian Reader to be advertised of a few things pertayning to this Cause Seavē things I intreat him to take notice of First how great a blame and shame it is to D. Downame a principall Logician to treate so largely as in his Sermon defenc he hath done concerning the Nature Forme and Constitution of Christs true Visible Church and yet in all this not once to define the same Which defect of D. Bilson also is to be noted in his perpetuall governement of the Church Surely this one matter viz. a Definition of Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospell well performed would have saved a great deale of paines and trouble would have prevēted much error And thus it is wiselie taught by Cicero that “ Cicer. Offic. 1. all purposes reasonable ought to be begū with a Definitiō of the matter in band For the avoyding therefore of this imputation I have in †The Divine beginning institution of Christs Visible Church another Treatise defined the said Visible Church of Christ Which I did and rested not on some others who have Defined the Church heertofor because I desired to distinguish cleerly betweene the Iewish Church and the Christian which verily differ not in Accidentes alone but in kinde of governement and in essentiall constitution The Iewish Christian Church
14. That the people most of all have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse their vnworthy ones After which he sheweth that the other churches els-where professing the Gospell refusing Poperie did likewise They who had a calling from the church of Râ—me renounced it resting on that which they have according to the rule of the Gospell 14. Iunius Also Iunius saith †Ecclesiastie 3.1 Simplicissimam quidem probatissimamque Eligendi Vocandi viam illam esse constat ex Scripturae Sacrae testimonijs quam Apostoli in Ecclesijs tenuerunt olim prisca Ecclesia aliquamdiu eos imitata observavit Eligebat tota Ecclesia id est corpus ex Presbyterio populo seu plebe constitutum equis communihus suffragijs Haec iusta electionis ratio It is manifest that that way of chosing and calling Ministers is most simple and most approoved by the testimonies of holy Scripture which the Apostles in old time did keepe in the Churches and the ancient Church sometime imitating them did observe The whole Church did chose that is the Body consisting of the Eldership and people or common sort by equal common voyces This is the iust manner of Chosing Ministers Afterward hee saith This the old Church did observe very long doneo res coeperunt vt fit humanitus in peius ruere atque retrò sublapsa referri Vntill as through mens corruption it comes to passs things began to grow worse and to runne to ruine And after that corruptioÌ„ in the Church government was come in Yet saith he id semper obtinuit vt Ecclesia actioni toti interesset camque prasentiâ suâ haberet raetam That alwayes was in force that the Church was present at the whole action and ratifyed it with their presence But neither this in England is seene anie where neither will bee allowed Also Iunius saith Where the Church at any time doth no more but ratifie matters by their presence only the Guidâ—t ought to certifie the Church that if they can them selves take care for do their owne affaires non fore penâ—â—â—â—lâ—um Episcoporum Seniorumve coetum vt 〈◊〉 siâ—i cum damno Ecclesia iniuriae ignominâ arroget It shall not be in the power of any asâ—eÌ„bly of Bishops or Elders to arrogat so much to them selves with the Churches dammage iniurie and shame Where hee professeth that this is the Church â—s daÌ„mage iniurie shame if being vnderstaÌ„ding Christians they be only present at the chosing and ordayning of their Ministers if they do not also them selves chose or at least freely expresly coÌ„sent to the chosing and ordayning of them After noting the tyrannie which was in this behalfe vnder the Pope he saith Iam de populo queÌ„ Christus redemit suo sanguine Ecclesiam sibi ex eo compararet verbum nullum Now of the people there was not one word whom Christ redeemed with his bloud that they might be his Church And he addeth Hinc illa barbaries hinc colluvies selelerum omnium hinc illa fraudum nundinationuÌ„ sentina exundavit Hence came that barbarous ignorance in those times that heape of all sinnes that sinke of deceit and selling of the soules of men TheÌ„ speaking of some Churches Magistrates who have worthily freed themselves from the Pope yet hee leaveth this foule blot vpon them Ius illud Eccesiasticum institutionis ordimationis restitut non curant Ecclesijs They care not to restore to the Churches this right of theirs viz of making ordaining of Minister Finally he answeceth some obiections At nescit populus dixerit quispiam Doceatur sciet At nescit vti Imo nesciet vnquam Siture suo non vtatur vnquam At factiosus est plerumque in diversas partes studiaque scinditur Revocetur adpaceÌ„ monitis salutaribus compescatur authoritate verbt virorumque