Spirituall or sole government Ecclesiasticall yea though over but one Congregation Much more him who exerciseth such spirituall Lordship over a great many CoÌ„gregations Also What is Sole authoritie Spirituall in our sense sole authoritie Spirituall and sole governement Ecclesiasticall we call that which is exercised without the Christian peoples free consent D. Downame laboureth with divers vaine shifts to defend the English L. Bishops herein He can not abide that it should bee saide of them that they exercise “ Def. 1.58.47.43 sole authoritie or sole government Yea in many places hee * Def 3 118.11â—.126.142 sheweth indignation that such wronge should be done them in beeing so reported of But it is strange Are they ashamed to heare of that which they cease not to practise and maintaine every day and that in the sight of the world yea each of them over divers hundreds of Congregations For the people with vs no where enioy any free consent But the D. saith “ Def. 1.43.44 The Bishop hath the Archbishop above him Yea but who is above our 2. Archbishops spiritually No body Againe he saith Provinciall Synods are above the Bishop Idly spoken Is the Diocesan Synod above their owne Bishop Or is the Provinciall Synod above their Archbishop Surely no more then the Vniversall Councill is above the Pope Which is cleane contrarie Now this is it which hee should have affirmed buthe durst not He shifteth further saying “ Pag. 44. Do we not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to have the Supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea verily wee do But that is Civilly as “ Reas. for ref p. 62. â—â— els-where I have shewed Hee hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Spiritually that is his authoritie properly maketh no Church Minister nor Excommunicateth any person Which I suppose your selves do hold even as we do But this is the point in England the Archb. is Spiritually Supreme or hath Supreme authority spiritual in his Province I say thus he is Supreme sole viz. spiritually Wherfore the Doct. Ignorantia Elenchi grosly sophisticateth in shifting from the poâ—â—t in hand to an other matter Where hee speaketh of “ Def. 1. p. 43 Chancellors adioyned to the Bishops and of Presbyters consent with him that †Pag. 42. Presbyters have power to rule their flocke in publike Ministerie and in privat attendance that some of them have voyces in Synods c. I wot not what all this is Sure I am it is as idle as the rest For so much at least is seene in the Popish Church where yet is founde spirituall Lordship sole governement in their Bishops yea oppression violence tyrannie also over the peoples consciences as we well know So that the “ Pag. 43. Supreme and lowdest by and †Pag. 47. the plainely which hee giveth to vs hee ought to take to him selfe Another shift of the Doct. is where because the Hebrew Adoni the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Dominus may be given to Bishops therefore “ Def. 3.147 he would conclude that in English they may be called Lords D. Bilson reasoneth †Perp gov pag. 58. 59. so likewise and that very largely He would prove the same also from the Duch terme Here from the French Monsieur c. But I deny this reason absolutly For heerein there is no consequence Our English terme Lord and Lordship doth alwayes imply Sole government but none of those forraigne termes doth so alwayes Wherefore such reasoning is Equivocating also * Ioh. 13.13 1. Cor. 8.6 12.5 2. Cor. 1.24 Againe Christ only is our Lord in respect of Spirituall Lordship he only is to bee called a Spirituall Lord. But our Bishops are Lords and are so called with vs in respect as they bee Spirituall Lordes as the Doctor “ Def. 3.150 observeth well Wherefore our Bishops Lordship is vnlawfull and derogatorie to Christ Doct. Bilson saith further †Perp. gov pag. 62. If we sticke at titles Christ calleth them Gods Lo how nothing satisfyeth these men Would he have Bishops called by the name of Gods also But I would know of him where doth Christ call them Gods Surely it is but his fancie They are in deed so called no where D. Downame presseth that Bishops are called “ Def. 3.146.150 Angells which is a more honor able title then Lord. And therefore that Bishops may bee called Lords I deny that the name Angell is so honorable a title as a Spirituall Lord which is given to our Bishops This is proper to Christ only as before is said the name Angell is not And so his reason is false Againe though the name Angell be given to Bishops sometime and in one respect yet it is very false to say they may lawfully be stiled and called by the dayly appellation of Angells or that they may ordinarilie vse that title as they do the title name of Lord. Againe the name of Lord is given them as importing their sole governement as before is said But the name Angell importeth not so much neither is it given to any Creature in such respect Therfore from the name of Angell the title of Lorde followeth not Indeed the name of Angell is given to Bishops because they are Gods messengers to shew vs his will not in respect of their governement at all though the Doct. presumeth so to say without “ An Allegorie is no proofe proofe Lastly hee knoweth that all Preachers are in the word called Angells or Messengers but for all Preachers to be called in English Lords or your Lordship surely it would be a very arrogant thing And though hee “ Def. 1.34.46 alleage that the Angel of the church of Ephesus in Rev. 2.1 be one and but one before many Ministers yet neither doth this importe any Lordship in him either in name or practise neither is this precedence or praeeminence signifyed by the word Angel but it is gathered by coÌ„paring this word with the knowen circumstances of those times Further he alleageth that “ Def. 3.152 Princes are called Pastors and for the same cause are Lords Wherein there is no truth nor indeed any good sense The like is that where hee addeth the title of Father is as great as Lord. Nay the name of Father is amiable but Lords may and also they vse to force and compell Neither did the Pope at first take the name of Father peculiarly to him selfe to note thereby any Lordship as his due but to deceave the world by his pretended love over all wherein he desired to seeme a commoÌ„ Father In another * Def. 4.71.72 place he teacheth that Bishops in the New Testament were called Apostles VpoÌ„ which grouÌ„d he “ Def. 3 15â— would conclude that therefore the name of Lord is lawfull for them I answer The name of Apostle and also of Bishop may be vsed sometime
