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
Schismatickes and peace-breakers but look vnto the word of God theÌ„ them selves will be found to bee the makers of the Schisme in departing from the said word of God by their Traditions The true cause of Vnitie We see then by this that the true iust cause of Vnitie in the churches of Christ is to cleave vnseparably to Christes Testament Which meÌ„ not willing to follow alwayes but seeking to walke rather in the wayes and customes and inventions of men thereby they give occasion indeed of much strife The true cause of dissension in Religion discord dissention This is the true cause of our differences in religion It is as fenseleâ— which D. Downame maintaineth that Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops having no Superior Ecclesiasticall can be causes of Vnitie Def. 2.114 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For none of these can do any thing but each in his owne circuit Now what is that to Christian Vnitie when nevertheles there may be for all theÌ„ so many opinions as there be independent Provinciall Bishops Only a Vniversall Church and Bishop if we list to follow Mens policies and not Christes Testament may in deed cause a kinde of Vnitie But againe such Vnitie without Veritie is vnto Christian people plaine tyrannie And we professe that absolute Vnitie vnder a Visible Head is not so good as the TyraÌ„nie of such a one is mischievous Christ rather would his faithfull servantes should be prooved and exercised by Schismatikes then their consciences oppressed by tyrants Some perhaps will say that thus we seeme to desire dissentions seeing we refuse reasonable likelie meanes of Vnitie I answer First The Pope hath better colour so to obiect then Provincialls as before is said Second our meanes of Vnitie which we imbrace are far more likely to effect the same then their way For they have a Provinciall L. Bishop without the word but we have Christs written word his churches helpe also These meanes among vs will settle more vnitie and peace in truth a hundred times especially within the body of our Churches then our adversaries have or can have by their L. Bishops The Magistrats favor a speciall cause of Vnitie If our Magistrates would shew vs their favor and aide which our adversaries enioy this that I say would quickly vniversally be evident But for want of the Magistrates said favor I grant mo differences do appeare amonge vs then would otherwise In which case yet no ChristiaÌ„ ought to be offended but to consider both that vnder the Apostles it hath been so and that Allmightie God she weth heereby that it is “ See D. Downam Def. 3.67.68 better so to bee then vnder Humane tyrannie though pretending Vnitie Doct. Downame setteth vp his rest vpon a †Def. 3.4.6 Vniversall Synod for Vnitie This is his chiefest buck lar But alas how vaine is it For first a Vniversall Synode indeed is impossible to be had especially by vs in these dayes For when and where had any Christians the least benefit by a Vniversall Synod since the Pope hath ben detected What a meanes then of Vnitie is that which our Adversaries pretend Namely which is not possible to be had or howsoever most rare difficult Secondly such a Synod at the D. stands for viz. Setting downe Decreta tanquam Dictatoria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesijs Decrees as it were vncontroulable and not vnder the examination of the Churches is by the learned “ Pag. 101. c. 105. 106 c. before plainly condemned to whom I will adde M. Chemnicius †Exam. Concil Trid. part 1. pag. 3. condemning the Council of Trent for this very cause in these very wordes denying also that any of the Primitive Councills were such And yet a Vniversall Councill if it may bee had and other Councills so far as they may be had we allow and imbrace and do acknowledge great benefit by them namely so that their Decrees may bee examined and tryed by Gods worde of them to whom Gods word appertaineth This vse I say of a Generall Synod wee allow as well as he which in deed is the only true vse of Synods Certainly Provinciall and Diocesan Synods wee allow more then he doth For hee so admitteth these Synods that yet the Head Bishop in any of theÌ„ is to “ Def. 4.82.83 2.114 over rule all And what vse of them is there then The L. Bishop may have as good Counsel and advise with lesse trouble and charge But these are not that Meanes of Vnitie which hee pretendeth It is as I said the Synod Vniversall and that of supreme and absolute power spirituall over all Christians and that from Christes expresse ordinance Which verily also taketh away Soveraigne power froÌ„ all within England Note this ill Consequent to reforme our selves in religion what need so ever there be Which I leave to the wise to consider of Yea this his opinion doth in the end necessarily induce a Pope as I have said Hitherto of perverting the true intensive Nature of Christes Visible Church viz. where the people of the ordinary Congregations are barred their free consent in the Church governemeÌ„t Where we have seene what great and lamentable evills follow therevpon even to the making of a plaine path way for the Popes reentrance among vs. What extent or limit is there of a Church in the New Testam Now wee shall see that the same mischiefe cometh likewise by extending the Churches outward Body larger and further then it ought to bee The iust extent of the outward Body or the true boundes and limites of Christes Visib Church alwayes vnder the Gospell is one ordinarie Congregation only See also before pag. 10. 157. The reason is because so we finde it to bee in the whole New Testament of Christ All the which I have proved and declared plainly els where viz. before pag. 87. and Declarat pag. 10. 19. 20. c. It is to prophane and vnchristian advisedly to affirme that in the New Testament Christ or his Apostles have limited and defined no Church Oâ— that men may change those boundeâ— which Christ or his Apostles have seâ— The Papistes them selves are not 〈◊〉 grosse as †Pag. 150. before I have noted they would desire no greater hand vpon vs then that we should so answer them Some certain limites therefore and bounds of a Church questionles Chrisâ— hath set But our adversaries and namely “ Def. â— c. D. Downame refuseth the ordinary Congregation They avouch and maintayne a diocesan and Provinciall Church to be of Divine institution in the New Testament What maintaine they A Diocesan Church Nay in deed Christes Visible Church â—hen must be not only Diocesan A Diocesan Church requireth a Vniversall Church nor only Provincial no nor only Patriarâ—hall but eveÌ„ Vniversall I say where Christes Visible Church is not beleeved to bee by Christ limited only to one ordinary