bonorum officijs vt conciliatis compositis animis faciant quod sui turis est But some will say The people is ignorant of their duty and right heerein Let them be taught and they wil vnderstand it But they know not how to vse this their right They will not know it ever if they vse it never But they are factious often and are divided into partes Let them be reduced to Peace by wholesome counsaill and let them be ruled by the authority of the word and the indeavours of good men that their mindes being ordered they may do that which is their right to do 15. Piscator About ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ Piscator saith “ Observ ex â— cap. 1. Cor. Excommunication ought to bee don by the Church or by the Presbyterie iudging in the name of the Church Where all meÌ„ may see his meaning to bee this viz. that the Presbyterie may excoÌ„municat howbeit alwayes with the Churches free consent For so he signifieth by these wordes iudging in the name of the Church It can not be that hee should meane that they may Excommunicate by their owne power and right onely or whether the Church will or no. After the same maner also I doubt not som others do speake concerning the making king of Ministers Whose sense and meaning is to be taken altogeather to that purpose likewise In the Churches â—amâ— that is Executing the Churches â—uthoritie and power and doing that which they do with their free conâ—ent and approbation 16. Chemniciâ—â— Chemnicius a man most famous of â—are learning among the followers of Luther in the matter of the reall presence yet in our cause hee saith thus “ Exam. part pag. 226. 227. 228. Non sine consensu Ecclesiae Paulus Barâ—abas invitis obtruserunt Presbyteros Paul and Barnabas did not thrust Ministers on the Church being vnwilling or without their â—onsent And Exempla Aposiolica bistoria â—â—are oftendunt c. The examples of the Apostles storie do cleerely shew that Election or Vocation did belong to the whole church And Haec est Apostolicae primitiva veteâ—â— Eccesia sententia de legitima Electione Vocatione Ministrorum c. This is the iudgement and way of the Apostolike primitive and ancient Church concerning the lawful Election and Calling of Ministers which iudgement and way hath place in those Churches which are coÌ„stituted according to Gods word And he addeth In our Churches it is so meaning in those that follow Luther 17. Whitakeâ— Neither can I forget that among â—ur owne Country-men D. Whitaker â—eacheth thus “ De Coneâ—â— pag. 44. Quod omnes attingit ab â—â—â—â—bus approbari debet That which toucheth all Chap. 4. ought to be approved of all Meaning that nothing should bee obtruded vpon any people in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall regiment no not by Synods except the people consent to it And this consent of the people hitherto avouched verily many other worthy Divines both among vs abroad do maintaine likewise But I forbeare to nominate any mo Knowing that to whom any thing will be enough
Spirituall or sole government Ecclesiasticall yea though over but one Congregation Much more him who exerciseth such spirituall Lordship over a great many CoÌ„gregations Also What is Sole authoritie Spirituall in our sense sole authoritie Spirituall and sole governement Ecclesiasticall we call that which is exercised without the Christian peoples free consent D. Downame laboureth with divers vaine shifts to defend the English L. Bishops herein He can not abide that it should bee saide of them that they exercise “ Def. 1.58.47.43 sole authoritie or sole government Yea in many places hee * Def 3 118.11â—.126.142 sheweth indignation that such wronge should be done them in beeing so reported of But it is strange Are they ashamed to heare of that which they cease not to practise and maintaine every day and that in the sight of the world yea each of them over divers hundreds of Congregations For the people with vs no where enioy any free consent But the D. saith “ Def. 1.43.44 The Bishop hath the Archbishop above him Yea but who is above our 2. Archbishops spiritually No body Againe he saith Provinciall Synods are above the Bishop Idly spoken Is the Diocesan Synod above their owne Bishop Or is the Provinciall Synod above their Archbishop Surely no more then the Vniversall Councill is above the Pope Which is cleane contrarie Now this is it which hee should have affirmed buthe durst not He shifteth further saying “ Pag. 44. Do we not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to have the Supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea verily wee do But that is Civilly as “ Reas. for ref p. 62. â—â— els-where I have shewed Hee hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Spiritually that is his authoritie properly maketh no Church Minister nor Excommunicateth any person Which I suppose your selves do hold even as we do But this is the point in England the Archb. is Spiritually