in a Synod but it is in the power and free liking of every Parish who only have power to exclude from the Churches communion the impudent sinner If wee looke thoroughly into the wordeâ— which are in Math 18. we may finde him only to be excommunicate whom the common consent of that Church where the man dwelleth hath shut out Againe “ Epichirifis de Ganone Missae Est particularis Ecclesia ea cuâ— preceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecet Math. 18. quales ea Corinthi ad quam seribit Paulus aliae quarum se curam gereâ—â—dicat quibus se pari modo docere asserit â—nquiens Sollicitudo omnium EcclesiaruÌ„ sicut 〈◊〉 omnibus Ecclesijs doceo That is a parti ulat Church which is commanded to cut of the infected member Math. 18. Chap. â— Such as that of Corinth is to which Paul writeth and others which he saith be hath care of and in which he affirmeth that he taught altogeather alike saying The care of all Churches and As I teach in all Churches And concerning Calling to the Ministerie he saith * Ecclesiaste◠†It seemeth that there is nothing so agreeable to the ordinance of God and to the old institution as that all the whole Church of the faithfull amongst a people togeather with certain learned and godly Bishops and other faithfull men having skill in things should choose a Pastor And after againe Let therfore these proud Bishops and foolish Abbots goe shake their â—ares For it is convenient that the right of the Election should be in the power of the church of the faithfull instructed by the counsaill of learned meÌ„ Moreover he writeth thus “ Ad Valent Compar Hee that with a Councill of Bishops shall impose on Christian people any law or observatioÌ„ at their own liking he meaneth without the peoples coÌ„sent hic violento imperio ius Ecclesiae invadit Hee invadeth the Churches right by a violent command And therefore such Bishops as thus doe absque Ecclesia without the Churches consent statuentes suâ libidine Artic. 64. decreeing at their owne pleasure he saith are nomine tenus Episcopi reverà tyranni in name Bishops but in deed tyrants And thus much out of this holy man of God and noble witnes of Christ Maister Zuinglius Maister Luther another mightie and Luther principal champion for Gods truth at the same time wrote a special treatise which hath this title * Tom. 2. pag. 374. Quod Ecclesia â—us potestatem habeat indicandi de quavis doctrinâ item vocandi Ministros Evangelij aut si fideles esse desierint deponendi That the “ In this word he signifieth the CongregatioÌ„ of the people Church hath the right power to iudge of any doctrine also of calling the Ministers of the Gospell or if they cease to be faithfull to depose them What can be more for vs then this is In another place he saith “ Pag. 369. b. Chemnic examp part 2.27 a. Claves sunt totius Ecclesia The Keyes belong to the whole Church In his booke of the Privat Masse hee speaketh to the Bishops of his time thus Spiritus Sanctus vui Civitats plures constituit Episcopos Vos singuli estis pluribus Quâ authoritate Nonne ipsius Satanae c The holy Ghost appointed to one City many Bishops but you are one Bishop to many Cities By what authoritie Is it not of Sathan him selfe by you opposing against the authoritie of the Holy Ghost We conclude therfore boldly that you according to the Scriptures the H Ghosts decree are not so much as to be called Bishops but rather adversaries and destroyers both of Bishops and of the Divine decree concerning the appointing of Bishops Againe in his booke against the falsly named Order of Bishops hee saith †pag. 322. At citra iocum vides palam c. But without iest thou seest openly that the Apostle Paul calleth only them Bishops which do preach the Gospell and Minister Sacraments to the people as in our time the parish Ministers and Preachers do Therefore I beleeve without doubt that they by fight possesse the title and name of Bishops And in another treatise “ De Ministâ— Eccles instituendâ— pag. 365. b. Donabo hoc ordmibus Papisticis quod solius Episcopi autoritate instituuntur quos vocant Sacerdotes consensu aut suffragio populi cui preficiendi sunt neque requisito nec obtento cuius tamen cum sint populus Dei maximè intererat vt non sine suffragijs suis quisquaÌ„ eis imponeretur I will yield this saith he to the popish orders that Priestes as they call them are instituted by the authoritie of the Bishop alone the câ—nsent and voyce giving of the people over whoÌ„ they are to bee set neither sought nor obtâ—yned whose chiefe right nevertheles it was seeing they are Gods people that not any one should be set over them without their voyce-giving Thus teach these Pillars of the Gospell Zuinglius and Luther To whom wee will ad our two great lightes that shined sometyme in England Maister Bucer and P. Martyr Bucer Bucer hath these wordes †In Math 16. â—9 Haec potestas penes omnem Ecclesiam est authoritas modo Ministerij penes Presbyteros Episcopos Ita vt Roma olim potestas populs fuit authoritas Senatus This power sway of the governement is in the whole Church but the authoritie only of ministration therof is in the Presbyters and Bishops So as in old time at Rome the power was in the people but the authoritie or direction was in the Senat. In an other place he saith “ De regno Chrâ—â—â— 1. â— The Apostle accuseth the Corinthianâ— for that the whole church did not cast out of their company the incestuous person P. Martyr saith 7. P Martyr †In â— Cor. 16.15 Fatemur claves Ecclesia vniversae datas We confesse the Keyes are given to the whole Church By the Keyes he meaneth Governement and Ecclesiasticall power Also hee saith “ vers 3. it is no mervaile that it is the Churches right to chose Ministers seeing we see the Civill Lawes do give power to Townes to choose their Physicians and Scholemaisters at their owne liking In an other place thus he saith “ In cap. 5.11 Quoniam in Ecclesia de negotijs gravioribus quae sunt maximi momenti ad plebem â—efertur vt patet in Actis Apostolicis ideò politâ—ae rationem habet Because in the Church matters of waight are referred to the people to determine as it is manifest in the Acâ—es therefore the Church hath a respect of the Popular governement or Democracie For so P. Martyr heere meaneth by politia as wee may see if we look in the place Also namely of Excommunication hee saieth Consentiente vniversa Eccsesia Excommunicetur Hoc debet ist ad iudicium antecedere Let Excommunication be with the consent of
or to Timothie For he would not that they should do any thing by their privat authorâ—tie but he commaundeth them to take care that worthy and fit Ministers bee ordayned aâ—cording to the office of Guides and Overseers Nâ—ither is it likely that more was graunted to them then to the Apostles themselves who determined nothing in this cause at any time without the churches cousaill or witbout taking the churches advise For a little after they both chose Deacons publikly in the preseÌ„ce of the church and Paul with Barnabas are read to have ordayned Presbyters throughout every Church gathering the voyces of every maÌ„ Act 6 3.4 Arguitur exemple hoc corruptissimus idemque perniciosissimus Ministros eligends mos quem tam seculis aliquot hâc in causa imperâ—um obtinuisse constat Quofit vt non raro vâ—us aliquis in pluribus Ecclesijs privata authoritate Ministros Eligat Ordinet Quaete potissimum ab Abbatibus Episcopis Prapositis peccaiur Nec meitùs rem administrant nonnulli inter eos qui Evangelij nomine gloriantur Ecclesiarum reformatores baberi volunt Dum enim isis malè vsurpata possessione Monachos Episcopos vt par est eijeiunt Ecclesijstamen libertatem illorum tyrannide ereptam non restituunt Sed pro suâ— arbitrio administrant quae olim ab Episcopis Monachis administrari solebant Quod malum nisi brevi reprimatur Simoniâ—m exitialem omnis Ecclesiasticae Disciplina confusionem nobis pariet Atque omne boâ— Romanis Pontificibus debetur c. Maximè Calisto secundo ex quo tempore Ecclesia libertas ceu lethali morbo contabescens tandem in vniversum evanuit Quam quicunque restitutam volunt sive illi verbi Ministri sint sive Magistratus huc incumbendum sibi esse sciant vt vetus Ministrorum eligendorum consuetudo in ducatur By this example is reproved that most corrupt also most pernicious manner of chosing Ministers which it is manifest hath gotteÌ„ DominioÌ„ Lordly rule in this affaire now these certaine ages Whereby it is that not seldome one both choseth and ordayneth Ministers in many Churches by his privat authoritie Wherein chieflic the Abbots As in England c. Bishops and Rulers offende Neither do divers others among those that glorie in the name of the Gospell and would be counted Reformers of Churches order this matter better For while they put foorth the Monkes Bishops as it is meete they should out of their possession wickedly vsurped yet the libertie which they tooke away from their tyrannie they restore not to the Churches but administer those thinges at their owne will which in time past were wont to bee administred by the Bishops and Monkes Which evill vnles it bee shortly repressed it will bring foorth among vs both Simonie and also a deadly confusion of all Church Dâ—â—ciplice And all this wee have from the Bishops of Rome c. Chieflie from Calistus the second FroÌ„ which time the Churches libertie as it were languishing with a deadly sicknes at last vanished away wholy Which whosoever do desire that it may be restored whether they be Ministers or Magistrates let them know they must labour for this that the old custome of chosing Ministers bee brought in againe 11. Vrsimus Vnto these we will adde Vrsinus who teacheth thus Math. 18.17 If he refuse to heare the Church “ Catech. pa. 799.800 Printed at Oxfor An. 1589 let him be vnto thee as a Heathen a Publican In these wordes Christ expresly commaundeth all whosoever beeing after this sort admonished by the Church will not repent to bee by the common consent of the Church excommunicated vntill they repent And whosoever are excommunicated they againe professing and shewing in their actions amendment are altogeather in lake sort receaved into the Church as they were exiled from it namely by the iudgement of the Elders by the consent of the Church and the authoritie of Christ and the Scripture And that deâ—untiation whereby one is excommunicated is not in the power of the Minister of the Church but in the power of the Church and is done in the name of the Church because this Commandment was given by Christ vnto the church For he saith expresly Tel the Church 12. Danaus In 1 Tim. 5.22 Heere also Danaus is worthie to bee remembred He saith Approbatio eligendi Ministri ad plebem totum populum Ecclesia sanè pertinet The approbation of the Minister to bee chosen pertayneth truly to the whole people of the Church Againe Plebem non esse ab ordinationibâ— vocandorum preficiendorum muneribu Ecclesiasticis excludâ—ndam demonstant examplâ— veteris Ecclesiae c. That the people â—ught not to bee excluded from the ordinations of Ministers the examâ—les of the old Church do demonstrat in which without doubt the Election by voyces of the whole Church was vsed as it is easie to be shewed in Act 6. 14. Therefore they do perfidiously deprive the Church of her right Perfidie who thrust a Pastor on a people without their knowledge and consent For they do the Church the greatest iniurie when they spoile her of her iudgement and voyce giving Sacrilege or Church robbing Who therefore are truly to bee called Sacrilegious or Church-robbers Neither indeed is he a lawful Pastor which is over a flocke being ignorant of his comming or against their will or not consenting Which presently after he sticketh not to applie to the callings of the Ministers in England saying Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla sit vel non legitima corum verbi Ministrorum Vocatio c. By all this it appeareth how that calling of Ministers is none or not lawfull which is made by the authoritie letters commaundement and iudgement of the King alone or Queene or the Patrone or Bishop or Archbishop c. veluti in mediâ Angliâ as it is vsed in England Id quod dolendum est which I speake with greefe Moreover concerning Excommunication he saith “ In vers 1. Hac iurisdictio est totuâ— quidem Ecclesia ratione potestatis Prepositotum autem ratione exercitij adminisirationis This iurisdiction is the whole Churâ—hes in respect of the power thereof but it beâ—ongeth to the Guides of the Church in respect â—f administring it namely populo assentiente with the peoples consent as hee addeth a â—ittle after And againe Executioni puâ—lica censura intervenire debet notitia conâ—ensus Ecclesia The knowledge and consent of the Church ought to be in the execution of the publike censure 13. Tilenus Neither shall Tilenus testimonie bee vnremembred who aunswering the Coâ—nt Lavl that required him to shew what calling Calvin had saith “ Respons ad Com Lavallium quest 3 The people of Geneva professing the Gospel did first call Farel to be their Pastor then he they called Calvin to be likewise Applying Ciprians sentence thervnto who avoucheth “ Epist