these we allow and what get our adversaries by that We hold that such Bishops be Apostolike and Divine yet Diocesan both titular and ruling Bishops and also Lord Bishops came in â—aâ—latim by litle and little by Humane policie and ambition and tyraÌ„nie long after But Ierom there saith that these Bishops were in a higher degree above Presbyters Bez. Annoâ—at in Apoc. 2.1 which Beza denyeth Also they were constant Presidents in the Meetings which Beza also denyeth Beza saith Bishops and Presbyters then differed not gradu in degree meaning in degree of power that is in Maioritie of power they differed not then But in degree of Order he granteth they did differ which I call “ Reas. for 1â— Prioritie of Order Which also Ieâ—om meaneth by his higher degree in this place And so heerein we all agree But as touching Bezaes coniecture of the Angell of Ephezus viz. that peradventure he might be a President not continuing but changeable I suppose few approve it For my part I do not Though I greatly honor the name memorie of Maister Beza yet there is no neede to be of his opinion in this A changeable Presidencie no doubt was among those Bishops Act. 20.28 But I am of minde that none of these Bishops meant by the Angells Rev. 2. 3. were changeable In all likelyhood they were constant and continuing for terme of life And such a difference Presidentiall might well com in among the many joint Pastors of the Church at Ephesus by this time and yet they all remaine †Declarâ—â— pag. 15. equall in honor and power Pastorall Howbeit these constant Presidents were Bishops then to no Diocesan multitude dispersed abroad in many ordinary set assemblies but to one ordinary assembly only as is noted often before And so the great argument of these Doctors which they take from the “ Perp. gov pag. 260. D. Down Def. 4. â— Succession of Bishops to proove our Bishops as they are in England to be lawfull may appeare to be a meere Sophisme deceit For the Bishop of Rome also may by such a shew of Succession prove his Office and Function lawfull as in deed he doth indeavour to do and doth it as well as they But though all these Bishops have one name viz. Bishops yet betweene the first and the last of them there are seene many reall and substantiall differences in their Offices To observe therefore this egregious Equivocation I remit the Reader to pag. 98. 99. 128. 129. 211. 212. before Yet Doctor Downame †sticketh hard to this †Defenc. 4.50 c. that Iames the Apostle was a Bishop Iames no proper Bishop What a proper Bishop It is simply impossible whosoever say otherwise Let the Reader marke that all our question is about Bishops properly so called not about the name Bishop vsed in a generall sense There is “ Rain confer pa. 263. 267. a generall taking of the word Bishop and there is a proper taking of it Apostles and Evangelistes may generally improperly be called Bishops the rather if they reside long in one place and do execute a Bishop like Office there As Iames I graunt did in Ierusalem and Titus in Crete yea by assignement of the Apostles And questionles so the Ancient Writers meane where they call Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and Titus Bishop of Crete For neither Iames nor Titus were nor could be proper Bishops there Which I shewe thus Every Bishop is appropriated limited and confined only to one Church Iames neither was nor could be appropriated and confined only to one Church Therefore Iames neither was nor could be a Bishop The Proposition is most evident and granted of our “ D. Bilson pag. 227. 232. adversaries The Assumption they neither ought nor dare deny For Iames having froÌ„ Christ a Ministerie and Calling to all Churches throughout the world this hee retayned still hee never lost that it were sacrilege to reduce him from it and to shorten him of this his right given him froÌ„ heaven Neither could the Apostles do it if they would Heere it will be an absurd evasion to say Iames had in him two Offices viz. an Apostles and a proper Bishops Office In respect of the former hee was still vnlimited in respect of the later he was limited to the Church of Ierusalem This I say is so absurd frivolous as nothing can be more And yet it is the only thing that can bee answered I pray can one and the same man by any distinction be capeable of privative contraries at one time Can the same man be in fetters and at libertie at once Can one be blind and see also Can a man be a Christian an insidell too No more could Iames be both appropriated to Ierusalem and not appropriated at one time Neither could the proper Bishops Office bee conioyned with an Apostleship For it were in vaine Seeing the Apostleship contayneth the whole Bishoply Office and more too But the Apostles in the Churches administratioÌ„ did no thing in vaine idly Again though the Apostleship contained in it the whol office of a proper Bishop yet this was “ Declarat pag. 30. Materially not Formally As a Privie Counsailler in England hath in him the Office and power of a Iustice of peace also a Shilling containeth a Groat But no man that meaneth plainly will say A Shilling is a Groat or a Privie Counsailler is a Iustice of peace If any do it is not rightly nor truely spoken For not the Matter but the Forme doth give the proper name Yet I do not deny all vse of vnproper speaches I grant on some occasion men may speake generally and vndistinctly of things In reasoning we must alwayes speake properly as I deeme those Ancients did of Bishops Nevertheles in ordinary teaching and specially in reasoning and disputing wee must ever vse exact and proper termes avoyding generalities and wordes vnproper Otherwise wee equivocate To this reason that the Apostles gave not Iames any power which hee had not before as an Apostle D. Downame answereth that which is both false and also most presumptuous For plainly hee saith “ Def. 4 5â—â— Iames the Apostle had not the power of Iurisdiction before he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem O hautie Bishops Who arrogat to themselves a power beyond the Apostles No marvaile if he say Pag. 59. it is no depressing of an Apostle to become a proper Bishop For only this may lâ—ft vp a Bishop above an Apostle his other idle “ Pag. 62. 63. respects and considerations neither did nor could Titus and Timothie were no proper Bishops Nay but Titus Timothie and their Bishopriks do make the most busines of all Of whom D. Bilson saith †Perpet govâ— pag. 300. Heere I must pray the Christian Reader advisedly to marke what is said answered on either side This indeed is the maine erection of the Episcopall power and function
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
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
the present Church-state in England even in the substantiall points of governement therein are cleane frustrat Neither is the same Apostolicall neither hath it Vniversall nor perpetuall nor indeed any old approbation among Christians as they colourably pretend But it is proved to bee novell A proper Diocesan church is novell and meerely of the wit and will of men and that after the time of Antichrists rising The contrary obiectons of our adversaries I will heere observe D. Doves 3. falsifications of Euseb as neere as I can First that which D. Downame borrowed of D. Dove viz. that Marke constituted a Diocesan Church in Alexandria But this I have shewed “ Pag. 90 91. before to bee a meere forgerie of these two D. D. grounded vpon a false translation of their author Eusebius And heere I can not but remember a second and a third like falsifying of Eusebius by D. Dove in his Defence The former of these is pag. 13. where he saith Eusebius wordes be these †Euseb lib 3.4 Timothie was the first Bishop of the whole Precinct of Ephesus in as ample maner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete Eusebius saith not that Timothie was but hee saith it is reported that Timothie was the first Bishop of Ephesus as Titus of the Churches of Crete Againe Eusebius saith not of the whole precinct of Ephesus nor in as ample maner There are no such words in Eusebius This is no translating but perverting an Author Thirly that which Eusebius hath indeed viz. Timothie was said to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Ephesus this he rendreth not but perverteth For in Ephesus is not without the City much lesse the whole precinct of Ephesus containing the large Country adioyning Yea that the Church in Ephesus was but a Parish then Ignatius sheweth writing to the whole Church of Ephesus saying to them “ Iâ—nat aâ— Ephes. When you come oft togeather into the same place c. Therfore the whole then did come togeather in one place And it is not only false but absurd to say that the like may be spoken now of the †Can they all come togeather in one place Diocesan Church of London Thus therefore Eusebius is perverted twise by D. Dove His 3. falsifying of him is where Eusebius saith of Iohn the Apostle in a certain City “ Euseb lib. 3.23 Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having refreshed the Brethâ—en and looked on the Bishop that was set over al the said brethren of that place hee committed a yong man to him But the D. setteth it down thus Iohn the Apostle coÌ„mitted the charge of a yong man to a Bishop †Pag. 15. 