Supreme or hath Supreme authority spiritual in his Province I say thus he is Supreme sole viz. spiritually Wherfore the Doct. Ignorantia Elenchi grosly sophisticateth in shifting from the poâ—â—t in hand to an other matter Where hee speaketh of “ Def. 1. p. 43 Chancellors adioyned to the Bishops and of Presbyters consent with him that †Pag. 42. Presbyters have power to rule their flocke in publike Ministerie and in privat attendance that some of them have voyces in Synods c. I wot not what all this is Sure I am it is as idle as the rest For so much at least is seene in the Popish Church where yet is founde spirituall Lordship sole governement in their Bishops yea oppression violence tyrannie also over the peoples consciences as we well know So that the “ Pag. 43. Supreme and lowdest by and †Pag. 47. the plainely which hee giveth to vs hee ought to take to him selfe Another shift of the Doct. is where because the Hebrew Adoni the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Dominus may be given to Bishops therefore “ Def. 3.147 he would conclude that in English they may be called Lords D. Bilson reasoneth †Perp gov pag. 58. 59. so likewise and that very largely He would prove the same also from the Duch terme Here from the French Monsieur c. But I deny this reason absolutly For heerein there is no consequence Our English terme Lord and Lordship doth alwayes imply Sole government but none of those forraigne termes doth so alwayes Wherefore such reasoning is Equivocating also * Ioh. 13.13 1. Cor. 8.6 12.5 2. Cor. 1.24 Againe Christ only is our Lord in respect of Spirituall Lordship he only is to bee called a Spirituall Lord. But our Bishops are Lords and are so called with vs in respect as they bee Spirituall Lordes as the Doctor “ Def. 3.150 observeth well Wherefore our Bishops Lordship is vnlawfull and derogatorie to Christ Doct. Bilson saith further †Perp. gov pag. 62. If we sticke at titles Christ calleth them Gods Lo how nothing satisfyeth these men Would he have Bishops called by the name of Gods also But I would know of him where doth Christ call them Gods Surely it is but his fancie They are in deed so called no where D. Downame presseth that Bishops are called “ Def. 3.146.150 Angells which is a more honor able title then Lord. And therefore that Bishops may bee called Lords I deny that the name Angell is so honorable a title as a Spirituall Lord which is given to our Bishops This is proper to Christ only as before is said the name Angell is not And so his reason is false Againe though the name Angell be given to Bishops sometime and in one respect yet it is very false to say they may lawfully be stiled and called by the dayly appellation of Angells or that they may ordinarilie vse that title as they do the title name of Lord. Againe the name of Lord is given them as importing their sole governement as before is said But the name Angell importeth not so much neither is it given to any Creature in such respect Therfore from the name of Angell the title of Lorde followeth not Indeed the name of Angell is given to Bishops because they are Gods messengers to shew vs his will not in respect of their governement at all though the Doct. presumeth so to say without “ An Allegorie is no proofe proofe Lastly hee knoweth that all Preachers are in the word called Angells or Messengers but for all Preachers to be called in English Lords or your Lordship surely it would be a very arrogant thing And though hee “ Def. 1.34.46 alleage that the Angel of the church of Ephesus in Rev. 2.1 be one and but one before many Ministers yet neither doth this importe any Lordship in him either in name or practise neither is this precedence or praeeminence signifyed by the word Angel but it is gathered by coÌ„paring this word with the knowen circumstances of those times Further he alleageth that “ Def. 3.152 Princes are called Pastors and for the same cause are Lords Wherein there is no truth nor indeed any good sense The like is that where hee addeth the title of Father is as great as Lord. Nay the name of Father is amiable but Lords may and also they vse to force and compell Neither did the Pope at first take the name of Father peculiarly to him selfe to note thereby any Lordship as his due but to deceave the world by his pretended love over all wherein he desired to seeme a commoÌ„ Father In another * Def. 4.71.72 place he teacheth that Bishops in the New Testament were called Apostles VpoÌ„ which grouÌ„d he “ Def. 3 15â— would conclude that therefore the name of Lord is lawfull for them I answer The name of Apostle and also of Bishop may be vsed sometime