and take to my selfe alone common matters Adde vnto this that he saith also †◠4 Apud nos quoque ferè per Provincias vniversas teâ—etur Thus custome and practise is observed with vs at Carthage almost through out all Provinces By all which it is manifest that D. Bilson vainly answereth that Cyprian did yeeld to the people their free coÌ„sent in the Church-governement out of “ D. Bilâ— perpet gover pag. 171. 176. a private moderation and but of his owne free will Nay he saith as wee heard that he durst not do otherwise and that he observed it out of religion and that this power of the people cometh from Divine authoritie Yea doubtles such a generall and perpetuall custome even from the Apostles times and appearing in the Apostles practise also as the New Testament sheweth can not be in Cypriaen a privat moderation only but even an vnchangeable law Neither is that anie truer where hee saith that “ Pag. 178. Cyprian him selfe was the first that casâ—iered his owne confession †Pag. 18â— and brake that custome Hee brake it not Hee did not cassier his owne confession Though that is a thing not impossible Cyprian is not so persit but hee might thus faile thorough affection to him selfe and yet his former testimonies of the peoples right and power afore said may be as they are most true But as I said CypriaÌ„ neverbrake this his own others custome Verily as touching the substance of the matter he never brake it What instances hath hee against vs Saith he Cyprian without the people made Epist 4.5 Celerinus †2 5. Aurelius and “ 3.22 Saturus Readers and Optatus a Subdeacon What of this None of these come into our question Wee have no care of making Readers and Subdeacons But without the people he made * 4.10 Numidicus a Presbyter The place sheweth no such matter nor yet that he was made Presbyter then But rather being absent hee sheweth the Presbyters and people at Carthage that Numidicus was to be made a Presbyter Saying in the future tence Et promovebitur quidem dum tempus permiserit ad ampliorem locum religionis suae cum in presentia protegente Dominâ— venerimus He shal be promoted when wee shall come in presence among you So that he saith not that hee alone had nowe made him a Presbyter Beside it is most manifest in all these places that Cyprian shewed a speciall care to have the peoples liking and free consent to all which hee did and that in his absence hee would attempt not anie thing but that which he presumed was sure of that their liking was to it as much as his own So that he maketh it apparant even heere that hee would do none of these things against their wills Which is all that we seeke also in our assertioÌ„ as touching the substance of it as before we have often shewed Last of all hee saith of Numidicus that he was to bee a Presbyter dignatione Divinâ by Gods speciall Divine will and that Celerinus and Aurelius had their places so I kewise But we speake of no such extraordinaâ—e Divine calling This also toucheth not our question We holde the peoples right of giving consent to be only for the ordinarie callings in the Ministerie D. Bilson further vrgeth that Cyprian receaved some into the Church “ Pag. 17â— without the peoples consent yea when the people withstood it because hee saith in one place †Vix plebi persuadeâ— immo extorqueo I scarce persuade the people Epist 1.3 or rather I wring it from them c. And obnitente plebe contradicente I receaved theÌ„ the people striving against it gainsaying it I answer Seeing hee saith I scarce persuade the people therefore they were persuaded did coÌ„sent to his minde Indeed he sheweth that this matter was hardly gotten at their handes yea a whilè they spake against it but they were persuaded at last and so in conclusioÌ„ thei agreed to do as he thought good Thus hee did not this thing plainly and simply without the peoples consent or against their wâ—â—s simply but with their consent agâ—eement so as I said Whereby it appeareth how frivolous exceptions are taken against Cyprians concurrence and correspondence with vs in this cause whose most cleere and vnanswerable and frequent speaking on our part heerein we have seene before Now only one place more I will note in him describing fully his ordinarie practise in Church governemeÌ„â— and may bee a singular example and patterne for vs. Epist. 3.11 shewing how he receaved againe certaine pâ—enitents who had schismed from the Church He saith thereof first “ 3.11 Omni actu ad me perlato placuit coÌ„trahi Presbyteâ—uÌ„ Every act of their repeÌ„taÌ„ce being brought vnto me I thought good to call togeather he Presbyterie or Eldership Whether heere were any Lay Elders in this Presbyteric or whether all were ordinarie Ministers of the Word and Sacramentes it is nothing materiall Though D. Bilson and D. Downame do make all their sturre about this question yet as I said even in the “ pag. 11. 12. 23. entrance of this Treatise it is nothing to the substance of the controversie betweene vs but it is impertinent from the maine purpose altogeather To passe this therefore Secondly Cyprian in this place addeth His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt c. Then the peâ—ntentes came into the Eldership earnestly praying that the things they had committed might be forgotten c. Thirdly Quod eâ—at consequens omnis hic actus populo fuerat â—nsinuandus It remayned that all this action was to be signifyed to the people Magnus fraâ—ernitatis concursus factus est There was a great Meeting of the brethren Vna vox eras â—mnium Maximum Presbyterum locum suum agnoscereiussimus Caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus There was one voyce of vs all We willed Maximus the Presbyter to know his place The rest we receaved with a great voycegiving of the people allowing it Heere we see what place and order consent the people vnder Cyprian had in the ordinarie Church governemeÌ„t Certainly it is a plaine example and right worthie to bee followed of vs. And so much concerning Cyprian is sufficient A while after this time Antioch at Antioch the neighbour Bishops comming togeather Anno 27â— do acknowledge that even the Churches thereabouts coÌ„curred and ioyned with them in the act of Excommunicating deposing Paul the Bishop there and in ordayning Domnus in his roome This they signifie iâ— the title of their “ Euseb 7.24 Episâ—le which they all togeather do write about this matter Now questionles among these Churches the Church that is the people of Antioch it selfe were the principall in this action For they were the proper Body of which that wicked Bishop was the proper Ministerial Head also there the Meeting about his deposing
times places and persons without any limitation The like proofe is that also in another text viz. †Hebr. 9. â—â— No man taketh this honour to him selfe but be that is called of God as Aaron was But I wil presse this no further For I suppose every Christian advised will acknowledge it and I have shewed it at large in a speciall treatise for the purpose viz. The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible Ministeriall Church Secondly If Chist him selfe have seated the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction in the whole CoÌ„gregation at any time then it is certain that so much is contained some-where in the New Testament This is no Vnwritten Tradition neither can be by any meanes if Christ him selfe be the Author heereof as before we have seene that he is Thirdly This being contayned in the New Testament viz. that Christ him selfe hath seated the power of ordination iurisdiction in the whole body of a particular CoÌ„gregation in the case of necessitie it is certain then that it is contained in those speciall places which after many other worthy Divines I have to this purpose cited and alleaged in the third and 9. Arguments of my forenamed Treatise of the Divine beginning and instituâ—â—â— of Christs true visible Ministerial Church For there can bee no other instance shewed at least none can bee shewed of any other tenor then those are Which speciall places are these Math. 18.17 and 1. Cor. 5.13 2. Thes 3.14 and 2. Co. 2.8 Also Act. 14.23 Act. 6.3.5.6 Act. 1.23.26 and Act. 15.22.25.28 as it appeareth in the foresaid Arguments of the said Treatise Fourthly these places of Christes Testament shewing that Christ hath seated the power of ordination and iurisdiction in the whole particular CoÌ„gregation theÌ„ it must needes be that these shew the said whole Congregation to have that power and right not in the case of necessitie only but even alwayes at all seasons This likewise cannot be denyed For in these speciall places there is no restraint of this power and right in the Congregation no abridging thereof no tying it to the case of necessitie only but they shew it to be in the people from God indefinitly and without limitation Neither is it otherwise to be found in Christes Testament any where els Wherefore by no meanes may men restraine that which God hath given indefinitly Nor take that away from â—is people at any time which he hath given them simply 2. Cor 2.24 What is proud â—lesh and bloud to inhibit or lessen Christs vnlimited free graunt gracious gift to his Church Or how can our soules rest assured wheÌ„ we yeeld to such presumption of men Wherevpon wee may fee that this restraining clause of our Doctor heere added that this acknowledgement of his is not true of any particular Congregation but in pase of necessitie is both a false and absurd addition False as beeing contrary to the generalitie of those speciall places of Christes Testament above mentioned absurd as implying by necessary consequence a contradiction to himselfe in one the same sentence For his present acknowledgement such as it is implyeth the contrary to this his limitation by necessarie consequence as before in this fourth point I have shewed Fiftly this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation and that alwayes surely then it must needs be in them only And so I vnderstand in another place “ Declaâ—â—â— Pag. â— 35. where I say that this power is coÌ„vertible with the CoÌ„gregation I affirme therefore that this power indeed is onely in the whole Congregation Although D. D. Downame hath skill to go two ways to Heaven for the true Church-governemeÌ„t is the way to heaveÌ„ yet our good holy and wise God approoveth but one way as where he saith “ Isa 30.21 This is the way walke ye in it Turne not therefrom neither to the right hande nor to the less And where Christ saith * Ioh. 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life He alloweth simply but one way even that which is his owne ordinance and none other Vas via vna veritas One way one truth Also Veritas simplex error autem multiplex Truth is but one Error is manifold Wherefore it can not be but the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation it is also only in them Heere the adversaries thinke they have a great advantage against vs. They say it appeareth in the Scripture that “ 1. Tim. 5.22 Tamothie and †Tit. 1.5 Titus had power of Ordination and iurisdiction Therefore only the CoÌ„gregations had not that power I answer This consequence is vtterly false it followeth not at all For Timothie Titus had the power of Ordination and iurisdiction with the Congregations Now the CoÌ„gregatioÌ„ only had power not without them Being partes of them and being present in them for the time not being personally out of them or absent froÌ„ them So as the L. Bishops do exercise their power in England Againe as Paul saith to the Corinthians that “ 2 Cor â— 24 he was not 〈◊〉 Lord over their faith but a helper to them for their â—oy So these viz. Timothia and Titus in the Congregations were not Lords but they were Helpers to them in the managing of these affaires They did not alone without the Congregations concurrence what themselves listed but they ordered guided the Congregations in this their busines as Directors and chiefe Counsellors and as the most worthie to bee Actors thereof for them And the like was the power of the Apostles also towards the Congregations It was such I say and none other Indeed in their Doctrine and teaching they by them selves alone instructed them sometime commaunded them in the name of Christ but in outward governement they did not any thing alone or Lordly that is without the Congregations free consent Wherefore much rather the power of all ordinarie true Bishops and Pastors is such and no greater They have power of Ordination and iurisdiction but yet evermore with the Congregations presence and free consent as their instruments doing their actes in the Churches name and by their authoritie not in their owne name noâ— solely as Lords So it remayneth evident that Bishops primitively yea Timothie and Titus and the Apostleâ— themselves had power of ordinarie Church governement and yet the Congregations only had this power Because they evermore were partes of the Congregations in them when they had and vsed their power Sixtly it followeth also necessarily from hence that the power of Ordination and iurisdiction is in the body of the Congregation Substantially Essentially and Fundamentally after Christ and the Congregation may bee truly said in such respect to do performe those actions the Bishops and Guides do these actions Instrumentally and Ministerially and no otherwise then in the Congregations name and by their authoritie as