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
they who lately published that book of D. Bils in Latin so to do vnles they meant to shew abroad further his most impertineÌ„t ambiguous vncertain writing yet fraught with bitternes enough against vs. In a word we desire that all men should know that our question is not whether Bishops and their governement be Apostolicall about the proving whereof the greatest part of these twoo Doctors bookes are spent Further though we denie Diocesan Provinciall Bishops of any sort to bee Apostolical yet we do not “ See Reas for Reform Pag. 7. 38 simply deny but that some kinde of them also may bee lawfull were it not that certaine waightie circumstances in these our dayes do stande against them Yea there are Circumstances now verie evident and pregnant against the best sort of Diocesan Bishops which were not in 200. or 300. yeares after Christ So that no reason can be made because they were lawfull in the second or third age therefore they are lawfull now The case being thus it is to be noted that the DD. do not propound the true question betwene vs. For if the peoples free coÌ„sent in their owne Church-governement were not as it is Christs ordinaÌ„ce in the New Testament certainly no CircuÌ„stance nor any thing els could make Diocesan or Provinciall Bishops at all reproveable For which cause the true question indeed betwene the Prelacie and vs or the principal maine question is Whether the people ought to have alwaies their free coÌ„sent in their owne Church government But this specially “ See his Defen 1 38.47 4.80.99 D. Downame putteth away from him with high disdaine coÌ„tempt rayling hatefull accusations and exclamations So that with this hee will not vouchsafe to medle Wherein truely we may see him to be I can not say learned but a cunning bolde and exquisite Sophister And this may be in generall a sufficient Answer even to his whole Defence Although for some other respectes I hope some body will one day examine his particular passages more exactly in a place for the purpose But to our point in hand We cleerâ—y see by this that it is the peoples coÌ„â—ent in the affaires of their owne spiâ—ituall that is Church governement which maketh the matter putteth the difference in deed betweene the Ecclesiasticall Reformation which in all dutifulnes wee seeke and that Church-governement which the L. Bishops in Engl. do exercise I say this concerning the peoples right heerein is it which toncheth the life of our coÌ„troversie Where vnderstand Note that I meane only such people as are not ignorant in religion nor scandalous in their life For only of such Christes Visible Church ought to consist Well to proceed theÌ„ with our point Questionles hence it is that generally the Adversaries of the forenamed Reformation do so strangly reiect yea so hatefully resist and strive against this same Christian doctrine heere propouÌ„ded coÌ„cerning the churches only true governement with the peoples free coÌ„sent as they do Wherein they expresse shew litle ChristiaÌ„ patieÌ„ce for they prosecute those that hold teach the same though out of meere conscience with all bitter reproches base skoffings iniurious slanders and vnmercifull dealings And all this it is plaine not for any manner of evill that they finde in this doctrine or for any incoÌ„venience therin For in truth there is none at all as partly I have shewed “ Reas. for reform pag. 28 heretofore it will further be manifested heereafter But they so hate this doctrine only because of the inevitable consequence of the said reformation which it bringeth with it Which crosseth overturneth wholy their divers enormous worldly carnall desires as any man that looketh into the case may easily see Howsoever it be yet the truth and the agreeablenes heereof with the holy Gospell of Iesus Christ with the assuring of our soules in the way to eternall life as it hath appeared to the world ever since the discovery of Antichrist more cleerely then it did for many yeres before so doubtles it will more and more appeare yet still be made further manifest to al men even where the Gospell is receaved as it is in many places yet not so sincerely as it ought to be See chapt 7. pag. 156. c. For my part because I well perceave that the Antichristian idolatrie and tyrannie of the Church of Rome caÌ„not by Divinitie be souÌ„dly resisted as experience in time will shew neyther was it resisted by our Forefathers at the beginning but by maintayning this Evangelicall point of doctrine among others therefore I have coÌ„descended the more willingly after diligent inquirie thereinto to approve the said point of doctrine viz. that the Church governement ought to be exercised alwayes with the peoples free consent Which also even for “ For that the Papa cie els will come in See Chap. 7. this same cause I can not but beleeve to be the holy ordinance of Iesus Christ for his Church vnder the Gospel and to have ben delivered vnto vs by the Apostles in their perpetuall practise of Church-governement But specially seeing for the same we have the most sure evidence of Gods word in the New Testament which I †Argnm. 3. 9. of the Divine beginning of Chrsts Visible church Declarat pag. 20 â—1 Reas. for Reform pag. 45. 46 47. 48. have heeretofore gathered and observed at large Secondly seeing we have for it a plentifull and cleere Attestation of many Learned Godly and famous Divines both New and Old confirming our faith and strengthening our consciences therein Which Attestation I have thought it needfull at this time and in this place to gather and produce for many causes First my desire is that it may ly open to the sight of all men what a great holy agreement of good men heerein we have which being added to the forenoted fundameÌ„tal certaintie thereof in Gods word giveth so full a satisfaction to every good Christian that who can desire more Secondly all ChristiaÌ„ Civill Magistrates may heereby take good content and be satisfyed touching the innocencie of this way in the Church governement which we holde For when they shall see with what a cloud of such witnesses we are coÌ„passed in defence of this matter they can not imagine any inconvenience by it to their governement notwithstanding all the clamours and invectives of partiall Adversaries against it Lastly heereby also our adversaries virulent tongues and pens if it be possible may bee ashamed to abuse vs as they do with al kinde of vnworthy reproches and slanders when they shall see whom they hate and persecute revile togeather with vs. Wherefore for the publishing of this matter there appeareth every way very great and necessarie reason CHAP. II. The Method and order of this Treatise NOw heerein I purpose to proceed thus First I will shew who among the New Writers are our Maisters Teachers in this point of doctrine