and Kingdome are not absolut and perfect toward vs but are diminished and changed now in respect as they were to the Iewes of old And the very forme of Christes saide Visible Church is changeable by men and may be instituted first by men Whence it also followeth that a noble part of Christes divine honor glory may bee by men diminished and taken from him and may lawfully bee attributed to men Every one of these consequents is certain neyther can any of them be denyed nor shifted off by our adversaries who reiect the said opinion of the peoples necessary Consent in the Church governement Now this I earnestly desire all men to take notice of that they may see what it is that hath mooved mee and still doth to imbrace the opinion contrarie to the course of the Church governement in England God is my witnes that were it not for these vnavoydable Consequents which touch the very life and soule of all true religion and godlynes I should long since have conformed now would in this bebalfe For otherwise what reason have I to care for the people But because my heart and conscience can not indure to admit these Consequentes which I hope is both honest yea necessarie and Christianlike and so will bee acknowledged by every good man that considereth it therefore doe I beleeve this said opinion as an Evangelicall truth viz. that the peoples coÌ„sent in church government is an Apostolike ordinance and Christes immutable Commandement to vs. And therefore principally did I write that Treatise which I intituled The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visible or Ministeriall Church Also the Vnchangeablenes of the same by men viz. 〈◊〉 the forme and essentiall Constitution thereof Which is all the matter that I have regard vnto even that I may in no wise be guiltie of that fearfull sacrilege of spoyling God of his Honor and of giving his glory to another which be so mainly “ Isa 42.8 forbiddeth Which I am sure is not don by acknowledging the foresaide right of the Christian people I am sure that thus all the fore named wicked and impious Consequentes †As by ouâ— Attestators beforâ— may bee seene are avoyded and the whole glory and honor of Christ our Savior iâ— preserved safe and sound For thus we easily holde him even in respect of instituting the forme of his Visible Church and governement therof vnder the Gospell to be our absolut Prophet and King and his New Testament to bee intire and perfect yea fully so perfect for vs as the Old Testament was for the Iewes and so the forme of his said Church and governement to be absolutly vnchangeable by men Even altogether no lesse then it was vnder the Law All this in holdinge our opinion I say wre are sure of Wherefore let me reason thus That opinion which yeeldeth CoÌ„sequents so godly and pious must needes it self be godly and pious questionles cometh from God But our opinion aforesaid yeeldeth CoÌ„sequents so godly and pious yea such in deed as are principles and fundamental grounds of Christian faith Therefore this our opinion it self is right godly pious and proceeding from God Contrarie-wise That opinion which necessarily forceth men to such impietie and vnchristian Consequentes as “ Pag. 133. 134. before I noted eveÌ„ to the overthrow of principles of faith the same it selfe is not of God neither standeth with truth What autors and fautors so ever it have But the opinion of our adversaries verily is such It forceth men of necessitie to those impious vnchristian Consequents as I shewed They can not possibly avoyd them Therefore the opinion of our adversaries viz. who deny the Christian peoples consent in Church governement to be an Apostolike Ordinance and an immutable coÌ„mandement of Christ and so do hold the forme of a proper Diocesan Church and governement to be lawfull and good their opinion I say is not of God neither standeth with truth Now the case standing thus as most cleerly it doth no man can deny but that in coÌ„sideratioÌ„ of these certain coÌ„sequents aforenamed as also in other iust respectes that faithfull man of God whosoever hee was that made that “ An humble Supplication c. An. 1609 Petition to the Kings Maiestie for a Toleration of our way and profession with peace and quietnes in England had great reason so to do and also his Excellent Maiestie bee it spoken with reverence to his Royall Estate to admit of it For what evill can ensue from vs when wee strictly hold fast as we do such holy and Divine principles of Christian faith as before are mentioned and when our inconformitic to the common course in England is only for these causes as I for my part do call God to witnes to my soule it is I say in regard of Religion thus what evill can probably be thought wil ensue from vs And as touching our tractablenes vnder the Kings authoritie and governement Doc. Downame our bitter adversarie “ Def. 1.66 acknowledgeth that wee submit our selves enough Nay he holdeth it to bee too much and proudly he calleth it a desperate or frantike minde in vs so to do But wee holde it our bounden dutie in the presence of God to submit our selves to any Civil Magistrat be he never so meane if the King appoint him over vs. But saith he †Def. 1.83 The summe of our suite in that petition is that