is before noted Whence it is that Doct. Downame heere saith truly the succession of their owne Clergie fayling and the helpe of others wanting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church If the Doctor will reply say that this power and right is not essentially in the whole Congregation alwayes nor at all times but sometimes only that is in the case of necessitie aforesaid I answer then the D. folly and want of true reason will be manifest to all men For what soever is essentiall to any thing at sometime is essentiall to the same alwayes and evermore That which is essentiall once is essentiall still So that if the Congregations power right to consent in making of Ministers in Censures be essentiall at sometime as he acknowledgeth it is then certainly it is essentiall therein at all times and evermore The truth heereof can never be denyed And hence it is that Luther saieth If Titus would not Luth. de Ministr Eccles instit propâ— finem the Congregation might ordaine Ministers to them selves And of Excommunication Zuinglius saith “ Artic. 31. Non quod solus Episcopus hac facere debeat quisque hoc â—â—â—est si Episcopus fuerit negligens Any man may do this if the Bishop be negligent Hee meaneth any Man appointed by the Church may do it In which respect also that senteÌ„ce of Epiphanius that †Epiph. haereâ—â— 75. Biâ—â—ops can beget Fathers to the Church but Presbyters can not is to be refused as vntrue and erroneous For before wee have seene that only the CoÌ„gregation doth beget Fathers that is maketh Ministers essentially the Bishop doth it but instrumentally and Ministerially And so a Presbyter may do it as well as he whom they name a Bishop yea any other also may do it as Luther and Zuinglius before affirme when the Church imployeth them to that vsâ— Our two Doctors before cited even aâ— the Papistes also do hold strongly with those wordes of “ â—aereâ— 75. Epephanius to the great preiudice of the Gospel But their bare opinions names are nothing to our cleere and certain reason for the contrarie before set downe Neither are the bare opinions and naked names of any other men whosoever any better worth Seventhly 〈◊〉 last of all hence it foloweth so that it can not bee denyed that seeing thâ— whole CoÌ„gregation doth always give the Calling of ordinary Ministers essentially therfore the whole Congregation ought alwayes of necessitie tâ— give their free consent to their Minister at least so farre foorth that nonâ— bee imposed on them whether they will or no. The like also is to bee saiâ— of their power in iurisdiction And these pointes wee must imagine that they are acknowledged and held by D. Downame or surely that hee ought to acknowledge them all seeing by force of true reason they al do follow from those his wordes which he affirmeth holdeth as before I have declared Now this is all that wee professe touching the pleoples right tâ— Church government For we deniâ— not but in the ordinarie peaceable and right state of the Church when al things are caried well the chief diâ—ection sway of the whole government belongeth to the Bishop or Paâ—tor the people beeing on their part â—o hearken to their Teacher to folâ—ow their Guide obediently dutieâ—ully D. Down Deâ—â— 1.41 Their power to iudge and to provide otherwise for themselves being wheÌ„ they see their Guides to faile Which seeing it is his minde also set downe in his owne words before reâ—earsed I have truly affirmed that â—ouching our present cause even this Doctor agreeth with vs sometime in â—ull effect by good consequence of â—eason from his expresse wordes Though at other times he do as some report Cicero said to Salust “ Orat. 〈◊〉 Cicer. 〈◊〉 Salust Aliud stans â—â—â—â—d sedens de repub sentis Of the common â—ealth thou thinkest one thing standing another sitting Of Christes Visible Church and the governement thereof verily our Doctor doth likewise CHAPTER VII Chap. 7. Consequences of greatest importance following vpon the peoples free coÌ„sent in their Church governement inconveniences in Religion not sufferable following from the contrary AFter the forerehearsed Witnesses for this Doctrine we wil now shewe certain cleere and necessarie Consequences which follow from the same also some true and great Inconveniences to faith and godly life and to Civill authoritie such as are not to be tolerated which yet cannot be avoyded where men professing to be Christians imbrace not this point Of all fortes I wil heere observe eight great and waightie Consequentes heerevpon First this being receaved as the Ordinance of Christ and the practise of the Apostles 1. CoÌ„sequent that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent it followeth that every Church is only “ As is also shewed in the Declaration pag. 12. 13. 14. 35. one ordinarie Congregation and not any proper Diocesan or Provinciall Church or larger Vnderstanding alwayes the peoples free consent to be orderly conveniently taken and practised so as Christ intendeth that †1. Cor. 14.40 every thing should bee done in his Church For where the peoples free consent is orderly and conveniently practised alwayes in the Church governement there the Body of the Church can not be so large as a Diocese much lesse as a Province or Nation and least of all so large as a Vniversall Church Seeing all this people can not possibly by any meanes give their free consent in the ordinarie Church-governement neither can any person take it of all them iustly orderly and conveniently This to say the truth is not possible For in such a state when onely some maine partes of the Church governement are exercised it will bee alwayes with much defect and also with great disturbance and tumult oftentimes I say where it is extended so largely so wide with concurrence of such multitudes of people This is true first in very reason and withall often experience hath shewed it in former times vnder most Christian carefull Princes after the Nicen Councill as at Alexandria at Antioch at Rome at Constantinople and in infinite places mo a great part whereof the “ Euseâ— Socrat. Zozomeâ— Theodoret. Evagrius Stories doe record In which Church actions though done with to inconvenient libertie of the people yet the greatest part of the people whoÌ„ the effect of those businesses reached vnto were absent and so wanted their right those which were present were full of confusion and tumult neither could it be otherwise But God is the God of equitie of order and of peace Wherefore this disorder can nor be fit for Gods Church And so neither can a Diocesan circuit Râ—as for reform p. 26.27 or larger in which this disorder wil arise necessarilie if all that people togeather have their free consent in their Church-governement Which the whole
proofe For indeed Euseb doth not avouch it Yea D. Bilson also denieth it generally saying “ D. Bils perper govern Pag. 306. Each place were it never so great had but one Church and one chiefe Pastor He speaketh of those first times Peradventure if Eusebius write true and if hee had good intelligence heereof Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria was a Diocesan Bishop in some measure For I will not deny but Churches may begin to be mulplyed in Alexandria about that time So that some small beginning shew of a Diocesan Bishop which heeretofore I called fitly a “ Rem for refor pag. 7. Titular Diocesan was in him peradventure And I say peradventure because this graunt is gotten from vs only by reason of a few wordes in * Euseb 5.9 Eusebius whose words yet alwayes are not Gospell Yea in historie †Rain confes pag. 257. he is not alwayes so sure at that we may build on him Which also before I insinuated Howbeit I will not sticke to acknowledge Iulianus to have ben such a Diocesan Bishop as I said But withall I affirme that for any thing wee finde hee was the first that ever was that by no record any DiocesaÌ„ can be shewed before him Now this was “ Vnder Commodus Emperour neare vpon 200. yeres after Christ Yet for the Westerue partes of Christendome I agree with Platina who out of one Damasus saith that Dionysius Bishop of Rome first ordained Dioceses which was about the yeare of Christ 260. Against this D. Downame excepteth vrging that †D. Down Def. 2.99 Platina saith not Dionysius did it first I answer and will avouch it that in effect he saith so much For he saith that Dionys being made Bishop of Rome †Platin. in Dionys. straightway divided Churches in the Citie of Rome Which cannot be otherwise meant but that hee did it first and that before him the Congregations there were not divided As for that he saith before of Evaristus Bishop of Rome that “ In Evaristus he divided titles to the Presbyters I answer this verily is meant of divers praecincts and quarters belonging only to one intire CoÌ„gregation and ordinarie Assemblie Reason requireth that in great Cities wheÌ„ Christians multiplied first there should be such praecinctes and quarters designed before many ordinarie churches were divided and constantly set in them The French Duch Churches in London have such praecinctes and quarters yet they have each but one ordinary Congregation And questionles so it was in Rome for divers ordinarie set Congregations were not appointed there long after this no not in the time of Cornelius B. of Rome nor in Carthage vnder Cyprian Which may well bee gathered out of their Writings They both flourished togeather about the yeare of Christ 250. Wherefore though such Titles as are praecincts beloÌ„ging to one ordinarie Congregation might well be instituted by Evaristus and multiplyed afterward Yet this nothing hindereth our assertion that Dionysius first instituted distinct Churches there and so a Diocesan Church improper And Doc. Downame presumeth too grosly where hee affirmeth that these titles signifyed “ D. Down Def. 2.100 Parish Churches then in Rome What soever the word may signifie sometime questionles heere in this busines touching Evaristus it signifieth as I have said divers quarters and praecincts of one ordinarie Congregation and nothing els And this is the cleerest most certain notice that wee have touching the first Diocesan Bishops and Churches improperly so called Which after they were erected continued in the Christian world in divers kindes and sortes as I said before They were begun and set vp at first I doubt not out of a good intent yet it as plaine as may be that errour alwayes accompanied them even from the first The best of these Bishops not waÌ„ting some ambition and partiall respect toward them selves and all of them possessed with that erroneous opinion that the peereles authoritie of one Bishop over the Churches was the best meanes of true vnitie and chieflie Gods purpose being that thus the Vniversal Papacie should at last be advaÌ„ced which otherwise never could have ben so I say it came to passe that these Diocesan Bishops and Churches and their authoritie in continuance of time grew still greater and greater yet as Ierome saith and as reason also sheweth it to bee likely it proceeded paulatim by litle and litle by small degrees and by increasings not spyed of every one till at last they all grew to be transformed into proper Diocesan Bishops and Churches and got the power of Spirituall governement absolutly into their handes cleane excluding all power of the people in the ordinarie Congregations freely to consent which formerly they had ever held more or lesse But this was not fully brought to passe till after that the great Apostasie and tyrannie of the Vniversall Bishop the Romane Antichrist was begun to be set vp as “ Pag. 06. â—â—â— 88. before I declared I graunt heere that the improper Diocesan Churches as I note them were called and named Diocesan many yeares agoe and are also at this time by many learned men But yet indeed they are such Churches viz. Diocesan or larger improperly are called so by a catachresis an abusive maner of speaking The reason is because truly these Churches are not each of them one proper and intire Diocesan Body as a proper diocesan Church is but hath so many distinct Bodies and independent as there are Ordinarie Congregations in each of them inioying their free consent in their severall governements Yet each of them is called a Diocesan Church or larger for other respectes to wit because it hath a certain kinde of Diocesan or larger consociation of so many Churches togeather and a kinde of dependance vnder one generall Presidencie or Superioritie as before I observed Againe Pag. 88. 89. both the kinds of these improper Diocesan Churches above specified that is the Synodall Episcopall do guide and rule much alike In respect of the severall Congregations vnder them they rule not absolutly nor as intire and sole governors but with relation to the saide Congregations free consent which is their ancient right and immunitie as they are Churches of Christ Which immunitie and free power they may lawfully take to them selves vse whensoever they see necessary cause for it as even our adversaries acknowledge D. Down Def. 4.99 Whence it is that both stand well beeing duly ordered with the good proceedings of the Gospell Neither did any man of vnderstanding ever deny this Howbeit yet we affirme that of these two the consociation by Synodes or Presbyteries is most convenient most profitable and most safe for vs at least wise now that is in respect of these times in which we live and of the circumstances in them The governement of Diocesan Bishops though of the best sort is not so good nor safe especially now Whereof it is easie to yeelde