18. qui super cunstâ—s Episcopos erat constitutuâ— which was set over all the rest of the Bishops thereabout As if then there had ben an Archbishop or a Bishop over Bishops So saith this Doctor as out of Eusebius But he abuseth his author Eusebius hath not such a word And yet D. Downame also “ Def. 4.112 alleageth the same place though he cunningly forbeareth to mention the words Doct. Downame further presseth Eusebius in that hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Titus was Bishop of the Churches of Crete As also Perpet govern pag. 233. He translateth it is recorded in Histories But he can not make that good in this place For the word signifyeth any relation or narration or report of a matter And Eusebius vseth alwayes to name his author at ful to set downe the words when hee groundeth vpon any written historie So hee citeth very often Egesippus Clemens Dionysius Tertullian c. Wherefore questionâ—es heere he meaneth some other report or tradition and speach of meÌ„ I know not whom And in setting downe such matters he is nothing curious many times as “ Pag. 91. 92. before I have signifyed Not seldom he reporteth fabulous things yea wheÌ„ he nameth his author Eusebius of no absolut credit as is wel knowen And yet he is all the warrant and ground which any writer hath either young or old for Tius his being Bishop of Crete Theodoret Epiphanius Chrysostomus Ierome c. Dorotheus Synops is not worth the naming have al their inducement so to thinke from hence All these also them selves were great Prelates or lovers of Prelates and therefore wee may holde them partiall in setting downe and receaving such reportes What wisedom then is in Do. Downame to say it is an vncharitable and vnlearned part yea intolerable impudencie to deny credit to such authorities It is rather intolerable impietie and plaine idolatrie to set vp these and such like for rules of our faith and warrants to our conscience as the D. laboureth to do in this cause Howbeit further Eusebius saith not that Titus was said to be Bishop of Crete but only so as Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Where he seemeth to meane that both of theÌ„ were then thought to bee not proper Bishops but in the generall sense and vnderstanding of the word Bishop And so he seemeth to meane also that Marke was said to be Bish of AlexaÌ„dria whom yet he nameth an Apostle and Evangelist Iames an Apostle in deed Bishop of Ierusalem I say in a generall sense but not Bishops properly And so truly the other Fathers after Eusebius do seeme to meane and we accord thus with them Otherwise we must needes deny credit to them heerein viz. if Eusebius c. say these were proper Bishops For it is not possible that they could bee so seeing they were both Superior and also Divinely distinguished from proper Bishops as anon we shall see further where further occasion will be given vs to answer D. Downame about Timothie Titus Bishoprikes Againe “ Def. 2.23 and 116. D. Downame citeth out of Councill Carthage 3. and Ephes 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and even from the Apostles as †Perpet gov pag. 324. Doct. Bilson before him avoucheth But both of theÌ„ wrest the Councilles For they say not so only they say that Dioceses should remaine such as they were from the beginning that is ever since Dioceses were appointed Not from the beginning simply but from the beginning of Dioceses which though it were loÌ„g before these Councills yet as I iudge it was not before “ About the yeare 260. See before pag. 92.93 Dionysius Bishop of Rome And touching the Apostles the Ephesin Council speaketh of the Apostles Canons Beeing strangely deceaved in attributing them to the Apostles as any one may perceave if hee see the Can. 4.5.8.17 18.27.47.49.65 68 84.25 Wherefore they are falslie fathered on the Apostles beeing but base and bastardly stuffe in respect of them And yet they intende no “ See before pag. 88. 97. 98. proper Diocesan Church viz. like ours in England Neither were these Canons before Constantines age So that our D. D. do argue from hence very vnworthily But D.
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
and princelike Prelacie which this Doctor hunteth after though in many places of his booke hee dissembleth and would not have them called Sole governors Heere hee plainly sheweth that he holdeth the Bishops may take the peoples consent and Presbyters advise if they like it if not then they may neverthelesse proceed and not stand vpon it as Princes may doe in Common wealths Truly all found writers ever have held this in Church-governement to be right “ See our Attestators pag. 23. 25. 26. 27. 29. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 42. 45. tyrannicall wronghfull oppression of Christian Mens consciences And yet as I have oft said we grant the sway of the Ecclesiasticall governement to be indeed in the Bishop ordinarily but not absolutly The consequence of his * Pag. 83. next PropositioÌ„ I deny also viz. The things written to informe not Timothie Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them their Successors to the end of the world were written to informe Diocesan Bishops They were not Diocesan Bishops are no Successors of Timothie and Titus nor intended by the Apostle They came after by reason of that apostasie which through Gods determinat counsaill was to come over Christendome Without which going before Antichrist could not have stood vp Hee addeth “ Pag. 84. the authoritie committed to Tim. and Tit is perpetually necessary It is true Materially not formaly as before is said Beside Tim. Tit. themselves had not the authoritie which Diocesan Bâ—shops have It was far lesse Therefore these are not their Successors Where hee would prove it first disjunctively †Pag. 86. Either they or the Presbyteries or the Congregation were their Successors I answere this disjunction is vnsufficient Hee reckoneth not Pastors or Bishops of one ordinary Congregation only They were the immediate Successors of Timothie Titus speaking of such a successioÌ„ as they had and might have being Evangelists About 200. yeares after Christ Titular Diocesans succeded them After 300. yeares These improperly succeeded viz. in place not in Office Diocesans with Maioritie of power and rule succeeded After them long came the proper and compleat Diocesan Prelats the Diocesan Lord Bishops of whom our question is indeed But among all these whosoever was a Bishop really of mo ordinary Congregations then one therein he succeeded not Timothie nor Titus nor any Aposâ—le Who never intended any such ordinary Successors And succession in place with dissent in doctrine is a false successioÌ„ Beside a Presbyterie did “ Act. 20 17.28 preceed Timothie in Ephesus Therefore they may lawfully succeed as they do now in the Dutch and French reformed Churches The people also have in act succeeded lawfully at somtimes as the D. himselfe †Pag. 99. knoweth and therefore so they may againe on occasion Then hee would “ Pag. 86. 