we may be tolerated Schismatikes I challenge this rude Doctor and will prove that we seeing we holde only those fundamental Grounds of ChristiaÌ„ faith above meÌ„tioned and that which is evidently built vpon the same are not Schismaâ—â—kes Againe I will prove and make it manifest that indeed him selfe and his consortes are Schismaticks Who are the Schismatiks in England seeing he and they deny those foresaid fundamentall grounds of faith for which only wee contende They therefore them selves are the Schismatikes and “ Rom. 16.17 1. Tim. 6.3 the makerâ— of the division which is now in England All wise men know that not the difference but the cause maketh a Schismatike Let mee once againe therefore presse them with Augustinâ— sentence against the Donatistes which once already †Ang contra Peril 2.25 I did heretofore But they love not to heare of it Saith Augustine “ Reas. for ref pag 77. Virum Schismatici nos sumus an vos nee ego nec tu sed Christus interrogetur vt indicet Eeclesiam suam Lege ergo Evangelium respondet tibe c. Whether we or you be Schismarikes aske not me nor yourselves but aske Christ that hee may shewe his owne Church Read the Gospell therefore and 〈◊〉 answereth thee c. Our Doctor hath an absurd and profane distinction which though he apply it to another matter yet peradventure hee would vse it in this cause against vs if hee could finde that it would bee taken as currant Hee
never ben possible For it had ben to smal purpose if they had oppugned those their other errors only withal had iustifyed the forme of the Roman Church and the calling of their Ministerie which our Forefathers must have done if our said Assertion had not ben true And so they must have taryed still ordinarie members vnder the governement of the same Church Againe to small purpose had they oppugned those other errors if they had left to obloquie their owne Ministerie Which likewise they must have done if our said Assertion were not true For as in warfare good weapons and much strength without iustifyable authoritie A Similitude will in short time bring ruine and confusion to them that vse the same Even so it is in this cause yea much more heere it is true Though wee seeme to cut down Popish errors with the sword of Gods word yet if wee do not cleere our Ministerie and iustifye our Calling give good satisfaction to mens Consciences for the lawfulnes of our handling the Word and Sacraments and Spirituall governement wee shall quickly labour in vaine And that appeareth certainly to much at this day in England the greater is our woe Not only in respect of Popery but in other respects also Well will our adversaries say The Protestantes Ministerie is iustifyed sufficiently against the Papistes albeit the people have no consent in their Ministers Calling Oh would God our learned men in Englande would shew this substantially Then would I for my part quickly conforme as before also I protested But otherwise let them bee assured the Church of Rome do what they can will get ground of them in England And this maketh mee to lay this to heart as I do Every day we are chalenged by the “ D. KellisoÌ„ Treatise of faith A. D. Iohn Fraser c. Papistes to proove the lawfulnes of our Ministerie in England and of our Calling to it What say our learned men heerevnto A direct and a full and a stedfast answer must be made to this Mens consciences will not be satisfyed with dilatorie and shifting answeres Nor if wee leave Scruples Difficulties in that we speake To iustify the Calling of our Ministerie in England and to prove the lawfulnes thereof The true iustification of the Protestants Ministerie wee must plainly shew that the persons who give this Calling with vs have good authoritie in deed to give the same This is the very point Let our learned men make this cleere and then the Papistes are stopped then all men are satisfyed For it is a plaine case and graunted of all that every true Ministerie in the Church must be receaved from some persons who have good and iust authoritie to give it And this is essentiall to every true Ministerie Some there are in Englande who affirme the Ministers authoritie is only an Inward Calling and gifts of the minde And so hath no absolut necessitie to be Outwardly receaved from any other Which in deed is not fit for any wise man or honest Christian to holde It is the worst answer of a thousand and in a word meerely Anabaptisticall Some others there are who say that this authoritie of the Ministerie and of exercising Excommunication also is derived originally from the Magistrate even from the King and Parliament with vs. And so they expound that ordinance of our Saviour “ Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church to be Tell the civil Magistrate Verily they may also as well expound these wordes †Mat. 86.18 Vpon this Rocke I will build my Church to signifie Vpon the Civill Magistrate vpon the Prince Christ buildeth his church For