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
and whose faith wee follow therein whom I put first namely for their singular perspicuitie and resolutnes in it Then I will rehearse the practise of the most ancient times after the Apostles After that I will remember our very adversaries consent with vs heerein sometimes Then I will shew some certaine firme consequences whiche follow from this ground necessarily also some true great inconveniences in reâ—ecting this doctrine Moreover I will answer some of the adversaries chiefest obiections noting also briefly their immodest and vnchristian reproches against this Evangelicall truth And finally adding a brief advertisement touching this cause we will commit the whole coÌ„sideration thereof to the vpright hearted and discreet Christian Reader CHAP. III. The testimonies of many particular late Writers of blessed memorie making for vs in this matter BEGINNING therefore with the New Writers I iudge it meet and convenient to alleage in the formost place the resolut determination of Maister Beza Beza because he of al others is thought by some vnadvised persons to be most against vs in this point Now hee disputing this question at large in his Epist 8â— setteth downe this conclusion Populo invito nihil obtrudatur Let nothing be imposed on the people or Congregation agâ—aâ—t their willes Then the which verily we desire no more this is all in substance that we seek in our assertion Againe vnles it bee so the Church-governement either is a Monarchie or a verie Oligarchie But Maister Beza expresly condemneth both these and the later namely on Math. ca. 18.17 Wherefore howsoever Maister Beza interpreteth some things otherwise then we do vseth some times other phrases then we perhaps do thinke so fit or so frequently to be vsed yet touching this point in question hee agreeth wholy with vs in substance and in effect For let this which he in these wordes setteth downe be yeelded vnto vs theÌ„ wee are satisfyed for the substance of Church-governemeÌ„t To which purpose Maister Beza saith also in Confes 5.35 The Apostles intended in the Churches which they planted that no Pastor should bee obtruded on a flocke against their willes Yet moreover I pray the Reader to note that even hee also strongly maintayneth this right of the people in the affayres of their soules many tymes in more free and large termes As where he saith “ Confes 5.34 I finde no where in any Christian Church built vp that any is promoted either to the Ministerie of the word or Deaconship or Eldership any other way then by a publike and free election And †Sect 35. I repeat againe that which I said before It was never receaved in Christian Churches established that any should be admitted to an Ecclesiastscall function but being freely and lawfully chosen of that Church which it concerneth Againe “ ibid. Pastors are not to be chosen without the consent of the whole Church Also * ibid. They whosoever they are bring Tyrannie into the Church if they call any man to a publike function at their owne will the consent of the multitude being neglected Againe “ ibid. Presbyters were chosen by the voyces at least by the allowance of the whole assembly Vpon the Act. 14.23 he saith See Oecumen in hunc loc Also Badei Commentar The force of this word Chirotonein is to be noted that wee way know Paul and Barnabas did nothing by their private will neither exercised any tyrannie in the Church He meaneth that they here made Ministers by the peoples voyces or free consent not otherwise And vpon 1. Time 5.22 All the authoritiâ— of making Ministers was not in Timothie alone but election being made by the consent of the whole Church then the President of the assemblie did consecrate him by laying on of handes And on 2. Cor. 2.8 By the publike consent of the Church declare that you embrace that penitent sinner againe as a brother even as by the publike iudgement of the Church he was cast out In all the which it is easie to see Maister Bezaes minde and resolution in this question to bee cleerely with vs. As for that which D. Downame “ Defens 4. pag. 81. obiecteth out of him where he calleth one Morellius †Deâ—grad Ministr 6.23 Fanaticall because he pleaded in like maner for the popular governement The D. abuseth Beza and vs all Morellius pleaded for the popular governement in far vnlike maner He sought in Churches perfectly established to bring all things in particular and ordinarily to the peoples hearing examining iudging and voice-giving But neither Beza nor we intend so Wee acknowledge that the ordinarie sway of all Ecclesiasticall authoritie ought to bee in the true Bishop or Pastour of the church and we affirme that right wel so it may bee although never anie thing be imposed on the Church by him against their willes Which thing D. Downame him selfe also acknowledgeth may be and “ Def. 4. p. 21 was heeretofore in a state of the Church * Rather about 420. about 400. yeres after Christ which hee seemeth to allow of Saving that he cunningly falsifyeth the wordes of the Councill which there he mentioneth to wit in saying the assent or connivence of the people where the Councill saith “ Concil Carth. 4. Can. 22. the assent and connivence But to proceed By this before alleaged all men may see Maist Bezaes iudgement in this cause to be as I said cleerely with vs. And so much concerning him In the second place we will consider Maister Calvin 2. Calvin a Pastor and Guide of the Church of Geneva before Mai. Beza Hee also every where in all his writings is a most earnest patron of this point which heere we professe I will note certain of his sentences to this purpose Saith he “ Instit 4.5.15 Est haec ex verbo Dei legitima Ministri vocatio vhi ex populi consensu approbatione creant qui visi suerint idonei Preesse autem Electioni debent alij Pastores nequid per levitatem vel per malae studia vet per tumultum à multitudine peccetur This is the lawfull calling of a Minister by the word of God where they which seeme fit are created by the consent and approbation of the people Indeed other Pastors ought to moderate and order the Election least the multitude should offend through lightues or ill affection or tumult And a litle before Videmus ipsum Paulum ex populi suffragijs Episcopos creare solitum We see that Paul him selfe was wont to create Bishops by the voyce giving of the people Againe Falluntur qui putant vel Timotheum Ephesi vei Titum in Creta regnum exercuisse vt suo vterque arbiâ—rio omnia disponeret Praefuerunt enim tantum vt bonis salutaribus consilijs populâ— praeirent non vt soli exclusis alijs onnibus agerent quod placereÌ„t They are deceaved who thinke either that Timothie at Ephesus or Titus in Crete did
these are enough CHAP. IIII. The publike consent of many late yet excellent Churches heerein with vs. NEvertheles yet I will not spare to adde heerevnto also certain publike voyces of most famous Churches The CoÌ„sestion of the Bohemian Churches hath these words “ Bohemie Confess cap. 〈◊〉 AnimaruÌ„ Curatoribus singulis Ecclesiasticis CoÌ„munitatibus sive parvae sint sive magna Claves concreditae sunt concessae Sic Dominus dixit Ecclesiâ—s Amen dico vobis quacunque ligaveritis in teria erunt ligata in coelo quaecunque solveritis in terra erunt soluta in coelo Et mox Nam vbi duo aut tres congregati fuerint in nomine meo ibi in medio eorum sum The Keyes that is Ecclesiastical governement are given in trust and graunted to the Pastors and to every Ecclesiasticall Communaltie that is ordinarie Congregation whether they bee smal or great So the Lord said to the Churches Verily I say vnto you Whatsoever you binde in earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose in earth shalbâ— loosed in heaven And by and by For where two or three shal be gathered togeather in my name there am I in the middest of them The Helvetian Confession saith Helvet confess .. prior Artic 17. Quae cùm vera Dei Electio sit Ecclesiae suffragio Sacerdotis manuum impositione rectè comprobatur Which when it is Gods true ElectioÌ„ it is rightly approoved by the Churches voyce-giving and the laying on of handes of the Minister The Genevian Liturgie setteth downe expreslie Genev. the peoples consent to be necessarie both in their Calling of Ministers and Excommunication of impenitent offenders Beza also witnesseth the same vse in the Elections at Geneva and likewise in other places where there are free Churches Saith he “ Bez. de grad Minist cap 11. Presbyters heere are chosen not without the knowledge and consent of the people So every where in other free Churches according to the condition of the place the like choice is made Elswhere also he saith of the same thus †Annotat in Act. â—4 2â— Habemus nos Dei beneficâ—o certas nostrae vocationis notas legitimo ab Ecclesijs nostris vita doctrinae testimonio ernati ab yÌ„sdemelects ac demurn etiaâ— in nostro ministerio confirmats Cus Domiaâ—â— vt spero eâ—ectis tum furibus tum mercenarijs benedicet Wee have by Gods goodnesâ— certain notes of our Calling having good testimoâ—e from our Churches both for our life and doctrine and being by them Chosen and Confirmed also in our Ministerie Which I hope the Lord will blesse when hee will caâ—â— out both theeves and hirelings According to this order out of question the Savoyan Churches Savey and the French also generally are constituted French Which the French Liturgie doth likewise prove The Churches of Scotland before the late wofull breaking off from their former consent did approove the same publike Order of the Churches of France and Geneva aforesaid Scottish Also the publike Order set forth in the Low countreis consenteth herewith Belgiâ— The Synod of Middelburgh Anno 15â—1 decreeth thus of the Chosing of Ministers “ Artiâ— Electio sit penes Ecclesiam fiat per suffiagium in templo publicè Let the Election of the Ministers bee in the power of the Church and let it be done by voyces publikely in the Temple Afterward they determine thus Nulla Ecclesia nullus Minister Nullus Senior nulluâ— Diaconus vllum â—abeat primatum super alterum No Church no Minister no Elder no Deacon may have any kinde of primacie above other Chap 4. The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia Anno 1582 Nasson receaveth these Points for them selves also as Zepperus sheweth in the end of his Politia Ecclesiastica There is a publike Order publâ—â—ed in Middelburgh Anno 1602. agreeing withall the former which touching the Chosing of Ministers saith thus The partie as chosen with the free consent of the Ministers Elders and the whole Congregation to be ordayned is to frame his Sermon c. Touching Deposing of them thus By the like authoritie as he was elected he is to be Deposed Touching Excommunication thus It is ordayned that nothing be attempted in that behalfe without the determination of the whole Congregation Wherevnto the Churches vnder the Palsgrave do agree Palatin in whose publike Catechisme thus we read “ In the end of part â— The Church by the commandement of Christ his Apostles vsing the Keyes ought tâ—o drive the wicked from this Supper till they shall repent and change their maners Which Vrsinus the approved interpreter therof doth shew to be with the peoples free consent as “ pag. 41. before out of Vrsmus wee observed Finally Other churches this same is allowed by those Churches also which follow Luther according to Chemnicius testimonie of them “ pag. 47. before alleaged Chap. 5. where at least he signifieth that many of them do allow it Which many other churches besides do also whoÌ„ here I name not Hitherto I have truly and plainly declared as touching these later times who they are who have ben our Maister Teachers in this matter of the Church constitution governement viz. that it ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free consent Verily now it appeareth I hope that we neede not bee ashamed either of these noble lights of Religion or of this doctrine which manifestly wee have learned and receaved from such worthies CHAP. V. The Testimonies and practise of the best Antiquitie after the New Testament heerein likewise with vs. HOwbeit furthermore that it may not bee thought noveltie or vnbeseeming Christian Religion although no honest maÌ„ will once think so of any thing which such a vniforme coÌ„sent of so renowned late Christians doth iustifie yet I iudge it very coÌ„ venient to produce also some testimonies of the most ancient times of Christianitie after the Apostles downe-ward even while anie soundnes of the Gospell did openly shew it selfe in the world I say such testimonies I purpose heeâ—e to shew of famous Christians as have ben alwayes continually after the Apostles by which the practise of the peoples free consent in their Church governement is approoved yea in peace as well as in persecution till the tyrannie of Antichrist would beare it no longer in any publike state And this God willing I shall performe in this maner To begin therefore we will first observe the Church of Ierusalems practise in this point immediatly after the decease of the Apostle Iames that dyed there as Eusebius recordeth Saith â—ee Annâ— circôter 70. “ Euseb 3.10 After Iames was dead it is reported that the Apostles Disciples out of all places neare about Ierusalem came togeather into one and tooke counsaill togeather who might bee iudged worthy to suâ—ceed in Iames his plaâ—e Therefore all with one consent did thinke Simeon the sonne of Cleophas