87. name Bishops that succeeded Timothiâ— and Titus Meaneth he proper Diocesan L. Bishops If he doe not hee trifleth But who are they First the Angell of Ephesus and Onesimus Nay these were Bishops only of one ordinary Congregation and that within the City Ephesus as “ Pag. 206. 227. before I have noted That Policrates and Philip of Gortyna in Crete were such also I have shewed †Pag. 235. 231. before as also the Doct. falshood about Philip. Where hee saith “ Pag. 87. Every Metropolitan is a Diocesan it is vntrue The first Bishops were Metropolitans that is Bishops in Mother-cities yet they were not Diocesan Bishops viz. over mo ordinary CoÌ„gregations then one He saith hee readeth not any where of the next Successor to Titus indeed hee readeth of no proper Successor to Titus at all nor to Tim. c. Ordinary Pastors of Congregations succeeded these extraordinarie men as they also succeeded the Apostles viz. improperly not in their whole and proper Offices Our D. following D. Dove would prove that Timothie Titus had “ Pag 89. their ordinary residence in Ephesus in Crete because one was willed †1. Tim 1. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide at Ephesus Tit. 1.5 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redresse further the things which hee fouÌ„d there amisse It is true for a time each of them was so resident But not alwayes nor till they dyed For not long after Timothie was †2. Tim. 4.9 called away and Tychicus an other Evangelist was sent to “ Eph. 6 2â— Ephesus in his roome When if Timothie had bene there still it seemeth there had ben no need of Tychicus neither would Paul have left him vnsaluted and vnnamed in that epistle to the Ephesians Also the Apostle †Philip. 2 1â— intended that Timothie being come from Ephesus should vndertake the charge of Philipps Therfore he was now loose and free from Ephesus Writers also say that Iohn the Apostle afterward was at Ephesus doing a Bishoply office when surely Timothie was not Bishop there yet as may be thought he was then living Our D. addeth that Bishops other Pastors may be absent froÌ„ their cures vpon speciall and extraordinary occasion It is vntrue they may not Now residenâ—â— All religion and pietie forbiddeth it vnles it bee with their Churches expresse consent Which Timothie heere had not The Apostle as hee alone placed him at Ephesus so he alone without the Church called him away You will say and he alone might doe so True the Apostle alone might doe so with Evangelists but hee might not with Bishops and Pastors These were more in their Churches power then so Neither indeed had it ben “ Pag. 93. a matter of good report nor of good example as his refuter saith well if Timothie being the Ephesians proper Bishop had without their speciall grant gone from them chiefly so long time and so far of and to take charge of another place Neither verely had Paul any need so to take away a proper Pastor from his flocke The same likewise is to bee said of Titus his departure from Crete first to Rome then to Dalmatia But hee will prove that “ Pag. 91. they lived and dyed in Ephesus and Crete If they did yet it followeth not that therfore they were Bishops there nor yet that they had ordinary resideÌ„ce there all their life time It might happen that travayling to fro they might in the end of their dayes dy there For somwhere they must dy And yet they are not therefore Bishops of that place neither had they therefore ordinary residence there till their end But who saith they dyed there Som whose testimonies whosoever refuse to beleeve do themselves deserve no credit Yea are they so infallible Who are they Dorotheus in Synopis and on his word som other he knowes not well who TheÌ„ all this matter standeth on this Dorotheus whose credit “ Pag. 104. him self feareth Indeed iustly for hee is the most egregious fabler that ever writ Dorotheus a fabler Heere I wish it may
that the Church of Bishops tunning togeather I will not save conspiring togeather is no other Church hen such as the Prophet nameth Melignant Fâ—r that which iâ— besides the truth is of evill And God only is true and every man alyar Therefore what soever is of God is iust true and good whatsoever cometh of man is vnrust false and evill This their Church is not of God it is therefore of evill If any defire more heereof let him read out Conclusions hee meaneth those Articles above cited Last of all see his iudgement of the Church of Ephesus mentioned in Act. 20.28 Saith he “ In Archirâ—â—â— Ecce gregem ecce speculatores ecce concionem pascendam non regendam ecce Concionem non homenis sed Deâ— Behold a flocke behold watchmen bâ—hold a particular Congregation to bee fed not to be rused he meaneth not to be ruled by the watchmens absolute power but with relation to the liking and consent of the flocke beholde not mans but Gods CoÌ„gâ—egation Now I desire the Reader to note that Zuinglius though he speake indeed against Popish Bishops and Synods in the places above cited yet hee speaketh directly against those points in them which some Protestant Bishops and Synods do stande vpon And therefore thus far they are al togeathet in one the same condemnation according to his doctrine Secondly note that heere he doth plainly condemne all Imperious Synods representative Churches and that also with more vehement sharpe termes then are vsed now adayes Thirdly he affirmeth here the Church in Math. 18.17 the Church of Corinth and of Ephesus vnder the Apostles yea all Churches in the world at that time to be each of them but a particular ordinary CoÌ„gregation For here he calleth the same CoÌ„cio portioâ— laris Ecclesia a particular assembly Elswhere a parish as where he saith a church is “ Ad Valent Compar Vnaquaque paraecia and * Ibid. Singula paraecie and †Artic. 31. quam paraeciam vocamus and “ Artic. 8. quo commodè in vnum locum conveniunt which meet conveniently in one place And †Pastor Episcopus Parochus Plebanus Praedicator Pastor that is a Bishop and a Parish Minister he maketh all one Fourthly he most peremptorily affirmeth that onely God may institute his Visible Church and the forme of outward governement therein And that such a forme of a Church governement as is not instituted by God or not found in his word is altogeather vnlawfull and wicked yea malignant So that heere it is manifest how hee condemneth every Diplodophilus Diplodophilus that is whosoever approveth two wayes or formes of Church-governemeÌ„t viz. every one who liketh the Divine and Apostolike ordinance where it may bee had and yet holdeth that vpon necessitie it may be altered and another forme may be vsed Which D. Downame very Divine-like “ Des 4.104 Answ to the Pres pag 3. 