the whole Church This ought to go before that iudgement And Non absque consensu Ecclesiae quispiam excommunicari potest lus hoc ad Ecclesiam pertinet neque ab illâ eripi potest Witthout the consent of the Church not any one can bee excommunicated This right belongeth to the Church neither ought it to bee taken away from it And the consent of the people is still to be observed in Excommunication both that tyrannie may be avoyded that it may be done with greatâ—er fruit and gravitie The same worthy man greatly coÌ„mendeth the pietie of a Bishop at Troie in France who about the yeare 1561. left his Popish state and did betake him to a flocke of Christians there Epict. â—â— and taught them the word of God purely But quia ei gravis scrupulus â—iectus est de suâ vocatione quod in ed Ecclesis ac populi Elestionem seu Censirmationem uâ— is habuerit ideò c. Beâ—ause he had a great scruple in his conscience about his Calâ—aâ—g seeing hee had not therein the Elâ—ction or Confirmation of the Church and people Therefore hee sent for the Elders of the reformed Church and desired theÌ„ that they would consider godly and wisely whether they would chose confirme and haâ—e hâ—n for their Bishop Which if they thought good to do hee would doe his indeavour that as hee began so hee would go on as hee was able by teaching and exhorting to edifiâ—â— and increase the Church committed to him But if they thought him not fit for so great an Offâ—â—â— they should speake it freely and openly hee was â—eadie to give place c. And hee desired that they would speedily deâ—berate with the Church about the matter Which when it was done hee was acknowledged â—aâ— reâ—eaved of all with one consent as a true Bishop Wherefore his authoritie and pâ—â—iâ— doth much profit the Church of Chriâ—t God bee praised who governeth and gâ—ideth the kingdome of his Sonne in this manner O where shall wee see such Bishops in these dayes 8. Musculus Musculus also speaketh and reasoneth cleerely with vs heerein Hee saith †Com. plac Of Min. Elect. There is no doubt but the Apostles keâ—t that maner of ordayning viz. after the church had chosen And After fasting and praying which was wont to be done in the Congregation of the faithful They ordayned Elders which were first chosen of the faithfull And this forme of Electing and ordayning Elders and Bishops the Apostle commended vnto his fellow workman Titus and Timothie saying “ Tiâ— 1 5. For this cause I left thee in Crete c. For who would beleeve that he ordained that Titus should do otherwise then both hee and the rest of the Apostles were accustomed to do Therefore both by example and ordinace of the Apostle in the primitive church Elders Pastors Bishops and Deacons were in the Ecclesiasticall Meetings chosen of the people by lifting vp of handes Also hee saith The Forme of Election vsed in the Apostles times is conformable to the libertie and priviledge of the Church whereof Cyprian made mention and that forme of choise whereby men began to be thrust vpon the people of Christ beeing not chosen of it doth agree to a Church which is not free but subiect to bondage And this forme of electioÌ„ by the peoples choise he calleth the Old the Fittest the Divine the Apostolicall and lawfull election the other to come from the corrupt state of the Church and Religion 9. Bullinger Bullinger assirmeth thus “ Decaâ— 5.4 The Lord from the beginning gave authoritio to the Church to chose and ordayne fit Ministers And Those which thinke that the Bishop Archbishop have power to make Ministers vse these places of the Scripture * Tit. 1. Therefore I left thee at Crete that thou mightest appoint Elcers Towne by Towne And againe “ 1. Tim. 5. Take heed that thou lay not thy handes rashly on anie But we answer that the Apostles did not vse any tyranny in the Churches nor themselves alone to have don these thinges which pertayned either to Election or Ordination other men in the Church shut out For the Apostles and Elders did create Bishops and Elders in the Church but communicating their counsaill with the Churches yea and with the consent and approving of the people Yea of Ministers that governe anic Church without or against their consent thus he saith “ In 1. Coâ— 5.4 Vâ—bem prodere diâ—untur Legati qui diversum ab eo quod ab vrbe prescriptum est agunt Those embassadors are said to betray the Citie who do any thing divers from that which is prescribed them by the Citie 10. Gualter Gualter likewise is as plaine as can be Saith hee of the calling of Ministers †Hoâ—â—il in Act 13.1 Divinitùs vocatos esse censebimus quâ—scunque Dei spiritus donis necessarijs instruxerit legitiâ—â—s Ecclesiae suffragijs elegerit Aliquas enim in hac causa partes Ecclesiae mandatas esse hiâ— locus perspicuè tradit Ecclesiae calculum spiritus requirit We wil esteeme them to have a calling from God whomsoever Gods spirit hath â—â—abled with necessarie giftes and hath chosen by the Churches lawful giviâ—g of voyces For this place plainly sheweâ—h that in this cause there are some partes committed to the Church The Spirit requireth the Churches iudgâ—ment Afterward he saith “ In Act. 14. â—â— Foedá tyranâ—ide Ecclesiarum slatus opprimitur The state of the Churches is oppressed by filthy tyrannie where at this day the Churches have not this libertie to give their free consent at least For heere he respecteth that right and iust order according to the rule of the Gospell which before he had described †In Act. 1. â—â— Ministrorum verbi Ecclesiae Electiones atque ordinationes non occultè intra privatos parietes à paucis hominiâ—us sed publicè ab Ecclesia in totius Ecclesiae conspectu fieri debent Neque noâ— movet quod Paulus alibi vni Tito vel Timâ—theo ius potestatem Episcopoâ— eligendi tribuere videtur Non enim illos privata authâ—ritate quiâ—quam agere voluit sed pro antistâ—tum â—fficio iubet curare vt Ministri digni idones legittimè crdinentur Nec verisimile est illis plus concessum fu isse quà m Apostolis ipsis qui inconsulta Ecclesia nihil in hac causa vnquam statuerunt Nam paulo post Diaconos coram Ecclesia publicè eligunt Paulus oum Barnabá collectis viritim suffiagijs Presbyâ—eres per Ecclesias singulas ordinavisse leguntur Act. 6. 3.4 The Elections and ordinations of the Ministers of the word and of the Church ought not to bee made secretly within privat walls by a few men but publikly by the Church and in the face of the whole Church Neither doth it moove vs that Paul inan other place seemeth to give right power of chofing Bishops to Titus aloâ—e