meet and able to have the governement of the Church there And againe out of Egesippus “ 4. â—1 After that Iames was slame Simeon the soâ—e of Cleophas was made Bishop whom in tâ—esecond place all the Disciples appointed by voyces to that governement This was the first most notable exaÌ„ple of the Christians pract se in this matter neither caÌ„â—â—â— we read of any neerer to the Apostles after the times of the New TestameÌ„t then this Also wee see it was in the very Mother Church of all Christianitie Wherefore this order of Calling to the ministerie rather then any later is most worthy yea necessary to be observed and imitated by vs every where and for ever The like we read of there againe thus “ 6â— Anno 205. When Narcissiâ— the Bishop had withdrawne himselfe was gone no man knew whither they who governed the neighbour Churches thought good to make another Bishop But how By the peoples voyces And so Dius was chosen Afterward Narcissus returning the Brethren desired him to take againâ— the governement of the Church Vnto whom was adioyned Alexander for his fellow the people of Ierusalem with the common consent of the neighbour Bishops constrayning him necessarily to tary with them These were the meanes that made these Ministers Ignatius of Antioch teacheth and saith to the Church at Philadelphia that “ Ignat. ad Philad It was meâ—te for them as being a Church of God Anno 112. by voices to chose their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It can not be denied but that this writer sheweth in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Lifting vp of hands â—n thepeoples voyce giving that Elections of Ministers were then made by the peoples free choyce Seeing he signifyeth Ordination and Laying on of handes by another proper word viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The practise of the Church of Rome was also the same in this matter Anno 240. Of which we read ' Euseb 6.2 When all the Brethren were come togeather in the Church for the purpose to chose a Bishop whose place now was voyd the whole people with one consent cryed that Fabianus was worthy of that dignitie and presently he was placed in the same Afterward againe we read of Cornelius that he was chosen in like maner For so writeth Cyprian of him saying †Cyprian Epist 4.2 Factus est Cornelius Episcopus de Dei Christs eius iudicio de plebis qua tune affuit suffragio c. Cornelius was made Bishop by the iudgement of God and his Christ by the voyce giving of the people which was then present c In an other place also he saith Hee was †3.13 de Dei iudtcio Cleri ac Plebis suffragio ordinatus Ordayned by the iudgement of God and by the voyces of the Clergie and people The practise of the Church of Carthage was the same Anno â—5â— as Cyprian also speaking of him self sheweth saying that he was chosen “ Cyprian Epist 1.3 Populi vniversi suffragio in pace by the voyce-giving of the whole people in peace and quietly also he calleth this †1.8 their voyce giving Gods iudgement And he writeth of another Church in Afrike at Legio as we may gather that there one Sabinus was made Bishop †1.4 de vniversae fraternstatis suffragio by the voyce-giving of the whole brotherhood and by the iudgement of the Bishops that were come togeather But above all other that place in Cyprian is singular for our purpose where his owne iudgement and sentence with many other Bishops besides is to bee noted concerning this power and right of the people It is in this same Epistle a litle before thus “ Ibidem viz. 1.4 Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separate se debet nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificsa miscere cum ipsa maximè babeat poteslatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de Divina authoritate descendere c. A people obeying the Lords Commandementes and fearing God ought to separate them selves from a wickeâ— Minister and not ioyne them selves to the Divine Service of a Sacrilegious Priest seeing they the people chiefly have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse vnworthy ones Which thing also we see cometh fiâ— Divine authoritie c. Lo what Cyprians iudgement is of the peoples power right in the making of Ministers He with divers other his fellow-Bishops doth heere professe that it cometh froÌ„ Divine authoritie So before he called it Gods iudgement and his Christes What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this The same also he holdeth touching the peoples power in Church ceÌ„sures As where he willeth Stephan Bishop of Rome to write “ Epist 3.14 ad plebem Arelate consistentem to the people at Arles in France His intent is heere that their Novatian Bishop Martianus should bee removed and another set in his place by them togeather with Stephans helpe And elswhere touching one Victor a Presbyter fallen from the Church returned againe Cyprian greatly misliketh rebuketh Therapius the Bishop for receaving him †3.8 sine petitu conscientia plebis without the desire knowledge of the people and adviseth him that hee do so no more And as touching himselfe hee sheweth in many places his owne constant practise to be such also Or without the desire c conscience of the people First of some rash and proud Presbyters hee saith if they persisted in their scandalous behaviour they should answer it “ 3.14 apud plebe vniversam before all the people as iudges with himselfe others of their misdemeanor Againe writing severally to his people about some that desired to bee reconciled to the Church at Carthage he saith “ 3.16 Examinabuntur singula praese itibus iudicantibus vobis Every thing shal be examined you the people being present and iudging of it And thus hee meaneth where he saith hee must †3 1â— dispomere omnia consilij communis religione disoose all things by a religious observing of such common advise Lo he putteth acknowledgeth Religion heerein And therfore it is that to a few Presbyters of his Church who had written to him being then absent from Carthage about som of his church affaires he saith He could not so much as write backe to theÌ„ therof “ 3.10 Seeing he had determined to do nothing privatly of his owne minde without the Presbyters counsaill and the peoples consent And promiseth that when hee should returne he will handle matters in common both such as were past while hee was absent and also such as were to come after his returne Yea and therfore in an other place he saith “ 3.19 Praiudicare ego solum mihi rem communem vendicare non audeo I dare not praeiudge
cut off and excommunicate from the Church of Rome hee could not after that have any power as derived from them to make Ministers nor to do any other Bishoplie act Secondly wee all knowe the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist chieflie in respect of their Clergie and Spirituall governement and most chieflie of all in respect of the Pope from whom all the rest as from the Head doe take their power and authoritie Now shall we say that very Antichrist can have power from Christ to make Ministers Or that we can have a lawfull Ministerie derived from those who had their power only from him It can not bee “ 2. Cor. 6.14 15. What communion hath light with darknes What concord hath Christ with Belial And so what hath Christ to do with Antichrist Nothing at all Thus then our consciences can have no assurance wee can not have confidence in such estate of the Ministerie But certainly Christs true Ministers among vs in Englande have a better Original thē this Wherefore this answere of our State Protestants must needes be false Yet in this answer who seeth not how the Papistes do reioyce triumph and insult Who seeth not how by this they are incouraged strengthened and multiplyed among vs exceedingly Truly it would pity a mans heart to beholde how this one point putteth life into thousandes to stande vp against Christes Gospell the libertie of their Country also For when they heare our selves openly to ascribe to the Church of Rome and to their meanes such a gift of grace even that which is our glory even the holy instrument of our faith to salvatiō for so is our Ministerie they will say if the branch be holy the root is more if the rivers be sweet the head-spring is delicious And so how can it bee chosen but the Papistes thus will bee graced and get great advātage among vs Many heere have another refuge but that also helpeth nothing Say they as Popish Baptisme is so far acknowledged by vs The last refuge of our Adversaries taken away as that with it only wee are held to bee sufficiently Baptised not to need Baptizing againe when we com from them to the Church of England So likewise wee may acknowledge the Popish Ordination to the Ministerie thus far and yet nevertheles cōdemne their Church and separate from them I answere the case is nothing like betweene Baptisme the signe of our initiation in Christ and the Calling to the Ministerie In the word there is expresse warrant for not repeating the signe of our initiation in Christ which of old was Circumcision and Baptisme now is the same though ministred by a false Ministerie and Church As wee may see in the “ 2. Chron. 30.11.18 35.17.18 Ez◠6.21 not Recircumcising of such Iewes as had receaved that signe in the Apostasie of Israell and turned frō thesame to the truth But there is no warrant at all in Gods word for any to retaine the outward Calling to the Ministerie or to stand in that power and authoritie which is derived from such a Church There is no such thing can be shewed in all Gods booke Therefore we may not conclude the like in this matter of Ordination to the Ministerie which may bee done for not repeating of Baptisme For by Gods worde Ordination may be repeated yea certainly after a Ministerie receaved in Christes true Church much more after it hath ben receaved in a false Church So that these two ordinances of Christ are nothing like in this point Wherefore out of question Ordination to the Ministerie as it is derived from Antichrist must be wholy reuounced of every faithfull man and may bee as is said renewed and repeated in Christes true Church as occasion serveth At Rome there is in it both an impiety and a nullitie In their administring of Baptisme there is not a nullitie altogeather as in that correspondent example of Israell in Apostasie before alleadged it well appeareth And this is sufficient for this though other answeres may be given also Wherefore this remayneth that when wee grant the descent of our Ministerie in Englande to come lineally from the Church and Pope of Rome which we must grant will wee nill we if wedeny it to arise essentially from the Christian peoples consent in each Congregation all the world seeth that we give the Pope a maine advantage against vs and we put into his hande a strong engine to draw vs back againe vnto him Which also he effecteth dayly vppon many among vs as woefull experience sheweth in our Land yea even vpon some of my very friends and neare acquaintance Beside this there is another point of the Churches governement The causing of Vnitie namely their Iurisdiction in cōpounding Schismes in making peace and vnitie and consent among Christian people which beeing ascribed as proper to Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops as they in England do say it is and as “ Def. 3.36 c. D. Downame with great vehemencie defendeth certainly true reason will cary it further it can not possibly stay there This wil serve a Popes turne a great deale better and to such a one it belongeth in deed as a very true and forcible ground for his Vniversall Governement over all Christians in the world if there were any Divine and Evangelicall truth in it at all But there is no truth in it Because this is no Divine and Evangelical way for Vnitie in religion viz. to constitute one Visible Head with absolute power of Spirituall governement whether Diocesan or Provinciall or Vniversall Or to take from the Christian people their free consent There is not in the Gospell any such Meanes to Vnitie It is a Humane policie a carnall device it is no institution of Christ Iesus Gods writt◠word is the cause of Vnitie Who in his word and by his word with the helpe of the Ministerie therein ordained provideth sufficiently for true peace and holy Vnitie among all his people For he saith “ Mat. 28.29 Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures And †Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for they are they which testifie of me And “ chap. 14.6 Rom. 16 17. I am the way the truth and the life Likewise the Apostle testifyeth that those are the makers of Schismes and divisions who teach and holde any thing besides the doctrine learned from the Apostles So that indeed the meanes appointed of GOD to make Vnitie in the Church is Gods word and not one Superiour over-ruling Minister over many distinct ordinarie Cōgregations which the word knoweth not But in truth such a one is the very proper cause of dissention and schisme For he not willing to submit to Gods word by his power draweth many with him yet he cannot lightly prevayle with all Wherevpon followeth dissention and schisme And then he with his cōpany being the stronger in the world may cry out loudest against those fewer that dissent from him that they are