9. maintayneth Neither is he alone such a Diplodophilus he hath too many consorts in this prophane opinioÌ„ with him Fiftly Zuinglius here expresly teacheth that the particular Congregation is commanded in Math. 18.17 to â—â—t off the infected member So that hee holdeth it to bee Christes very Commandement not a permission only that the people should have the power of Church governement at least to consent freely therein And the truth is that the words in the text are imperative Tell the Church c. Wherefore why ought they not so to bee taken Certainly it is Christes verie Commandement in deed and therefore never to bee altered by any meanes But to returne to the matter of Synods this man of God Zuinglius heere we see reprooveth not so much Popish Synodes as the very nature of those Synods which are helde to bee a representative Church and to have power to impose their decrees on the people of their circuit whether they wil or no yea though the same grieve and burden their consciences Which very thing our adversaries at this day do holde likewise against vs. And D. Downame presumeth that hee hath “ Des 1.109 2 4. found such Synods in the New Testament which Zuinglius could finde †As above pag. 101. no where Now vnto this noble Witnesse of Iosus Christ I will ad others mo consenting in effect with him Calvin to this purpose saieth thus “ It. stit 4.9 â— Quicquid de Ecclesia dicitur id mox Papista ad Concilia transferunt quum corum opinione Ecclesiam representent Whatsoever is spoken of the Church that presently the Papistes referre to Councills because in their opinion Councills do represent the Church Where hee noteth this opinion to bee Popish viz. that a Council is a church representative Another learned Divine one Iacobus Acontius condemneth vehemently likewise this kinde of Synods or Councills in his fourth booke “ Iac. Acont lib 4. Stratagematum Satana At home Doctor Whitaker ioyneth with those abroad For coÌ„cerning Synods in these dayes whose decrees may be imposed on a NatioÌ„ or Country he saith thus †Whitak de Concil pa 35 Etsires ipsa de quibus in Concils deliberatur consultatur sint sacrae religiosae tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est merè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although the things considered consulted of in a Councill be holy and religious yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches togeather is meerely Civill And then consequently the imposing of their Decrees is Civill Yea so such a Councill it selfe is Civill that is it standeth and hath life force by Civill power All which we willingly agree vnto Againe this learned man writeth of these Councills thus †Pag. 23. Concilia si simpliciter necessaria sint Christus alicubi precepisset celebrari aut cius saltem Apostoli Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factam esse legimur If Councills were simply necessarie Christ somewhere would have commanded that they should be kept or at least his Apostles would have so commanded Which yet we read they did no where Heere he plainly denyeth that Councills exercising spirituall iurisdiction and governement for such hee must meane of necessitie are not at all of Divine institution in the New Testament Wherein hee expresly saith as Zuinglius before said contrary to D. Downame But yet nevertheles I grauÌ„t D. Whitaker in this booke alloweth approveth Councills even spiritually exercising governement if withal the people whom it concerneth bee not bereaved of their free consent therein For so I vnderstand him where he saith “ Pag. 44. Quod omnes attingit ab omnibus approbari debet That which toucheth all ought to be approved of all And so do we also affirme Lastly Doct. Bilson saith “ Do Bils against the Semina part 2. pag 371. Also see him alleadged in Reas. for reform pag. 2â— And Perp. gov pa. 382 383. A generall Councill is not the Church And a
free consent and namely that it was so vnder the Apostles which I have shewed “ Pag. 68. 69 before to be certainly true hence it followeth that it is a plaine vntruth a falshood which the Doct. so often “ Def. 1.28 and 4.2.3.38.39.46 affirmeth viz. that the Bishops in the Apostles time were such for the substance of their calling as ours now in England are Ours are sole governours they were not so They admitted the Congregations consent in all important matters of their governement ours do what they please without them yea commonly against their liking Besides the Apostolike Bishops had not any addition of Civill coactive power as ours have Last they had no mo ordinarie set Congregations to their pastorall charge but only one ours are the Pastors each of thē of many hundred Congregations All which are evident substantiall differēces in the churches and Bishops estate as hath ben also observed purposely “ Divine beginning of Christs true visib Church pag. 3. 4. 5. Declarat pag. 12. 13 14. Reas. for ref p. 41. 42. 43. els where In which respect the very ground which the D. buildeth on is false his very text Rev. 1.20 is misinterpreted abused so his Sermon whole Defence standing therevpon is frustrat And he doth Equivocat plainly Fiftly where the Christian people have their free consent in Church governement there never is seene anie Pluralist nor Nonresident Pastor For they wil never indure their Pastor to be a Nonresident from them nor yet to bee distracted with mo charges of soules then their owne Which certainly al that feare God and have care of them selves theirs will esteeme to bee a most godly thing to beholde Besides also they wil never indure any Covetous nor Proud nor adulterer nor drunkard nor ignorant nor false Teacher And as their Pastor and Guide is such will they bee also in a maner alwayes every where The adversary confesseth that “ D. Bils perp gov pag. 344 The wisedom of Gods Church in taking the cōsent of the people in the Election of their Bishops hee can not but commend he findeth so great and good effectes of it in the Church stories For thence it came to passe that the people when their desires were accomplished did quietly receave willingly maintaine diligently heare heartily love their Pastors yea venter their whole estate and hazard their lives rather thē then Pastors should miscarie Verily this sheweth it to bee Gods ordinance in that he accompanyeth it with such and so great blessings Contrariwise Pluralist-Pastors and Nonresidents who of any conscience can allow Who that hath any sparke of religion or care of good life doth not detest and abhorre them and most worthily as being in deed of the reliques of Antichrist and instruments of Satan All blindnes in the people and wicked conversation floweth from these as frō fountaines Continual iarres and warres betwene the Pastor and his flocke And therehence groweth contempt of Religion Yea questionles that which the Pest is in mans body the same are Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men in Christes Church Whose fruits are too plentifull among vs. Archb. Whitgift saith “ Answ to the Admon pag. 44. 45. Now the Church is full of hypocrites dissemblers drunk ands whoremongers Ignorant Papistes Atheistes and such like D. Bilson also †Perp. gov pag. 155. Toom Church comes all sortes Atheistes Hypocrites c. All which filth ought verilie to be imputed chiefly to Nonresidentes and Pluralists Now in Diocesan and Provinciall Churches and larger where the people have not their free consent in the Church governement there must of necessitie be Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men First the chief and best Pastor of a verie large Countrey hee whom they call the Angell of such a Church is no other indeede then a great Pluralist and Nonresident For he hath the proper charge of soules over “ Def. 3.145 2.67 all his Circuit as D. Down professeth they all holde That is to say over manie hundred ordinary set Congregations where for the most part they themselves are never present and never do fo much as see the faces of so many people of whom yet they vndertake to bee their proper Pastors Are not these huge Pluralists Nonresidents in the time of the Gospell And thus hee †Def. 2.127 approoveth Theodorets taking to him selfe to be Pastor of 