free consent and namely that it was so vnder the Apostles which I have shewed “ Pag. 68. 69 before to be certainly true hence it followeth that it is a plaine vntruth a falshood which the Doct. so often “ Def. 1.28 and 4.2.3.38.39.46 affirmeth viz. that the Bishops in the Apostles time were such for the substance of their calling as ours now in England are Ours are sole governours they were not so They admitted the Congregations consent in all important matters of their governement ours do what they please without them yea commonly against their liking Besides the Apostolike Bishops had not any addition of Civill coactive power as ours have Last they had no mo ordinarie set Congregations to their pastorall charge but only one ours are the Pastors each of thē of many hundred Congregations All which are evident substantiall differēces in the churches and Bishops estate as hath ben also observed purposely “ Divine beginning of Christs true visib Church pag. 3. 4. 5. Declarat pag. 12. 13 14. Reas. for ref p. 41. 42. 43. els where In which respect the very ground which the D. buildeth on is false his very text Rev. 1.20 is misinterpreted abused so his Sermon whole Defence standing therevpon is frustrat And he doth Equivocat plainly Fiftly where the Christian people have their free consent in Church governement there never is seene anie Pluralist nor Nonresident Pastor For they wil never indure their Pastor to be a Nonresident from them nor yet to bee distracted with mo charges of soules then their owne Which certainly al that feare God and have care of them selves theirs will esteeme to bee a most godly thing to beholde Besides also they wil never indure any Covetous nor Proud nor adulterer nor drunkard nor ignorant nor false Teacher And as their Pastor and Guide is such will they bee also in a maner alwayes every where The adversary confesseth that “ D. Bils perp gov pag. 344 The wisedom of Gods Church in taking the cōsent of the people in the Election of their Bishops hee can not but commend he findeth so great and good effectes of it in the Church stories For thence it came to passe that the people when their desires were accomplished did quietly receave willingly maintaine diligently heare heartily love their Pastors yea venter their whole estate and hazard their lives rather thē then Pastors should miscarie Verily this sheweth it to bee Gods ordinance in that he accompanyeth it with such and so great blessings Contrariwise Pluralist-Pastors and Nonresidents who of any conscience can allow Who that hath any sparke of religion or care of good life doth not detest and abhorre them and most worthily as being in deed of the reliques of Antichrist and instruments of Satan All blindnes in the people and wicked conversation floweth from these as frō fountaines Continual iarres and warres betwene the Pastor and his flocke And therehence groweth contempt of Religion Yea questionles that which the Pest is in mans body the same are Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men in Christes Church Whose fruits are too plentifull among vs. Archb. Whitgift saith “ Answ to the Admon pag. 44. 45. Now the Church is full of hypocrites dissemblers drunk ands whoremongers Ignorant Papistes Atheistes and such like D. Bilson also †Perp. gov pag. 155. Toom Church comes all sortes Atheistes Hypocrites c. All which filth ought verilie to be imputed chiefly to Nonresidentes and Pluralists Now in Diocesan and Provinciall Churches and larger where the people have not their free consent in the Church governement there must of necessitie be Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men First the chief and best Pastor of a verie large Countrey hee whom they call the Angell of such a Church is no other indeede then a great Pluralist and Nonresident For he hath the proper charge of soules over “ Def. 3.145 2.67 all his Circuit as D. Down professeth they all holde That is to say over manie hundred ordinary set Congregations where for the most part they themselves are never present and never do fo much as see the faces of so many people of whom yet they vndertake to bee their proper Pastors Are not these huge Pluralists Nonresidents in the time of the Gospell And thus hee †Def. 2.127 approoveth Theodorets taking to him selfe to be Pastor of 800. parishes Yea it cometh to passe that some Bishops are Pastors to many mo Againe note how Do. Belson shrinketh not to make Pluralistes and Nonresidentes a Divine Ordinance and Apostolike which he doth to the end that Diocesan Bishops might seeme to be Divine Saith he against the mislikers of Pluralitie and Nonresidencie “ Perp gov pag. 328. Saint Paul him selfe knew not these curious positions when he appointed Titus to take charge and oversight of the whole Island of Crete and saw no cause why one man might not performe many Pastorall and Episcopall duties to all that were in the same Countrey with him And this touching the chiefe and best and †Pag. 247. only proper Pastor in a Diocesan Church and larger Secondly his Substitutes will all seeke to bee in proportion like their Superiors Whereof in deede there is great cause For if the most Angelike Pastor he who in his Office cometh nearest vnto Christ bee such that is so great a Pluralist and Nonresident then who in conscience can mislike Nōresidents Who would not desire to be plurifyed abundantly Who would not iudge the greatest Pluralist the worthiest Pastor most excellent servant of Christ I say even inferior Nonresidents and Pluralistes in such Church estates must needes not only aboūd but also superaboūd True