this †Pag. 65. The Apoâ—les appointed Ministers to whole Cities and Countryes adioyning to labor so far as they â—ere able the conversion of all True What â—hen Therefore they appointed them â—o stande Ministers still to whole Ciâ—ies and Countryes adioyning I deny â—his consequence It is a plaine fallacie â—b eo quod est secundum quâ—d Fallaciâ— ad simpliciter 〈◊〉 pray Sir when Logike fayleth you play not the Sophister The Apostles appointed Ministers to convert what they could in great Cities and Countries adioyning yea and in the whole “ Math. 13.33 world but not to stand Ministers Pastors to all them when they should be converted But only according tâ— the order and forme of a Church seâ— downe in the New Testament Which representeth to vs each Ordinarie Congregation as an entire Church Wherefore they might not remayne as Pastors to all when all were converted because so Ordinarie Pastors after the time of the New Testament should become substantially contrary to the ordinary Pastors constituted in the New Testament It i Ì„s blasphemie to avouch that the Apostles intended the Churches forme should be substantially coÌ„trary to that which is in the New Testament Which certainly was never the Apostles intent it is no lesse then blasphemie for any that will persist in saying the Apostles intended so You will aske how are Pastors so large and so generall contrary substantially to Pastors of but one ordinarie Congregation I answer they are substantially coÌ„trary in that these may and do admit the Christian peoples free consent in Church governement the other can not these caÌ„ personally administer to their whole flocke they possibly can not but by Substitutes and Curates as wee call them For there the proper Pastors them selves are of necessitie must be grand Pluralistes and NoÌ„residents Which plainly are substantiall differences in Pastors Besides that the one can execute a whole and intire Pastorall Office the other can not c. as “ Declarat Pag. 12.13.14 15 16. â— els-where I have more fully declared His 2. reason is this †Def. 2.69 In the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into Parishes â—or Presbyters assigned to their several Cures Therefore then a Church was not a Paâ—ish I answere Heere againe hee doth nothing but Equivocat Let him vnderstand a Parish in that sense as before have defined it Pa. 204.205 and so I affirme that by the very Apostles the Churches were divided into severall Parishes That is â—ach Church was it selfe a distinct Paâ—ish and severally divided from all oâ—her Also the Presbyters then were assigned to their severall cures viz. to these Parishes or Churches But if hee â—ake a Parish as it is a Congregation liâ—ited within a certaine circuit of â—round and as a Dioces is subdivided â—nto many of them as they are now so â—ve speake not of them Yet commonly â—r altogeather †Pag. 77. hee doth so speake of â—hem Wherefore heere every man may â—â—e his vanitie Hee doth fly the true â—uestion and shufleth in things that â—e never intended Then his grosse vnâ—ruth vnschollerlike assertion ought 〈◊〉 bee marked where he saith “ Pag 75. The â—ord Ecclesia is of a larger extent then to sigâ—â—fy only one assembly I appeale to all auâ—entike Greeke Authors Thucidides Deâ—osthenes Plato Aristotle Isocrates c. Out â—f whom plentifull allegations may be brought all of them shewing that this word Ecclesia did evermore signifie only one assembly and never a dispersed multitude holding many ordinary set meetings in far remote places as Diocesan and larger Churches do Now according to these and other Greekes living in the Apostles dayes doe the Apostles speake And this I have heeretofore often “ Reas. for ref pag 64. Declarat pag 31. 32. above pa. 110. propounded and affirmed as a principall ground and cause of our dissent from the Church state in England And the ground is certain it can not be with reason spoken against The D. heere †Pag. 14. 15. putteth in to the contrary the vse of the word Ecclesia in Eusebius who vseth it to signify sometimes a Diocesan and Provinciall Church Hee doth so sometimes I deny it not And so after him the Fathers do vse the word likewise as Epiphanius Theodoret Chrysostome and the Councilles and Historie writers c. All this we know well But what have wee to doe with these Authors so late and so partiall as these all were touching the exposition of the Greeke word Ecclesia The time that Eusebius wrote in When Eusebius wrote was about 340. yeares of Christ or little lesse All the rest wrote after him At which time or before viz. presently vnder Constantine the outward forme of the Church did so alter and change from that vnder the Apostles even in substantiall points of Church politie or in such points as did come neere to the substance of it that it appeared outwardly to be allmost not the same And as the state of the Church altered so the Fathers and Councills which were then much affecting that state did alter the old vse of â—he words pertaining to these matters As they practised so likewise they spake and wrote And so have most men followed after them Wherby at the last Antichrist was vndoubtedly advanced But our noble “ Our Attestators before mentioned specially pag. 104. after pag. 214. forefathers of late having discovered this mysterie of iniquitie have found out also the corruption depravation even of this word Ecclesia which hath ben extended larger and farther then Apostolically it was The which abuse of this very word doubtles was a pregnant reason and meanes among other to extend the Church and Governement thereof to that Vniversalitie which it came to and is still vehemently chalenged by the Catholiks Wherefore great cause have we ad originem reverti to go backe even vp to the first originall and beginning as Cyprian well adviseth vs. For so saith he cessat error humanus thus and not otherwise error which hath begun from men will cease Wherefore wee must refuse Eusebius Epiphanius Theodoret and all either in or after their times for iudges or interpreters of matters or words specially touching Church-governement The forme whereof inclined toward alteration yea somewhat before them as wee may perceave in “ Can 6. Nic. Concilâ— through Humane ambition and desyre of greatnes which is incident even to the godliest best men But vnder Constantin and after it degenerated much more Wherfore in “ See before pa. 125. 127. conscience to God and to his blessed word we must leave all men when they so palpably differ from the Scripture as in this cause they doe cleave only and vnseparably to the plaine and †Math 22.29 Ioh. 5.39.40 Isa 8.20 proper writing of Christs Testament Hee “ In his chap. 5. indeavoureth to make voide some of our reasons against Diocesan Churches vnder
Assembly See how lively hee painteth out and taxeth also our Church state in England though primarily he intendeth the Papists And remember that to every of these Churches he alloweth a Bishop as “ Pag. 104. before I have noted So that the D. might have spared his proud boast that “ Pag. 7. All the Disciplinarians in the world are not able to shew that there were or ought to have ben after the division of Parishes any more then one Bishop for a whole Diocese Neither should he have called vs for this our assertion †Pag. 14. New foolish Disciplinarians His worship doubtles is wise when all these our Attestators and abbettors bee fooles Also that “ Pag. 21. his great challenge to his adversary is thus answered Now to proceed he saith it is not probable that Ierusalems Church in the Acts “ Pag. 89. did ordinarily meet in one place I answere yet it is certain they had not then many ordinary set and constant companies meeting togeather Which is the point we stand on will he never see it Further he saith †Pag. 90. The Apostles were never intended to be members all or any of them of one Parish Which is not so they were truly Members of every Church or Parish occasionally that is where when they were present though consâ—antly and necessarily they were not of any one Againe he saith The meetings Act. 6.1 15.22 26 were not Parishionall bur Synodicall They were Parishionall Indeed the later was both I take it Where the Apostles and Elders met first Synodically a part to debate the controversy but Parishionally or with the whole Church when they decreed and set down their resolutioÌ„ Before he said these meetings of the Church were “ Pag. 8 9. Panegyrical meetings Panegyricall not ordinary Which again is not true Such meetings are out of many Cities and Countries but heere the Church of Ierusalem only assembled and in the 15 of the Acts 2. or 3. out of Antioch Againe those are when sundry ordinary set assemblies doe meet in one but these all were of one Church as I said having in it not many ordinary set assemblies Lastly heere matters were haÌ„dled which pertaine to a Church to performe ordinarily so oft as occasion is Therefore they are not to be called extraordinary much lesse were they like the meetings at Pauls Crosse or at the Spittle as he saith least of all were they Panegyricall His obiection from Act. 21.20 of the many 10000. believing Iewes I have answered †Declarat pag. 30. 31 els-where The rest is of no moment In his 6. Chapter he setteth against som other of our reasons viz. touching the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch vnder the Apostles Of all of them he saith “ Def. 2.103 Though it should be granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarily assemble togeather in one place yet would it not follow that therfore each of them was but a Parish much lesse that all Churches should be but Parishes and that every Parish should have a Bishop Verily all this doth follow neither hath hee with any true reason denyed it but all reason is for it as †Pa 208. 213 before I have shewed Then beginning with the Church of Corinth “ Pag. 104. hee dealeth deceitfully leaving out our principall proofe viz. 1. Cor. 14.23 The whole church came togeather in one Which can not bee such as might be written to the Church of England as he saith most vntruly Of this I have said more “ Declarat pag. 26. 27. elswhere To Act. 20.28 of the Church of Ephesus hee saith it needs not signifie only the Congregation of a Parish Yet the wordes are Attend or †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cleave close vnto all the flocke and the Apostle nameth it also “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation Which being taken for a Visible Companie is ever more with authentike Grecians an ordinary CongregatioÌ„ only as I have oft observed So that properly and truly it can not be as he would have it either the Vniversall or a Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church Neither can the Pastors of such cleave close to all such sâ—ockes nor possibly be present to the whole But they must be NoÌ„residents which questioÌ„les these Ephesin Pastors were not as hath ben said Wherefore this place still is a good argument for vs. And so is that touching Antioch also where Act. 14.27 Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church togeather into one particular assembly as the text importeth It is vntrue and against the letter of the text to say as he doth some of the chiefe perhaps not many perhaps not any beside the Clergie Theâ—e perhapses are miserable and desperat shiftes And what forbiddeth Husbandes Wives Servants and children of ripe yeares and vnderstanding to have ben there Hitherto he hath laboured to shew that the Churches mentioned in the New TestameÌ„t were not each of them only one ordinary Congregation but that they were Diocesan Churches Which how vnsufficiently hee hath done every childe may perceave By the way hee obtrudeth a foolish conceit on vs as if by “ Def. 2. pag. 102.104 these aforesaid places of the N. Testament wee intended to prove that the Churches still remained till 200. yeares of Christ such as we hold they were at the first But let him take that collection to himselfe it is none of our meaning Yet where he maketh so much a doe about the space of 200. yeares that we should say for so long time there was no Diocesan Church The truth therof is very perspicuous and certain let the D. know that I can easily maintaine it For the space of 200. yeares after Christ there was no Diocesan Church Therefore let vs see what he hath against it Where first I will note what a cavill he hath against vs for abridging and restraining the primitive Church to 200. yeares only To which I answer in respect of taking the Primitive Church as a pattern for vs to follow so we restraine it yet shorter even to the Apostles times onely yea to the times of writing the N. Testament yea to the N. Testament it selfe only And we affirme if any doe follow any authoritie beside they doe profanely irreligiously adulterously no better So that in this our D. D. Bilson likewise where beeing without all proofes in Christs Testament they heap vp Fathers vpon Fathers and most eagerly cry out that we holde against “ Def. 2.128.142 Def. 4. c. Perp. gov 25â— 259. c. the Vniversall perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ if they could make som shew hereof yet I say seeing they have not nor caÌ„ bring one sound proofe for themselves in Christs Testament therefore they vse heere but a carnall reason and contrary to the honour of God They †Ier. 17 5â— make flesh their arme and put not