thus they make Christes Visible Church vnder the Gospell only a Civill Societie and a Humane politie Which profane opinion is so vnworthy of all true Christian people that it deserveth to bee exploded no lesse then the other These answers against the Papistes wee may thinke will do but litle good For as it is absolutly necessary that a true Minister of the Gospell have his calling given him outwardly from some persons and that these persons have good and iust authoritie to give it So likewise it is absolutly necessarie that every true Minister of the Gospell have his calling given him by those who are by Christ him selfe or his holy Spirit in the Apostles authorised to give it For thus only can an Ordinarie Ministers Calling be of God which is “ Ioh. 3.27 Heb. 5.4 Mat. 21.25 1. Cor 12.5 Rom. 10.15 necessarie and not of men And this is that which we call Essentiall in every Ordinarie Ecclesiasticall Minister Who are the persons that have power from Christ to make Ministers Againe as I said this will soundly answere the Papistes and nothing els But now all the matter will be who are the persons which have power authoritie from Christ to give a Calling to a Minister of the Gospell Heere as touching my selfe when I deale with Papistes as often I have don I affirme as D. Tilenus in this case answered the L. Lavall in France which “ Pag. 43. before I remembred viz. that the people consenting togeather in the truth of the Gospell have froÌ„ Christ power and authoritie first to forsake all Sacrilegious Priestes and their ministerie and then to give a true and lawfull calling of Ministerie to some whom them selves do like Wherein Tilenus shewed Cyprians iudgement also agreeing with his Cyprian there affirming likewise that this power of the people is from Divine authoritie as “ Pag. 56. 57. before also is shewed And other very plaine proofes heereof Act. 1.23.26 and 6.3.5.6 and 14.23 I have †Reas. for reform pag. 45. 46. 47. c. Divine beginning of Christs Visib Church Argum. 9. A DefinitioÌ„ generall twice set downe at large out of the New Testament Beside all which there is very pregnant reason also for the same For Christian people whether few or many ioyned togeather in a constant societie of one ordinarie Congregation to serve God according to his word are a true Visible Church of Christ Every true Visible Church of Christ is his Kingdome vpon earth his deare Spouse his owne Body c. Now it ought not to bee doubted but Christ hath given power to his Kingdome to his Spouse to his Body to governe it selfe to preserve it selfe to provide for it selfe when it wanteth all things ordayned for it in the best maner it can This may not bee doubted Therefore such a Societie vnder the Gospell wanting Ministers must have power to ordaine Ministers for her selfe Likewise the Apostle saieth All thinges are theirs and they Christes and Christ Gods Then 1. Cor. 3 2â—.23 wheÌ„ they want Ministers they cannot want power to provide them to them selves Seeing God hath made them theirs Further the Apostle requireth the christiaÌ„ people to try the Spirits of their Teachers whether they be of God or no. 1. Ioh. 4.1 And Christ saith His sheepe heare his voice a
the present Church-state in England even in the substantiall points of governement therein are cleane frustrat Neither is the same Apostolicall neither hath it Vniversall nor perpetuall nor indeed any old approbation among Christians as they colourably pretend But it is proved to bee novell A proper Diocesan church is novell and meerely of the wit and will of men and that after the time of Antichrists rising The contrary obiectons of our adversaries I will heere observe D. Doves 3. falsifications of Euseb as neere as I can First that which D. Downame borrowed of D. Dove viz. that Marke constituted a Diocesan Church in Alexandria But this I have shewed “ Pag. 90 91. before to bee a meere forgerie of these two D. D. grounded vpon a false translation of their author Eusebius And heere I can not but remember a second and a third like falsifying of Eusebius by D. Dove in his Defence The former of these is pag. 13. where he saith Eusebius wordes be these †Euseb lib 3.4 Timothie was the first Bishop of the whole Precinct of Ephesus in as ample maner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete Eusebius saith not that Timothie was but hee saith it is reported that Timothie was the first Bishop of Ephesus as Titus of the Churches of Crete Againe Eusebius saith not of the whole precinct of Ephesus nor in as ample maner There are no such words in Eusebius This is no translating but perverting an Author Thirly that which Eusebius hath indeed viz. Timothie was said to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Ephesus this he rendreth not but perverteth For in Ephesus is not without the City much lesse the whole precinct of Ephesus containing the large Country adioyning Yea that the Church in Ephesus