reason requireth it and experience among our selves doth shew it Whereby what wofull wrack and havocke of mens soules is happened in our Lande every-where any that looke about consider may see And hee that seeth can not have so flintie a heart as not to sorrow and mourne for it Against which Spirituall desolation yea rather ruine and destruction no remedie can bee had without giving the Christian people their free consent in their spirituall governement For none have that care of other mens soules as Christian people would have of their owne Sixtly heere are other Consequents of a most high nature both in respect of God and also in respect of our selves First in respect of God thus I gather and conclude If this opinion be false viz. that the peoples consent in the Church governement is the Apostles ordinance and Christes immutable commaundement for vs then Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher Institutor Framer “ Impious opinions Lord and Lawgiver of his Visible Church which is the Kingdome of heaven vpon earth At least hee only is not And the New Testament is not compleat nor all-sufficient for matters of Religion Nor so compleat as the Old Testament was And Christes divine Offices of Prophesie
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
are not perpetuall Evangelistes are not perpetuall also Bishops yea Presbyters are not perpetuall in Churches vnder the Gospell But a Congregation is perpetuall absolutly “ Math. 16. â—â— the gates of destruction shall never overcome it Wherefore this power is essentially in the Congregation And so the consequence is false “ Pag. 77. These directions are perpetuall therfore peculiar to Bishops I say this sequele can not bee true Wherewith is conioyned an other false reason viz. They were not common either to other Christians or other Ministers therfore peculiar to Bishops Nay they were common They may bee and are exercised by divers formes of administrations as before I shewed not all waies by Bishops And yet I grant thy are to bee exercised most commonly vsually and ordinarily by Bishops I meane true Bishops His owne distinction heere is good There is †Pa. 102. 147 potestas and forma vel modus potestatis The power the accidentall forme and maner of the power It is true the power is perpetuall the accidentall forme or maner thereof is variable In which respect the consequence also of his newe “ Pa. 77. Proposition which †Pag. 78. once againe he taketh for granted once againe I deny The proofe of his Assumption we grant yet with a distinction In the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. the office of Bishops is described generally but not as peculiar to Bishops materially not formally And only so that power was to continue in the Church till the end Also this viz. materially that power was not a higher power then Episcopall But formally it was And so his consequence is false For an Evangelists power was higher yea the Churches power by whom simply sometime both the making of Ministers and Censures are performed is “ 1. Cor. 3.22 higher then the Bishops power Againe hee saith this power of Bishops is so much of the Apostolical power as was to coÌ„tinue to the end But then hee should not make the Bishops power more then the Apostolicall as †See before pag. 240. 248 hee doth Which thus also appeareth viz. the Apostles excluded not the peoples consent but his Bishops doe Howe then saith hee it is Apostolicall Besides in all this hee Equivocateth for this power of Bishops is the Apostles as I said generally not properly materially not formally Hee would finde “ Pag. 79. a difference in his Refuter but it is easily reconciled viz. vnderstanding him of divers kindes of Bishops thus Some kinde of Bishops are in Christs Testament some absolutly have noe place there The former have power from Christ the later have none After hee maketh great outcries of †Pag. 80. 81. Schismatical novelties dreames dotages fantasticall fanaticall spirits and phrensie Right as the Papists cry out Haeretiks Haeretiks TheÌ„selves being the greatest Haeretiks of all But the ChritstiaÌ„ reader may know that this is the Doctors fury malice against our Attestators before cited and against others also who follow them Yea against “ See before pag. 73. 74. c. himselfe it is some of his frindes His slaÌ„der that we maintain such popular government as Morellius strived for is sufficieÌ„tly answered †Pag. 24. before Some of the Separation I grant are to offensive this way which I am heartily sory for They take the wordes in Math. 18.17 Tell the Church more popularly theÌ„ ther is need or then reason or good order would Howbeit in this yet they hold the substaÌ„ce of the true Church-goverm They erre but in the CircumstaÌ„ce of order though it be to “ Bera Anâ—â— cat in Math. 18.17 foule That is they will examine al scandalls c. whatsoever in the presence vnder the iudgment of the whole multitude perpetually necessarily I say perpetually necessarily Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents which wil must insue many times As touching vs what we hold heerin I have shewed †Pag. 22. 24. 82. 83. before And our Docts doe most iniuriously “ Def. 4.81 Perp. gov pag. 355. wrong Beza the Geneva discipline if that be Geneva discipline which Viret Calvin Beza taught theÌ„ in saying they differ materially froÌ„ vs. Our D. asketh Is there any shew in Scripture or in reasoÌ„ that the sheep should rule their sheapheard or the flocke their Pastor The very voice of a Iesuit not of a Minister of the Gospel Bellarm. argueth iust so “ Bellarm. de Clersc 1. 