Down “ Def. 2.106 boasteth much that Ignatius calleth him selfe “ Ignat. epâ—ad Rom. Bishop of Syria Why What then Ignatius heere sheweth his Nation not the extent of his Bishoprike He sheweth hee was a Bishop of Syria or a Syrian Bishop not the Bishop of all Syria Likewise to the “ Ad Magnes Magnesians that his Church was a most famous notable Church in Syria not the only Church there much lesse extended over all Syria Neither was Philip Archbishop of Crete as the Doctor †Defenc 4.8 and 2.125 would make him seeme by perverting and abusing Eusebius againe For his words “ Euse â— â—3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop are to bee referred to the Church of Gortyna mentioned a little before Not to the very next wordes which are to be vnderstood by themselves as it were in a parenthesis thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together with the rest of the Churches in Crete To take Eusebius thus is the right taking of him heere For presently him selfe openeth him selfe saying it was the Church of Gortyna which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnder him Vnder Philip And yet more plainly after where with speciall respect to the former place in question he saith of this Philip †Cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoÌ„ we know by Dionysius iâ—ordes to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Gortyna So then hee was not Bishop of all Creete by Eusebius testifying The Doc. in another place contradicteth him selfe and maketh Pinytus at this very time to be Bishop of “ Def. 4.9 Candie that is of all Crete as he meaneth In deed Eusebius saith that this Pinytus was †Euseb 4.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of them in Crete But all men vnderstand that hee meaneth heere to shew but his Nation not the extent of his Bishoprike For Eusebius declaresh “ Cap. 23. after that Pinytus was Gnossitaâ—â— paraciae Episcopus the Bishop of the parish in Gnossi Which certainly was not Over all Crete neither was Gnosiâ— the mother City of Crete That which the Doctor †Def. 2.93.100 presumeth of Evaristus Bishop of Rome that he there constituted a Diocesan Church and divided parishes I have answered it †Pag. 93. 94. before His testimonies out of Tertullian Cornelius of Rome and Cyprian for a Diocesan Church proove nothing Touching the “ Def. 2.97.98 first Tertullian saith not that in Rome or in any Citie then the Christians were divided into many set constant and certain companies Tertallian and so had divers such ordinarie assemblies Tertullian saith no such matter which yet is the point Indeed like a Rhetorician hee amplifieth the multitude of Christians and Christianlie affected in his dayes and that is all that he doeth Apol 37. and ad Scapul They are in truth Rhetoricall amplifications Yet I say In the Roman Empire he compreheÌ„deth in these great nombers all Christianly affected and all their favourers not only the open members of the Church Cootiarily hee saith they were one singular Cetus aggregatio Def. 2. Now such may be so many as hee there noteth Nothing of all this we deny But hee sheweth not that yet in any Citie the open resolut Christians were divided into divers ordinary set companies as I said The like do I answer to †Pag. 9â— that of the very great and innumerable people vnder Cornelius Bishop of Rome They were so many that no man among them knew the first nomber of them And so I suppose at this day the church is in Paris in Rouan c. Where yet the Church is not divided into several constant and set Meetings but all belong only to one certaine constant assembly Againe vnder Cornelius the Christian people were not so many but one Trophimus a Presbyter drew away from him “ Cypr. epist 4.2 the greater part of them after Novatian repenting he brought them backe with him againe Also the Church assembled in one place to elect * Cypr. Epi. 3.13 and 4. Cornelius and a little before “ Euseb 6.22 Fabianus to bee their Bishop Wherefore they were not absolutly innumerable But this is plaine and it can not be disprooved that yet the Church in Rome had not divers set constant ordinarie assemblies Nor yet Cyprians Church in Carthage Anno 250. All the which came togeather for “ See pag. 55.56.57.58 his election and vnder him also for all ordinarie Church busines The Do. saith vntruly of him that †Def. 2.40 he was Bishop of Afrike Nazianzen doth make him Bishop Hesperiae Vniversae of all Spaine at least as well as of Afrike And Prudentius goeth further saith he †De Passiâ—â—â— Cypr. Vsque in ortum Solis vsque obitum from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe thereof But doth any man beleeve that Cypriâ—â—s Bishoprike was so large or that these Authors meant so Nothing lesse They meant only that the example of this holy man and his doctrine did good thus far I graunt also that by his letters he admonished and informed divers other Bishops neare about Carthage and so hee did Cornelius of Rome c. But this was out of his singular zeale for the truth and love to his brethren Also hee prevayled much in so doing Howbeit this was through his great credit reverence they had of him it was not out of any Metropolitan power that hee had or superior office which he exercised over theÌ„ For he had none such though he were a Metropolitan in respect of the place where hee was Bishop And altogeather “ Defen 4 8â— so did Policrates of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee lead or guided the Asian Bishops And no otherwise †Def. 2.115 Irenaeus B. of Lions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did looke vnto certaine Churches thereabout in France And Victor B. of Rome was a Metropolitan no otherwise also Although without any preiudice to vs wee might well grant these to have bene then such Metropolitans Diocesans †viz. with Prioritie of order not Maioritie of power as before we acknowledged Iulianus of Alexandria to have ben who was somwhat ancienter then they Other Diocesan or MetropolitaÌ„ Bishops after these whom both D. Downame and D. Bilson do name pleÌ„tifully as they hurt not our maine Assertion viz. that no proper Diocesan Church was in the world before 200. yeares after Christ so neither do wee envie their appearing which was “ See pag. 88. 94. c. so late as it was These D. D. do argue earnestly from Ierom saying that * Ierom. ad â—vagr Bishops above Presbyters were at Alexandria even from Marke the Evangelist Which we willingly agree vnto For they were not Diocesan Bishops not over many ordinarie Congregations And such also were those Angells of the Churches which are mentioned in the “ Rev. 2.1 Revelation This wee constantly avouch
est qui ignoret Calvin saith In this place Mat. 18.17 “ Calvin Instit 4.11.1 Ius Iudaici Synedrij transfertur ad Christi â—egem And †Instit. 4.12.7 Illa est legitima in ExcoÌ„muâ—cando homine progressio si non soli Seniores â—orsum id faciant sed consciâ approbante â—cclesiâ c. * 4.1.15 Totius Ecclesia hac cognitio est Clavium potestatem Dominus fidelium soâ—etati contulit “ 4.1.22 And hee calleth Excommunication †11.2 Fidelium judicium the â—xcommunicat saith he is “ Ibidem 12.4 Fidelium â—uffragijs damnatus Thus must these â—ther worthy men of God be vnderâ—tood and not to contradict themselves Beza also of the Calling of Ministers â—aith “ Bez. CoÌ„fess 7 1â— Per quod ostium sunt ingress Quis â—os vocavit c. Vbi electio Presbyterij Vbi â—opuli suffragia By what dore entred they Who called them Where was the Election of â—he Elders Where was the peoples voice-giving By this shewing that hee helde the peoples free consent to be necessary also in the making of Ministers FINIS Math. 6.10 Thy will bee doâ— A Table of the chief matters contained in this Treatise A. HOw a true Church may bee Accidentally Pag. 306. The Angell of Ephesus a President during life pag. 237. The name Angell or Apostle given in Scripture to Ministers also Dominus in Latin c. proveth not that they may be called Lords iâ— English pag. 121. 123. c. All Apostolike Ordinances are Divine vnchangeable by men pa. 139. 142. The practise of Antiquitie for many ages with vs. pag. 53. c. Asia properly taken how large pag. 206. Comfortable Assurance where pag. 77. 154. 155. 159. Our Attestators were no Brownistes Anabaptists Schismatiks Fantastical Fanaticall doaters pag. 249. 279. 306. B. Belgike Liturgie and Synod with vs. pa. 50. Beza consenteth with vs fully in effect pag. 22. c. 49. 50. 322. Beza abused pag. 13. 22. 270. c. 322. Beza fayleth pa. 237. D. Billons chief matters in his Perp. gov answered pag. 99. 107. 108. 110. 112. 116. 120. 121. 132. 143. c. 146. 148. 239. c. 250. 261. 276. c. D. Bilsons Contradistions pa. 70. 71. 73. 107. 144. 146. 150. 225. 281. 283. 286. 288. 289. 290. 293. 302. 303. 305. We deny not Bishops simply pag. 14. 264. Seaven divers sortes of Bishops pa. 274. Bishops next after the Apostles differed from ours in substaÌ„ce of their Calling p. 98. 99. 128. A Bishop to a Parish pag. 32. 104. 213. c. Bohemian Confession for vs. pag. 48. Bucer for vs. pag. 33. Bullinger for vs. pag. 37. C. Calvin fully with vs. p. 25. c. 149. 193. 214. 269. 323. Calvin much abused p. 13. 267. c. 322. 323. Calling of Ministers must be by the Congregation or els we shall go to wracke pag. 159. 160. 161. 167. Calling of Ministers essentially by the Congregation pag. 246. 247. 78. 79. 80. 81. 164. 166. 168. The truth is not so fruitfully defended where Christs Visible Church Calling to the Ministerie is not well cleared pa. 158. 167. Circumstances in Church government changeable by men pag. 280. 247. Chemnicius for vs. pag. 47. 178. The Church-controversie in England for uâ— trifles pa. 193. 195. 269. 320. A Visible Church what See Ecclesia The dignitie and power of each Visible Church pag 164. 165. Christes Visible Churches Divine constitution pa. 74. 75. 142. c. 147. 102. 104. 154. Christes Visible Churches forme vnchangeable by men pag. 134. 135. 139. 142. 147. 149. 150. 153. 281. A true Visible Church essentially somtime with out Guides pag. 164. 165. 278. 298. 300. Why some strive to change the proper sense of the word Church Ecclesia in Mat. 18.17 pa. 216. Protestantes may iustifie their Church Calling to the Ministery soundly if they will pag. 262. 264. 266. 267. What God hath given to the Congregation men can not take away pag. 76. 77. The Offer of Conference not without necessarie cause and reason pag. 196. 250. The true cause and reason why we Conforme not pag. 137. Two maine pointes of our whole Controversie pag. 10. 303. But the chiefe of all is about the peoples free consent in Church govern pag. 10. 16. 17. Cornelius B. of Rome prooveth no Diocesan Church nor Bishop pag. 233. 234. Cyprian teacheth the peoples consent to bee juris Divini pag. 57. 59. D. Danaeus strongly with vs. pag. 41. 42. A Definition of Christes true Visible Church pag. 318. A Definition of a Diocesan Chuch pag. 200. A Diocesan Church proper improper p. 88. One kinde of improper Diocesan Church is Apostolicall pag. 89. The best sort of Diocesan Bishops not Apostolike pa. 15. 89. 90. Yet not simply evill pag. 16. 89 97. Nor yet expedient now ibid. All our question is against the proper Diocesan Church pag. 15. 88. 97. 98. 131. 225. Substantiall differences between a Church and Ministerie of one Congregation and of a Diocesse pag. 208. 128. 129. A Diocesan church but in a shadow till Constantines time p. 126. 226. c. 231. c. 253 No proper Diocesan Church can bee where the people freely consent pag. 84. 85. c. 88. Apropre Diocesan Church is new pag. 226. A proper Diocesan Church induceth the Pope pag. 157. 179. The Papistes shame Diocesans about their church constitution and calling to the Ministerie pag. 161. 167. 169. 171. 172. 183. 150. Diocesan Bb. are pluralitie men and Nonresidents pag. 131. 185. Diocesan Bd. Metropolitans in Office Archbishops Patriarkes in substance are all one pag. 273. Yea a Vniversall Bishop also pag. 181. 184. 186. 189. 191. In a proper Diocesan Church a true church may be but accidentally pag. 306. 87. Dionysius the first titular Diocesan Bishop in the West pag. 92. 93. Diplodophilus one holding two wayes to heaven pag. 104. 125. 151. 153. D. Dove turneth Eusebius falsly for his advantage 3 times pag. 226. 227. 90. D. Downames Defence answered pa. 11. c. 98. 199. c. 221. c. 245. c. D. Downame maketh Apostles and Evangelistes inferiour in iurisdiction to Bishops pag. 241. 260. 251. D. Downames levitie pag. 14. 74. 83. 313 D. Downames vaine boast pag. 217. D. Down abuseth Scripture p. 201. 202. 203. E. Ecclesia a Church Visible is only one Ordinarie CoÌ„gregatioÌ„ pa. 102. 103. 104. 108. 110. 201 202. 203. 205. 209. 213. 214. 322. 323. The question of Elders or Presbyters wholy impertinent pag. 11. 12. 62. Our adversaries still Equivocat or contradict them selves pag. 14. 15. 98. 99. Their Equivocation pag. 120. 121. 148. 204. 209. 240. Evaristus Titles were but precincts or quarters in one Congregation not Parishes pa. 93. Eusebius of no persit credtt 91. 92. 229. And yet in many things for vs. F. Fabulous and bastard writings cited by Doct. Downame pag. 257. Raw and vndigested Fancies pag. 147. Fathers after 300. yeares of Christ no fit iudges of