800. parishes Yea it cometh to passe that some Bishops are Pastors to many mo Againe note how Do. Belson shrinketh not to make Pluralistes and Nonresidentes a Divine Ordinance and Apostolike which he doth to the end that Diocesan Bishops might seeme to be Divine Saith he against the mislikers of Pluralitie and Nonresidencie “ Perp gov pag. 328. Saint Paul him selfe knew not these curious positions when he appointed Titus to take charge and oversight of the whole Island of Crete and saw no cause why one man might not performe many Pastorall and Episcopall duties to all that were in the same Countrey with him And this touching the chiefe and best and †Pag. 247. only proper Pastor in a Diocesan Church and larger Secondly his Substitutes will all seeke to bee in proportion like their Superiors Whereof in deede there is great cause For if the most Angelike Pastor he who in his Office cometh nearest vnto Christ bee such that is so great a Pluralist and Nonresident then who in conscience can mislike Nōresidents Who would not desire to be plurifyed abundantly Who would not iudge the greatest Pluralist the worthiest Pastor most excellent servant of Christ I say even inferior Nonresidents and Pluralistes in such Church estates must needes not only aboūd but also superaboūd True reason requireth it and experience among our selves doth shew it Whereby what wofull wrack and havocke of mens soules is happened in our Lande every-where any that looke about consider may see And hee that seeth can not have so flintie a heart as not to sorrow and mourne for it Against which Spirituall desolation yea rather ruine and destruction no remedie can bee had without giving the Christian people their free consent in their spirituall governement For none have that care of other mens soules as Christian people would have of their owne Sixtly heere are other Consequents of a most high nature both in respect of God and also in respect of our selves First in respect of God thus I gather and conclude If this opinion be false viz. that the peoples consent in the Church governement is the Apostles ordinance and Christes immutable commaundement for vs then Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher Institutor Framer “ Impious opinions Lord and Lawgiver of his Visible Church which is the Kingdome of heaven vpon earth At least hee only is not And the New Testament is not compleat nor all-sufficient for matters of Religion Nor so compleat as the Old Testament was And Christes divine Offices of Prophesie
propositions which they offer to maintayne are such as if they were not true wee can not iustly separat froÌ„ the Church of Rome nor stand out against it Those some Proposittions which they meane are namely the fourth eight set down in that Offer Which affirme that a Church is but one Ordinary CoÌ„gregation and that the people ought to have their free consent in the spirituall governement thereof Vnto which may be added the 5.6.7 and 10. as being all of one nature by cleere and certain consequence The soundnes and firme truth of all the which hath ben sufficiently prooved and declared heeretofore and might by such a right ChristiaÌ„ tryal as there they desire bee brought to further light Wherefore D. Downames absurd reproches against that treatise calling it most senselesly “ Def 1.382 4.81 an Vnchristian and vnmodest Offer and the Positions therein Schismatical novelties do declare with what gall of bitternes his heart over-floweth against the truth against his brethren as “ Def. 2.48 hee dissemblingly calleth vs and also against those noble Pillars of the Gospell before alleaged our Attestators who are heerein his vtter adversaries whatsoever he pretendeth to the coÌ„trary He as a cocke on his owne dunghill may crowâ— what he list But if the Offer had ben or might bee accepted in such equall order as is there tendered he would be made to eate his wordes I doubt not and all the infamie of Schisme Noveltie would fall vpon his owne head Without which acceptanc elet the Doct. know that his tedious and Sophisticall writing all other such like will be held by wise men to bee vaine boasting and no better coÌ„quest then of such Champions as draw their weapons strike fight and take on at adversaries whose handes they will bee sure them selves have firste tyed fast Yea whom they will bee sure to have in their power to imprison and persecute if any presume to move against them Neither will they indure to bee shewed the imminent danger from the common enimy till all come about their heads And so much touching the important CoÌ„sequences of our present Assertion CHAP. 8. An answer to divers chiefe Obiections of the adversaries of this cause noting also brieflie their immodest not Christianlike reproches against this Evangelicall doctrine FIRST we will consider heere D. Downames second booke of his Defence D. Downames Defence 2. Booke answereâ—â— affirming and maintaining that there were proper DiocesaÌ„ Churches vnder the Apostles Which being true the people then certainly had not a free consent in Church-governement A cleare reason whereof I shewed before pag. 85. And I willingly acknowledge it still Yea and likewise that neither now they ought to have That vnder the Apostles the Churches were properly Diocesan the D. affirmeth in the title of this second book of his Defense and doth his best to maintaine it in the whole processe thereof afterward Where indeed I coÌ„mend him above al others that ever wrote in this cause against vs D Downames commendatiors namely for that hee doth more fitly and rightly set downe the point of the controversy which hath so long troubled Christian people in England Chap. 8. then any other before him hath don Which “ Whether proper Diocesan Churches were vnder the Apostles point only if it were Christianly and plainly decided would bring great contentment and a ioyful Vnitie I am perswaded to many thousandes But the proofes of his assertion heere do all faile him Nay they are strangely abused and perverted by him specially his Scriptures And heerein he is little to bee commended Let vs examine therefore his Scriptures and then the rest Yet by the way wee will Define a proper Diocesan Church The Definition of a Diocesan Church before wee begin with him A Diocesan Church is a Societiâ— of professed Christians whose spirituall governement is practised without the peoples sieâ— consent and whose Pastor hath a pluralitie of ordinarâ—e Congregations in his charge Such a Church we deny to have ben vnder the Apostles and I pray the Reader to have recourse to those seaven Reasons of mine which I have “ Declarat pag. 20.21 c. elswhere set downe to proove this my denyall and to disprove his assertion Now what doeth the Doctor bring to proove his opinion Expect not good Reader that I should follow him in his vaine flourishes and needles amplificatioÌ„s repetitions invectives other passages more fit for ostentation to satisfy his inteÌ„perate humor then for profit My desire is so as I may with perspicuitie in the cause to vse brevitie and if not to deâ—iver multa paucis yet to take heed not to deliver pauca multis as hee doth Wherefore I will pick out that which 〈◊〉 see materiall in him the rest I will â—et passe In his first Chapter pag. 4. he â—etteth downe a most confused distriâ—ution of the divers senses of the Greeke word Ecclesia D. Down Defen 2.4 in the New Testament which we vsually translate 〈◊〉 Church Wherein hee committeth 5. errors pertinent to our question First from this in Mat. 18.17 Act. 15.22 hee â—ould make