7. against the old ProcestaÌ„ts As to the point let him know that reasonable sheep vnder the Gosp have more to do in their spiritual governmeÌ„t theÌ„ brute beastes have to doe in their governement sensuall Lastly heere hee can easily skoffe and revile the modest Christian offer of disputatioÌ„ those that favour it some of vs hee will helpe to persecute but vndertake that Offer honestly plainly he never will Hee saith †Pag. 82. wee vnderstand the speech of “ 1. Tim. 5.22 Laying on of hands as directed not to Timothie but to the people to Titus †Tit. 3.10 Avoid an haeretik or excommunicat him that is thou people Which is falfe we vnderstand it not so He doth therfore heerin slaÌ„der vs. We know these words are directed to Timothie Titus yet to them not as Lords over the people nor as Sole rulers but as Guides and directors of them As Fathers to informe them not as Maisters to overrule them and force them To them therefore by name as the principall Agents in all ordinary government the Epistles and these precepts were written And so the Apostle heere held it not needfull to mention the people though neither doth he exclude them Seeing their consent in such affaires is “ See before pag. 76. Also toward the end of this chap. elswhere in Scripture sufficiently proved And the Apostles practise in this behalfe they knew well enough Which knowen practise of the Apostles it heere behoved Timothie Titus to have regard vnto togeather with these precepts written to them For they stand togeather well enough He saith the Churches at first were governed by the Apostles c. I answere they were But not without the peoples concurrence and consent as presently before is observed But D. Downame avouched †Def. 4 8â— Our Bishops at this day have not greater authoâ—â—tie in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus had Which is notoriously vntrue These following the Apostles tooke the peoples consent with them our Bishops do not They only taught them perswaded them vsed spirituall power ours if they can not perswade the people or their Pastors will cast them in prison punishing their bodyes their purses He saith Timothie Titus might vse the presense or consent of the people or the counsell and advise of the Presbyters in 〈◊〉 of greatest moment as Princâ—s doe in Common-wealths I thought it was a stately
voice-giving which was then ordinary in Pastors calling Timothie I say came not to Ephesus by the peoples election nor Titus to Creet Paul only authorised them to that Ministrie Therfore their calling or sending thither was also extraordinary And Tâ—mothie attained giftes by extraordinary meanes viz by the Apostles miraculous laying on of hands though the D. deny it Then he addeth 3. other errors 1. The power of ordination and iurisdiction was wholy in Timothie and 〈◊〉 Titus Our Attestators “ Above pa. 23 26 36 38.4â— disprove thâ—â— 2. The function may bee the very sam where one person governeth the church wholy and alone where thâ— people do necessarily coÌ„cur with him Though his wordes bee not these yet his sense is cleerly so And all the next page hee beateth vpon the same Fearfully affirming that the difference “ Pag. 102. seemeth not to bee so essentiall Though he hold so yet see howe hee faltereth 3. Where he addeth the title or calling to a Church seemeth to be variable Which are all grosse vntruths coâ—uted in my †Pag 12 at 34 35. 38 c Declarat the 3. runneth amoÌ„g those evill opinions heere “ Pag. 133.134 before censured That which he addeth as it were a proofe for him the Iewes Church governors came to their places †Pag 103. by succession and lineall discent but in the Churches of Christ by free electioÌ„ is absolutly against â—imselfe For neither of these titles or coming to the Church-governement had bene lawfull by any meanes but because God so ordayned And it being so ordained by God in his word it was theÌ„ absolutly vnchangeable by men as in the Lawe so likewise vnder the Gospel which is the Law of Christ Where he saith the Apostles committed not the power of ordination and iurisdiction to all Ministers I answer they did as I have “ Declarar pag 25. elswhere shewed Their committing it to †Pag 104. Timothie c. denyeth it not to the other Presbyters in the several Churches neither doth the Angells power in the RevelatioÌ„ 2. exclude the ioint power of his fellow presbyters with him nor yet the peoples free concurrence with them all His last reason is If while the Apostles lived it was behoofull to substitute Bishops in the Churches then much more after their decease But the former is evident Therfore the later also This I wholy grant we mislike not Bishops In the end he falleth to the authoritie of those bastard “ Pag. 105. subscriptions namely of the epistles to Tim. and Titus Touching the which I referre him to Mr. Cudworth in his Supplement to Mr. Perkins on the * At the end of chap. 6. Galatians Where he shall finde them to be of no “ Pag. 106. greater antiquitie nor better credit then such counterfait drosse may be The †Pag. 107. testimonies of the Fathers which follow “ Pag. 244.259 have ben sufficiently answered Nowe I will gather briefly our Proofes that Timoth. or Titus were not proper Bishops Proofes that Timothie c. was no Bishop They are 8. in nomber First the H. Ghost made †Ephe. 4.11 Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors distinct persons Therefore the Apostles could not make them one And consequently Timothie and Titus being Evangelists as is known neither were nor could be made proper Bishops Sec An EvaÌ„gelist had an Office “ Ibid. superior extraordinarie temporarie and vnlimited a Bishop was inferior ordinarie perpetuall and limited to one Church Now these qualities are incoÌ„patible they can neither bee togeather nor successively in one person Therefore Timothie and Titus Evangelistes neither were nor could bee proper Bishops at any time Thirdly After Timothie had bene at Ephesus hee was an Evangelist 2. Tim. 4.5 For Paul chargeth him so to bee and cary himselfe Neither is there cause nor reason why Paul here should speake improperly and generally Therfore he spake properly “ See pag. 240. he was still a proper Evangelist and consequently not a proper Bishop And so likewise Titus Fourt Timothies Ministie at Ephesus extended to other distinct and intire Churches viz. to Smyrna to Sardis to Pergamus to Colossi to Hierapolis to Laodicea c. and not to the Church in Ephesus only But the Bishop of Ephesus ministrie was limited and appropriated to the Church in Ephesus only as also of Smyrna to Smyrna of Sardis to Sardis c. As the Angells in Rev. 2. do shew Therefore Timothie was not properly the Bishop of Ephesus And then neither Titus of Crete Fift Timothie was thesame no other at Ephesus then hee was at Philippi and Corinth at Athens and Thessalonica in Phrygia Galatia Mysia Troas But in these bee was no proper Bishop of any place Therefore neither was hee a proper Bishop at Ephesus So likewise * Declarat Pag. 29.30.6 Titus in Crete Sixt proper Bishops in those dayes were not called without the coâ—â—ent and voyces of their Church as before “ Pag. 164.251 hath bene shewed But Titus came to Crete and Timothie into Asia only by the Apostle Pauls sending vtterly without the peoples calling to whom they ministred in all those Churches Therefore Titus in Crete Timothie in Ephesus were no Bishops SeaveÌ„th If Titus were a proper Bishop in Crete then many distinct and intire Churches were not committed to him but only one But to Titus in Crete many distinct intire Churches were committed and not one only Therefore Titus in Crete was no proper Bishop The Assumption is plaine because hee had many “ Tit. 1.5 Cities in his charge And every City had a distinct and intire Church for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †Act. 