of England in maintayning Diocesan and Provinciall Churches Calvin and Beza abused and that therein they are against vs. First though Calvin doe note in this Chapt. the Churches state “ Institut 4.4.1 before the Papacie yet he saith not neither was it before Papalitie began Againe your governement may bee not withstanding from the Papâ—sts as indeed it is though this Church state there noted by Calvin were before the Papacie Chap. 4. For your governement is by him described in his †Chap. 5. next Chapter where hee saith “ Sect. I am in eligendo totum illud ius populi sublatum est Ad solos Canonicos integra potestas translata est Ills in quem volunt conferunt Episcopatum eum mox in conspestu plebis producunt non examinanduÌ„ sed adoraÌ„dum Now all the right of the people to chose thâ—ir Pastor was taken away The whole power was transferred to the Chanons or Prebendaries only They bestow the Bishoprike on whom they will him they bring forth before the people not to be tryed but to be worshipped of them And though hee saith this was “ In the title of chap. 5. tyrannide Papatus by the tyrannie of the Papacie yet every one seeth it to be the same kinde that is vsed in EnglaÌ„d which differeth substantially from the ancient forme of Church governement yea from that by him noted in his 4. Chapter which is not it that you exercise labour to maintaine So any may see from whom in deed you have receaved your governement Secondly he saith those before had almost nothing dissonant from Gods word Where he graunteth they had somewhat And therefore hee would not that this Church governement should be * See before pag. 149. our patterne though hee held it not wholy intolerable What meaneth the vaine Doctor to say wee “ Pag. 146. our selves do extend our assertioÌ„ to two hundred yeares We do not extend our patterne so farre Indeed we say a proper Diocesan Church was not before that time But we take our patterne of a Church only from the New Testam as wee ought Against which fundamentall point of ChristiaÌ„ religion see how profanely and yet absurdly hee reasoneth Aswell they may alleage that no whole Countrey ought to be converted because none was in the Apostles times as to deny a whole Countrey to be a Church Should weâ— not vse that forme of a Church which the Apost vsedâ— because it was not so in the Apostles times Never did I heare a more senseles speach and yet it savoureth all of impietie Every visible Church may containe no mo ordinary Congregations then the New Testament sheweth that a Church coÌ„tayned then which was but one and yet a whole Country may be converted to the faith and being converted may be reduced into many Churches in nomber according to the forme †Galat. 1 â— 21. and â— Cor. 8.1 1 Cor. 16.19 extaÌ„t in Christs TestameÌ„t And God forbid wee should professe to doe otherwise As for Calvin beside that above noted in him “ Pag. 149. speaking of the Order set down in Scripturs he saith the same is it †Instit 4. â— â— quo EcclesiaÌ„ suam gubernari voluit Dominus wherewith the Lord would have his Church to bee governed alwayes Againe “ Sect. â— Ecclesiae disitpationem vel ruinam potiùs exitium molitur quisquis ordinem hunc de quo disputamus HOC GENVS regiminis vel abolere studet vel quasi minus necessarium elevat He seeketh the ruine and destruction of the Church whosoever indeavoureth to abolish this order and THIS KIND of governement whereof wee treate or maketh light of it as lesse necessarie speaking as I said of that same kinde of ordinary governement which is fouÌ„d in the New Testament Which being Calvins minde can we thinke that hee would like of the Doctors mutabilitie No nor of his calling him and Beza “ Defen 2. pag. 140. Authors of Discipline and him the first or chiefe founder of it Beside is not this Doct. a cunning dissembler who can say of Calvin that his memorie with me is blessed and yet curseâ—h and revileth his Discipline as he calleth it Thirdly is it truth must we abide it that Calvin agreeth with the Do. against Lay Elders as he calleth them And his Refuter reproving him for that speach he mocketh saying What shall become of me now He saith he will salve it But how Forsooth he confesseth Calvin is against him both touching the Scripture and also the practise of the first Churches How salveth he the matter then Calvin saith that afterward Every City had a College of Elders all which were Teachers What then Can not Calvin thinke that this might somewhat differ from the Scripture and that this was thus about and after the Nicen Councell hitherward and yet in the first age of the Church after the Apostles there were som such lay Elders Is it not possible that Calvin may thus meane but that hee must needes agree in this matter with the D. and grosly contradict himselfe Thus forsooth our D. will needes have it in wordes commending Calvin Beza for the learned Disciplinarians but indeed making them what he can to seeme fooles Fourthly neither Calvin nor Beza “ Pag. 14â— 144. agreeth with them nor materially differeth from vs about a Diocesan Church as hee almost every where repeateth that they doe and is still beating vpoÌ„ it But falsly For first Calvin maketh not even then the City Country to be but one body He saith †Instit 4.4 2. velut Corpus as it were a Body Hee meaneth not that it was a persit Body but that there was some resemblance of one Body because of the consociation of all vnder one Bishop Yet indeed hee maketh each Parish then a Body substantially Saying “ Sect. 1â— Cum Parochijs novi Presbyters destinabantur tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit When newe Presbyters were appointed to Parishes then the multitude of the place must namely consent This power made them a Body indeed and to the Diocese they belonged but as it were to a Body or as having som resemblance of a body Which yet consisted in deed of many distinct bodyes someway independent This is the Diocesan Church which Calvin and Beza also speake of and is constituted at Geneva and in France and in the Lowcountries c. But this is not the †See before pag. 88. 89. proper Diocesan Church which is in England There is a substantiall difference betweene this improper and vnperfit Diocesan Body and that which is proper and persit Now then how do Calvin and Beza agree with the Bishops of Englande touching a Diocesan Church as he so ofte vaunteth and boasteth that they do Or how do they dissent from vs Wee see they do not The Doct. doth but slander them Neither “ Def. 2.147 doth Beza
meane that any first Presbyter in a Church was formally appointed to 〈◊〉 Diocese vnder the Apostles Some kind of †See before Pag. 89. Diocese was Apostolike But hee sheweth sufficieÌ„tly that these Bb. Dioceses began somewhile after the Apostles in that hee saith “ Bez. de grad min. 6.24 they were first framed according to the division of the Prâ—vinces vnder the Romane Empire Which verily was nor regarded in the Apostles time nor in the next age after Wherefore Beza meant the first Presbyter thus assigned formally was after the Apostles their abused name Bishop also Lastly I cannot passe how insolently the D. “ Def. 3.15 c. taunteth me for observing many sortes of Bishops and namely for †In reas for ref pag. 7. setting downe six sorts of them also for being ignorant whether Ierusalem or Caesarea had the Patriarchship for supposing Diocesan Ruling Bishops might begin with Dionysius at Aâ—exandria and for not speaking any thing of Metropolitans beginning Let the D. know I was not ignorant that Ierusalem had the Patriarchship but it is a question and that I meant to touch whether Ierusalem exercised ordinarie jurisdiction over Caeâ—area the Province thereof or not pag. 8. in margine But it is a matter of no worth thereâ—ore I passe it Metropolitans Diocesans Patriarkes all one in substance Metropolitans in his sense 〈◊〉 spake not of wheÌ„ I reckoned vp the livers sortes of Bishops because in substance of their Office they are all â—ne with Diocesans Archbishops and Patriarkes Of whom whosoever holdeth â—ne lawful will holde all so to be and â—e who holdeth one Apostolike will acknowledge them all Apostolike This therfore also is no matter what â—oever he maketh of it Touching Diâ—â—ysius of AlexaÌ„dria I confesse I was to â—lame in thinking hee might bee the â—uthor of Majoritie of power rule â—n Diocesan Bishops It was because I â—udged it to be ancienter then indeed â—t is or then reason giveth it Maioritie of power when it began Nowe â—herefore I professe it cannot bee roved to be ancienter then the Niceâ— Councill or Constantine the Emperor as I noted before Once D. Bilson was also of this minde with me where he sheweth that it was not “ Against the Seminar part 2. pag. 318. by the institution of Christ nor his Apostles but long after by the consent of the Churches the custome of the times and the will of Princes And touching my making many sortes of Bishops and my distinguishing of the word the Doct. misliking that sheweth his ignorance not a little or els he sheweth that which is worse If he mislike that I made so many sortes as six Truly it was my fault that I made so fewe Ierom witnesseth that the Bishops of his time came to that power paulatim by little litle And the Vniversall Monarch of the Roman Church came not to his greatnes at once Papacie had Papalitie going before in divers and sundrie degrees The Word reason and experience do shew in such alterations of governement at least so many distinct differeÌ„ces yea mo also Now therefore I desire the Reader to give me leave vpon better coÌ„sideration to set down the distinctioÌ„ of Bishops in 7. differeÌ„ces Seaven sorts of Bishops I affirme therefore that the name Bishop in Christian Writers is given to seaveÌ„ divers sortes Which to observe is right needfull and most profitable to end this great controversie First the name is generally given even to “ Act. 1 20. Apostles Yea Evangelistes also may so be called Bishops as †Pag. 238. 240. before is shewed Secondly it is given to Pastors equall and “ Act. 20.28 Philip 1.1 many in one ordinarie Congregation To whoÌ„ also the name of Presbyter was common Such is the Ministerie now in the Dutch French Churches Thirdly One Pastor of a Church contayning no mo ordinarie Congregations but one is by the ancientest Church Writers called a Bishop singularly As Linus was at Rome Anianus at AlexaÌ„dria Onesimus at Ephesus Ignatius at Antioch Polycarpus at Smyrna c. Such also was the “ Rev. 2.1 Angell of the Church in Ephesus and in Smyrna c. The Scripture giveth not him the name Bishop peculiarly when he hath other assistant Pastors with him but other Writers doe Which truly I will not strive against Fourthly the name Bishop is given to a Titular Diocesan Bishop Of whoÌ„ none can be proved ancienter then Iulianus the tenth Bishop in Alexandria Fiftly Diocesan Bishops with “ Declarat pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Bishops These began in the Councill of Nice or otherwise vnder Constantine Though the Councill speake of Metropolitans long before yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law Fiftly Diocesan Bishops with “ Declarat pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Bishops These began in the Councill of Nice or otherwise vnder Constantine Though the Councill speake of Metropolitans long before yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law or publike ordinnance till then it was before but arbitrary by the churches affection and no otherwise Sixtly the Diocesan L. Bishop or the Sole governing Bishop is called a Bishop Such are ours now in Englande Of the originall and first beginning of such I have spokeÌ„ * Pag. 66. 67. before Seaventhly a Pope or Vniversall Pastor hath this name Bishop Hee began at Rome about 600. yeres after Christ but came not to his absolut greatnes till divers hundred yeares after And this distinction will assuredly with case be iustifyed Reason and experience do shew such degrees in proceeding And thus far the Answer to D. Downames Defence of Diocesan Churches Obiections are made also inteÌ„sively viz. against the Christian peoples right to coÌ„sent in Church governe Obiections against the peoples power answered It is fit we should answer these likewise so far as is needfull Frst great much paines have ben taken by the adversaries of the truth to deprave the plaine and easie wordes of Matthewe 18.17 Tell the Church They are content to take them any way so it bee not the right way Doct. Bilson spendeth a “ D. Bilson perp gov chap. 4. whole Chapter to make them seeme to signifie a Senat or bench of Iewish Civill Magistrates which he learned only from a Physician Erastus But there is a sufficient refutatioÌ„ of this opinion in the third Argument of The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visib Church Secondly D. Bilson contradicting himself vnderstandeth these words of an Ecclesiasticall Senat or Synod Thus also Do. Downame vnderstandeth them as †Pa. 107.108 before we have seene where is a sufficient answer likewise therevnto Thirdly Maister Iohnson of the Separation since in this point he turned his opinioÌ„ vpside downe “ Treat of the exposit of Mat. 18.19 Anno. 1611. affirmeth that these wordes signifie that the Iewish forme of