was but a Parish then Ignatius sheweth writing to the whole Church of Ephesus saying to them “ Iâ—nat aâ— Ephes. When you come oft togeather into the same place c. Therfore the whole then did come togeather in one place And it is not only false but absurd to say that the like may be spoken now of the †Can they all come togeather in one place Diocesan Church of London Thus therefore Eusebius is perverted twise by D. Dove His 3. falsifying of him is where Eusebius saith of Iohn the Apostle in a certain City “ Euseb lib. 3.23 Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having refreshed the Brethâ—en and looked on the Bishop that was set over al the said brethren of that place hee committed a yong man to him But the D. setteth it down thus Iohn the Apostle coÌ„mitted the charge of a yong man to a Bishop †Pag. 15. 18. qui super cunstâ—s Episcopos erat constitutuâ— which was set over all the rest of the Bishops thereabout As if then there had ben an Archbishop or a Bishop over Bishops So saith this Doctor as out of Eusebius But he abuseth his author Eusebius hath not such a word And yet D. Downame also “ Def. 4.112 alleageth the same place though he cunningly forbeareth to mention the words Doct. Downame further presseth Eusebius in that hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Titus was Bishop of the Churches of Crete As also Perpet govern pag. 233. He translateth it is recorded in Histories But he can not make that good in this place For the word signifyeth any relation or narration or report of a matter And Eusebius vseth alwayes to name his author at ful to set downe the words when hee groundeth vpon any written historie So hee citeth very often Egesippus Clemens Dionysius Tertullian c. Wherefore questionâ—es heere he meaneth some other report or tradition and speach of meÌ„ I know not whom And in setting downe such matters he is nothing curious many times as “ Pag. 91. 92. before I have signifyed Not seldom he reporteth fabulous things yea wheÌ„ he nameth his author Eusebius of no absolut credit as is wel knowen And yet he is all the warrant and ground which any writer hath either young or old for Tius his being Bishop of Crete Theodoret Epiphanius Chrysostomus Ierome c. Dorotheus Synops is not worth the naming have al their inducement so to thinke from hence All these also them selves were great Prelates or lovers of Prelates and therefore wee may holde them partiall in setting downe and receaving such reportes What wisedom then is in Do. Downame to say it is an vncharitable and vnlearned part yea intolerable impudencie to deny credit to such authorities It is rather intolerable impietie and plaine idolatrie to set vp these and such like for rules of our faith and warrants to our conscience as the D. laboureth to do in this cause Howbeit further Eusebius saith not that Titus was said to be Bishop of Crete but only so as Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Where he seemeth to meane that both of theÌ„ were then thought to bee not proper Bishops but in the generall sense and vnderstanding of the word Bishop And so he seemeth to meane also that Marke was said to be Bish of AlexaÌ„dria whom yet he nameth an Apostle and Evangelist Iames an Apostle in deed Bishop of Ierusalem I say in a generall sense but not Bishops properly And so truly the other Fathers after Eusebius do seeme to meane and we accord thus with them Otherwise we must needes deny credit to them heerein viz. if Eusebius c. say these were proper Bishops For it is not possible that they could bee so seeing they were both Superior and also Divinely distinguished from proper Bishops as anon we shall see further where further occasion will be given vs to answer D. Downame about Timothie Titus Bishoprikes Againe “ Def. 2.23 and 116. D. Downame citeth out of Councill Carthage 3. and Ephes 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and even from the Apostles as †Perpet gov pag. 324. Doct. Bilson before him avoucheth But both of theÌ„ wrest the Councilles For they say not so only they say that Dioceses should remaine such as they were from the beginning that is ever since Dioceses were appointed Not from the beginning simply but from the beginning of Dioceses which though it were loÌ„g before these Councills yet as I iudge it was not before “ About the yeare 260. See before pag. 92.93 Dionysius Bishop of Rome And touching the Apostles the Ephesin Council speaketh of the Apostles Canons Beeing strangely deceaved in attributing them to the Apostles as any one may perceave if hee see the Can. 4.5.8.17 18.27.47.49.65 68 84.25 Wherefore they are falslie fathered on the Apostles beeing but base and bastardly stuffe in respect of them And yet they intende no “ See before pag. 88. 97. 98. proper Diocesan Church viz. like ours in England Neither were these Canons before Constantines age So that our D. D. do argue from hence very vnworthily But D.