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In every City in every Church do signifie all one thing And Eusebius “ Euse 4.22 maketh them so likewise But every proper Bishop is limited and appropriated to one Church only The D. saith assigned But that word is to loose Indeed a Bishop is limited appropriated as it were confined to one Church D. Bilson saith †Perpet gov pag 227. 232. affixed Therefore Titus was no Bishop nor Timothie neither Lastly Whatsoever reason maketh Titus Timothie Provinciall Bishops in Crete and in Asia the same serveth to make Paul or Peter Vniversall Bishops and to have Vniversal Bishops their Successors at Rome But no reason is sufficient to make Paul or Peter Vniversall ordinary Bishops of Rome nor that they should have Vniversall Bishops their Successors Therefore no reason sufficient to make Titus in Crete or Timothie at Ephesus Provinciall Bishops And so much of Timothie and Titus that they were indeed no proper Bishops which point yet Doct. Bilson “ See before pag. 241. confesseth to be their only holde After this let vs now shew how D. Downame grosly †Def. 2 14â— abuseth Calvin and Beza affiâ—ming that they ioyne with the Bishops
Luther Bucer P. Martyr Viret Calvin Beza Danaeus Vrsinees Gualter c. And not the later only but the elder Christians also For all these we have seene do consent with vs in our profession And it is a slander that in Geneva or any where els the reformed Churches do substantially differ from our iudgement As may be seene through out the 3. 4. Chapters before If any thing dissonaÌ„t from those testim may now be found in some of these Churches which I will not deny then it cometh to passe with theÌ„ as with goodly and faire Houses A Similitude which being inhabited by men will neede sweeping very oft If they bee not swept cleaned they will soone become foule And so truly it may be in some of the Churches before named Which can be no preiudice to vs who seeing transgression creepe in do wish all men and even them also ad originem reverti Cyprian cont Epist StephaÌ„ De Vnit. Eccles. to returne to the originall and first Plantation both of them selves in particular and specially of all Churches at the first In the which only there is safetie As for this intemperat Doctors rayling wordes in calling this our doctrine “ Def. 1.41 4.80.99 Brownisticall Anabaptisticall †Def. 3.142 4.81 fanaticall fantasticall dotage phrensie c. We will beare it knowing as Cyprian said of some such in his dayes “ Cyprian Epist 4.2 Non possunt laudare nos qui recedunt à nobis We must looke for hatefull and â—â—â—lent wordes from them that fall from vs. Yet in the meane whyle let him know also that in this he reprocheth not so much vs as those pillars of the truth and lights of the Gospell before named zuinglius Luther Bucer Martyr Viret Calvin and the rest of whom we have directly receaved this doctrine and profession These are our Maisters heerein as in the beginning I said Our Do. obiecteth often that these are partiall that this is their owne cause And that as well we might cite “ Def. 4.30 Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers as some of these Yea hee will have Ierome also to be †Def. 4.137 partiall Yet we frankly acknowledge Ierome to be theirs touching the lawfulnes of Dioces Ierome not ours simply Bishops Although he and many other of the Fathers beside are with vs in this that Diocesan Bishops are not Apostolicall but Humane And this verily they teach far from partialitie Partiall they may be for the said Prelacie not against it And the truth is they were notoriously partiall for it it was indeed their owne cause Who are partiall They may be partial are wont so to be counted who are likely to get by their opinion some temporall commoditie not they who loose by it Now the Fathers Cui bono CassianuÌ„ erotema specially vnder Constantine after by approoving Diocesan Prelacie got great honor power and rule among the people and wealth and pleasure what they desired Which by opposing against it they should have lost WheÌ„ce certainly it is that D. Downame might as well cite B. Whitgift B. Bancroft and B. Bilson for his authors as some of those ancientes viz. as wel as B. Eusebius B. Epiphanius B. Theodoret B. Damasus B. Leo B. Chrysostom c. Who questionles in this point were very partiall And no les if not more may be thought of some of those Diocesan L. Bishops who began our Church reformation in England They by proceeding no further did get much temporall commoditie which by setting the Church state neerer to the forme Apostolike they must needes have lost And so they though otherwise as likewise those Ancientes were good and godly Fathers yet they were meÌ„ and might easily be partiall in this Good and godly Fathers yeâ— Men. Which and more wee may thinke of many of our Diocesan Lord Bishops since Most of all of D. Downame himselfe who besides these temporall hopes beeing a Diocesan L. Bishops fonne had neede of much grace I coÌ„fesse to cause him to degenerat But I pray then hath he done wisely to obiect as hee doth every foot against those singular instrumentes and very effectuall reformers our Attestators others like them that they were partiall and that this was their owne cause Indeed they were partiall that is they tooke part throughly with the sinceritie of the Gospell and stood against all Papall and Pontificall over-ruling of Gods people spiritually so should this Doct. and others do well if they were partiall likewise But partiall otherwise they neither were nor could be viz. they did not get but lost by this their proceeding great worldly honor much power and rule among the people large wealth daintie pleasure and ease which ours now do abound with as all the world seeth Whereby the worlde seeth likewise which side may rather plead partialitie to be in those whom they take to be their adversaries