a Synod or Consistone which have answered before pa. 108. c. Seâ—ondly a Nationall Church of the Iewes Act. 7.38 Which likewise I have anâ—wered in Reas. for Reform pag. 5. in the margin Thirdly Christian Nationall Churches in the nober plurall as he speaâ—eth namely in Rom. 16.4 1. Cor. 16.1 â—9 2. Cor. 8.1 Gal. 1.2.22 Which places â—e abuseth perverteth most rudely and desperatly The wordes do exâ—resly signifie nothing but a nomâ—er of Ordinarie Congregations Such wee meane by Parishes â—ath of them assembling in one â—lace or at most contayning “ See my Declarat pa 10. and 18.19 28.29.31.32 no mo ordinary assemblies then one and he without yea contrary to the expresse â—etter fancieth to him selfe a Nationall Church from no ground nor shew of ground in these places Fourthly he bringeth Act. 5.11 and 8.1 and 11.12 and 12.1.5 and 13.1 and 14.23 20.17.28 1. Cor. 1.2 2. Cor. 8.23 2. Thes 1.1 1. Tim. 5.16 Iam. 5.14 Apoc. 1.4.11.20 and 2.1 c. to prove a Church of a Citie and Country adioyning Where his error is like to the former What should I say to this man Not one of all these signifyeth a Church of a City and Country adioyning if he meane it to be extended or intended to mo ordinarie Congregations then only one Which is his meaning It is true the Churches of these Cities heere specifyed viz. of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth Thessalonica c. might have meÌ„bers then which dwelt scatteringly and some a good way of from the place of their ordinarie maine meeting and such also as did assemble often in divers vncertain companies as in times of trouble there is reason it often commeth to passe but yet in those primitive times they all in each Church then made no mo but “ Which
in a good sense â—ay becalled a Parish one ordinarie assembly as I have said The true Grammar sense and proper meaning of the worde Ecclesia in those times doth proove it What Divinitiâ— shall we expect from these Doctors whâ— will pervert Grammar Which ouâ— Doctor is not ignorant of but his error heerein is wilfull All sound †See my Declarat pag. 18 32. Autors of the Greek toung according to whom the Apostles do speak do shew that Ecclesia in the times then and alwayes before signifyed one ordinarie Congregation only and not many His fift error heere is that the New Testament noteth some Churches not defining whether an intire church or but a part And he citeth Act. 9.31 and 15. 3.4.41 and 18.22 Rom. 16.16.23.1 Cor. 4.17 and 6.4 and 11.16 and 14.33 with a great many other But all these are likewise by him grosly abused For in all these places the Scripture speaketh intirely properly not by a figure whereof there is no cause appearing in the text Only in Act. 15.4 the Church signifieth a part namely the People because the text expresly distinguisheth it heere froÌ„ their Guids who were a part also Thus in all the whole Writings of the Apostles there is not one word which sheweth a Diocesan Church to have ben then Wherefore in this point hee is quite overthrowen The D. perverteth his text on which his Sermon Defense resteth yea his very text Apoc. â— 20 which was the whole foundation of his Sermon and Defence is found to bee vtterly perverted and abused togeather with the other places So that all which be buildeth vpon it followeth in his writing after is nothing but cavillation And namely that against my selfe in his pag. 6. where hee saith I have first strongly conceited that there is no true Visible Church but a Parish then have haled the places of scripture where Ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of my conceit Let him not abuse people as hee doth by the Equivocation of the word Parish For I meane not that the Apostolike Churches were Parishes as we cal a Parish now in England that is limited within a certaine circuit of grounde Though a Church may be so limited yet it is not necessarie neither was it so then But then every Church was such a Parish as I noted a little “ Pag. 201. Declar. pag. 18.19 Reas. for ref pa. 5.29 before And so it is very true Then why saith hee that I have first conceited that there is no true Visible Church but a Parish He might have seene it conceited before me by those noble and sacred instrumentes †Before pag. 103.104 32. c. And after pag. 214.215 Zuinglius Luther the rest of our Attestators But malice drave him against me as it hath driven him against me in other slanders likewise Wherefore rather he might have said that in this not I If in this the Scripture be haled Zuinglius hath don it c. but they have haled the Scripture from whom I have learned it But I hope those worthies knew the meaning of the Greek Ecclesia better then our Doctor though hee be conceited enough of his owne learning and they maintained it prosperouslie against stronger adversaties then hee â—is or ever will bee But in deed hee ought to blush to charge mee in this case with haling the Sciptures Him selfe haler of Scripture when him selfe is thus found to hale them and pervert them most vnconscionably as before is shewed He is often vpon this “ Def. 2.104.65 that the Church of Cenchreae Rom. 16.1 was a Membrall Church to the Church of Corinth and subiect to it But I have †Declarat pag. 30. els-where shewed this his presumptioÌ„ in taking the Apostles words figuratively here also without cause As if the Apostle called but a part of a Church by the name of a Church there being no reason in the text why he should heere speak Synecdochically Nay to take the Apostle so is coÌ„trarie even to his owne rule I will presse him with his owne wordes I would know of him what reason hee hath to forsake the grammaticall sense “ Def. 1. pag. 33. And where the Holy Ghost speaketh properly how dares be to expound him figuratively Heere I could leave of this point concerning his proofes from the New Testament for Diocesan Churches But that hee †Chap. â— resumeth Rev. 1.20 which was his text and laboureth to make shew of some reason therein First hee saith “ Pag. 42.43.44 those 7. Churches contayned the Cities and Countryes adioyning This is his Minor Which is not only contrarie to the propertie of the word Ecclesia before noted but also coÌ„trary to the expresse text beside which saith this Ephesian Church was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ephesus Rev. 2.1 not without nor contayning that large Country Territorie adioying as he saith it did then The like the text saith of the Church in Smyrna and of the Church in Pergamus and so of all the rest Signifying expresly that every of these Churches was contayned at least when they met within their Cities His shifting heereabout pag. 105 is nothing And that of â—â—keniÌ„g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it is as little For Act. 24.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the City and did not extend it selfe to the CouÌ„try adioyning viz. to the Civill Province of each of them This reason therfore of his is very vntrue Yet he would fortifie it further “ Pag. 43.56 assuming againe that Our Saviour writing to all the Churches of Asia nuÌ„breth but seaven If hee wrote to all then it may seeme that these 7. were generall Churches contayning in and vnder them many other inferior Congregations For it is not like but in Asia properly so called which was the Roman Province and †Cicer. Orat pro L. Flacco contayned Phrygia Mysia Caria Lydia there were moe ordinarie Christian Congregations then only 7. at that time Nay it is plainly false our Saviour heere writ not to all the Churches of Asia The text beside mentioneth “ Act. 20.7 Troas †Colos 4.13 Colossâ— Hierapolis which were questionles within these â—â—undes Magnesia Trallis in all likeâ—â—hood were now also Mentioned in Ignatius Epist and were no â—embers now of any of those seaven 〈◊〉 the Revelation And it is more then â—â—kely that many other besides these â—â—â—ere named were also Indeed Christ â—â—ould that all within Asia yea out â—f Asia too should exemplarily take â—dmonition by this which he writeth â—etsonally directly to these seaven â—one which is all that he meaneth in â—hose wordes “ Rev. 2 1â— Let him that hath an eare â—eare what the Spirit saith to the Churches â—ut this is nothing to proove that all â—hese other Churches were MeÌ„bers subâ—ect to those seaven Yet two reasons â—â—ore “ Chap. 4. he hath One is
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
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
be noted that the Doct. seemeth to take delight to abuse the people with bastard writings fabulous false and apocryphall stuffe which he vseth as his familiar friends and witnesses very often as the Epistles of Clemens and Anacletus Dionysius Areopagita the Canons of the Apostles Bastard writingâ— Dionysius Areopagita the Canons of the Apostles the Subscriptions of the Apostles Epistles this Dorotheus from whom the other witnesses heere by him cited do take this report Therefore in this it is not necessarie to credit them any more theÌ„ him Further to these the like reasons of ours If Timothie and Titus who first were EvaÌ„gelists did become proper Bishops afterward then men may coÌ„ioyne things which God hath severed yea limit depresse them whose Ministrie God hath made generall vnlimited and superior Hee answereth “ Pag â—â— these are nice points which none of the Fathers did ever vnderstand Certes wee have a grosse Doctor who maketh nice to sever those whom God hath severed Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors are so plainly severed by God made divers †Ephe. 4.11 â— Cor. 12.28 persons that nothing can be more plaine Where also it is as cleeâ—e that Evangelists are by God made Superior in the Church and Bishops or Pastors inferior whom hee maketh cleane contrary Hee excepteth against 1. Cor. 12.28 because Evangelists “ Pag. 95. are not mentioned there Yet there it appeareth that all Church-ministeries are severed by God of which Evangelists are one as in the Ephe 4 11. appeareth By comparing these textes togeather So that also even from 1. Cor. 12.18 Evangelists distinction from Bishops and their Superioritie to them is proved well enough Himself graÌ„teth Evangelists to be extraordinary generall and vnlimited Ministers and that Timothie and Titâ—â— were such Which is the truth But this is false when they †Pag. 94. betooke them 〈◊〉 certaine Churches that they were appropriated and limited to them Wherefore neither were they proper Bishops of them Againe The D. can not leave his equivocating any more them 〈◊〉 Black-amore can change his skin For though vulgarly sometime an Evangelist is vnderstood to bee a writer of the Gospell yet the Apostle vnderstandeth not so Ephes 4.11 But heere they are vnlimited Companions and Coadiutors to the Apostles An Evangelist In this sense and so we also doe meane Matâ—hew Iohn neither were nor could bee Evangelists nor Marke a Bishop Whosoever saith otherwise they plain â—y contradict the Apostle But he pretendeth that the ancient Fathers held that Evangelistes and Apostles also might bee Bishops See “ Pag. 222. 223. Vnreverent behavior toward Antiquitâ—e before what a frivolous reason this is Also see how vnreverent hee is to Antiquitie whom hee pretendeth devoutly to honor Hee will have them indeed to seeme fighters with God and resisters of the plaine letter of the text rather then defend them as we doe with an honest excuse It is honest to say they called EvaÌ„gelists Apostles Bishops in a generall sense or if they did not well heerein yet that they did it in not sifting nor much minding that which nowe with vs is a maine questioÌ„ therefore is ought to be more exactly considered nowe But to say of them either that they deny Temoth Titus were Evangelists or that they deny Evangelistes were by God made severall from Bishops or that those were superior to these or that those were extraordinary and general Ministers or to say they hold the Apostles did and could make them being such to become ordinary Ministers limited to one Church and one with Bishops and that they hold this out of consideration and due sifting the matter I say thus to affirme of the Fathers as the D. doth is to make them resist the plaine letter of the text and to fight with God Yet he for his part boldly saith or rather shamelesly that “ Pag. 95. it was no debasing to Timothie Titus wheÌ„ they were made Bishops but an advancemeÌ„t Albeit he knoweth the text above noted viz. Eph. 4.11 maketh a Bishop or Pastor inferior to an Evangelist And prove it hee would 1. †Pag. â—6 Timothie receaved a neâ—e “ 1. Tim. 4.14 2. Tim. 1.6 Ordination and so more authoritie This is vtterly vntrue Hee receaved no newe Ordination This was only when he was taken by the Apostle to be an Evangelist And after this hee never receaved more authoritie Heâ— addeth were men admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands I answere Yeaâ— som Evangelists might be like as som Apostles viz. Paul Barnabas whose functions verily were extraordinary were “ Act. 13.3 so admitted Then saith hee may we thinke that any but the Apostles haâ— that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothie had at Ephesus Titus in Creteâ—l answere yea questionles Evangelists had wheresoever they came specially in the absense of an Apostle He obiecteth Philip the Evangelist had †Act. 8.14.17 not authoritie to impose hands I answere though heere he follow “ Perpe gov pag 83.84 D. Bilson yet both do misse the purpose This imposition of hands heere is an other thing it was to give the miraculous gift of toungs It was not to ordaine to the ministerie Happily it was to furnish men for the ministerie afterwarde but this made them not Ministers Indeed only the Apostles could by laying on of hands give the gift of toungs and the gift of prophesie but in the Apostles absense others as Evangelists c. might lay on hands to ordaine Ministers Wherefore this is to rove fare from the point The rest is answered “ Declarâ—â— pag. 29. elswhere viz. Paul spake not in the generall improper sense wherof there is noe reason nor cause but properly where he willeth Timothie after he was at Ephesus to do the worke of an †2. Tim. 4.5 Evangelist The Fathers “ Pag 244. before are answered to whom Zuinglius also heere may be adioyned He would seeme to bring new matter but it is his olde stuffe viz. that “ Pag. 98. Timothies and Titus function in Ephesus Crete was not to end with their peâ—soâ—s but to be coÌ„tinued to their Successors It is answered †Pag 243. before That is Materially it ended not but formally it ended with their persons It continued to their Successors but vnder an other forme of ministerie viz of proper Bishops Which also I noted in my Declarat pag 30. Hee saith their “ Pag. 100. Apostles were so assigned somtime Act. 8.14 being assigned to Ephesus and Crete was an ordinary function I deny it as touching them Hee hath not a word to prove it Hee saith in Timothie and Titus as Evangelists †Pag. 101. nothing was extraordinary but their not limitation to any certain Churches Which is vntrue their calling to the ministrie was not ordinary It was without the peoples