In many places D. Downame signifyeth that the godly late defenders of the Gospell do mislike only “ Def. 4.151.157.158.161 popish tyrannizing Bishops not orthodoxall Bishops as he presumeth ours to bee But let him know that those are Orthodoxall who imitate the Apostles and the patterne of the Church left vs in the New Testament And they are tyrannizing not Orthodoxe †viz. in this nor truly believing who imitate the popish though otherwise they be not papists Cicero said well to Antonie †Cicer. Philippic 2. Miror te Antoni quorum fasta imitere corum exitus non perhorrescere I wonder Antonie said hee that thou fearest not their iudgement whose deedes thou imitatest Now how wee imitate the very forme of the Popish Church-government all the world seeth and the Gospell rueth What meaneth the racke and the wracke of many consciences viz. the Oath ex officio What the Bishops depriving and imposing of Ministers without Imitation of Popish Church-governement yea contrarie to the Congregation What meane also such Excommunications What their imprisoning of Christians and punishing their purses with fees fines c. Are these the partes of Orthodoxe Bishops Are these things approved of those godly Writers Nothing lesse Likewise his vaine and frivolous seeking to avoid the Waldenses Wickliffe Hus Zuinglius Luther Oecolampadius Bucer Martyr Calvin c. our Tindal Fr. and Ioh. Lamberts Bradsord Bale c. is of no worth Some of theÌ„ signifie that they disalow not Diocesan Bishops simply Well no more do I as I have shewed “ Pag. 15.16.73.89.97 before Yet heereby appeareth no allowance of ours in England Our old English translators of the New Testament some other Writers since doe expresse the word Church by Congregation But saith our Doctor heere by they meane the †Def. 2.106.107.108 Vnivesall Church Which answer is vntrue and absurd That is where they speake of a Visible Ministe Church of which only our question is Speaking of this that they
the sense of the word Ecclesia pa. 109. 209. 210. 211. 308. French Liturgie with vs. pag. 50. Genevian Discipline with vs. pag. 49. Giftes no calling of a Minister pag. 162. Gualter with vs. pag. 37. 38. 39. 40. H. The world Hateth our profession and why pa. 17. 18. Helvetian confession with vs. pag. 49. I. Iames no proper Bishop pag. 238. 239. The Iewish Church governement differed substantially from the Christian pag. 158. 317. The forme of the Iewish church governement is ceased pag. 184. 185. 279. Iunius with vs. pag. 43. 44. 45. Iulianus of Alexandria the first Diocesan Bishop and yet but a Titular Diocesan pag. 92. K. Christes Kingdom commissive pag. 145. L. Lord and Lordship vnlawfull for the Ministerie pag. 118. A Spirituall Lord who pag. 118. Christ only ought to be a Spiritual Lord. p. 121. Luther with vs. pag. 31. 32. c. And Lutherans pag. 51. 52. M. P. Martyr with vs. pag. 34. 35. 150. 193. The civill Magistrat advanced by our profession pag. 18. 20. 115. 137. 313. 315. Every Metropolitan not a Diocesan pa. 254. Metropolitans in place not in office pag. 231. c. 235. 213. Outward Meanes necessarie to salvation and namely Christes pag. 150. 152. 154. 155. 194 195. 269. They who make Ministers must have Divine authoritie to do it pa. 163. 74. 75. 194. 147. Musculus for vs. pag. 36. N. We desiâ—e things Necessary pag. 18. 19. 193. The grievous hurt by Nonresidents pag. 129 To mislike Pluralists and Nonresidents are curious positions with our adversaries p. 132. P. The Palatine Catechisme with vs. pag. 51. Who cause Papistes to increase in England pa. 183. 186. Papistes more sound in the generall opinion of the Church then some protestantes p. 150. 180 A Parish in our reasoning what it is pag. 201. 202. 209. A Church no more but a Parish pag. 30. 103. 104. 108. 214. See Ecclesia Partiall who are pagt 301. In Church government the Peoples consent is Apostolicall pag. 68. 69. Evident Scriptures for the Peoples consent in church censures pag. 279. 140. 281. 282. Likewise in making of Ministers pag. 70. 164 165. 291. c. Power in the People administration in their Guides pag. 33. 42. 298. 278. 82. 83. What maner of People pag. 17. Great good cometh to Religion by granting the Peoples consent in church governemeÌ„t p. 130 The Papacie not to be overthroweÌ„ but by holding the Peoples free coÌ„sent p. 18. 156. 157. c. Our maine question is about the Peoples free consent in church governement pag. 10. 16. The Peoples necessary freedom power right in church gov what and how much ordinarily pag. 18. 22. 48. 61. 73. 82. 83. 278. Piscator for vs. pag. 46. Oâ—â— Profession giveth good satisfaction chiefly to the Magistrat p. 19. 20. 191. 313. 315 In reasoning we must alwayes speak Properly pag. 240. Some Protestants opinion holding changeablenes in the Churches forme and governement not without impietie pag. 133. 141. R. Rebaptizing refuted pag. 172. Reordayning lawfull and fit pag. 173. To receave our Ministerie derivatively and successively from the church of Rome a miserable answer pag. 170. 173. S. Who are Schismatiks pag. 138. 176. The Separation how they erre pag. 249. 280. Sole governement pag. 252. Succession a popish reason pag. 238. The Archb. with vs spiritually Sapreme pa. 119. â—ynods some lawfull Apostolike necessariâ— 116. 117. 179. Some not Apostolike nor lewfull p. 31. 48. 100. c. 111. c. 117. 178. A Synod absolut induceth a Pope p. 105. 110. 111. c. 179. T. Tertullian proveth not a Diocesan church or Bishop pag. 233. Tilenus for vs. pag. 43. 164. 166. Timothie and Titus no proper Bishops pag. 241. 264. Toleration of vs not vnmeet e. pag. 137. 193. 194. 195. 318. V. Viret for vs. pa. 28. 29. No Vnitie by Diocesan or Provinciall Churches and Bishops pag. 174. 176. 188. Gods written word the true cause of Vnitie pa. 175. 176. After Gods word the Magistrates helpe is the chief cause of Vnitie pag. 177. 315. The hurtfull error of some Protest antes granting one Vniversall Visible Church vnder the Gospell pag. 112. 181. 182. 189. 190. A Vniversall Church Visible induceth a Pope pag. 112. c. 181 c. 187. 189. To deny the peoples consent in Church governement to be a Divine ordinance bringeth in a Vniversall Church Visible pag. 157. 180. 189. and by a likely consequence will set the Pope above the King pag. 191. 192. Vniversalitie a popish reason pag. 221. 222. 223. Some Vniversall errors pag. 233. W. D. Whitaker for vs. pag. 47. 106. 107. Z. Zuinglius for vs. pag. 29. 30. 214. 215. 216.